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


Listing edit links bug[edit]

When I go to Okinawa_Island#See each listing ends with "edit | edit". Two edit links instead of just one. At the first listing, the second link edits the listing below. At the second listing, the edit links edit listings 3 and 4, etc. Syced (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I only see one. Can anyone else reproduce this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: adding small flags + coat of arms next to the title in the banners of all the country and city articles[edit]

Screen captures of the current banners in the Italy and Norway French Wikivoyage articles + the current banners in the Jerusalem and Warsaw Hebrew Wikivoyage articles

To my understanding, this feature was initially created and added to the French Wikivoyage articles (although as of now their banners only display flags). The feature was later on also added to the banners of the Hebrew Wikivoyage. Recently the Hebvoy community decided to start having the Coat of Arms of cities be displayed in the city banners instead of displaying the city flags (as done on the French Wikivoyage).

I am hoping that the English Wikivoyage community would choose to have this feature added to the English Wikivoyage banners as well. What do you think? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that this feature automatically retrieves the images of the flags and the coat of arms from Wikidata. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding country flags, but am less excited about coats of arms. Note that if there is support for this change, it will be a bit tricky to implement with the new banner extension since the banner is no longer part of the main page content. It would be doable, either via Javascript, custom CSS for each country article, or a modification to the banner extension. It would be best not to rely on Javascript, and custom CSS for every country is kind of a hack, so if there is support for a change then the best option probably means updating the banner extension again. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan - I'm in favour of country flags, but less keen on the idea of using coats of arms: that feels like it might be an unending and thankless task. That said however, if it's incredibly difficult to implement, I would not be desperate to display the flags. --Nick talk 16:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but would go a bit further; I think coats of arms are downright silly in such a prominent place since travellers generally will not care about them.
As for flags, I think they are a fine idea for countries and probably also for states or provinces, but I'd object tto them for cities. The breadcrumb links at top of page already mention the country, and in most cases the text will as well. Why clutter the banner wiith an extra image, and add overhead to fetch it?
Also, in some cases the status of a city is controversial, e.g. see w:Positions on Jerusalem. Having the breadcrumbs for Jerusalem point to Israel seems fine to me, the only sensible course since they are in de facto control. However, I'd object to putting an Israeli flag in the banner. Pashley (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Coats of arms are often less striking and also less well known than national flags. (Counter-examples like Hamburg or Berlin notwithstanding). However, what shall we do about regional flags? Say the official flag of Alabama? What if they contain controversial symbols (e.g. the Confederate naval jack)? What if there is an "unofficial" flag that is more widely known and used? What about Islands and other destinations that havce semi-official flags? I like the idea, but as we say in Germany: The devil lies in the details Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
For that matter, would Canadian Flag.png or Toronto Flag.svg appear on the Toronto (+1 416) articles? The latter is a bit obviously Toronto City Hall (2404996770).jpg Toronto City Hall to anyone who knows the city, but might not be immediately obvious to someone outside the region. K7L (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Didn't we have flags on the banners of country articles at one point? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In case my comment was unclear, I'd be in favor of country flags on country articles as I think that's a nice UI clue for users that country articles are different from city or region articles. I don't think there is much value in having the flags elsewhere, although if someone wants to propose a different UI element that would help users to distinguish different article types (city, region, topic, etc) then that might be useful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of a solution looking for a problem. I would be against adding coats of arms to the banners. They add almost no value to the article and even the people who live in those cities are probably unaware of what they are. It would be adding extra clutter for no benefit to the traveler at all.
National flags on country level articles may be more acceptable, but frankly I don't see why we need them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Andrewssi2. Just because one language version of Wikivoyage does something doesn't mean we need to. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am all for country flags. And also for the emblem of the destination if easily retrieved from Wikidata. In France you can often find the coat of arms of the city on old buildings, that's interesting. Most tourism brochures feature them. Syced (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not add an image of the coat of arms to the article if it is useful? That would be more effective than an ugly micro-logo in the banner itself as this proposal is suggesting. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge can of worms that involved months of discussion back in mid-2013 when there were major changes to Template:Quickbar and the introduction of Template:Pagebanner. While flags used to be included in the quickbar, there was consensus to remove them from the bar but consensus was never formed to add them to the pagebanner. Some relevant discussions can be found here, here and here. My position remains the same as 2 years ago; that is, in favour of adding only national flags to country guide pagebanners. However, I think the matter's trivial enough that we should not dwell on it too much. We seem to have been putting a lot of time and effort into pagebanner discussions lately, when really they are of fairly minor importance to travellers themselves. James Atalk 05:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am absoluteluy against adding flags, coats of arms or any other images to the banner. Adds unnecessary visual clutter. There are many other ways we can still benefit the traveller much better and we should focus on them. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am rather against cluttering the banners of countries with national flags and completely oposed to adding coats of arms to cities - this doesn't bring any benefit to the traveler in my opinion, and it can result in visual conflict with the banner image. Danapit (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have a partial consensus that no such addition to the banners is a good idea, except perhaps national flags in country-level articles. (If we agree on those flags, then we might talk about also showing state or provincial flags in banners for those articles; I'd oppose that.) If a coat of arms is important then put a good-sized image in the body of the article; in the banner it would be illegible clutter. The national flag in city & region article banners would be redundant clutter.

As for national flags, I feel strongly that they should be shown somewhere; either put them back in the quickbar or add them to country article banners. I'd prefer putting them in the banners, agreeing with Ryan: "I'd be in favor of country flags on country articles as I think that's a nice UI clue for users that country articles are different from city or region articles." Pashley (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and I don't think I want to make it obligatory to put countries' flags in pagebanners. I'm not sure it's actually important to put flags anywhere in articles (if it is, a quickbar is a fine place to put it, and I can be put down as mildly supportive of that), as it's easy enough for people to find the flag of any country they like and not crucial information for visitors in most places, but I think that adding them to pagebanners risks distracting the viewer from the image and creating aesthetic problems at times. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's much informational value in putting flags next to the article titles. At that size, while some flags would look fine (like France), others would be barely legible (like Brazil). If we want to increase the visibility and importance of national flags, they should be displayed in the article proper at at least 150 px. Powers (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I realize that mine is a minority view, but I would be happy to see the national flag in the banner on all articles within that country (omitting disputed places, of course). Not everyone thinks to look at the breadcrumbs trail, so this gives Special:Random visitors another important piece of context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of putting a flag in every article, but "except disputed places" is in any case a no-go. We don't take sides in disputes on this site, and deciding what constitutes a disputed place (the entire state of Himachal Pradesh, all of which is sometimes called "South Tibet" by China?) would set a dangerous precedent for this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In some places, which flag is displayed could be regarded as a political statement. I could see an edit war over whether Edinburgh has the flag of Scotland or the United Kingdom. Also would many people recognise the difference between the flags of Australia Flag of Australia.svg and New Zealand Flag of New Zealand.svg when displayed at that size? AlasdairW (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a whole can of worms that isn't relevant to our project.
I'm also wondering why all these banner related suggestions are being thrown somewhat dramatically on the travellers pub rather than the talk page of the banner expedition. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I for one have grown tired of hearing out attempts to fix a feature of our site that's not broken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This is going off-topic, but I will just answer the last two comments: 1) Most banners discussions take place on Phabricator, I only post here the ones that require community approval. 2) Flags are indeed not a bug fix, but just in case the comment was not only about flags I might add that the recent extension was definitely a bug fix as banners were not displaying correctly on mobile. Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Adapting suitable little bits from Wikipedia articles[edit]

Is editing such as this acceptable here? I adapted some text from the relevant section of the Wikipedia article, as it seemed to cover the information needed. Sorry if it isn't. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's OK to paraphrase and summarize from Wikipedia articles, though extensive quoting is frowned upon. When in doubt, mention the Wikipedia article in your edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you. --Rubbish computer (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
In the case the result looks very good I would say :-) Syced (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It should go without saying that Wikivoyage employs a different WV:tone from Wikipedia and some information is simply not relevant for travel. But judging from the edit in question you already know that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning Wikipedia in the edit summary is good if it's just a loose paraphrase. If you're taking content directly from Wikipedia, either as a direct quotation or as a close paraphrase, it would be best to link to the page AND REVISION on Wikipedia. (You get a link to the revision by clicking "Permanent link" on the Wikipedia article's sidebar.) Powers (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Kiwix size halved. Any big cleaning recently?[edit]

Surprisingly, the Kiwix file for September is only 447 MB, versus 928 MB in August. In the past it had always been growing.

Has there been some huge cleanup recently? Or have you heard about any change that might explain that? I am using the Kiwix file and it seems to contain everything (images, destinations, guides, phrasebooks) so I don't think it is a bug in the Kiwix generation algorithm. Syced (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Only change I can think of is the new method of handling pagebanner. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Are the file counts similar? (between old and new)
The size is mostly comprised of images, and therefore logically that is probably where the change has happened. Maybe you can check some of the larger images and see if they are being packaged at lower resolution than before. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Syced: / @Andrewssi2:: I'm looking into this, still at a preliminary stage but it would appear that the September ZIM has about seven thousand less articles than the August one. Still doesn't account for the big difference, but explains part of it. Snowolf How can I help? 19:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking further into this, it seems like the difference mainly comes from about 7k missing images and not from articles missing. In fact, the articles folder is about 2MB bigger than it was, while the image folder is about half the size. These appear to be, at least to some extent the banner images. If you load up the August ZIM, you will see that banner images are not displayed anyway, so while further research is needed to verify exactly what kind of images are missing, I suspect it might just be images that were not displayed to begin with, and the system has just gotten better at excluding them. Snowolf How can I help? 20:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That sounds wonderful, I hope your assumption is true :-) I have been using this ZIM extensively and haven't noticed anything missing so far. Syced (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Could it be because more than a thousand banners have been moved to Wikidata a few days ago? Or the fact that banners are now rendered by the new banner extension rather than by normal templates? Syced (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems the cause, yes. Since the banners weren't being displayed in Kiwix even before this however, no loss of functionality occurred. Further analysis shows that out of 7k+ images that were not included in the lastest ZIM, only 415 do not contain some form of the word "banner" in their name. A cursory glance at a couple of those images seem to show that even those 415 are still in some greater or lesser part banners. See User:Snowolf/zim dumps issue#Statistics of the diff between 08/I and 09/I for that data. I think we can safely consider this issue "solved". Snowolf How can I help? 01:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals from August 31st to September 29th to fund new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental ideas that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), Individual Engagement Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

I JethroBT (WMF), 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There is less than one week left to submit Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) proposals before the September 29th deadline. If you have ideas for new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

kilometer (sic) and liter[edit]

I propose that Wikivoyage:Spelling favour the spelling "kilometre" and "litre". No one uses "kilometer" or "liter" in the real world, as Americans are stubbornly non-metric every inch of the way and the rest of the world does not Americanise the spellings of these words. This should be reverted. American cars are rated in "miles per gallon" and, anywhere else, it's "litre". K7L (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We do use liters in the U.S. Coke comes in 3-liter bottles, I do believe (as a non-Coke drinker). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Americans do not stubbornly refuse to recognise that the metric system exists, they just prefer not to adopt it wholesale for a multitude of reasons. Feel free to check out w:Kilometre if you want the correct American English spelling. (Spoiler alert : It is Kilometer ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I did look at w:Kilometre#United States and w:Metrication in the United States. No sign of any use of metric on US highways. K7L (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
But liters are used. Bottles of 750 cl are also sold here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Whenever possible, avoid using either the -er or re spellings; use "km", "ml", etc. instead. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this just like every other regional variation in spelling? We use kilometer in articles about America and which have a preference for American spelling (Japan, Korea, Israel, etc), and kilometre in all the others. In articles which have no preference either way, such as Ecotourism, then our policy dictates we should use the American 'kilometer' (as much as it pains me to say it). Both kilometer and liter are used, both in and outside of America. For example, Japan appears to use 'kilometer', including on their official tourism website. James Atalk 04:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Japan is not an English-speaking country and doesn't even use the same alphabet. K7L (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That's not the point. Japan has a much closer connection with the US than Britain, so more Japanese people know American than British English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Japan usually uses the same abbreviations as we advise: km and L. Since the U.S. has been known to change its spelling orthodoxy for fashionable reasons (eg: Theater -> Theatre) maybe we could be ahead of the curve for once and take up km7L's suggestion? BushelCandle (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it that the spelling of theatre was changed from theater in places like New York, or that we never fully embraced a change in spelling theatre here, in the first place? I don't know the answer. Do you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In the sciences, metric units are used almost everywhere, including the US (if they don't, some Mars rovers may be lost). And as the US are the leading country in science, they prefer the spelling "liter" and it has thus become a de facto standard in most of the English language science papers. Furthermore changing the spelling would fly in the face if longstanding policy. And as I know from personal experience, changing policy on spelling is more pain than it is worth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, NASA has used only metric units at least since 1999... Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That's rather far outside our project scope, unless this is a joke. United States of America#By UFO anyone? The traveller is going to see Interstate highways, in miles, is going to see filling stations, in "US gallons"; crashing unmanned probes into Mars is out of scope because they're robots, not people. Sadly, if there are any US awards for metric achievement, they're not being conferred on this lot of rocket scientists. I suppose cocaine smugglers *are* travellers, but are they our target market? The hapless voyager trying to guess whether the price of petrol in Clayton (New York) has gotten just as bad as the rest of Gananoque is going to have some serious number crunching to do, with differences in both units of measure and currency. 3.78 litres? That's the state of the road every mile of the way, travel by rail in North America is even more stubbornly non-metric. Even waypoints on non-US rail lines are miles here. K7L (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is going nowhere fast. There are official American spellings of metrics measurements, and unless Wikivoyage wants to create a brand new variant of American English then just leave well alone. There is seriously no benefit to anyone for creating exceptions which would confuse even more. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree for the few cases where spelled-out units are needed. However, often just abbreviating to "km" or whatever avoids the problem; that should be the default choice. Pashley (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Andrewssi2; this entire discussion strikes me as little more than an excuse to take cheap potshots at American dialect and units of measurement, with the actual problem we're trying to solve yet to be articulated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I only raised the issue as one user has been following my edits to travel topics by taking out the word "kilometre" (which is valid English) and substituting "kilometer" for no clear reason. This has been going on since March or so, as I recall the April 1 time travel joke was one of the affected pages. If saying that "America's roads are in miles" is somehow a cheap shot, so be it. I just don't like being told I've done something wrong because I've (validly) used "x miles (1.609x kilometres)" as a distance in some topic which has nothing to do with the USA per se. K7L (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Two comments:
  1. The pub is meant as a place for informal discussions of all sorts, and it's important to assume good faith. It's perfectly acceptable to suggest that a discussion is meandering, but suggestions that a discussion shouldn't have been started at all are perhaps a bit across the line; anyone who doesn't care about a subject has the option to not participate.
  2. Regarding the comment that K7L was chastised for using a certain spelling variety ("I just don't like being told I've done something wrong"), feel free to reference Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors in response to anyone who complains - specifically "there is never a need to jump on editors using a different variety. Give some space and let the article evolve." Unless someone is specifically changing correct text to incorrect text, the nuances of spelling varieties, abbreviations, or other copyediting concerns aren't something that we should be harping on.
-- Ryan • (talk) • 02:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything posted by anyone suggesting that K7L should not have started the topic. I did suggest that the entire discussion was going nowhere when phrases such as "I suppose cocaine smugglers *are* travellers" are being used as a point of argument. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I think policy is rather clear. Were nothing indicates one spelling or another (such as a travel topic about multiple countries) American spellings are to be used preferably. If we want to introduce a further idiosyncrasy (besides our use of the double l when "travelling") it should be well thought out and well reasoned for. The fact that many Americans are struggling with metric units is imho not a sufficient reason. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Screenshot banner not displaying.png

Does anyone know why banners don't always display fully? See the screenshot. Reloading shows the banner, but that's not really a solution. I'm getting this quite regularly (maybe 2 in every 10 articles). I'm using Firefox on Mac OSX. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be Firefox specific. On Safari I don't have this problem at all, but now when trying Firefox (on Mac), there is indeed not only the issue of banners not showing up but also banners that are scaled in weird ways; sometimes they look like narrow slices and sometimes like huge things that you'd like to put a crop tag under. And occasionally the banner looks entirely normal. The funniest thing is that you can stay at an article and reload the page and get different results each time... ϒpsilon (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I have seen this with Firefox on Windows, on several different PCs. I have also seen this with IE10. The most common one that I see is the banner only displaying the top half of the image - down to the bottom of the title, with the menu below. I am seeing it slightly less often 1 in 10 or so. AlasdairW (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
See it most of the time on Firefox. Mentioned it above when the banner method was changed. Appears to display minimum height of graphics to show text of name and menu, then scales oddly, or display almost nothing. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm using the latest Firefox on Mac (I think). 64 bit version 40.0.3 .Bertha Benz Memorial Route looks fine. Also works fine under Chrome and Safari. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at one will not show the problem, particularly if you have already loaded that image on the machine. Wondering if we should revert the bannerpage back to the old method. People have invested a lot of effort in uploading images and now visitors to the site are seeing no or poor representations of them. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually first time loading that page for all browsers. Proper way to do this is reproducible test cases. What are they? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone seeing this problem add the following to their userpage css (User:SomeUser/common.css) and report whether it solves the problem:
.wpb-topbanner {
        overflow: auto;
-- Ryan • (talk) • 06:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
On an initial test that does appear to have improved things. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
For me it didn't fix the problem, although, where I was previously only encountering the issue of banners not displaying at all, I'm now also getting the narrow stripes / top half banners as Ypsilon described above. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


I've created phabricator:T111710. Hopefully the suggested fix will resolve the issue, although I haven't tested it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@JuliasTravels, Traveler100: User:Sumit.iitp has indicated that this bug should now be fixed, and I wasn't able to reproduce it after hitting about a dozen random pages with banners. Can anyone else who was seeing the issue confirm that it is now fixed? -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Still no ToC displayed for me under Win8/Firefox when logged in or logged out. They do now load under Chrome when logged out. Banners also very slow to load -but at least they are loading last now and not delaying the rest of the page. Sorry, no banana yet. 06:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
For me it does seem to be fixed. I've hit at least 30 random pages and haven't seen a single issue. Thanks for all your efforts, Ryan and Sumit! JuliasTravels (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks JuliasTravels - I've indicated in the ticket that the issue is fixed and the ticket can be closed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Why on earth would you do that when you've been told quite clearly that it's NOT fixed when using the latest version of Firefox under Windows 8 ?
While the ToC appears for me if I switch to Chrome it certainly does not appear at all, EVER, under the Firefox I usually use and it's really quite annoying. BushelCandle (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it is fixed for me on Windows 8.1 Firefox 40, but now banners are not displaying at all on difference listings. This may be an acceptable consequence, as I am not bothered about seeing the banner when checking recent changes (except when the banner itself is changed).AlasdairW (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be fixed for me using Firefox 40, have not seen the problem since the change made. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 40.0.3 in a Windows 8.1 environment. Banners don't display when I'm in a window like this, but they do when I'm in a regular window like this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

TOC placement[edit]

I've now completely lost any table of contents (ToC) whatsoever! (Latest Firefox on Windows 8).

Since the previous placement of the ToC obscures part of the banner image and makes it ugly AND means that the ToC text is smaller than optimal, wouldn't it be better to have the ToC block underneath (but immediately abutting) the banner image? BushelCandle (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This suggestion was made previously on this page by - Special:Diff/2846870/2846871.
If anyone wishes to try out moving the TOC below the banner, adding the following to your userspace CSS (User:SomeUser/common.css) should make it happen:
.wpb-topbanner-toc {
        position: inherit;
-- Ryan • (talk) • 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Ryan, but after creating User:BushelCandle/common.css I'm afraid I still don't have any ToC at all, never mind one that is not obscuring the lower part of the banner. BushelCandle (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

need admin for redirect page on old account[edit]

  • My old userpage has been blocked from editing. If I can get an admin to place a redirect to my new userpage, it would be appreciated, thanks! I have already placed a redirect for the talkpage on the old account. Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    User:(WT-en) Nicoleta
    #redirect [[user:Nicole Sharp]]
    • Hi, Nicole. Is there any chance you still remember your Wikitravel account password for User:Nicoleta? If you could place a note up there asserting that you are the same user as the one now requesting the redirect, I can take care of that for you. Powers (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I use randomized passwords and have not been on WikiTravel for years. It is my account though of course. There aren't that many Ido-speaking Colombian American wikiusers in the Alleghenies…. Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see you already made such a link in a prior revision, but it was reverted by IB admins who can't countenance any reference to our site on theirs. That's good enough for me. Unfortunately, we can't merge your old contributions with your new account. I'll set up the redirect and leave your (WT-en) userpage protected. Powers (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Was there a mass deletion of images in Wikivoyage since last month?[edit]

Hi, I believe this is the correct place to bring this issue.

Kiwix is a software that makes the whole Wikivoyage available offline, with pictures, and I recommend it.

The issue is that their big September file of English Wikivoyage has dropped to about half the size of previous months. The maintainer (Kelson) could find no error from their part in principle, and it seemed to him that there was some massive deletion of images from August to September. This sounded strange to both of us. The tendency is for Wikimedia projects to always increase in size and nothing ever be deleted.

Can anybody confirm if anything like this happened and is correct?

If you think you can help solve the mystery, please enter in contact with Kelson.

The conversation happened here:

Thanks ! —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

A similar question was asked above in the #Kiwix size halved. Any big cleaning recently? thread. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@ I've commented in the thread above that Ryan links to. Snowolf How can I help? 19:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Unwelcome blank lines at bottom of Warning Boxes[edit]

I think this edit was the cause of blank lines being added at the bottom of vanilla flavored warning boxes without parameters (such as this one). BushelCandle (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Main page edit[edit]

So how did that happen, I though the page was protected from new users? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It was restricted to autoconfirmed users (the only other restriction available is to restrict to admins). Somewhere there is a $wgAutoConfirmAge and $wgAutoConfirmCount. It looks like the latter (and possibly both) are still at the default values of 0, which renders the restriction useless. I have temporarily restricted editing to admins. Anyone know how to put some sensible values to those two settings? Nurg (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it needs to go thru Phabricator. Info about WP's settings are at w:Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users. Shall we go with the same settings, incl the variation for Tor users? Nurg (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users, $wgAutoConfirmAge should be set to 4 days. Don't both the age and edit count criteria have to be met to be autoconfirmed? Or is it either/or? Powers (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I was rushing and didn't see that page. So it seems we have age set to 4 days and count set to 0. Both criteria have to be met, but any criteria set to 0 is automatically met, so we have only an effective age criteria at present. Any budding vandal who creates a sleeper account and just waits 4 days, will be autoconfirmed. Shall we follow Eng WP and get the edit count set to 10? Nurg (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Full support from me for matching the WP settings for autopatrolled status. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, set the same parameters as Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I would also strongly support this change - otherwise, it's a major liability. --Nick talk 22:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what settings are chosen, so long as they're not zero/zero. There are remarkably few pages, mostly major templates like {{see}}, that are semi-protected, so this decision is really about the point at which a newbie should be able to directly edit listings templates. There are no articles under either semi or full protection. Different Wikipedias have chosen different settings. It's been a long time since I looked at that, but I believe that the typical range runs from four to ten days, and from ten to twenty edits, with a few choosing even looser or even tighter restrictions. Nurg is correct that this is a "both/and" criteria, not an "either/or" thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

class "prettytable" in mediawiki:common.css[edit]

There seems to be a class="prettytable" defined in w:mediawiki:common.css (and on other wikis, such as fr:mediawiki:common.css), which is missing from mediawiki:common.css here. That's affecting formatting of tables imported from another wiki, like the distance chart on Amqui (which was imported from user:Amqui's fr:Amqui guide article). K7L (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've set it to wikitable, which provides it with some borders now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Page banner file source[edit]

I need some help understanding things: I wanted to crop banner of Kłodzko, because it is in Category:Banner_needs_cropping. The file name for the banner is not given locally ({{pagebanner|Pagebanner default.jpg}}), but at Wikidata, as an item wikivoyage banner. Because the file has very low resolution and cropping was not possible, I decided to delete the banner from wikidata, which as I expected would lead to use of default banner. But to my surprize, the custom banner keeps showing up. Where is it uploaded from? Thanks for explanation. Danapit (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The "barbarian" solution would be to just insert the file name of the cropped banner in the pagebanner tag and call it a day. Wikidata doesn't seem to override it for this article. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
+1 Barbarian solution :) Setting the name locally and Wikidata as a courtesy works well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Now the default banner is displayed also without "barbarian" solution. I don't know why it took a while. Danapit (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Data geeks rejoice![edit]

Our quarter million listings, in a big fresh CSV file.

Sort columns (or apply maths) to find anomalies to fix.

Syced (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearing my name[edit]

Look at my last edits they were not vandal like. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You should create articles in your user page space first, and move them to mainspace only when they have at least like 3 listings in each section, that would be much better :-) That's also what I do personally. Good luck! Syced (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The test is Wikivoyage:What is an article? To be worth creating as a destination page, we normally expect that there's some way to get to this place, something to see or do once there, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep. The guides also need to be a reasonable size, were the voyager to print them and bring them in carry-on baggage. A string of tiny speck-on-a-map villages with one thing to see in each are usually better presented by grouping these geographically into something of reasonable size; conversely huge New York City-sized destinations are split into boroughs or districts. The tiny village with no restaurant or no hotel really shouldn't have its own page if there's nothing to see or do there. K7L (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This connection is untrusted[edit]

The {{mapframe}}s just got replaced with this error message: uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate expired on 14/09/15 20:43. The current time is 14/09/15 23:09.

K7L (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Works fine for me (Mac OS Mavericks/Chrome). Which OS/Browser combination are you using? (From memory we had similar issues with FireFox in the past) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Firefox 35.0.1 on Ubuntu 14/x64 which I downloaded from a 1337 warez d00d. My local clock is displaying GMT, not sure if that matters? K7L (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The SSL certificate for * in my browser says that it is valid from 24-June-2015 through 14-September-2015, thus it looks like this may be an issue for everyone once the browser clocks roll over to 15-September. I'm about to head out of the door to the airport, but it would probably be worthwhile either pinging User:Mey2008 or someone else with connections to the labs, or else to open a ticket on Phabricator. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Firefox 40.0.3 on Mac OS Mavericks is working for me. The official latest Firefox version for Linux is the same (download here). I suggest updating that in any case. The local clock may also be impacting the certificate, so also best to fix that to your local time zone. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Same issue here. Chrome 45.0.2454.85 on Windows 7. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I'm now getting the 'Connection is untrusted' error for Firefox on both Mac and Windows 8.1. I now also get a 'null' window for Chrome. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify my above comment, the issue is that Wikimedia's SSL certificate for the domain is expiring at midnight on 14-September; the problem has nothing to do with browser or OS version. Wikimedia will need to renew the certificate, otherwise everyone who tries to access an "https" URL on * will soon see this issue when their browser validates (or revalidates) the certificate. I'm at the airport, but someone who will be around to follow-up can open a ticket at Phabricator if one has not already been opened. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "Looks like it might take us a day or so to renew them." "I think there's a calendar somewhere with expiry dates, and this cert was just missed. I'll verify and make sure there's one such calendar." Syced (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Negative24 on Phabricator: "Should the Wikivoyage tool perhaps be moved to a production or production-like machine to prevent such occurrences? From what I've heard, anything that breaks the actual page of a Wikimedia wiki (not bot/maintenance tasks) should be put on a higher priority machine. (topic for another task; cc me if one is made)". What should we answer? Syced (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If I remember correctly; was being looked at a while back... Matroc (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC) - (at one time was used until a problem arose and was switched back to wmflabs.....
Just saw the message as a popup when accessing the Colombo article, but just once. After this no warnings have showed up. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks to be back to normal now. K7L (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@Syced: Per #Dynamic maps my understanding is that there was still work to be done before was ready for use sitewide. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For a number of months, I've been getting an issue where dynamic maps don't load, just the boxes around them. In my browser's address bar, a little shield can be clicked which gives the message: "This page is trying to load scripts from unauthenticated sources." There's an option to load scripts, which does refresh the page and load the maps for the rest of the session, but will have to be repeated again if I close my browser. I'm using Chrome (45.0.2454.85) on Windows 10 (although was having the same issues on Windows 8.1). If other readers are encountering the same issue, they wouldn't know to load the scripts and would be completely oblivious that we have dynamic maps at all. James Atalk 07:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Easily upload smartphone pictures to Commons[edit]

Wherever you go, please take pictures and send them to Wikimedia Commons :-) Even if you don't have a professional camera, smartphones are pretty good these days at taking pictures.

I and Lyrk just released an app to easily to upload smartphone pictures to Commons. Install it on Android or on iOS.

The app was actually started by WMF then abandoned. We target travellers in particular. All open source. Syced (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! Installed :)
It is gratifying to see an abandoned open source project resurrected. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


In your opinion, should we remove the warning template at the top of this article following last month's good news from Sierra Leone? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How about toning it down, just stating that while getting Ebola is improbable, people should stay informed and maybe check website X before going?
Questions about warning boxes can be asked here: Template_talk:Warningbox --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Announcing the launch of Maps[edit]

The Discovery team has launched an experimental tile and static maps service

Using this service you can browse and embed map tiles into your own tools using OpenStreetMap data. Currently, we handle traffic from * and *, but we would like to open it up to Wikipedia traffic if we see enough use. Our hope is that this service fits the needs of the numerous maps developers and tool authors who have asked for a WMF hosted tile service with an initial focus on WikiVoyage.

Getting started is as easy as mw:Maps#Getting Started. We'd love for you to try our new service, experiment writing tools using our tiles, and giving us feedback. If you've built a tool using OpenStreetMap-based imagery then using our service is a simple drop-in replacement.

How can you help?

Based on usage and your feedback, the Discovery team will decide how to proceed. We could add more data sources (both vector and raster), work on additional services such as static maps or geosearch, work on supporting all languages, switch to client-side WebGL rendering, etc. Please help us decide what is most important.

mw:Maps has more about the project and related Maps work.

In depth

Tiles are served from, but can only be accessed from any subdomains of *.wmflabs .org and * (referrer header must be either missing or set to these values). Kartotherian can produce tiles as images (png), and as raw vector data (PBF Mapbox format or json):


Additionally, Kartotherian can produce snapshot (static) images of any location, scaling, and zoom level with


For example, to get an image centered at 42,-3.14, at zoom level 4, size 800x600, use,4,42,-3.14,800x600.png (copy/paste the link, or else it might not work due to referrer restriction).

We would like to thank WMF Ops (especially Alex Kosiaris, Brandon Black, and Jaime Crespo), services team, OSM community and engineers, and the Mapnik and Mapbox teams. The project would not have completed so fast without you. --Yurik (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yay :-) If there is no immediate blocking bug, I think we should start using it right away and see how it scales, to solve problems as fast as possible? I guess Joachim is the person who can make the change? Syced (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of quality bugs (like clipped labels), but no blocking bugs. Go for it :) --Yurik (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Given recent issues around the change of Banner template, please isolate any changes on a low traffic article for evaluation first :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yurik, as far as I remember, Joachim asked to allow access from This is needed for testing. Otherwise, you can't expect us to switch to the new service. --Alexander (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Atsirlin:, thanks, I just saw it yesterday. Phabricator is a much better way to file such requests - that's how we prioritize work. The patch is done and waiting for the ops approval. --Yurik (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
PS. The patch has merged, should work now. --Yurik (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yurik, alright, we will use Phabricator in the future. At this point, we need a discussion and not a simple patch, though. What is your opinion about the issue raised in this thread? Can one add more detail to your maps? Can one perhaps configure a special map style for Wikivoyage (at least on a longer run), or is it completely unfeasible? --Alexander (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I've wrote a script for the comparison of the Wikimedia map with Mapnik. There is missing a lot of information that are of interest for tourists: stops for trains and trams and the like. Names for city parks, squares and the like. Please compares itself [1]. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. On the other hand, the new map goes in the direction of the original concept that we had back in WT times: a simple map where only POIs relevant to the travel guide (and those described in the travel guide) are shown. It may be an option to have this "simple" map embedded in Wikivoyage articles, while a more detailed map will be, of course, available as an alternative and also for offline use with OsmAnd. I do find the current version of Mapnik a bit "overcrowded" with different signs and labels.
Altogether, I would not mind to go for the simpler map from maps.wikimedia, provided that it is stable and accessible at any time. Other layers, including the detailed version of Mapnik, should be, of course, available too, and users may switch to them if they want. --Alexander (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to the WMF Maps team. I find the new maps to be visually much nicer, clearer and less daunting. While we don't yet have a test page to go off, I'd imagine our listing POIs will be a lot clearer on the map and not get lost in the surrounding noise. However, I do agree that simply too much info has been removed. That includes pretty much all public transit info (station names and locations, tram and bus stops, etc), at least for Melbourne. That sort of information is just non-negotiable on a travel guide map; parking, supermarkets, places of worship, etc are less important, and could be viewable by changing the layer to a more complex one. So I would like to see a test page, but I cannot support a wider implementation until a reasonable amount of public transport info is included. James Atalk 13:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for raising important points! Our original intent was to build a vector tile platform - which has mostly been a success. Now is when we start thinking of what and how to draw on it. All the data, such as POI, etc, are in our database, and usually it is fairly easy to add extra features to the map. Yet, we need to have a very clear understanding of who needs what -- OSM standard map was designed mostly for the map editors, who needed to see all available data so they can see what is missing or incorrect. On the other hand, various map sites tend to show only some of that info that is relevant to their use cases. Wikivoyage is a map consumer, so we should be very specific on what data each type of article should show.
With mapnik/mod_tile approach, each tile generation was a very expensive process - it used 10-20 SQL queries for each tile to get all the needed data, convert it into an image, and cache that image. Vector tiles give us the ability to get all the needed data and cache it as data, not image. This means that the actual image gets generated in milliseconds, and we can decided at the last moment what data to include (labels languages/POIs/...) and what style to draw it in (road colors/width/icons/etc). On one hand, we want to keep caching "hit-rate" high, and only have a small number of different styles. On the other, it is very quick to add a new one once we have an agreement of what is needed.
Please take a look at Improving our map style to see what styling tools are available (similar to editing CSS in a visual tool). --Yurik (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. There is always an alternative path - multiple layers. WMF maps would provide the base layer, plus it would be overlayed with additional data from either Wikivoyage pages that contain KML data, or some database that resides on the wmflabs instance. WikiMiniAtlas uses both approaches. Since all the heavy lifting to generate the base map will be done by WMF maps, the labs service should be able to handle the load of extra data without problems. This route will also give the community much greater control over what and how is displayed, and allow for much more rapid changes. --Yurik (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yurik, thanks for your response. Regarding additional layers generated on wmflabs, I am not sure that we can extend this beyond our current position, namely, the POIs taken from Wikivoyage articles. After all, it is not easy to handle huge databases in a wiki format, and it would be strange to have our own storage of, e.g., public transport information when this information is more up-to-date in other sources. I think that we should rather go in the direction of slightly customizing your maps to our needs. One problem here is that none of us (except for, perhaps, Joachim) understands the OSM structure and will be able to contribute to the css-like styles that you mentioned. I understand how they are written, but I have no idea which extra things to write. Therefore, the main feedback from Wikivoyage users (including myself) is something that you have already seen in this thread: we would like to have information about public transport displayed on the map. It would be great if any of you guys could implement this for us. Then we may have other wishes, but, hopefully, they won't require too much effort from your side.
At this point, it seems to be crucial to include public transport and, when we have no other outstanding objections, implement the new maps site-wide in order to collect additional feedback. JamesA, Joachim, what do you think?
Joachim, can we have something like poimap3.php handling the new maps (in the beginning), so that we could easily switch between the old and new versions on-wiki? --Alexander (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me, Alexander. The only necessity I can think of for now would be public transport data. That is, train stations and names, tram stops and bus stops. Road data is already displayed, so not sure why this was overlooked. Indeed, Google Maps strikes a good balance in terms of how much data it displays I think, POIs aside. Then I'd be interested in seeing a few test articles, followed by a wider implementation for testing purposes. James Atalk 09:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
We should think carefully about whether this new Wikimedia map is already in a usable state. Please compare: left Mapquest, Mapnik, and right new Wikimedia map [2] or [3] or [4] or [5]. You can zoom and drag the left map for your own examples. Clicking creates a corresponding link in the address bar. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk)
The scary rectangle over Braunschweig is its airport's airspace. There are two problems about this: it shouldn't have been mapped in the first place and we shouldn't have displayed it in any case. I fixed the first part on OSM side, by nuking both airspaces in existence. The second part is done with this commit, we will try to regenerate the affected area soonish. MaxSem (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The map data are at least two months old. These roads in Coudersport, PA I have mapped two month ago [6]. For an update Mapnik required max. 10 minutes and Mapquest one day . -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Joachim, I played a bit with the comparison. One major problem that I found is the lack of green spaces. I would not say that the greenery is absent completely, some parks are displayed of the map, but many of the smaller parks or green spaces like boulevards are missing. This makes the new maps rather dull in appearance and less friendly for users. Will you or Yurik know which features should be added?
Another thing is the yellow-orange-colored areas such as parking lots. Those may be also worth adding. --Alexander (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Tracked at phab:T113479. Feel free to comment or add new tasks to Phabricator - i might miss requests in the discussions. --Yurik (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The map update from OSM (phab:T110262 and phab:T108459) is at the top of our priorities que, will get done soon, right after we resolve phab:T113008 (displaying disputed boarders). I think we could get the transportation POIs done quickly (subways, bus, train, ships), while other POIs might take a bit longer. Max would know better about the OSM's POI data. --Yurik (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Added phab:T113310 -- creating Points of Interest, including transportation POIs. Please comment on the task. --Yurik (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yurik, thanks for providing the links. It's much easier this way because Phabricator is scary for most of the regular editors=) Please, also check my reply to Mey2008 above. I hope that you can re-phrase it in a more meaningful language. --Alexander (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Alexander, I have added the new base layer "Wikimedia" and an overlay "Traffic" with stops (+ name) and lines (+ numbers) for testing purposes.[7]. Apart from the lack of car parks the Wikimedia map now not urgently needs to be extended, I mean. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Joachim. Will it be available on in the next days, or is it planned for the Wikivoyage server only? --Alexander (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
. After the next update on Monday "poimap2test.php" will also be available on -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Should Wikivoyage not crop banners?[edit]

I pushed a few changes to the WikidataPageBanner extension specifically aimed at mobile this weekend. before and after

(You can see for yourself here!) Note no change on desktop! yay!)

However I noticed, if for the Agra example I used the original banner rather than the cropped banner, and applied the origin parameter to do manual cropping, it looked even better on mobile and arguably even better on desktop. (See this example) and this after screenshot.

I thought I'd bring this to your attention. It's obviously a big mindset change... but would it make sense to start using automatic cropping rather than manually cropping? What is needed to enable that? Jdlrobson (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I lack the knowledge to fully understand what this would mean or what would be required technically, but automatic cropping of any kind seems to have one major problem. It does not allow for aesthetic choices in terms of eliminating less desirable parts of images - which we do a lot. The Agra banner is an example of a beautiful source image that can be used in its entirety, but unfortunately that's not the case for all original images. Just a first thought. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jdlrobson , you haven't actually described at all what your change actually was :)
Looking through your links, I get the impression that the change can crop source images for banners automatically. However on Wikivoyage we require all banners to have a ration of 7:1 and therefore automatic cropping is not needed, and in fact not actually desirable at all (for reasons that JuliasTravels stated ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, what struck me immediately is that the banner size I understand you would like to implement to would make our articles look more like our competitor's.
And as others have asked, would someone have control over what part of the photo (upper/middle/lower/some corner) would be used as banner? Otherwise the result would more often than not look entirely ridiculous (e.g. some asphalt with some feet and legs or just the blue sky). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe summarising as follows will help: a 7:1 ratio and the current height restrictions should be revisited for mobile devices. The extension provides support for cropping by ensuring the width and heights of the banners meet your specs on desktop and allowing editors to use an origin parameter to specify a focal point (so yes editors can still control where to focus in an image). I'd encourage people to play with the banner code on our test instance with different image sizes and soon Wikivoyage (Wednesday) to explore whether using a different image banner ratio/taller banners provides a better banner experience for mobile users whilst retaining the same experience for desktop users. Potentially you may find cropping is less important than before and that the software can enforce photo requirements.

To be clear I'm not suggesting any changes to desktop banners aesthetic appearance im just suggesting you revisit banner requirements with mobile in mind now you have a more powerful option in your hands that cannot be achieved via templates!

Please let me know if more clarification is needed. Jdlrobson (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you are using a non 7:1 image size for Agra, therefore everyone here will likely be confused as to your intention. I suggest that you use the banner we use here on Agra --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I think what Jdlrobson is proposing is we use uncropped images (i.e., non 7:1 images) and then use the "origin" parameter of the extension to focus the banner on the part of the image we want displayed.
I'm still confused about what is being proposed though:
  • Jdlrobson, are you suggesting the banner have a different ratio on mobile than desktop (can it do that)? Or, are you suggesting we consider moving away from 7:1 for both mobile and desktop? -Shaundd (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm suggesting the origin parameter can do a lot more for you then manually cropping images to be 7:1 and that using 7:1 is doing harm to your mobile experience..IThe banner here (zoom aside) has the same dimensions as the banner on Agra in Wikivoyage no? However if you view its mobile equivalent it looks much better than before. If you inspect the banner you'll see it uses the original image rather than the uncropped image. The image used for desktop and mobile must be exactly the same resolution on both, using a different image for both mediums is currently not possible. A 7:3 image can look like a 7:1 image on desktop but look taller on mobile where vertically you have more space. Jdlrobson (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
If we go back to the original post, we have before and after examples. In terms of mobile I could understand this approach for older smart phones / feature phones with low resolution screens (e.g. 320 pixels), but for the latest Android or iPhones I don't see the Desktop banner as being a problem at all.
I would suggest that technology will make the experience some of us have today on the iPhone 6 / Galaxy S6 fairly widespread in a couple of years. Won't this make things more complex when the problem will go away by itself by virtue of the adoption of newer technology? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not a question of resolution, it's a question of aspect ratio. The display on a mobile telephone is taller than it is wide, which is backward compared to a desktop PC. If anything, desktop screens have been getting wider (8:5 instead of 4:3) since the mid-2000s (decade). K7L (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup exactly. The extension banners should pick the right image for the right device (we still need to fine tweak this) but we have more options now we are not using a template. I must confess I don't know exactly what the right aspect ratio is but if banners have a focal area of 320px by say 200px it will look great on mobile. You may find using banners with double the height of the current ones is all that is necessary (we can clip the bottom half easily on desktop) Jdlrobson (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless your audience is "well-off people in the developed world only", then it's going to be a long time before "the problem will go away by itself". Newer technology means newer technology for people who can afford it. The "old" technology of low-resolution screens will be in the hands of teenagers, blue-collar workers, and the rest of the world for a very long time. (This might make more sense: You know all those people who still have flip phones? When you started thinking about buying an iPhone 6, they started wondering whether they could afford a cell phone with a low-resolution screen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you put this statement in WhatamIdoing when it was clarified that the rationale was around screen dimensions and not resolution, but you are wrong. The original iPhone was released in 2007 and had a resolution of 320×480, and adoption and corresponding resolutions have been increasing rapidly and that includes the important lower end of the smartphone market.
Wikimedia statistics show clearly that the number of visitors to Wikimedia sites on mobile devices (about 50% of the total audience now) are overwhelmingly with mobile devices with recent (past 3 years) specifications. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Because I don't believe that "the problem" will go away on its own, because I don't believe that it's a good idea to design a site to assume that it will just go away, and because I don't think that designs should be based primarily on capabilities of people who can already use the site (versus those who want to use the site, but can't because the design makes it painful to use on the devices that they can afford). If you want more readers, and if you want more global readers, then the mobile design needs to work (and work well) on a low-budget phone sold in India a couple of years ago, and not just for the latest iPhone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The site as it is works perfectly fine with a low-budget phone sold in India today. Your outrage at the iPhone owning 1% of capitalists is somewhat misplaced. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I've got no problem with Apple or iPhones. My only problem with Android devices is their lousy security model. I'm not outraged about anything—not even the fact that Android's failings has led to some individual users getting hacked. However, I am aware of my privilege, and the fact remains that 99% of the world can't afford a new smartphone every year (or even at all). If you design for "today's" (brand-new) smartphones, then you exclude everyone who can only acquire hand-me-downs and castoffs.
The WMF had the opportunity to do some developing-world simulation testing at one of the big internet companies a while ago. I don't know if a formal report was ever written up about it (presumably it's on mw: if someone did). Essentially, you take your website into a room with an elaborate copy of the internet systems for various developing countries, and you see how much you can use. The results were not pretty. "Works perfectly fine" was not a statement that any of the staff present used to describe the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jdlrobson, I agree the banners would look better on mobile (in portrait mode, anyway) with a different aspect ratio than 7:1. Looking at the test pages you link to, the banner extension seems to auto-crop (for lack of a better word) the source image differently depending on whether it's mobile or desktop. If that's the case, it's an interesting solution that provides more flexibility on how banners are displayed. Before going down that road though, I think we'd need to feel comfortable that the job the banner extension does cropping images is nearly as good as what we do manually now. Otherwise, it seems to open a can of worms for something that I'm not sure is a big problem. Also, how would the 8000+ legacy 7:1 banner images be handled? -Shaundd (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shaundd the great thing about this change is its backwards compatible, so you can update those 7:1 images over time, if they are never updated they'll still work, just won't look as good. The goal would be to increase the height but leave the top half the same as it currently is on desktop. I guess the first step would be to try 7:2/7:3/7:4 banner sizes on a sample of 10 articles to see whether this is plausible and see whether this improves mobile rendering. If we find a better ratio I'd suggest a vote on this page to switch the default to the new proposed one using the 10 examples. The change will go live on Wednesday so you'll be able to experiment with ten pages on that date. Does that sound like a good idea?Jdlrobson (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jdlrobson , this change on Wednesday will have no impact on the existing Banner template right? (changes will be limited to the experimental pages) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Correct. You should notice no difference anywhere (there are no experimental pages on wikivoyage that I know of). However on Wednesday you will be able to experiment on any test pages you choose to with larger banners and I encourage you to do so. Ultimately this is your decision as editors but I highly recommend you revisit the ratio and make this site even more kick ass then its competitors which currently struggle much more with their own mobile experiences! Jdlrobson (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll certainly give it a test. It might not be until the weekend though -- the job that pays the bills is quite demanding right now. -Shaundd (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing how it works! I'm certainly open to a better way of implementing banners, although such a change should require a decent period of evaluation and discussion before formal implementation. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


Has anyone explored this to see if they might work better? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jdlrobson, I played with the Origin parameter on a couple of banners. It seems to try to fix the height of a banner to 300px and then scales the width accordingly. The y-coordinate moves the focus up or down in the original image but the x-coordinate has no impact (presumably because the full width of the underlying image is being used). Is it supposed to work that way? -Shaundd (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and exploration Shaundd!! For desktop it enforces a certain maximum height (as you say this is 300px) but allows you to use images that are taller than 300px and as you say move the focus up and down with the y-coordinate. The x-coordinate will kick in at a lower resolution on a mobile view, you can test this by shrinking your screen on the mobile site/Vector to less than 400px. This is the killer feature - you will be able to get better banners displayed on mobile than currently, which is primarily what this parameter was added for. Does that make sense? So to summarise, there should be little different on desktop but a big difference on mobile. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We have some Korean guests on board[edit]

To everyone's notice: per message at the top of Talk:Ansan, User:Piotrus is heading a (WMF coordinated?) project in a South Korean university where the students are to learn more about Wikivoyage. That's probably why we have had some Korean newbies around here as of recently, both editing Ansan and other articles. Let's welcome them, help them out (remember, they may not have prior experience in editing wikis and their English may not be perfect), and hope they stay even after their assignment is over! ϒpsilon (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is WMF coordinated, but this would be a good thing to encourage for other countries as well. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2, Ypsilon: Hello everyone. It's not so much as WMF coordinates as WMF supported (see outreach:Global Education Program). We are going to focus on the page of Ansan, where our university is located. Please do not hesitate to tell us if we do something wrong, and offer advice. If there are any urgent problems, you may want to ping me on my Wikipedia page, which I check daily (I stop at Wikivoyage once a week or so). Cheers, --Piotrus (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd love it if you and/or some of your students also added some information about some (other?) interesting cities in the region. Do you or they have favorite hangouts in Seoul? Perhaps you'd like to add those listings to the appropriate district article (as described and linked to in Seoul#Districts). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Sooner or later, this should be possible. Not sure if in this class, but I plan on running it on a yearly basis, so sooner or later we will have no choice but to branch out :) --Piotrus (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Outdoor life overview requested[edit]

Just started an article on Outdoor life, and re-categorized some of the related articles. There is a lot of material on hiking, packing for a week of hiking and wilderness backpacking as well as some scattered information in stay safe, but a generalized overview of the topic is needed. /Yvwv (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to ask the question, why is an overview needed? The subject is rather broad so it is unlikely that much could be added to give more definition to the subject.
Lively prose will always make an article more interesting, but I would just caution against writing text at the beginning for the sake of having text there. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Camping is a disambiguation and hunting just redirects to recreational shooting. K7L (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think these hierarchies should be looked over. As I stated in Talk:Travel activities#Hierarchy the hierarchies are messy, and I think we should design a clear, working, hierarchy before making any more structural pages. Outdoor life sounds like a good topic, but it is not in any way clear where it belongs in the travel topics hierarchy. The middle layer travel topic articles should reflect the breadcrumb hierarchy, with see also entries linked in a way separating them from subtopics (competing middle layer articles should be treated like the extraregions: only see also like links).
I am not convinced about the optimality of a breadcrumb trail like Travel topics > Travel activities > Outdoor life > Camping > Car camping. This one could be changed (I think camping should be under Travel topics > Sleep), but I think it reflects the general messiness of our structure.
--LPfi (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Have some spare time? DotM needs you[edit]

Fellow voyagers, as you can see in Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Upcoming, there are quite a couple of candidates that would (1) need your opinion and perhaps (2) some more content.

Most of these aren't going on the Main Page before 2016, but especially Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates#Grand-Bassam would need some more attention as it's scheduled for OtBP for November, André will soon make Main Page banners for it (I believe), and there's one person opposing the featuring of the article due to that article's perceived low quality/reliability. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ruta de Transito has a couple of holes that should be filled with more information, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone has been in Dumaguete recently, that article may need some updates, see Talk:Dumaguete#New_place_on_Rizal. Pashley (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How does one avoid having the [Add listing] link added to articles that aren't about destinations?[edit]

As of now the [add listing] link is added to all of the Hebvoy articles, including Phrasebook articles, and Travel topics articles.

Is there any trick to disabling the appearance of this link on certain articles? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

he:מדיה ויקי:Gadget-ListingEditor.js has been deleted so I'm not sure what your listing editor code is doing, but in MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor.js if the DISALLOW_ADD_LISTING_IF_PRESENT pattern matches a heading in the article then no "add listing" links are added to any headers. That prevents display on region, travel topic and itinerary articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

27 suggested new alternative banners - please participate in the following discussions and help decide whether some existing banners would be replaced or not[edit]

Since early August I have created 27 new alternative Wikivoyage banners (mostly based on existing photos in Wikicommons) to be used, first and foremost, in the articles of the Hebrew Wikivoyage.

I am hoping that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using some of these alternative banners here as well.

Please participate in the following 27 discussions and indicate in each of the discussions which banner you prefer seeing at the top of this article.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Breadcrumb menu and map icon dropping below the banner[edit]

As the headline says, when I open an article I see the banner on the top of it and the breadcrumb menu and icon below it (before the text). I'm using Safari 8.0.8 (on a Mac) and yesterday the articles looked completely normal. In Firefox the articles look normal. Is it again someone playing around with the banner template? ϒpsilon (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a change that was made to the banner extension - Do not add banner inside #bodyContent. User:Jdlrobson can probably confirm. For what it's worth, the change seems fine to me - as far as I'm aware, on most web sites breadcrumbs are placed under the top banner. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since when has the page banner image been above the location breadcrumbs? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure which is better, being different from what you are used to is always firstly a negative reaction. I guess we should keep it a week or so and see how we feel then. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I prefer the new arrangement. It makes the banner/title more visible. I also think that we should try having breadcrumb aligned to the right. Syced (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey! those breadcrumbs appear in contentSub which appears under the first headings on all wikis for example mediawiki so this is a side effect of making the banner override the heading rather than hack itself to look like a heading.
In code it's called subTitle so code wise it makes sense for the subtitle to appear below the title. Design wise for this use case maybe not.. I'm not sure.
I sadly didn't pick this up before to discuss as none of the examples on have breadcrumbs. I'll rectify that for you for future.
What's generating the tagline? Am I right in guessing it's Extension:GeoCrumbs? If so and you decide on a different placement we will have to add support to that extension. Jdlrobson (talk)
This change is awful. From a navigational standpoint, it made total sense before, zooming in from the global level at the top and going down to the destination in question and then navigation within that destination's article
External navigation down to this destination > This destination > Internal navigation within this destination > Content within this destination
Now it's all out of order:
This destination > Internal navigation within this destination > External navigation down to this destination > Content within this destination
We could still discuss changing it later if there is really a reason for it that everyone can get behind, but this should be reverted immediately pending discussion of and consensus for the change, because this is simply not the way things are supposed to work around here. Especially for sitewide changes such as this, it's supposed to be proposal, then discussion, then consensus, then implementation of the change. Not change implemented out of the blue, adjustment period to see if we like it, possible discussion, and then "oops there's not unanimous consensus to change it back, guess we'll keep it". Whoever did this, please change it back immediately, the sooner the better. Texugo (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As Jdlrobson notes, the change was a result of the fact that we were previously mis-using banners to move the article title within the article body content, so there is a strong argument to be made that it's unreasonable to demand an immediate revert of a global fix that exposed a bug in our implementation. That said, if there is a strong desire to move the breadcrumbs back above the banner, as Jdlrobson suggests the geocrumbs extension can be modified to allow positioning of the breadcrumbs outside of the article content, which would match your suggestion of moving global navigation outside of article content. My preference would be to leave things as they are now, however, for reasons stated above. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want I can make some minor js/css changes which will correct it for 99% of users. Just let me know and I'll do it - this is better than a revert (but will still show them under the heading for non-js users). I've setup a bug to make sure we get this fixed so you at least have the option to revert back to the old bug. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care if it's not technically reverted back, but if it's possible to revert the appearance back, as Jdlrobson suggests, that would keep us much more in line with our standard procedure for approving sitewide visual changes, so I don't think there is any question that that is what should be done at this point. Texugo (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
My only concern with a JS/CSS solution (as opposed to the suggested fix in the phabricator ticket) is that we ensure that it isn't done in a way that will penalize us with search engines. Mucking about with the <h1> tag can be dicey where SEO is concerned, and we've already been whacked a few times recently by Google due to page banner changes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You should be able to put the following in MediaWiki:Common.js: $( '#contentSub' ).insertBefore( '.ext-wpb-pagebanner' ).addClass( 'visible' ); and in MediaWiki:Common.css

  1. contentSub { display: none; }
  2. contentSub.visible { display: block; }

I've never heard of such a change impacting SEO. Given the amount of SEO concerns I'm hearing on this page, it might be worth asking the Foundation's discovery team to investigate that and identify ways to improve Wikivoyage's page rankings. It's my belief that by better features and slicker designs more people will link to Wikivoyage and you will drive up your search results more than any tiny penalties due to things such as positioning. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The above change should be fine since we're not touching the <h1> tag - past banner changes involving the page title and top heading have caused articles to drop significantly in Google rankings. The larger discussion about SEO would be valuable, but should take place at Wikivoyage talk:Search Expedition to avoid confusing this thread. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I've made the tweaks and it should be back to the way it was. Let me know what the preferred layout should be. Please subscribe and poke the ticket for a more long term solution. Jdlrobson (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Now it is worse. The map icon has not moved with the breadcrumbs as is squashed between the banner and the text. Please experiment with site wide changes outside of main-space in future. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
And in addition, the map icon's upper rim is covered by the banner and while the breadcrumb has moved back up, its text (and unless something's suddenly wrong with my eyes, the article name, UNESCO icon and featured article) has become remarkably larger... ϒpsilon (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
So the map icon is no longer overlapping the banner but if there is an image at the top of the article they will overlap. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

First impressions[edit]

Positive: I like the banner image at the top of the page, looks professional and clean; the map icon below the banner image is somehow more obvious, being discoverable to new users is important.

Negative: As stated above, page content listed before breadcrumb hierarchy does not feel right; and the big negative - when you want to go to the country page from a city article and move you mouse too slowly down from the top of the page the drop down sub-section titles come down over the breadcrumb line making it difficult to see and select.

--Traveler100 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On this subject if we made it possible to add external links to banners is there any reason the map can't be a banner icon? e.g. If this is desired does someone want to open a phabricator ticket? Jdlrobson (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, we did test adding the map parameter to the banner icons at one point, but only on a few articles and it was eventually killed off, I think due to the need to move all geo coords into the banner template. Wouldn't be opposed to revisiting moving the icon. James Atalk 10:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I use Firefox and I'm getting the map icon on top of the article text at the right hand end of the first line. Also, when editing and doing a preview, an old-style table of contents appears (in addition to the usual menu bar on the banner), meaning it is far from a true preview of layout. Is there a fix for these two issues? Nurg (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Moving the geo coords into the banner could maybe done with a bot. Or maybe we need to add an additional space after the geo icon so that it does not overlap text or images at the top of articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Syntax highlighter[edit]

Although I am a a relatively junior wikivoyager, I think I may have found something cool that many of you may enjoy: the "Syntax highlighter" gadget know from (among other places) English Wikipedia's preferences works well here, if one installs it manually on their common.js page (here is mine: User:Piotrus/common.js). Try it out, it remains one of my fav wiki editing hacks. (Note: this is for source editing, not Visual Editor). --Piotrus (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've installed this script on Wikivoyage as a gadget to make it easier to use, so it can be installed by going to Preferences → Gadgets and selecting "Syntax highlighter". -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice! Thanks for the tip :-) Syced (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Any objections to reading web team driving new development in the RelatedArticles extension?[edit]

I noticed Wikivoyage is using the RelatedArticles extension which I think my team can make even better for you. any objections to us adding developers and development time to it? We plan to work on a beta feature for mobile and desktop so there will be ample time for you to feedback on the work we do there. I urge you to read the talk page and the linked Phabricator bug and please reply on the MediaWiki talk page! Thank you! Jdlrobson (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I lack the pre-requisite vocabulary, but could you explain in less jargon what the essence of your pursuit is? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not know we had a "Related Articles" feature, where can it be found? I found nothing on desktop nor mobile. Closest I have found is "Nearby Articles" on mobile. Syced (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If you go to New_York_City you'll see in the left hand menu, hidden away, "related pages" with a link to New York City with children. This is generated by using the `relatedpages` magic word. In mobile apps it has been shown that suggesting new articles to read drives engagement with the app and we are planning some similar experiments with web. The experiments will essentially use our search APIs to generate a list of 3 related articles at the bottom of an article. I'm interested in supporting a way for editors to override the choices where they do not make sense. I see this extension as a good fit, so am advising we build it in here. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Something to consider as you are doing this is whether in the process you can come up with a better way to organise or link travel topics. The discussion leading to the current situation is at Talk:Travel_topics_index#Change_to_tagging_travel_topics. and breadcrumbs are currently the main mechansim for linking them. A recent related controversy is Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion#Template:EuropeHistory.
As I see it, breadcrumbs were never a good idea, do not work well because they are inherently hierarchical which the topics aren't, and were implemented without consensus so anything that lets us get rid of them would be a fine idea, I suspect others would say I'm being curmudgeonly (guilty!) and beating a dead horse; we have had them for some time and they (partly) work, so they should obviously be kept. Even I will admit that they should be kept until we find something better.
If your work can offer new alternatives here, that would be quite valuable. Pashley (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally I find the breadcrumbs concept very out-dated and limiting and not too useful in a travel guide, given that usually I'm more interested in where I can go that's nearby from a given place rather than which region/continent I am in. For instance it's possible to get to Linz in Austria from Český_Krumlov in Czech Republic. I'm not actively thinking about this problem but in theory the related articles extension could be used as a more engaging way to do 'Go next' - essentially we'd be showing cards not too different from the cards we show on the Gather experimental feature. I will definitely think about this usecase but I'll definitely leave it up to you as we build this to think about how breadcrumbs fit into this or whether can be replaced by this. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about getting rid of breadcrumbs for travel topics. For destination articles, I definitely think we should keep them but they should not be the only thing. We already have a "Go next" section, some articles have route boxes and "related" tags, often the text mentions nearby attractions, ... All those are good, but any new mechanism you come up with might be useful as well. Pashley (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic: We really need a map of nearby articles in the Go Next section. Dynamic, of course :-) But even with that, breadcrumb would retain some usefulness I think. Last week I traveled with only my smartphone and found myself using breadcrumb a few times a day to switch from city to city (tabs are not that convenient on mobile) Syced (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The dynamic map actually has that function, when clicking on the icon with the two inverted drops, the map zooms out and the location of the nearest articles is shown. So it should probably not be too hard to put an icon in the Go next section that would take you to the dynamic map shown like that. (Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about the technical side of the dynamic maps or coding in general).
Concerning breadcrumbs, I do find them useful when working with and organizing articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: nearby articles, that functionality is still in beta but maps use it already. Once the "nearby" functionality is more mature we should be able to more directly integrate it into our articles, either as a link, as a box similar to the routebox, or using some other UI element. See as an example, where the format is -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Banners no longer showing[edit]

I'm using the monobook skin and the banners are no longer showing at all. :( -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% positive, but I don't see the banner HTML in the page when using Monobook. I thought it might be due to the recent Javascript fix, but after disabling Javascript in my browser I think it may be an extension issue. I'd suggest creating a phabricator: ticket. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Is Monobook even supported anymore? Powers (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It should be! I have the impression that lots of editors, who used Wikipedia before Vector came, still use Monobook. Some liked the new skin, others did not, and there has been no great reason (nor any push) for the latter to migrate. --LPfi (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There was a bug in the code. Fix on the way - Jdlrobson (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If memory serves, I believe that Monobook is semi-officially in the "bug fix" level of support: the devs keep it working, but they don't plan any major improvements to it. This implies that someday, if it becomes too complicated to maintain it, then it may be removed, but there are no plans to do this, and I'd be surprised if that end-of-life moment happened this decade.
I believe someone said that (very) approximately 40K active users at en.wp are using Monobook. It would be reasonable to assume that the percentage is similar at other larger/older wikis, and lower at smaller/newer ones. It's not as popular as it used to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

What to fix in Ansan[edit]

As was noted #We_have_some_Korean_guests_on_board above, I am running an ELS-university class, where students are improving Ansan. As I am relatively inexperienced on Wikivoyage, I'd appreciate advice on what can be improved with regards to the WV manual of style. Is there an equivalent of Wikipedia's peer review/Good Article reviews we can submit this in few weeks? What should be fixed for that?

I also have few questions from the students that I wasn't sure how best to answer:

  • would a Wikivoyage article, eventually, list *all* restaurants/bars/hotels and such?
  • should a museum be in the see or do section?
  • should biking infrastructure (biking paths, rental bike stations) be discussed in get around? Is a GPS map of biking rental stations - on one level, very useful for a traveler - added to the Wikivoyage map? Can we write a how-to page for traveller on how to use the rental bike station (the official instructions on them and online are mostly in Korean...). --Piotrus (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't try and list *all* establishments, since we are not trying to be a 'yellow pages'. Just add a handful of interesting places at different budget levels.
Museums (at least traditional ones) should be in 'see'. The different between 'see' and 'do' is not always clear to us, so there isn't a right answer always!
A GPS biking map can be included, but if it overwhelms the article then maybe a separate itinerary article could be created. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Bike paths can also be covered in "Do", as an activity.
For article status, please have a look at Wikivoyage:City guide status. That link will show you what is required for the different statuses of Stub (nothing required for that), Outline, Usable, Guide and Star. Outline is a cinch to attain, Usable is easy, Guide is much harder and Star is an extremely demanding standard of near-perfection. I would suggest Guide as a good aspiration, but I have no idea how you'd judge the relative contributions of each student and other Wikivoyage editors in attaining the status. It's probably easiest for you to give collective credit, but that's your call. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Another general point is that the Korean education system can be somewhat prescriptive in how to complete tasks. You should emphasise that outside the set template format of the article you are actually pretty free to describe the destination in any (accurate) way you want. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Enter latitude/longitude for every listing. Make Chinatown a listing. Make the hostel a listing. Select two hotels and two love motels (select the ones that are the most convenient for tourists), and make listings for them. Select two "foreign markets" and make listings for them. Give more details about Mongol Sikdang and Lotteria, like open hours/average meal price. Syced (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
For questions of what section to put things in, a most useful guide is Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. Nurg (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I would politely disagree as for cycle-paths... Yes cycling can be considered an activity, but it is also a way of getting around (Copenhagen, anybody?). So in my humble opinion it should be a judgment call whether the type of cycling is mostly something you do to get from one place to another or mostly something you do as some kind of exercise. As for listings, we have a policy to avoid negative reviews, so if a place has nothing nice to be said about it, don't list it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[edit]

IdeaLab beaker and flask.svg

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion for an addition to all of our phrasebooks[edit]

In my opinion it might be a good idea to add the phrase "I love you" (and maybe some other similar phrases which would be grouped under a separate sub section) to all of the phrasebooks. What do you think ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I've seen things like that in Lonely Planet and other travel guidebooks. I think this is a great idea and I'm surprised we're not doing it already. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Silly question: To what end? Seems like something one would only say to an intimate, which would only be possible if there was a language connection already. Powers (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example of how these types of phrases would be useful to a lot of people... if for example an Australian/American/British girl has a French boyfriend, she might want to surprise him by saying "I love you" in French, even though they both communicate quite well in English. These days there are a lot of couples from different countries and cultures, and I could only assume many of them are looking for this type of information for these reasons.
AndreCarrotflower, what phrases of this type do you recall that were written in the professional phrasebooks? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few guide books try and be 'edgy' with phrases such as 'I really like your <insert piece of anatomy here>', and I would urge that our phrasebooks don't go in that direction. The content should be genuinely useful, and I'm with Powers in asking if this is actually useful. Remember that people have to be able to print this out and filling it up with non-relevant phrases is not serving anyone well.
The scenario of a French boyfriend is not particularly compelling. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I can see what you are trying to say here... basically you are saying that unless we turn such a sub-section into a sleazy pick-up guide for travelers whom are interested in advancing on foreigners whom don't speak English... such a section would never be useful for English travelers abroad (because, in your opinion, any sort of a long time serious foreign girlfriend/boyfriend scenario would be unrelated to traveling/travelers). Although I understand what you are saying, I still think we should consider adding the "I love you" phrase at the very least. What do everyone else think? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't particularly object to 'I love you'. Just the direction subsequent additions could go in. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"I love you" is fine if that's a phrase that is used locally. I'm not sure it's essential to include, but it usually wouldn't hurt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I also have to ask: How is this relevant for travel? Once you are able to say or convey this to someone else, you usually have some deal of fluency in any language or form of communication that you both understand. Though I have in fact once read a book that involved a guy proposing to a woman with the aid of a dictionary - she accepted. That being said, there is also the not too small problem of cultural background. "I love you" may be a simple sentence on the face of it, but different cultures may have different ways of approaching it. From saying it rather casually to not saying it after twenty years of marriage. And of course all things in between. And than there are those languages that have two similar but not equal ways of saying this. Such as Spanish "te quiero" and "te amo". While traveling is of course an activity during which love can hit (and indeed, which activity isn't?) I think our phrasebooks would be better served by not bloating them with a discussion on the intricacies of dating in Taiwan (I hope the previous is and stays a redlink) or the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We might be overthinking things. If someone wants to add a particular phrase to an individual phrasebook, go ahead and do so. If it ends up being something of questionable value ("my hovercraft is full of eels") it can always be reverted later, but there is no harm in having the translation for "I love you" in a specific phrasebook. In terms of our default list of phrases to translate, that list should be constrained to phrases of immediate use to travelers, so things like "I love you" or "I want to use my advanced language skills to teach students in my own country to speak your language" might not be appropriate. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about "I love you", but I think that an expression of (dis)approval would be more immediately useful: "I (don't) like it/you/him/her" rather than "I love you". This is useful regardless of whether one is speaking of a person, the food in a restaurant, the view from the hotel room, etc., and more general than "It was delicious" (the most relevant current phrase). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
We didn't have a phrase as simple as "I (don't) like it?" - that surprises me quite a bit. I petition for its inclusion! Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I might be wrong, but I looked through the Spanish and German ones, and I didn't see anything like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


There's anyone that know any Japanese speakers to develop (i.e. to take it out from the incubator) the Japanese version of Wikivoyage? WT has a lot of access from Japan because of our absence, so it would be great to cover that area too. --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely would be great but I haven't noticed many Japanese natives active here. Perhaps User:JRHorse ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have limited knowledge of Japanese (4 years of study... can carry on a casual conversation, read stuff with enough time, and write simple stuff [probably poorly]). Not sure how much time I'd be able to put into it, since it takes me a lot more time to read/write anything, but I can certainly contribute at least some. --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Japanese WT is still actively edited. I believe Shoestring is the most active editor and admin there. When we forked, Japanese WT simply wasn't interested and they stayed put. Trying to start a new Wikivoyage afresh will be a difficult feat with a still active community over there. James Atalk 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest, what other language communities stayed behind on WT? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
ja was the only notable one that I can remember. I think we forked all other language versions regardless of the community, except if there was really little content, but didn't end up forking ja's content. Although I may be mistaken. James Atalk 12:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I haven't checked the existence of other languages, I've just noticed that Japan is a great source of web access for WT. I think that the first step would be to take out ja:voy from the incubator and someone that can speak/read japanese would be very helpful (although not native), then we can invite people from ja:w and maybe ask again to the WT users that are still there. Any volunteers? --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I speak/read Japanese. Recently I am quite busy developing for Wikimedia Commons so I won't have much time for wikignoming, but I could do communication things. Syced (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Syced, maybe you could try to recruit someone from the Japanese Wikipedia community. You could guide them to "rescue" ja:voy :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this kind of solicitation would be allowed on WT. What we can do is set up a page here explaining (in Japanese) what WT and WV are, why WV has more to offer, and saying that anyone interested in creating a Japanese-language WV should put their signature at the end of that page. When we have enough motivated people we can fork and let them know. Syced (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


So what us generating Category:WikidataPageBanner with unknown parameters category on some pages? (looks like any recently edited page). --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a recent change in the banner extension. It looks like it doesn't like the "toc" parameter, even though that parameter is valid according to the documentation at mw:Extension:WikidataPageBanner. I'll open a phabricator ticket. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Ticket opened: phabricator:T114342. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! - Matroc (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. Patch submitted. Jdlrobson (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I merged the change mentioned by @Jdlrobson:. It will land on wikivoyage next Wednesday the 7th October :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
So the fix is there but the 1,791 articles that were edited during the problem still need to be re-saved.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding consensus policy in Engvoy[edit]

If for example, four or five users support a specific change in a specific discussion page, while one or two users object that change be made... would the change be made or not per Engvoy policy?

My impression is, from comments made by several users, that the Engvoy's Wikivoyage:Consensus actually means that in any cases of difference of opinions, one or two users get to veto decisions made by 4-5 users. Am I right ?

I will try to explain the main reason to why I think it is better to avoid a situation in which a small minority (1-2 users) is given the power to veto decisions made by a majority of 4-5 users ... when I recently suggested we use some of the alternative banners I created for Hebvoy on Engvoy, there were one or two users here on Engvoy whom noted that they would oppose the usage of ANY new alternative banners, even in the instances when the new alternative banners are a real improvement, just because they oppose having people suggest new alternative banners be used. If the Wikivoyage:Consensus policy actually means that a minority of 1 or 2 users can veto the preference of 4-5 users, because "it is not a clear consensus", I am afraid that in the future it would be impossible for me to continue suggesting that the Envoy community considers using new alternative banners. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, take Brooklyn/Coney Island and Brighton Beach‎‎ as an example. I thought your substitution was premature, so I asked the two people who were on record in opposition to the change whether they were willing to reconsider, in light of Powers' proposal. One of those previously in opposition has changed his mind. I will wait a day or two to see what Danapit has to say, as there's no reason to rush, but with only one person now opposed to the change and 5 in favor, I consider that a clear consensus. It really depends how many people have expressed an opinion. 2-1 is probably not a clear consensus, but 5-1 is, and 6-2 would be a pretty good consensus, I suppose. Part of the point I'd make, though, is that within reason, more discussion is better, not worse, and helps to create and sustain a collegial atmosphere, where people don't feel like there are actions taken quickly and forcefully. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
But what about a 4 - 1, or 5 - 2, in which the one or two people opposing are doing so constantly without a real justifiable reason? (in this case, they stated they are doing so just because they oppose having new alternative banners in general...) would their opinion be taken into consideration in the tally or canceled/striked out ? I am trying to point out the major flaw of the vetoing system (please explain how to overcome this specific flaw). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
My impression is that even those who would prefer for you to stop suggesting changes to existing banners (especially good existing banners) would not stand in the way of a substitution they considered clearly superior. However, in my opinion, just based on numbers, 4-1 looks like a pretty good consensus. I think that it's not just a question of numbers, though; the strength of support and opposition and whether there are substantive arguments in either or both directions should be part of the discussion, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Taking another example Dallas/Downtown 1 support change, 1 moderate support change , 1 keep original and 2 change on Dallas page instead. Not sure how that is describe as majority consensus for change. I have also commented in the past on changing banners on pages that already have banners as not the most productive activity (just by seeing how much time it takes with others making comments) but not against it totally and have supported changes were this difference is notable such as with Food. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Related to the above questions (but not specific to banners), there was a lengthy discussion about making it easier to determine consensus at Wikivoyage talk:Consensus#Wikivoyage:Consensus/Draft, but it did not get enough participation and agreement to allow policy to be changed. I don't think I currently have the mental stamina to try to drive that thread to any sort of resolution, but if others are interested in doing so please plunge forward. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the flaw is here. Clear consensus does not mean unanimous agreement.
"in this case, they stated they are doing so just because they oppose having new alternative banners in general" this statement is concerning if it refers to some of my votes. I am opposed to the replacement of good banners with new suggestions with no benefit or are less interesting, however my voting record should be clear that I have supported many of your suggestions that are clearly superior and it is very disingenuous to suggest otherwise. There isn't anyone voting 'no' by default. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
re: ויקיג'אנקי: "in this case, they stated they are doing so just because they oppose having new alternative banners in general", you say. In the first place, you did not bother to explain when initiating the discussions why your new suggetions are superior to the existing banners. Why do you expect others to spend their time explaining their preferences? Otherwise I understand, that for achieving consensus, simply stating keep / change is not helpful. I'll try my best to add a couple of words of explanation on the next occasion I will make a statement like that. Danapit (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I was one of the users who posted a message regarding consensus. Of course consensus is not unanimity, and if there's a 5 to 1 division in simple preference, a change is fine. However, as our policy page states, and as we usually work, outstanding suggestions and concerns should at least be addressed. In the case of Dallas/Downtown for example, there was no clear consensus to just replace the banner. Several users suggested to use the proposed banner for Dallas instead. Just ignoring those suggestions and proceeding to change the Downtown banner is not in line with our common consensus. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, I too want to underline that not one single user has simply spoken against all of your banners. Even the ones who would prefer not to have these discussions have supported changes where they consider your proposals to be superior. Suggesting otherwise is non-constructive and impolite. While usually simple keep or change "votes" are discouraged, I'd also say that for users who have made it clear that they prefer to only change a banner when it is obviously better than the existing one, it should be perfectly acceptable to be brief in this matter, considering the cookie cutter approach you've chosen for your suggestions. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by counting votes, so it's disingenuous to complain that certain combinations of vote counts could result in decisions going against the majority. Powers (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

re: Danapit's comment "In the first place, you did not bother to explain when initiating the discussions why your new suggetions are superior to the existing banners" - I think this cuts to the heart of the problem some people have with ויקיג'אנקי's campaign of making banners for articles that already have them.
It would be fine if he concentrated on making banners for articles whose existing banners are ugly, uncharacteristic of the destination, etc., but instead it appears that ויקיג'אנקי simply targets articles at random. This is problematic because he is also open about the fact that he has no familiarity with the destinations for which he makes banners. It could be that any given banner he's trying to replace was crafted in a well-thought-out way by an editor who is familiar with the destination (I'll admit I blanch at the thought of Buffalo coming onto his radar screen next, and the prospect of the carefully deliberated banner I created being replaced wth some clichéd cookie-cutter skyline shot of the type he seems to prefer). When that point has been brought up by others, ויקיג'אנקי has responded by saying that in most cases there's no way of knowing what degree of familiarity a banner's creator had with the destination or what was behind the decision of which image to use - but the fact is that even in the best-case scenario it's a wash; we simply go from one randomly chosen image to another.
The question, in my mind, then becomes: if not to improve the respective articles, then why is ויקיג'אנקי making all these new banners in the first place? (Even if they're for hebvoy, why propose them over here too?) And - speaking at least for myself and also, I suspect, for many others - what I am left with is the impression that one-upmanship plays a considerable role; that it's simply about replacing others' content with his own as an end in itself, without so much as a cursory consideration as to which version is of better quality. (That may or may not be true, but that's the overall feeling I'm left with, and I suspect I'm not the only one). But in reality, there's no one watching in the background and "keeping score" as to how many banners or how much of our content belongs to any particular user; no prizes to be won for the editor with the most thumbprints on the most articles. In other words, Wikivoyage is a collaboration, not a competition.
It bears mentioning that ויקיג'אנקי is technically correct when he says that in a wiki setting no one has the right to be upset when their own content is altered by some other editor, but given all we know about his banner-making process - articles chosen at random, creator has no familiarity with the destination in most cases, he spends by his own admission no more than 30 minutes on each one - I still say the whole effort flies in the face of the friendly, collaborative ethos of this site.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We may be talking about a woman, you know. I'm not sure whether I'm reading the name right, but it looks like "Vicky g'Yankee" to me. I just don't know what the gimel there means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
With a little coaxing, Google Translate gives "Wikijunkie". Anyway, given the gender breakdown of the overall WMF contributor community, I was playing the odds, but your point is well taken. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to completely agree with you AndreCarrotflower, ויקיג'אנקי self stated mission is to replace the banners of prominent articles throughout English Wikivoyage site with his own, probably because he is under the interesting notion that he is a 'photoshop expert'. One-upmanship does appear to drive this. I'm also concerned by the angry comments at Talk:Kaliningrad#Alternative_banner_for_this_article.3F
From our Banner expedition:
"Poor quality banners may be replaced by better quality banners. Banners may be replaced by more appropriate banners. Correctly sized banners are by default more appropriate than incorrectly sized banners. Leave an edit summary explaining why the new banner is more appropriate. If anyone disagrees with a substitution for reasons other than correct sizing or image quality, temporarily replace the banner with the appropriate default banner and get consensus on the article talk page."
I propose enforcing this going forward. If ויקיג'אנקי want to propose alternative banners then he just needs to explain why he is proposing the change. Just using it on Hebrew Wikivoyage is an irrelevant reason. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What I never quite got is why there are hardly ever any new proposed banners for articles that don't already have them. Many destinations in Nicaragua could use one, for instance... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Replying to some comments above, I'm concerned that the discussion is becoming borderline abusive towards an individual. I don't think there is harm in suggesting new banners for aesthetic reasons, and I was under the impression that these banners were already in use on Hebrew Wikivoyage, so we should be encouraging cross-wiki collaboration even if we don't change banners. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure there is nothing to say against this. Just the fact that the user in question has in one case even replaced their own banner (this is the article I am talking about). And the fact that there is a huge number of articles - some even rather high profile ones - without a banner. So of course everybody may decide for themselves what to invest time on, but I would think creating banners where there are none is better then creating banners where there are already some... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Equally if not more important than encouraging crosslinguistic collaboration is encouraging civil and collegial cooperation among our own editors here at en: - something this user has very explicitly refused to do in choosing to press forward full steam ahead with his banner creation without even attempting to find a compromise or middle-ground solution or otherwise address the valid concerns of other members of the community. It's this user's completely unwikilike, obstinate-bordering-on-confrontational conduct that "does harm". As for "abusive", in the remarks I personally have made, I have been very careful to walk a fine line between doing justice to my concerns and feelings on the one hand, while giving the benefit of the doubt or assuming good faith where possible. It's a contentious issue, but in the final analysis this kind of conduct absolutely should be called out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that you didn't mean this, but when I finished reading all of the comments about this contributor, I had developed the impression that the complainants would be satisfied if the contributor just left en.voy entirely. I know that nobody actually wrote "you are not welcome, so please go away", but the repeated and sustained complaints seemed to have the same effect overall. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
All due respect, I don't see how inflammatory comments like the above contribute to the resolution of this conflict. Obviously no one's goal is to drive the contributor away from en.voy entirely, and in fact his or her positive contributions to the project in other domains have been duly noted. But the concerns raised by those who have an issue with the banner creation are real and valid, and they're amplified by ויקיג'אנקי's reluctance (see link in above comment timestamped 17:01) to work with the rest of the community in coming to a compromise solution. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The individual concerned started this topic because they were upset that consensus on Wikivoyage wasn't working for them, which prompted a release of steam from many on this site who have not been happy with the individual's approach, nor their obstinate refusal to listen to constructive advice on the subject for quite some time.
We are not saying "you are not welcome, so please go away". We are saying "please engage with us constructively so that our mutual goals can be achieved". If they are not willing to be collaborative then at the very least they should refrain from replacing good banners with their own personal vision which is demonstrably not shared by the majority of users here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's not make this too personal and let's not blow frustrations out of proportion. While several of us have made it clear that they would consider other contributions more constructive, I don't think the above accusations are fair. No-one is just replacing banners - this user has been systematically seeking discussion. I also don't read the linked comments as being uncivil. When I mentioned on their talk page that (s)he might not be applying our consensus guidelines in the usual way, they started this discussion here themselves. I think that's pretty well in line with wiki-ways. To me, most of these proposals are much like copy-editing good text. Like copy-editors, "banner-editors" should be allowed to dedicate their time to whatever they prefer - as long as they work within policy and preferably with some consideration for other users' frustrations. Taste is a major factor in all of this, and of course, when you're the only editor on a wiki, personal preferences become that wiki's way (which is fair enough). Clearly, ויקיג'אנקי is creating these banners because they seem better in some way to his or her eye. The fact that the community here sometimes agrees and sometimes doesn't, is just proof that tastes differ. Let's not forget that apart from this users many contributions on heb.voy, we've also gained a bunch of banners that we as a community do find superior. Perhaps the biggest frustration is the large number of banner discussions started at once, which makes it feel a bit pushy to some (even when that's not the intent). Perhaps ויקיג'אנקי can suggest them as they are produced? JuliasTravels (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If יקיג'אנקי could be persuaded not to keep carpet bombing a bunch of replacement banners and then explain the actual rationale behind each individual replacement then I would personally be happy to move on from this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you willing to follow the same standard yourself? If you replace something, will you explain your "actual rationale behind each individual replacement" for everything that you replace? I don't support rules in which some contributors are more equal than others; that leads to dysfunction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Andrew can speak very well for himself, but first of all, this is specifically about replacing existing pagebanners, and yes, of course everyone should give a reason why they think their proposed replacement banner is better. Secondly, I don't know where on Earth you've gotten this notion that anyone thinks some people here are "more equal than others". I would suggest that you assume good faith and not cast wild aspersions without giving very firm evidence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing : Did you actually read the really short proposal or even think a few seconds about it before jumping to some silly missives about equality? I was asking ויקיג'אנקי to follow our existing guidance to perform banner changes, not 'explain themselves' -Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at 100% of ויקיג'אנקי's mainspace contributions so far this month, and they comply perfectly with the existing guidance at "Changing custom banners", which puts only one requirement on the editor: "Leave an edit summary explaining why the new banner is more appropriate." Every edit made this month either replaced the default banner with a custom one, or had an edit summary that explained the decision (usually "per talk page", which is ideal when a discussion has taken place, because the choice supported in discussion is the "more appropriate" choice). Therefore s/he's already complying with your proposal. What more do you need? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
First off, I take great umbrage at the idea that some have expressed that my remarks and others' are targeted at ויקיג'אנקי personally. I have nothing against ויקיג'אנקי personally, nor do I have anything against a new replacement pagebanner or two being suggested every once in a while. What bothers me is the pattern of behavior here:
  • First of all, as has been repeated many times, the articles for which ויקיג'אנקי suggests new banners have perfectly good ones of their own.
  • ויקיג'אנקי openly admits that he has no familiarity with the destinations for which he creates these banners, and also that in choosing which articles to target for possible new banners, he has no intention of trying to distinguish between similarly randomly chosen banners and those created by editors familiar with the destination. Instead, given his previous remarks on the subject combined with the lack of any other explanation of what makes his banners better than the ones they seek to replace, it's to be assumed that he presumes his own banners superior solely because of his self-proclaimed expertise in photo editing, which even if true, is akin to someone saying "I type 70 words per minute, therefore I'm a great writer."
  • ויקיג'אנקי openly claims to spend very little time on the creation of each banner, further suggesting a mechanized, assembly-line approach that is directly at odds with Wikivoyage's goal of providing information that is creative and distinctive.
  • On several occasions, ויקיג'אנקי has been known to put his suggested banner changes into effect prematurely, disregarding consensus.
  • ויקיג'אנקי has stonewalled many, many previous attempts by community members to get through to him in a calmer and friendlier way with their concerns that his efforts to systematically replace others' content with his own for no good reason come off as extremely pushy, and that if he enjoys creating pagebanners he'd be better off addressing the many articles that lack any.
  • Lastly - and this is the most important part, and the part that his defenders always inexplicably fail to address - when it became necessary to escalate the situation and ויקיג'אנקי was finally confronted about his uncooperative conduct, he made it known in no uncertain terms that he intended to continue disregarding the community's opinion and making unnecessary new pagebanner suggestions. (Incidentally, how anyone could fail to read incivility in a comment like "I will be [continuing to do this] whether you like it or not" boggles my mind). Let it be emphasized, as well, that that statement was never retracted.
ויקיג'אנקי has made, and continues to make, valuable contributions to Wikivoyage. I think I can safely speak for all of us in saying that I'd like to see that continue. But his "my way or the highway" attitude about pagebanners has no place on a collaborative project like ours, and that particular part of his conduct needs to change. I would have thought we'd learned our lesson from the Alice/Frank/118 debacle that issue-forcing and failure to "let it go" constitute incivility, which is something that's not to be excused from anyone in our community, regardless of how productive a contributor they are. In my mind, that's the greater issue here: the blatant disregard for the opinions of others, not being too hung up on pagebanners.
Lastly, I'd like to address the question WhatamIdoing posed, "If you replace something, will you explain your "actual rationale behind each individual replacement" for everything that you replace?", which presupposes that all content on Wikivoyage is created equal. Not so. Things like pagebanners, which serve as a visual introduction to the article for the reader, absolutely should come under more scrutiny than, say, a copyedit to correct a typo - for the same reason that a wiki might restrict editing privileges to their Main Page or some other high-traffic page. Again, ויקיג'אנקי is not being singled out here - I would absolutely hold anyone else in the community to the same standard, and I'd expect to be held to that standard by others as well.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, from what I've seen I'm going to defend WhatamIdoing and ויקיג'אנקי from what seems to me to be unwarranted incivility. The "I will be [continuing to do this] whether you like it or not" quote, which I think was inaccurately paraphrased, was in response to being harshly told that suggesting new banners was a "waste of time". Statements like "it's to be assumed that he presumes his own banners superior solely because of his self-proclaimed expertise in photo editing" or suggesting that the only motivation for suggesting new banners is because "he is under the interesting notion that he is a 'photoshop expert'" strike me as being unnecessarily insulting. Similarly, describing someone's comments as "silly missives about equality" is an assumption of bad faith towards another user.
EVERYONE involved in this discussion has the project's best interests in mind, and having dealt with all participants in other threads I can say that all are decent folks, but that's not how things are coming across in this discussion. Let's have a civil discussion about ways to more productively suggest collaboration between Hebrew Wikivoyage and English Wikivoyage, and about better ways to choose page banners, but let's please try very hard to ensure that the tone of that discussion is respectful and civil, otherwise it's very, very tough to come to any productive agreement. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I do apologise for using the word 'silly' in describing WhatamIdoing's comment. My own complete mistake in etiquette there.
As with all things on WV, I believe we can work collaboratively. Banners are difficult because we can only have one per article, and obviously there are concerns that previous good work can be replaced with something less compelling over a mere difference of vision, and therefore our practice of justification is worthwhile. An unrelated discussion recently on Montages shows that in terms of photographic taste regular WV users have a widely differing palette, and there is no reason not to accommodate them, whether they be vast landscapes or pictures of boots.
Also we should bear in mind that 65% of English Wikivoyage articles have no banner (around 16,000 articles) so there isn't exactly a shortage of articles to work on all together. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow such a long discussion! I am really sorry that my efforts, or maybe in some instances it's the way I chose to phrase myself in the discussions - aren't always perceived well amongst some core Engvoy users.

By the way, my username indeed means "WikiJunkie".

Regarding the banners... I always try my best to get them right, even if I haven't been to a certain location before (I am not the only prolific banner creator whom hasn't been to all the destinations of the banners they end up creating over time). Before making banners I always check the article on Wikivoyage+Wikipedia+check the photos available on flickr for that destination to determine what are the most prominent locations AND the most interesting locations in a specific destination (according to flickr) and the most photographed locations in a specific destination. The website also helps me a lot in finding good photos for banners. Sometimes this process + together with importing the photo from flickr to Wikicommons + and processing the photo in Photoshop, and uploading the derivative work to Commons, and adding the correct license text, can take about 30-40 minutes for each banner! (some times it might take even more time).

Nevertheless, although I invest a lot of time in finding good photos for banners of prominent locations, I still believe that the wisdom of crowds + wisdom of the locals might be a great help over time in making the best choices regarding each banner we'll choose (whether on Hebvoy, Engvoy or other Wikivoyage editions) as having a good discussion amongst as many people as possible help us choose the best banners more wisely (this is actually the reason that in my opinion, occasionally inviting the Engvoy community on the Travellers' pub to participate in discussions about a bunch of banners helps us eventually get a consensus which is based on many more opinions than what those discussions would otherwise get). I also believe that everyone's opinions are important in each discussion, even the opinions of the users whom have never been to a certain destination but believe that certain banners aren't working well for some very prominent destinations (for example banners with blurry unclear images used in the articles of major countries or cities, banners that zoom in on items that aren't unique to specific major countries or cities, or banners that show how awful a certain place is instead of trying to show the beautiful and unique spots that really appeal to the tourists whom are considering going to certain countries or a major cities, etc). These considerations, seem obvious to me and to the user Dekel E (whom is the current sole admin on Hebvoy), but I understand that in many times some users (here, on Hebvoy, or on other Wikivoyage editions) might have different opinions. In fact, it seems to me that the majority of users in the discussion pages on Engvoy usually tend to prefer banners that are colorful and artistic, although not necessarily of locations that have a major significance or are prominent tourist attractions (for example, a colorful picture of a flower, a boat, a sign, or a fish as the main banner of a major city/region/country seemingly might in many cases work better here because of this common taste among the majority of core users in your community (as of 2015), although those pictures might not always make sense to the actual Israeli tourists reading the Hebrew Wikivoyage articles, or the actual Russian tourists reading the Russian Wikivoyage articles, or the actual French tourists reading the French Wikivoyage articles, etc. And for this reason each Wikivoyage edition community eventually needs to take into account such considerations as well as the opinions of the locals, or the common taste of the Engvoy community, and decides for itself what banners they prefer be used for their own articles. Please try to understand that and respect that, although you might prefer that certain banners, which you have created or just banners which you really like, be used in all the other Wikivoyage editions as well.

Since early 2013 (almost three years!) I been mostly active on Hebvoy, where I have invested major efforts in creating a good foundation for Hebvoy to flourish over time. Since I am the user mostly active there, Hebvoy is still in early development stages (I'm doing the work of 20 users, in a period of time which takes x20 longer than what it would have take if Hebvoy actually had a community of 20 active users). Either way, at these early stages of Hebvoy, I have decided to focus a lot of my efforts in making sure that the majority of the Hebvoy articles have good banners (I believe that good banners help motivate and inspire many potential editors to participate in content development, in many times even more than mere text segments). I am not replacing all banners used on Hebvoy! only a small portion of the banners - usually banners of countries or major cities that in my opinion deserve better photos. We only have around 200-300 banners left to create on Hebvoy. Once I get all these banners created I will definitely move on to focus on the development of other specific things on Hebvoy. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the discussion, ויקיג'אנקי. Let's try and move forward. Above I suggested that perhaps you could post the alternative banners more as you create them, so one or two at a time, rather than a list you accumulate over a longer time. I'm not talking of rules; it's just a suggestion, as it seems that this would take away some of the main frustrations. With fewer page banner discussions going on at once, it's probably easier for you to give a brief explanation why you think the new banner is more appropriate (because yes, we would actually expect that from all users, for banners that are not obviously bad), and for others to explain why they agree or not. Can we persuade you to do that? :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As I just tried to explain above, the main reason for which I much rather prefer to invite the Engvoy community from the Travellers' pub to participate in several discussions held about a bunch of banners, is that this is the only way in which such discussions are held with many more users' opinions taken into account and that as a result the common perception among the broad Engvoy community is expressed in each such discussions (the so called "community consensus") instead of just the opinions of 1-2 users whom are very good with monitoring the recent changes. Although in the past, in order to not "overload" the Engvoy community with such discussions, I used to start such discussions only once a year, as I am currently making many more banners than before (as I am hoping to finish the creation of the last 200-300 new+alternative banners needed on Hebvoy sooner than later), I will make sure from now on that I start such discussions only once in every 3 to 12 months in order to not "overload" the Engvoy community with such discussions. In the certain cases, in which it isn't clear why a new banner works better, I will definitely try to briefly explain why in my opinion the suggested banner works better than the current one used. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Julias, technically, we don't require anyone to post alternative banners in advance. We only require that when the editor boldly replaces the banner, sans discussion, that the editor give some rationale (e.g., in an edit summary, but of course one could have longer discussions on the talk page). Also, there is no requirement that the rationale be something that other editors believe is important or even true. "Looks prettier to me" is an acceptable rationale under the existing guidance, and it completely fulfills the sole requirement we place on editors of page banners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of what the banner expedition states and I had no qualifications in mind for an explanation. I was just trying to be pragmatic in finding some common ground, allowing ויקיג'אנקי to just do what they do, but with less frustration for other users. To me personally, the letter of policy is mostly something we have to rely upon when we can't get there with common sense and collaboration. Just for the record though (if we're getting into detail), you're referring to the banner expedition, which is not an actual policy page. For major changes (and I suppose banners on high visibility pages would count as that), we usually have discussions on the talk page. However, I don't think this is even relevant here, since ויקיג'אנקי has always shown the courtesy of seeking discussion beforehand. Let's just move on, and see how it goes when fewer banners are proposed at once. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Template creation[edit]

How can one create a template? If it has to be discussed first, where? Skyllfully (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about Mediawiki templates (see also the global help page) or our Wikivoyage:Article templates? For the first the answer would be no, but it would have to gain consensus to be widely implemented. For the second, the answer is probably yes, as that's a pretty established set for us ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If you wish to create a 'MediaWiki' template, as in what most other wikis refer to simply as 'templates', then you can propose it here or possibly on the talk page of Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates. However, if it's a fairly minor template, you may wish to create it, add Template:experimental, implement it on 1-2 low-traffic articles and then seek the opinions of other users through a thread on the template's talk page about whether it's warranted. The reason we have such stringent guidelines is because we want to keep the coding of the wiki simple, and also because most templates that are necessitated have already generally been created. James Atalk 07:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Our policy regarding "escape games"[edit]

"Escape games" have been recently added to the article on Prague. I wanted to revert said edit until I found another such thing already listed. What does policy currently say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that these were added before, but had no travel relevance and were therefore removed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
So we should remove them on sight? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It's been (re-?)added to the Prague guide. Why does it have no travel relevance? I guess because you could in theory play it anywhere? But in practice, is that true? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see how an escape room is different from a tennis court, amusement park, petting zoo, cinema, casino or art gallery. All of those are Do-listings you could do virtually everywhere, but can be found in WV:Wycsi. They're there because travellers may want not want to fill their days with sightseeing alone, especially on extended stays. It's just a fun thing to do and this particular one allows couples too (so not only groups). Of course, most of those listings in Prague (including the escape game) should be in the relevant district articles though. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and it should also be detouted. But I agree with you. I don't see why this can't be listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to list them (& I see no reason why not if they're an activity some travellers will be interested in), then a brief explanation is needed. I for one have no idea what they are. Pashley (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should keep them. I've heard about this activity or something similar, it's like a real-life video game where you need to go through a labyrinth and at waypoints find hidden keys, hidden codes and such to get forward. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
See Real-life room escape. I'm surprised that it's not as well-known as I thought. Here, those things are popping up in every major city, and are rapidly gaining popularity. Actually, it's usually just a room (no labyrinths or such), and participants need to use their critical thinking skills to solve a variety of puzzles and use hints and artefacts in the room to get to the key. I find them quite entertaining, especially with a small group. But a bit of an explanation in the listings might be good then. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't remove the earlier listing. Just from memory I observed someone else doing the same.
I would just point to policy Wikivoyage:Listings#Relevance_to_travel and say that this one is pretty borderline for me Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
We would not list a tennis court, except for a countryside resort village where there are absolutely no activities besides walking around and playing tennis. For any big city, I am quite sure there are many activities that should have priority over escape games, treasure hunts and pub crawl meetups. Syced (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
So as - as far as I understand - those escape games take place mostly in bigger cities (where they should be listed in districts anyhow) and they (as is true for tennis courts) should only be listed in places where there is little to do as they are already marginal to our guides, doesn't that in essence result in a near-total ban with very few exceptions? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
No, and I really don't understand why you would even think of a ban :-) Firstly, although big cities obviously hold most of these things there are also many of them in smaller towns and the number is rapidly increasing. Of course we don't want to list every escape room in every city, like we don't list every casino or every art gallery or every hotel. Every article we make should offer a varied range of things to do, and that means some executive choices for the involved editors. While city centres and tourist districts of huge destinations are often fairly packed, outer districts of towns are often considerably less filled with attractions. The super extensive Buffalo districts that AndreCarrotflower has put so much effort into spring to my mind. It seems that if we can list dozens of places to worship and multiple bowling allies in a district, it makes perfect sense to also list an escape room if and when it comes available. In any case, I think we should treat this activity simply the same as all the others, and decide per article what's relevant enough to list and what's not. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, if this is (still) a rather "exotic" activity (is it?), something you cannot do everywhere, it certainly should be among the activities listed in Do. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it should not be listed in the main article for Prague but rather in one of the districts. If we agree to list it at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think we agreed on that already. At first glance however, I was not finding it very easy to determine for sure which Wikivoyage district they're in. The first address is Korenskeho 3, Praha 5; that would be Prague/West_bank_of_Vltava, right? The second is Blanická 9, Praha 2. Is that Prague/New_Town_and_Vysehrad? JuliasTravels (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Escape games sound like a great addition when they are unique and famous beyond the city/district and it is something visitors would enjoy participating in. It can't be any worse than the hundreds of burger/curry/pizza shops or any other local restaurant that serves the same food as anywhere in a globalized world or the hundreds of pubs/bars that serve the same beer and smell the same as every other bar in the world yet we still list. Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Message to a range of IP addresses[edit]

Is there a way to send a message to a range of IP addresses when someone edits with it? Over the last few months there has been pages added containing only a little introduction text from Wikipedia. For example recently Bullyard, Degilbo, Vogan, Volegno and Viseisei. Nothing wrong with the content but would like to ask the contributor to add a little more details such as see, sleep and eat listings. Do not want to discourage a new writer but guide them in the right direction. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such feature. Only feature to alert IP range is block the ranges in CIDR format with the comments. — Revi 09:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I did think about blocking ip range but seemed a little drastic. It is not that the contributor is doing anything wrong, just they are not been very constructive. Although coming from the same sub-domain they are constantly changing IP so no point in leaving messages against addresses already used. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#Telstra vandal; I'm pretty sure these were all created by the same user. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The ToC looks weird on some articles[edit]

Earlier today I noticed there was something wrong with the table of contents in an article, instead of the headings, the ToC read just "1". It was very confusing, firstly there was nothing odd with the pagebanner tag in that article, secondly I couldn't find any other "funny" things in the page's wikicode, and thirdly: as I saw the problem on just this one article I was sure it was something local.

However now I've run into two other articles with the same issue; Aracati and Mossoró. But, on the other hand, I've looked at many other articles today, which have entirely normally looking and working ToCs. What is wrong?

Ps. are there any plans to return the map icon back above the banner? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Save the page without an edit appears to fix the problem. Question is how do we find such pages? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that seems to return the ToC to normal. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Three questions[edit]

  1. Based on your experience, what are the most recommended web sites which allows you to see what the most recommended hotels in specific major cities around the globe (or in other prominent areas) based solely on costumer ratings + reviews? (I am looking only for the most prominent websites that present this information for all/many countries around the globe, and not websites that just present this information for one or a few countries).
  2. Based on your experience, what are the most recommended web sites which allows you to see what the most recommended restaurants in major cities around the globe (or in other prominent areas) based solely on costumer ratings + reviews? (I am looking only for the most prominent websites that present this information for all/many countries around the globe, and not websites that just present this information for one or a few countries).
  3. Are users of these types of websites really capable of relying on the information presented on these websites? What I mean is... how can one know if a high rating + a lot of positive reviews about the business isn't just fed in on a regular basis by the businesses themselves? or, if a low rating + a lot of negative reviews about the business isn't just fed by the competitors of that specific businesses.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Great question. I used to rely on Tabelog until I learnt that they are actually taking money from restaurants, those who don't pay are not included in the rankings. Does our second favorite foe TripAdvisor have a similarly "corrupted" business model? Syced (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I read TripAdvisor and Yelp, but you have to take an overall view of the reviews rather than take one or two as a true representation. Even ones that are from legitimate visitors are biased by that persons perspective and often by their specific experience one that day that may not be typical. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well TripAdvisor is the only real option in my opinion. Just wondering, considering you've posted this in the pub and not the Tourist office, are you planning on using these websites as a source for our guides? James Atalk 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides Wikivoyage of course, I use TripAdvisor as a first choice and Yelp as a second choice. And for the record, I have frequently used both as a source for my writing on Buffalo and other articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)