Template talk:Warningbox

Alert image

Just double-checking that this image really is licensed as ccbysa... Narya, did you create this image yourself, or can you provide a link to the source? Thank you! – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 12:53, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

It's on Wikipedia as dual-licensed GFDL/CC by-sa: (WT-en) Jpatokal 17:19, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

funky layout

I removed a <br> tag today, on country articles it was forcing the intro text below the quickbar when this template was used (or at least on Somalia it was). If I'm missing something and this was necessary for something else, let me know – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 18:42, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Out-of-date Warningboxes

Swept in from the pub

Is it possible to get a list of all pages with warningboxes? It would be really helpful in keeping them up-to date. I found a couple that were several months past the time when they mattered. If not, maybe someone could create a bot to do this? (WT-en) AHeneen 21:15, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

I think you're looking for Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Warningbox. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:32, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Thank You! (WT-en) AHeneen 02:07, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

I've gone through all of the links to edit, move, remove, or turn them into something else. The only one I didn't know what to do with was Bangkok/Khao San Road. Could someone familiar with the region please do something appropriate with the two unsightly warning boxes at the end? (WT-en) AHeneen 15:08, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Warning boxes

swept in from pub: [[Image:Iraqchrome.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Screenshot of Iraq in Chrome]] [[Image:IraqIE8.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Screenshot of same Iraq page in IE8]] I am asking this here as I can't think where else is appropriate. Can all users please not place warning boxes at the top of a country article, and when you see one there please move it. It completely messes up the page layout in IE, leaving huge amounts of white space in the article. The best alternative place for warnings about travel to a country are the Get in section. IE's market share is dropping (unsuprisingly), but it still accounts for some 60% of all page loads in the world, so we must take this into account. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:29, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Can you give an example? The box ought to be able to be coded to avoid any such layout issues. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:29, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Iraq and Niger. Huge whitespace at the top in IE, fine in Chrome and Firefox. As I see these problems I move the box. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:53, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

Both look fine to me in IE 8. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:54, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Then I guess your IE8 is different to mine (see right).

When I use IE8, I see the same as LtPowers. However, when I use the IE Tab Classic plugin of Google Chrome, I get the same result as Burmesedays. Weird. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 09:53, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

You get no whitespace in IE8? That is wierd. I tried IE on four different office machines today and at home, all with the same ugly result. I almost never use IE to be honest as it just isn't very good, but figured this must be a widespread problem. There are no issues at all with Chrome, Firefox or Safari.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:58, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

I have the same result as LtPowers and so far no issues with IE8. Only when guys try to highlight phone number with this skype tag it gets pretty messy... (WT-en) jan 14:06, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

I think I might have isolated the issue. With IE8 in Windows XP, there is a white space problem. IE8 in Windows 7, no such problem. I would be grateful if another user could confirm that. If that is the case, then my request stands as we cannot limit pages to look correct in Windows 7 only.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:03, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Nope, I'm running XP. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:17, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

Damn!. In which case, it remains a most mysterious problem.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:49, 23 March 2010 (EDT)

I see the problem from time to time using Firefox 3.5 in XP, but it doesn't occur every time there is a warningbox. Keep in mind that the screenshot is copyrighted (the IE interface is actually what's copyrighted) and should not be uploaded to Wikivoyage...delete it soon. (WT-en) AHeneen 03:07, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Overuse of warningboxes

The current guideline for warning boxes is that they are for "non-obvious dangers to life and limb", and several examples are provided on the template page for when they should be used. We currently seem to be vastly overusing this template - warnings about minors not being able to book hotels in Vegas is just one of many examples that don't follow the guidance provided.

It would be helpful if editors could review existing uses of this template and trim those that are excessive, but I'm also wondering if we need another template for things like Walt Disney World#Ride safety - ride safety at Disney World is clearly not a "non-obvious danger to life and limb" (there are warnings at every ride, and operators won't let you on if you don't meet height restrictions) but it might still be helpful to have something like an alert box to call out items that are important and worth highlighting, but not life-threatening. Such a template should also be less eye-catching (along the lines of Template:Disclaimerbox), as the current warningbox is meant to grab attention immediately. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 06:47, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

Template:Infobox should cover most of those situations, certainly for local quirks like Vegas hotel booking. I think there's probably room for an intermediate step between the two, for urgent but non-life-threatening information — perhaps a Template:Cautionbox, with a yellow diamond icon — but I'm not sure how useful it would be for short-term events like those from Travel news. As your cleanup of the warningboxes makes clear, we're not always good at removing "temporary" warnings! — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 13:32, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

It looks like people are using Template:Warningbox and Template:Disclaimerbox when they want a full-page-width box to call out interesting or important information, such as in the Walt Disney World#Ride safety case. Template:Infobox is meant for this type of info, but it aligns to the right, so it might be worthwhile creating one more template that is more general and less eye-catching than the warning box, and not meant for editorial messages like the disclaimer box, to support this use case. Does anyone know if Wikipedia has already created anything similar? It might help to avoid confusion if we follow their lead. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:44, 23 October 2010 (EDT)

I previously raised a similar concern at Template talk:Disclaimerbox. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:24, 3 March 2011 (EST)

State Department Travel Warning Template

A discuss at Talk:Uzbekistan#Warning box has me wondering if it makes sense to create a new template specifically for State Department travel warnings ("Template:StateDeptWarning"?). We frequently get contributions from people adding such warnings using the warning box template, but in many cases that seems extreme. For example, there is currently a State Department warning about travel to Mexico, despite the fact that it's only a handful of northern states that are of particular concern. I'm thinking that a new template would have the following advantage:

If could be made less prominent than the current template, which is very in-your-face.
It could link to the specific warning at the State Department web site, providing more information for those who want it and also providing a way for those without local knowledge to quickly determine if the warning has passed and can be removed.
It could be limited to inclusion in the "Stay safe" section of articles.
It would (hopefully) deter more edits like this one, which seem overly alarmist, look terrible, and (IMHO) detract from the article's credibility.

Thoughts? Barring objection I'd like to try putting something together for further consideration. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:18, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

For reference, the list of current State Department travel advisories can be found at http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not a bad idea, but I wonder why we should favor the U.S. State Dept's warnings over other nations'. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:04, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Is there any particular source you have in mind? As an American I'm obviously more familiar with the US travel warnings, but if there's a better source, or other relevant sources, then there's no reason why they couldn't be used. The only limiting criteria that I would suggest is that any source we use should have warnings that aren't overly broad and that are removed when no longer relevant. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:30, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

I don't know any specifics; I just assume that other countries issue travel advisories for their own citizens, just as the U.S. does for theirs. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:29, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

I can't say whose advisories are best, but various foreign ministries put them out. Just looking at some English-speaking countries, here are links to advisories from the British, Canadian, Australian, and Kiwi governments:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/

http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/updates_mise-a-jour-eng.asp

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/

http://www.safetravel.govt.nz/

(WT-en) Ikan Kekek 12:09, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Rather than creating a new template, I think it'd be best just to take it case-by-case. I don't think there's any rule that states that a warningbox cannot be placed in the "Stay Safe" section of the country article, so in cases similar to your Mexico example, it might be better to put it down there so that dangerous areas can be pinpointed but the entire nation is not given the Beware Scare that you feel when it's at the top. An example of a regional issue that does deserve to be at the top of the country article would be Japan. With all the media coverage and the general public's lack of knowledge regarding the size of the country and how nuclear radiation works, it was/is useful to have info about it displayed prominantly at the top. If we use the Japanese advisory as our standard, we can just put a travel warning on every nation's page (except Japan)! haha (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 12:43, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Apologies to (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus, I was in the process of creating the template when the new comment was added - for discussion purposes it can be viewed at Mexico#Stay safe. I agree that the warning box should continue to be used for its original intent: "non-obvious dangers to life and limb". My thought with this new template is that it provides a way of presenting official government warnings without beating users across the head with them, and also offers fields to force users to include a source and issue date. If there isn't agreement that the new template is beneficial then I wouldn't oppose deletion, but I do feel that it serves a purpose and provides a good alternative to some questionable warnings such as the current box on Uzbekistan#Stay safe. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:37, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

It's not so much a question of "is it useful" but rather "which country's advisories do we post?" All of them? The box you put up, for example, simply says "a travel advisory has been issued" without saying who issued it and to whom it applies. (Obviously, in this case, it applies to anyone even though the U.S. issued the advisory, but many of the State Department's recommendations are specific to American citizens.) (WT-en) LtPowers 22:46, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

I would say that any country's travel advisory that has a significant warning should be either posted or summarized. It should be noted who the travel advisory is from, though. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 14:28, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

The goal with this template was basically to provide a standardized way of handling the seemingly good-faith edits from people who (in the past) have noted that there are warnings from foreign governments about a certain destination. Obviously it would be best if these warnings were broadly applicable, and in such cases I would suspect that multiple governments would issue the same warnings which is why I kept the summary of the Mexico example generic, but linked to the US State Department warning for those who wanted more detail. However, if people think it makes sense to state which agency issued the linked warning explicitly then that's completely doable and the template instructions can be updated to note as much. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:39, 22 May 2011 (EDT)

*bump* It sounds as if there may be a couple of outstanding concerns (which country's warnings to use and whether to use a separate template at all) so additional comment would be appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:10, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

I'd like to try replacing a few more warning boxes with this new template (notably Uzbekistan#Stay safe, Algeria, Bahrain, Chad and several others that show up from Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Warningbox), but since there were some reservations expressed above it would be good to get some further comment before doing so... so, any further comment? Objections? Suggestions? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:05, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

Warning Boxes

Moved here from traveller's pub

I see warning boxes pop up on many articles prematurly, usually by people who have never been to the country in question and may make blanket assumptions such as "there are protests in some parts of the Middle East, so every country in the Middle East needs a warning box"

This turns into edit wars, and since the number one rule of wikivoyage is that the traveller comes first, I think maybe there should be a medium level warning box. Maybe... a yellow "caution" box or something like that.

It doesn't seem right that "Warning there is a war in this country and you are likely to be shot if you go here" should be the same magnitude as "There are some protests in neigbouring countries, this country is currently safe, but be sure to moniter events closely in case of change"

Just my $0.02. Would something like that be possible? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Kayla (talk • contribs)

This issue was raised previously at Template talk:Warningbox#Overuse of warningboxes but did not elicit many responses. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:07, 2 March 2011 (EST)

I'm trying to plan a trip to the Middle East, and I'm finding it really hard to decide which countries are "relatively safe" and which are "warzones" when any country in the Middle East is apparently being given arbitrary warning boxes. I know for a fact that Oman is fairly safe, but for others I don't know enough about them to remove the warning boxes. Warning boxes feel like they are saying "absolutely do not go here unless you want to die" but maybe only I read them that way... (WT-en) Kayla 14:27, 4 March 2011 (EST)

This seems to be a problem with a wiki-based travel guide - it's not always possible to know how credible an editor is, and anytime something is in the news then lots of people without first-hand knowledge tend to plaster warnings across the site. While we don't use citations on Wikivoyage, warning boxes might be a place where they would make sense. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:51, 4 March 2011 (EST)

Agreed provided personal experience is allowed as a reference. Signed personal experience. With a username, not an ISP number. (a real name would also be OK as long as it is verifiable). Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 00:21, 6 March 2011 (EST)

That's not a road I want to go down. We don't cite anything else in our guides; why would we cite warning boxes? (WT-en) LtPowers 15:22, 6 March 2011 (EST)

This discussion should probably be moved to Template talk:Warningbox, but since the purpose of a warning box is to warn travelers against a "non-obvious danger to life and limb" it seems reasonable to at least provide an additional level of reassurance as to whether or not a traveler's life really would be in danger when visiting a place, or if someone merely read an article on CNN and slapped a warning on ten different articles. Additionally, it would make these boxes easier to remove since editors could simply check the link provided to see if the danger has ended. Also note that I wouldn't propose that warning boxes without a citation should be removed, merely that using citations as an additional resource with warning boxes might be helpful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:58, 6 March 2011 (EST)

A thought. Warnings should dates for specific dangerous events to act as a type of expiry date so that the traveler can decide if the danger has passed. Something like "On 13/03/11 there was street fighting in district X". Violent protests tend to be short lived, as are natural disasters, so the warning may not be relevant by the time the traveler gets there. On going dangers are best included in the main text. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:25, 12 March 2011 (EST)

Category:Warnings

Swept in from the pub.

An IP user has created Category:Warnings and added it to Template:Warningbox so that all articles with warnings are categorized therein. I'm not sure how useful this category is, though, as "What links here" works almost as well, and we don't usually use categories for anything but article status. Thoughts? (WT-en) LtPowers 10:55, 30 November 2011 (EST)

I actually deleted that with the request that it first be discussed (per Project:Categories) as I was concerned about having so many articles show up in a "warning" category. I'm not excited about using a category for this, but wouldn't be opposed if others are in favor. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:05, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Review Dates

Occasionally, I'll come across a warningbox that refers to a short-term danger (natural disaster, violence, conflict, etc.) that has long since passed and no longer is a danger. It would be really great if there were a way to include a date in the template to review the status of the warning. There could then be a new page that has a table listing all warning boxes on WT and the date added and a review date. This would provide an easy way to keep track of these warning boxes (there's pages that link to... but that's a long list to review). Now myself, when adding a warning box, I'll always include the date in some way like "In July 2012, there was a coup in Country Y and the military leaders have suspended the constitution...blah blah". Of course, the date should be added but in a lot of cases isn't. Even when the date is listed, dangers from some events may last for a long time (like a city/region devastated by an earthquake and still with minimal basic services 9 months later...such as Port-au-Prince after the 2010 quake or Aceh after the 2004 tsunami) while others may only last a week or two (protests, violence). Examples:

{{warningbox|Date Added/Updated/Reviewed|Review Date|Warning}}
{{warningbox|July 2012|July 2013|Travelling in Afghanistan is extremely dangerous, and independent travel/sightseeing is emphatically warned against...blah blah}} Not really going to change soon, so 1 year. Just month would be ok.
{{warningbox|July 2012|October 2012|Travel to Syria is strongly not advised due to a state of severe political crisis.}} Given the uncertainty of what will happen in Syria, 3 months seems appropriate.
{{warningbox|11 July 2012|25 July 2012|Protests over disputed election results has been ongoing since the results were announced July 8. Visitors should avoid travel to Country X for the time being; but if it's necessary, consult the advice of your embassy and avoid large gathering.}} Protests are a short-term issue, so 2 weeks is a good time for a review date.

With the proposed "review date" added to the template and page to keep track of warningboxes, a user can go to that page and see that the review date has arrived and go to the destination's page, read the warningbox, and (if they know about the situation) update it or remove it. This offers an easy way to keep track of and eliminate outdated warningboxes. The maximum time until a review date should be 1 year for dangers that aren't likely to go away soon (like drawn-out conflicts/rebels in Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, CAR, DRC, etc.)...but the info in the warning could change in a year's time. Other events like a recent coup or natural disaster would have a review date of, say, 1 month or less. Non-destination pages would be exempt (Tornado safety, War zone safety, user pages, etc.). The page listing all the warningboxes would look like:

Page......Date added/updated/kept after review......Review date

Afghanistan......July 2012......July 2013
Syria......July 2012......October 2012
Country X......11 July 2012......25 July 2012
Tornado safety
War Zone safety

There would be options to sort the columns be ascending/descending alphabetically or by date (with ones that have a day specified coming after those without...August 2012, August 2012, 1 August 2012, 15 August 2012). Basically, like the tables on Wikipedia such as this one.

Since some of the technical/software side of this isn't really possible without changes to MediaWiki (I think? I'm not IT-savy), I am going to post this request at Wikivoyage Shared Travelers Pub where a request has been made for new features.(Done: here) (WT-en) AHeneen 02:25, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

A mighty fine idea, I'd say.(WT-en) texugo 10:42, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

I don't think any technical changes are necessary. A category (Category:Pages with expired warning boxes or similar) would suffice for the small number involved. The category can be added to the template conditionally based on comparing the current date with the "Review date". (WT-en) LtPowers 10:53, 11 July 2012 (EDT)

Government travel advice

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

While content should be added here and not linked to, I'd like to propose adding a template to "Stay safe" on country pages that has links to information provided by foreign affairs departments for their citizens, such as the U.S. State Dept.'s Country Specific Information and similar info from English-speaking (this being the English WV) from the UK, Canada, Aust., Canada, NZ, and maybe S.A. and India. The template would resemble the infobox and say something like: "The following governments publish have published country-specific information for their nationals visiting [country] (and a few regions, like Antarctica), providing an overview of issues like safety, health, and entry/exit requirements." Followed by a list of links identified by country name/abbreviation (eg. "U.S.", "U.K.", "Canada", "Australia", etc.). When a government has issued a w:travel warning (any besides U.S.?) for a country, it would follow in parentheses. The wording of all this needs tweaked and maybe there should be a graphic to highlight the travel warning?

The idea stems from Template talk:Warningbox#State Department Travel Warning Template. I also would like to renew an old discussion about review dates on Warningboxes, so that outdated warningboxes get reviewed & removed/updated (follow the link to discuss). AHeneen (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why do you want to make it look so similar to the infobox? LtPowers (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I strongly object to the idea that we cater to nationals from English-speaking nations. Many people from non-English speaking countries heavily rely on English-language websites, especially sites like this one where their own language alternatives don't make for proper substitutes. For travellers, this is true even more than for most other groups. I'm at least surprised, perhaps even a tiny bit offended, that you'd be willing to set the involvement of millions of potential users and at least several regulars here aside so.. self-evidently. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is catering to English-speaking nations, it is more about gathering information from English speaking sites - this info can be used by all.

As for putting this in every country guide, it is certainly a large amount of real estate for links. Sidebar maybe? Quickbar? --Inas (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd concur with both of the above - Spanish language sites wouldn't be too helpful here. The box is a little big... --Rs chen 7754 00:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The main objection that I would raise to this is that I think the information offered by these government agencies is usually way off base. They are ultraconservative in recommending that their nationals go anywhere. --Peter ^Talk 01:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Peterfitzgerald's right on this one - although the official stance of the jurisdiction that issued your travel insurance policy can be very relevant if you need to claim. -- Alice^✉ 01:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but some people do look for that sort of information, or official travel warnings / recommendations to evacuate. --Rs chen 7754 02:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps when we do decide to place a warningbox, then we add these links as part of it? I agree with Peter that these warning are mainly OTT, but I also agree with AHeneen that when we take on the role of warning users of danger, that should accept some responsibility for being well sourced and provide links to "official" information. --Inas (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about this idea a while back. I don't think a template for every country is necessary, but rather a new addition to Template:Warningbox (which appears to have been redesigned a few hours ago?). At the bottom of the template could be a link to official info about the country/region. Then it's kind of like were are "verifying" our claims. I'll try and work on an experimental template. JamesA ^>talk 05:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

To answer a few concerns: 1) by looking like an infobox, I meant that it's location on the right side (as opposed to a disclaimer/warning/cautionbox that spans the width of the page. It can certainly be colored different or made a narrower width. 2) Using just English info is acceptable because this is the English Wikivoyage and it wouldn't be very practical to have 20 links to such advice in 12 languages. 3) The U.S. is especially conservative when providing advice, but there's still plenty of relevant info and the advice provided may be more up-to-date than WV or touch on issues not mentioned on WV. 4)These websites don't just cover safety info, but also topics like entry/exit requirements...so they'd be useful at all times, not just when there is a danger that requires a warningbox. 5) This could be added to the quickbar, provided there is a simple/visually appealing way of inserting the multiple links and identifying them ("Travel advice: [U.S.], [U.K.], [Australia],..."??). AHeneen (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

	WARNING: Except for stable Somaliland, Somalia is currently a war zone—quite possibly the most dangerous country in the world to visit—and remains extremely dangerous for independent travel or sightseeing...
	Government travel advisories: Australia • Canada • New Zealand • United Kingdom • United States

Above is a quick draft of what an addition to the current Travelwarning template could look like. Along with the mentioned ones, I have also added India and South Africa, but struggled to find any advisories from those countries on the web. The opportunities to add more countries like China/Spain/France are of course open. JamesA ^>talk 05:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's a lot of empty space. It's a bit of a misnomer to use the term "travel warning", since the links are actually travel advice/info from the governments, despite touching on security/safety. The State Department's actual travel warning for Somalia is here. AHeneen (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The empty space is simply because I did not fill in the template properly. See User:JamesA/Sandbox for what the actual Somalia travel warning would look like. I've also changed the template to say "Travel advisories". JamesA ^>talk 06:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That looks good too me. Is certainly seems like a starting point that is easy to agree on, and we can work from there. --Inas (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

There should likely be a date stamp to categorise any reprints of warnings; Fukushima (prefecture) still has "Travellers should be aware, however, that aftershocks continue and train schedules may be disrupted." at the end of the 2011 'quake and nuclear evacuation info. How much of that text still applies, and how much is outdated? K7L (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the OP, there is a link to a discussion about adding "review dates" on warningboxes: Template_talk:Warningbox#Review_Dates. There's a decent proposal, so it might be better to continue discussion of dating warnings there. AHeneen (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there anyone who is not okay with my adaptation of AHeneen's proposal? That is, the addition of new parameters in the Warningbox template for each country's govt advice. If everyone's fine, I will go ahead and implement in a few days, updating the documentation at the same time. JamesA ^>talk 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What did you decide to do about adding "review dates"? Did you add that parameter, James-- Alice^✉ 07:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)?

That's a separate discussion to this: Template_talk:Warningbox#Review_Dates. I'll comment on that after this discussion ends and propose its implementation separately. JamesA ^>talk 07:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Travel advisories

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Since travel advisories are generally only issued for countries, not for individual cities, towns, etc. (example), it doesn't make sense to have an empty "Government travel advisories:" in the template. Maybe we could make that a parameter instead? --Peter ^Talk 06:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Should clearly be optional. --Inas (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the travel advisories are optional now, assuming I've gotten the conditional correct. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Emergencies and Disasters

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

As a result of the ongoing emergency in Boston, I put a very basic warning box to travellers at the top, advising people to 'follow the instructions of local law-enforcement agents and refer to local news organisations for updates'. I couldn't find any WV policy for events like this, so any thoughts as to whether or not this is the right thing to do would be welcome. Please also feel free to remove the banner from that page. --Nick (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good call. I don't know of a specific policy regarding usage of the banner, I think it depends more on a case-by-case basis. I'd say in this event usage of the banner is perfectly justified. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there are any specific guidelines beyond what's on Template:Warningbox, but I don't like updating our articles for events like this one since the impact from the event is limited to a day or less. If there's an earthquake or a natural disaster that will affect the area for weeks or months then a warning box provides a way of noting where and what is impacted, but for a general news event someone in the location will be getting more information than our guides provide, and someone visiting the location at a later date won't be affected by today's news. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agreed with Ryan. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you're right Ryan - it is a bit optimistic/foolhardy to think that WV would be people first source of information at a time like this. I also meant as a sort of disclaimer I suppose for the article's content, but as stated above, I'm more than happy to remove it. --Nick (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If the explosions occurred in a major tourist area (I'm not familiar with the marathon route), then the disruption may be ongoing for a week or two. Otherwise, I agree that a temporal event like this, however tragic, is probably not worth the warningbox. LtPowers (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, Boylston Street is definitely a tourist area (Fenway Park and Boston Common are each a stone's throw away), and according to news reports, 15 blocks surrounding the blast site have been cordoned off and will be closed until further notice. Methinks LtPowers' caveat may indeed apply to this situation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If the warning box is for something specific ("15 blocks around the area including Fenway and Boston Commons are cordoned off") and is put into the relevant district article or sub-section then that's information that may be of some value if the disruption is going to last for a while. However, a warning that simply states "The area described in this article is the location of an ongoing emergency" is Obvious, is irrelevant to the vast majority of the city, and doesn't sit well with me since it seems to be there solely for the sake of making our guides seem in some way relevant to a very sad event. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it. If anyone wishes to put it back or to replace it with a more nuanced version please feel free to do so. --Nick (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ryan that it doesn't make sense for a travel guide to issue warnings about short term safety issues (aside from our travel news section, which is dormant now). All the more reason, of course, to start linking to Wikinews categories in the sidebar from individual articles! --Peter ^Talk 02:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would largely have to agree with Ryan - a more specific note at the appropriate section may be helpful, but a generic message at the top makes it sound like the city is under martial law or something. --Rs chen 7754 04:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's usually best not to overuse these boxes. If Somalia is lawless chaos and Afghanistan has been turned into a war zone, say so, but we tend to get info like "Joplin was hit by a tornado in 2011" still left on articles years later even after it's no longer particularly useful to the traveller. A note on one section which contains listings for venues temporarily closed because of a disaster is reasonable if it's removed as soon as the venue either re-opens or the listing is removed. K7L (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am indifferent on the use of the box in this particular case, but it would be super easy to have the box template add the article to a hidden category so it is easier for us to keep tabs on the ones that need to be removed after some time has passed. Texugo (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

For another example where a box was probably around far too long, see Talk:Karakoram Highway. I think the potential problem is worse for less-visited places and less-edited articles. Pashley (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I proposed adding "review dates" to the warningbox template here with the issue of outdated warningboxes on less-edited articles. However, often times a warningbox for an event or disaster should be converted to a cautionbox or disclaimerbox rather than completely removed from the article. If a large earthquake causes a lot of damage in a town, a warningbox about the earthquake (stating things like water/power services are not working, businesses are closed, etc) may not be needed a couple months later, but consequences of the event may still be relevant to travelers and may need to be highlighted. For the earthquake example, this may entail converting to a cautionbox, moving to the "Stay safe" section, and saying something like "Many structures in the town have been damaged by a Jan 2013 earthquake. Water has not been restored to the entire city. Shelters for those displaced in the earthquake are concentrated in the northeast and after dusk are rife with pickpockets. Businesses, attractions, and activities listed in this guide may be temporarily closed for repairs or may even have been destroyed." AHeneen (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Irish travel warning to Syria

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

Hello. Could someone add a parameter for Ireland notices to the template, along the same lines as the existing ones? I would like to add to Syria. Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

ie Parameter added. --Saqib (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Warning boxes

Latest comment: 9 years ago26 comments12 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

I suppose we aimed to provide practical travel advisory to travellers rather than offering same tradional common travel advisories issues by governments which I always found very negative. I was going through Middle Eastern country guides and I found a big warning box on Egypt guide. While certainly Egypt is currently going through some difficult time but I think the affected areas is not whole country but few regions. In this manner, we should had placed warning box in those affected region articles rather than in the country article itself and perhaps a CAUTION box could had been inserted instead of that warning box in the country guide. Now, I'm seeing government travel advisories less negative for Egypt because Canada travel advisory says for Egypt that "Avoid non-essential travel (with regional advisories)". But yes for some countries , they issue severe statemens like "Avoid non-essential travel", more severe like "Avoid all travel (with regional advisories)" for some countries including Iraq, and very severe "Avoid all travel" for some countries including Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia. While Australia travel advisory says for Egypt that "Reconsider your need to travel". I assume our warning box is giving the impression "Avoid all travel" to Egypt. Same is the case with Pakistan for which both of the states (Canada and Australia) says "Reconsider your need to travel" and "Avoid non-essential travel (with regional advisories)", respectively. Australia government says same "Reconsider your need to travel" for some countries like Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, but I fail to see warning box in their country guides. For Pakistan, most of the advistory says avoid travelling to some particular areas bordering Afghanistan and Iran so I think warning box should be placed in those regional articles and the warning box in Pakistan article can be instead replaced by a caution box. Others opinion please. --Saqib (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

One of my country's citizens is languishing in an Egyptian jail because he is an agent of dreaded terrorist organisation Al-Jazeera. The situation on the ground is martial law, even though the US diplomats are carefully not uttering the word "coup" to describe what has happened as that would require they act to impose sanctions. A warning box on Egypt is justified under the circumstances.

Certainly, we do need to improve our handling of warning boxes. Often, they're placed on articles with no date stamp (I had to do a bit of digging to find from other on-line sources that the volcanic activity behind a big red Iceland warning box was August 2014, and that the exclusion zone had since been cut back to the immediate area around the mountain) and are left here long after they are outdated (Odessa is out of the news now, there are still valid warnings for Ukraine but for the Russian-backed war on Donetsk and Luhansk). These big red boxes need to be specific - what happened and when - so that they may be removed in a timely manner once they've served their purpose. There is a maintenance category Category:Has warning box where one can check, "Walt Disney World, oh yes, a deadly place listed right before War zone safety." For Pakistan, yes, Waziristan is out of control. A warning box is in order. K7L (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, situation in many places around the world is not friendly for journalists. This does not necessarily mean these countries are dangerous for travel though. Many (most) regions in Egypt are as safe/dangerous as they've always been. Magedq (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It might be a bit drastic to delete all warning boxes without a date in them, but they seem to be next to worthless. What if years from now Iraq becomes a living democracy with a safety situation better than that of Chicago and we still have an undated warning box? I mean yeah caution is better than lack of caution but if there are too many warnings, placed in too many places, we run the risk of over-satiation. Bottom line: put a date on them where ever and when ever possible and avoid stock texts copied from Waziristan to Somaliland to volcanic activity in Iceland Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Odd that you should mention Chicago. One of its less desirable suburbs does indeed have the big red box as a crime-ridden hellhole. K7L (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think out-of-date warning boxes are a repeating problem. An example at Talk:Karakoram_Highway#Warning_box has one that may have been around ayear or two too long. Pashley (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Worth noting here that there are two different uses for warning box being used. One is of the travel advisory/war zone type, which should typically be dated. The other is of for natural hazards or other hazards that can be deadly (dangerous undertow at beach, flash flood warning, poisonous snakes along trail), for which attaching a date doesn't really make as much sense. Texugo (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That depends on the natural hazard. A natural disaster (such as an earthquake, tsunami, cyclone/hurricane/typhoon or a volcanic eruption) often is tied to a specific date. K7L (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, good point. Just wanted to point out that there are some deadly dangers that are everpresent and not necessarily date-related. The one in the Disney World article mentioned above is another of this type. Texugo (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The documentation at Template:Warningbox has pretty specific guidance about when a warning box should be used, and what additional details should be provided (specifically, links to government travel advisories when relevant), but that guidance tends to be overlooked. Perhaps we could add two new required fields - "date added" and a warningbox "type" field that would flag warnings that were missing required data, with failure to add either of these fields resulting in a warning box that won't display properly. "Date added" could be displayed to end users and would be useful in cases where the warning is similar to the advisory/war zone warnings Texugo cited. The "type" field would allow us to require additional info in some cases - for example, if we created a "travel advisory" type, any warningbox of that type that was missing a link to an official government travel warning would be placed in a maintenance category. I'm not sure what other types would be needed - perhaps "local danger" for Texugo's deadly snake example, but this would at least give us some way to better control and maintain these boxes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

+1. A 'date added/updated' parameter in the same way as the recent Listings modification would be great. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

In an ideal situation, we would also be able to set a relevant time for review when adding a warning box, and the maintenance panel would show a list of warnings that are due for review... But well, requiring a date to be added is an improvement on the status quo already :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

We could have a category page that lists all instances of warning templates, and review periodically the ones with old or no update dates. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just seen this, but I do think this is a good idea. Not much has happened to this since March, so I'll list this at requests for comment now. Seagull123 Φ 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

More specifically, we would need someone familiar enough with templates to make the suggested changes. This is still a point worth fixing. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JuliasTravels: I'm not the most adept at templates, but I was having a bit of a fiddle around with it, copying some code from Template:Listing. I think it works, I've added a |lastedit= parameter with which the template works both with and without the parameter included. The results are here and the code is here. I haven't managed to add some sort of last updated category to it though, if someone else could do that, that would be great. Anyway, this is the best I could do. Seagull123 Φ 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem with adding a "last updated" date is that it may mislead readers into believing it's no longer valid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I actually think it's very useful, especially when links to government websites are included. Undated security advise is unreliable by definition. Dated advise with links to updated advise has use. Last updated dates are already often included in the text. What we need is to get it into a maintenance category too though, for regular review. Perhaps User:Texugo has any thoughts about that? JuliasTravels (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would think we might want a maintenance category to catch all the ones for which it's been two about months or more since last update. There is some code at Template:Event that could probably be adapted for this purpose. Texugo (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JuliasTravels, Ikan Kekek, Texugo, Andrewssi2, Hobbitschuster, Wrh2, K7L: I think there is a consensus in this discussion to add a date added parameter, but nothing is really being done about this, so unless the consensus changes within the next few days, I'll add the parameter code that I copied from Template:Listing, the code is here and the results are here. Please have a look at it. I'll aim to add this for around 18:00 BST on 23 August unless consensus changes. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 17:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Template:Warningbox is used for much more than just temporal security information. See, for example, Walt Disney World#Ride safety. Putting a date on these (and a maintenance category that implies anything older than two months is out of date) is clutter -- and potentially misleading clutter. Powers ^(talk) 22:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... I didn't think of that. Is there a way to make the date parameter optional, and use a maintenance cat only for the ones where it's used? I have no clue how many warning boxes are of the type Powers mentioned, but they should be excluded. For the other ones, it's not clutter, I think. Outdated warning boxes exist quite regularly. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JuliasTravels: I know, there are quite a few which are definitely outdated. I looked at one recently, I think it was on Nosy Be, and there was a warning box there about an incident that happened in 2013, so in these cases, I think the date parameter is necessary. But there are some times when the template is used for more general, important warnings which do not need a date parameter as this could give the impression that the warning is out of date. If you want, have a look at what I've had a go at, here, it's my attempt at adding a date parameter. Seagull123 Φ 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I plunged forward and have just added a |lastedit= parameter based on code from Template:Listing. It is optional so can work without the parameter used (for articles like Walt Disney World#Ride safety). If anyone disagrees majorly with this, or it doesn't work (hopefully not), please revert it. Thank you. Seagull123 Φ 23:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Seems to work, at first glance. Thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indian travel advisories

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the template documentation, it doesn't have a site for the Indian govenment's travel advisories. But I think I might have found one, http://mea.gov.in/index.htm I can't exactly find a page on that website, but if you search for travel advisory, it gives search results for a list of Indian government travel advisories. I added a link to one in Syria's warningbox. I didn't want to add this link to the documentation in case it isn't the actual link or there is a better one. Could someone possibly look at this and see whether it should be added or not please? Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 18:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ebola warningboxes

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

Is this thing over yet? I'm wondering if it's time to start removing the big red {{warningbox}}es about Ebola: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33936360 suggests that Sierra Leone is down to its last two cases and the last quarantines are being removed; we've already removed the big red boxes from Liberia. What's the situation in Guinea or in any of the individual cities which've been plastered with warnings over the last year? K7L (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

CDC says Guinea still has new cases and is not advised to visit along with Sierra Leone ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Question

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 11:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Updating or toning down a bit is definitely fine, since the statistics are promising, but it's surely too early for a removal. A few new cases have been reported this month. The epidemic is not officially over until there are no new cases for 6 weeks after the last infected people either die or are declared virus free. And even then; while many restrictions have been eased, travellers might still be confronted with limited travel options or other precautionary measures, so a toned down warning could be useful even after the epidemic ends. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unwelcome blank lines at bottom of Warning Boxes

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Swept in from the pub

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)Reply

Help :)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Grmbl.. I don't see it. What am I doing wrong? I've added Hong Kong to our list of advices, but I've obviously done *something* wrong, for the layout is just off (see Chechnya). Can someone more awake than I am fix it? I promise I will not touch any templates again for a while haha :) JuliasTravels (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think I've fixed it, but let me know if you still see issues. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks! I knew I was overlooking something, but I just couldn't spot it hehe.. :) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wildfires...

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

w:2018 Attica wildfires - Do we need a caution box for incidents like this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think it can be good to add one. There have been huge forest fires in Sweden for a few weeks, and that article also has a warningbox. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

A warning message is definitely in place here in my opinion, although other users may argue that it's not dangerous enough and that the fire should not be blamed for the reported deaths. ArticCynda (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you consider this sort of calling out appropriate? More so since a fire is an objective reality. Your doom and gloom view of Molenbeek is surely colored by some sort of agenda, or at least you are doing a bad job convincing me it isn't. I am pretty sure I have been to places where various indicators "should" tell me it is "worse" than Molenbeek. Amazingly, I survived. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Hobbitschuster: just like wildfires, crime is also an objective and very real threat to the traveler. It's not because you got out unharmed, that there is no risk. ArticCynda (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

WT has a "travel alerts" box on their main page. Should we add something similar?

I think we could easily make space; most of the stuff in the blue box (below the DotM etc listings) is unnecessary. On the other hand, I'm not certain it is a particularly good idea or that it would be maintainable. Pashley (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forest fires have no agenda. Well except native the ones in Nicaragua in April. Your crusade to paint Molenbeek worse than it is, does. Ten times the Belgian average crime rate is still only the level of the "better" U.S. cities. Should there be a race mongering screaming warning box all over Chicago or Detroit? Should we warn lgbt folks or those on the tan side of "foreign" not to set foot in Dixie? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

NSW drought...

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

https://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/water/allocations-availability/droughts-floods/update

Whilst this doesn't look as serious as the situation was in South Africa, does Wikivoyage have a policy on when 'drought's should be mentioned from a traveller perspective? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we have or need a specific policy on droughts; the traveller comes first covers it sufficiently. I'd say droughts that are of substantial duration or might have any affect on a visitor absolutely should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Adding travel advisories from more countries

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could and should this template be expanded to allow adding links to travel advisories from more countries, e.g. all of the ones at Travel advisories#Government travel advisories? It already allows links to multiple non-English language travel advisories, for example Belgium, France, and Germany, and there's space enough for multiple more. --Kimsey0 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

We really only want a few advisories linked from each warning to give readers an idea of the issues without making the warning box really, really big. We're a travel guide, not an encyclopedia, so completeness is actually a bad thing as it gets in the way of other information. Thanks for your interest in Wikivoyage, though. There are lots of other ways to contribute to the project: the Content Organization section at Wikivoyage:Community portal is a good place to start. Ground Zero (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Warningbox

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

I added the following to the top of the Japan article to warn of a coming cyclone:

{{warningbox|According to [https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/western-pacific/2019/tropical-storm-fourteen?map=forecast Wunderground's hurricane forecasting] and their [https://www.wunderground.com/wundermap Wundermap], a tropical cyclone is headed for southern Japan and will strike within the next several days. Be cautious if you plan to visit southern Japan.}}

It is displaying as just WARNING: {{{1}}}. Why is it not working? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the syntax problem is, but I think you should add a date to the text. What does "in the next few days mean" to the reader? I'm finding text that was added in 2005 that tells readers what has happened "in recent years". It's not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll do that — but first, my goal is to get the warningbox working. I will add a date to the Florida cautionbox. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you go to the Florida article, you will see that I have upgraded it to a warningbox. That is because I do not think the cautionbox allows you to add a "lastedit" paramater. (At least, I didn't see any mention of one at Template:Cautionbox.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fortunately, Template:Cautionbox gave me the answer to the original question. I needed to add a "1" for the second parameter, like this:

{{warningbox|1=According to [https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/western-pacific/2019/tropical-storm-fourteen?map=forecast Wunderground's hurricane forecasting] and their [https://www.wunderground.com/wundermap Wundermap], a tropical cyclone is headed for southern Japan and will strike within the next several days. Be cautious if you plan to visit southern Japan.}}

I have also added the day the warningbox was updated to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most of the time, if you want to record some information in a MediaWiki template (MediaWiki is the software we use), but you don't need it to show up in the article, you can use any old made-up parameter. Templates normally ignore unknown parameters, but any editor who looks at the wikitext will see it. This is useful for adding dates, explanations, etc. that will only matter to another editor. It's good that these boxes support |lastedit= but if they didn't, you could write something like |date= or |note-from-me= or whatever you liked for the convenience of other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Or use a parameter name you would like to have supported. If lastedit isn't recognized and you use it, editors will see it (it not showing up may of course cause some confusion), and when the template is edited to support it, the date shows up as intended. The ignoring unknown parameters also causes the need for "1=", explicitly stating a parameter should be treated as a positional one, as otherwise everything up to the "=" that happens to be in the parameter text is treated as a parameter name. --LPfi (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I tried date= because I thought it did what lastedit= actually does. Could we make date= a valid parameter, with the same effect as lastedit, so it is easier to remember what is the name of the parameter when using it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's possible to do this; we would create the other name as an "alias" for the parameter. Then you could use either name, with the same result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think that's the best thing we can do. However, I don't know all that code, so could you please do it if it's not too hard? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Edit request for Template:Warningbox

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Swept in from the pub

Hi. I didn't see an edit request template to use, so I thought I should just post here. At Template:Warningbox, please remove the template data from the template, so that it can be added to the documentation subpage instead, where normal users can update it. Alternatively, please update the template data. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Drug Possession

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I found articles such as Singapore#Stay safe, Taiwan#Stay safe and Malaysia#Crime are marked with Warningbox for death penalty imposed on drug possession, and one of the examples of using Warning box is "death penalty for marijuana possession". But normal travelers won't bring drugs, get caught by customs, and end up with executions. Is it necessary to make such warning? Thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes. We don't want travellers to end up dead because we didn't provide a warning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, there are functioning adults who travel and yet are too stupid to know that they can't take drugs across borders. Maybe they should be taken out if the gene pool, but I don't think we should make that decision. The warnings should stay. Ground Zero (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Country params

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Mx. Granger: Can you edit the country params for "australia", "canada", "india", "southafrica" to also accept "au", "ca", "in", "za" respectively (their common country codes). Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I don't know enough template syntax to do that. Later today I'll try to figure out how, if no one else gets to it first. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think I've implemented this request correctly. If the change causes any problems please let me know. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

2020 review of warning boxes

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've gone through all of the articles with warning boxes (275 or so). I deleted some that were out if date, and downgraded some to cautionboxes where they did not meet the "non-obvious danger to life and limb" test. In some of the latter cases, they should not have been warning boxes in the first place, and in others the danger is now reduced. I updated all of those dated before 2020 if they needed updating. Where the warning is still valid, I updated the lastedit date so that readers know that it is still valid as of Aug/Sep 2020.

I observed several issues.

Out of date warning boxes make Wikivoyage as a whole look obsolete. Warnings dated 2012 or 2013 that have not been reviewed trash our credibility. Warning readeds about flooding or a hurricane in 2017 does not help either.
Using the warning box to provide news reports helps guarantee obsolescence. Events of the Syrian Civil War that took place in 2019 have been eclipsed by other atrocities, and the warnings were not updated. It is better to identify the root cause (civil war, terrorism) of the danger, and leave the events reporting to Wikinews.
Advising readers to hire armed guards to visit an area is outside of our area of expertise. (I think that was one now-banned user, but it is still worth mentioning.)
Warningboxes should not be used to inform about borders being closed because of COVID-19, and bridges being closed for repairs (seriously).

I'd like to take a look at the instructions for this template to see if they can be improved to give editors better direction. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Use precise dates in lastupdated field

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

On these boxes and on cautionboxes, the last updated field only shows the month and the year. For most stuff on our website, this is sufficient to demonstrate something is up-to-date, but hazards and transport disruption can change very fast. I propose modifying the template to display the full lastedit date, e.g. 1 Apr 2022. Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I'll support it if it is technically possible to do so. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support Ground Zero (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I support this too; I don't see any downside to displaying the full date. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

From a technical perspective, it should not be hard to implement. Template:COVID-19 box already does this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've now changed the two templates' coding based on the COVID-19 box. It seems that the full date will only show after the page is edited (in any section), so the full switchover will take a while.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

NOAA parameter

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The template currently includes a parameter for government travel advisories, but the warningbox is frequently used for extreme weather events as well. Links to further information on such events are critical as Wikivoyage is not a weather forecaster. I believe a parameter should be added to the warningbox for links to the NOAA or other government extreme weather agencies. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: Admin only this template and create new process for its application

Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments6 people in discussion

I propose that we make the application of this template administrator-only and that we encourage non-admin users to use the CuationBox template instead. I also propose that we create a new process for applying this template to a dedicated page, either through RFC or its own process page. Each potential application of this template should be discussed. My reasons are thus:

This is an extremely "loud" template.
This template has proliferated over this website over time.
1. It is generally and haphazardly applied by users
2. It is rarely removed, as pointed out by Ground Zero at the pub
3. It now exists on many pages that are rarely, if ever, reviewed
When applied appropriately, its application generally relies on few sources, and those are namely the foreign departments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
1. English Wikivoyage is an international website, seeking to appeal to readers from English-speaking North America, to English-speaking Europe, to English-speaking Africa, and English-speaking Asia, among others.
2. The sources that we typically use (US, UK, Aus, Ca, NZ) are of a particular geopolitical persuasion.
3. If we seek to represent ourselves as an English-speaking resource and not a [US, UK, Aus, Ca, NZ] resource then we cannot rely upon these countries' estimations for our warning boxes.
  1. For example, if I am an Indian citizen (India now being the largest English-speaking country in the world), the pronouncements of these foreign offices mean little to me.
  2. Likewise if I am Nigerian, the most populated country in Africa, where the official language is English, perhaps I use Wikivoyage as a resource; however knowing that Canada warns me aways from Tanzania is of little use to me.
Western government sources are great sources, but they should be considered a singular source of information.
1. It is good that some countries have the monetary resources to expend on foreign analysis.
2. This however leads to biases in our presentation of information to the reader, particularly if they are not from the western world
3. Given their analyses, and given that this is one point of information, we should then seek to marshal the resources of our community in any new application of this template, under the idea that we are a community of English-speaking travelers from around the world
4. Failing that, and given lack of resources, we can fall back on defaults. But we should seek pride in the fact that we sought to gain a fair perspective.

I feel strongly that this template has been over-applied throughout the years. I also feel strongly about what I think is the best way to rectify what I view as a large problem. That said, this is simply my proposal, and I only hope it will be taken into fair consideration. Brycehughes (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're absolutely right the warning boxes have been overused and misused countless times over the years, but I think limiting it to admin users is not the right solution. Making people use cautionbox instead just means that instead of a mindless proliferation of outdated warningboxes, we would end up with a mindless proliferation of outdated caution boxes. I like the democratic feel of collaboration where users can be trusted, and instead of limits, we have review, undo, and most importantly, discussion tabs where we can talk about why we do or do not think a warning is warranted. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, but what would you rather have a mindless proliferation of? Obnoxious red boxes or somewhat gentle blue boxes? And the review/undo/discussion process is what's in question here. How often does that work for a place that might get a red slap? It doesn't really... the process breaks down. Brycehughes (talk)

The cautionboxes should be in the "Stay safe" instead of at the top of the page, and they aren't gentle blue, but reassuring yellow. Ground Zero (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

New proposal! Just joking. Colour aside, point stands. Brycehughes (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that's just overburdening of bureaucracy. I added warning boxes before and removed them on my own. If this proposal stands, scenarios like flooding, disruptive volcanic eruption or war conflict will only receive a "gentle" caution box when they truly deserve a warning box. It will take away my ability (and many others) and leaving it to only 35 admins to manage all warning boxes. I do not think a "walled garden" approach is needed here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree. There is nothing special with admins regarding warning boxes. If a box isn't warranted, anybody can remove it. Discussion is needed only when there is disagreement. Better get the box up quickly and removed when the immediate danger is gone. –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"removed when the immediate danger is gone"... which does not happen, leaving aside the worth of slapping on an almost-ridiculously-prominent big fat red template "quickly". Brycehughes (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've been considering this proposal while I've been working my way through the list of articles with warning boxes more than 6 months old. It does feel heavy handed to me, but I am removing a lot of warning boxes that were added in 2020, and have never been touched since. This is proof that "get the box up quickly and removed when the immediate danger is gone" has failed. It gives us a lot out-of-date scary warnings listing details of terrorist attacks or volcano eruptions that happened a long-time ago. Relying on good intentions to remove when the danger is gone has failed. It's time for something else. If this is the only proposal to address the problem, maybe we should try it. Ground Zero (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. I see no need for this policy. It's heavy-handed, contrary to the collaboratie spirit of WV, and just might exacerbate the situation if only admins have the ability to remove warnings. Status quo has problems, but is better than this proposal. I think a better solution might be an automated timer that removes warnings after some period unless they are specifically renewed (such as with long-running wars, etc.) Mrkstvns (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict] How many of those warning boxes should never have been added? I assume much of the problem is the same as for Turkey or Mosul: when bad things happen it is in the news everywhere. When the threat is gone, that is seldom reported; when checking an outdated box, I am reluctant to remove it unless I know the region or find evidence that the threat indeed is over. Perhaps I should just do it. On the other hand, for Turkey, the earthquake warning still seems warranted. Also Mosul seems to still be dangerous, but it is covered by the warning on the country page. –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the solution is to just remove the box unless there are linked up-to-date warnings that seem to be warning about actual unusual dangers (not politically motivated warnings nor lesser or unlikely threats). That combined with some watching of the maintenance categories might do it. –LPfi (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is both an adding and a removing problem, with particular emphasis on adding. I'd love to say that if 100% of templates were removed post-add (they are clearly not) then I would be at peace, but I would not be. A lot of these templates are spuriously added, prompted by any threat that a Western country perceives, visceral or political, and we get fat red boxes. I would like to see discussion about adding this template. That said, I think there are two arguments here: 1) the template is added and then never removed (which I think is more Ground Zero's thrust) and then 2) these templates should be reviewed upon adding in the first place. If we can't resolve both then let's try to at least solve (1). The proliferation of these templates is ridiculous, they are extremely prominent, they are rarely removed, and we should stop this. My argument is to make this template admin-only, to force a discussion before application, to at least acknowledge the existence of the template in a broader forum with the expectation that it will be removed. If there's a less heavy-handed way to do this, then I'm all ears. We could remove the boxes now, per whatever criteria, but how does that help us going forward? Brycehughes (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that people would start discussions to get an admin add a warning. Instead admins would be trusted to add those warnings (or prompted to add them and relying on the), and as admin I would feel obligated to add it whether I have any grasp about the situation or not. I think the discussion should be had here and now.

What are those spurious warnings added because of Western prejudice (or whatever)? I am probably too Western to notice those problems, so I look forward to seeing examples of unnecessary warnings. I think you might want the documentation on the template page to be changed to narrow down the situations when the template should be used.

–LPfi (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let's take Iran for example. During the recent violent protests I'd have been all for a big red warning box on the top. However, those are over, and now we have a warning box that says three things:

1) There is a possibility of terrorist attacks, especially around the borders of Iran. Travel within 100 km (62 mi) of the Iraqi border, 20 km (12 mi) of the Afghan border, and in the province of Sistan and Baluchestan is not safe.

There is a possibility of terrorists attacks in many countries. France, for example. Labeling a whole country as having "a possibility of terrorist" attacks is over-doing it. Re Sistan and Baluchestan, that's very fair – but the big fat red warning should be on Sistan and Baluchestan (which currently has nothing), and the Iran page should have a Cautionbox.

2) Countries without diplomatic relations with Iran may be unable to provide emergency or consular services to their citizens.

This is true, but it's not big fat red warning box worthy. One of my passports has very few embassies around the world. This is quite a normal state of affairs, especially for travelers from non-big-rich-Western countries.

3) Iran has a poor aviation safety record, especially after a Ukrainian passenger plane was shot down by the Iranian military, which mistook it for an enemy military plane.

Oh c'mon. You are much more likely to be killed in a taxi ride almost anywhere than you are on a plane in Iran. This should be mentioned in the article, but putting this in a warning box at the top of the article is really giving this issue undue weight.

My point here is that even with a (naughty! bad!) country like Iran, there is cause for discussion about these warning boxes. I'm sure I could come up with more. Neither I nor any of the admins can quickly track any time this template applied (I think), especially on less trafficked pages. I actually think the docs language is decent: "This template is meant for non-obvious dangers to life and limb, and should be used sparingly" – but that is not done. It is over-used, and under-removed. There needs to be a process to effect a cultural change re these boxes, like requiring an RFC for any new warning box, if even temporarily. Brycehughes (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a relatively small community, and our practices can change informally. If you see a warningbox that seems misplaced, just remove it. After reading this discussion, I plan to make more of an effort to remove unnecessary or outdated ones when I come across them.

I share the concern about geopolitical bias when we rely on Western countries' foreign ministries for safety guidance, but I don't think this proposal would be an effective solution (it might have the opposite effect, if it reinforces admins' existing biases and limits contributions from people with local knowledge). I also want to avoid adding extra bureaucracy, giving the impression that administrators' opinions matter more than other community members', or increasing the general level of confusion about what the difference between cautionboxes and warningboxes is supposed to be.

As for the issue of out-of-date warningboxes, I think that's just an especially noticeable example of a larger problem on Wikivoyage: information goes out of date faster than we have the capacity to update it. This is a real problem but it needs a broader solution than just the warningboxes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here's my confusion: if warning boxes "should be used sparingly", then what's a sparing amount of extra bureaucracy? But if the the amount of extra bureaucracy would not be sparing, then we are not using these boxes sparingly. So how do we get them to be used sparingly as we ask in the docs?

I can drop the whole "western bias" thing, I figured that was a long-shot when I wrote it (though I do believe it). Putting that aside, the over-adding and under-removing is still a big problem. Let's say we don't want to add any new bureaucracy at all – how can we at least attempt prevent the drive-by tagging of this template? I do think the warning box deserves particular attention: if it was instead say the translation template or something boring like that being slapped up there, ok, well slightly annoying but no biggie – but these are the loudest and most dramatic templates in our collection! Even the page banner is less prominent when there is a giant red WARNING box immediately below it. Brycehughes (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Iran warning seems to be Western bias: most countries warn that their citizens may be arbitrarily detained, as a political means it seems (in addition to the risks of terrorism etc.). I assume this is a serious and unobvious risk, but it doesn't affect most nationalities, so could be moved to Stay safe – although the guidance is to put warnings for non-avoidable dangers at the top. –LPfi (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that re Iran, and that's the sort of thing you might want in a warning box, but we don't say any of that. Granted, this is a bit of a side track. Brycehughes (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I was just astonished that the common advice countries all recommend against all travel without there having been any big news on Iran lately. I assume it is a typical case of terrorism risks being exaggerated for political reasons (I cannot judge the actual risk, so this is guesswork). –LPfi (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's exactly that. A common refrain among really hardcore travellers (I've been to a few places but I don't count myself among them at all – I'm talking the old Thorntree types, before that went extinct) is that the places with the US/UK/etc. warnings are the places you want to go. But that's quite cowboy-ish and obviously not appropriate for a generalist travel guide. I do hate that we can be a parrot for the Western side of geopolitical machinations, but I'm happy to forgo my wish for changes re that if we can instead at least get something done re the overuse and staleness of this extremely prominent template. Brycehughes (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'd like to summarise where we are and the potential for a path forward. To refine and bring my original points into clearer focus, my argument is:

This template is our most prominent and loud template and should be given special consideration. It is not the same as when a restaurant listing goes out of date or is added to the wrong city; this is top-front-and-centre, in your face like a forehead tattoo.
This template is spuriously applied rather than "sparingly" applied. See my text above about Iran above, for example.
This template is rarely removed. See Ground Zero's post at the pub, for example, as well as his recent work cleaning a lot of this mess up.
The application reflects Western countries' biases, given the sources we use.

Reading the comments above, there seems to be a substantial degree of sympathy for this argument, at least in that we generally agree that this is a problem template. The recurring objection seems to be one of adding bureaucracy. I understand and respect this objection; minimal bureaucracy is, imho, one of the things that keeps this website being a joy to contribute to (especially when compared to some of the other wikis out there, where many of us have come from). It is important that we keep this website fun, as it is and hopefully always will be.

So, along those lines I'd like to think there is a path forward where we can tame this template but without creating a new layer of bureaucracy. My first step is to ask who I think I know are those more technically clever among us, namely users LPfi and WhatamIdoing (although if you are also technically clever sorry I just didn't know). Given that this is template based, are there any hooks available where we could report 1) the application of this template? and 2) the length of time this template has been applied? I know en.wp does some fancy shit with their templates, but I have no idea how that works. Brycehughes (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:Has warning box and Category:Has warning box with out of date warning might be what you're looking for. If you add the first one to your watchlist (and have the appropriate user preferences selected), you'll be able see when warning boxes are added to articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, thanks, but that has existed forever, and this problem is now, and so I think think something a little more formal is in order, if possible. Brycehughes (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

WITHDRAWN. It's enough pushback and it won't go anywhere. Thank you everyone who participated. Brycehughes (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Expand the list

Latest comment: 1 year ago47 comments7 people in discussion

@Mx. Granger, the list of links in the template documentation is noticeably longer than the list of parameters in the template. Could you add some of the missing ones to the template? I think it would be good for editors to have more options. The countries in the /doc page but not in the template are Austria, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Italy, and Malta.

I'd also particularly like to see |es for Spain (because most travel advisories say similar things, and Spanish is widely spoken); the website is https://www.exteriores.gob.es/en/ServiciosAlCiudadano/Paginas/Recomendaciones-de-viaje.aspx WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

NO*! Please do NOTlist more countries!!!!!!!

The list is already being overused. Let's put a very hard max of 3 countries on the list of warnings. An endless washlist serves no useful purpose other than to make the overly obnoxious red box even bigger and scarier to read. Mrkstvns (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the solution is to expand the list of countries that can be added to a warning list, and limit by policy the number that each box should include, e.g., a maximum of three or four. I can see the point in having the Spanish government's link included for Venezuela, even if that means leaving out those of New Zealand or Ireland. Ground Zero (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can see having other countries if those countries have alerts with meaningful content that's not just a repetition of what they copy from the U.S. or U.K. I rather doubt there is ever a case where Ireland or New Zealand actually have something unique to say, those could be good choices to eliminate from the available countries. Mrkstvns (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As New Zealand maintains foreign relations for Tokelau, the Cook Islands and Niue, its views could be relevant. Ground Zero (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Zealand is already in the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero makes a good point. Some countries, regardless of size or resources, may be better informed about some destinations than the bigger, more powerful countries. I withdraw my objections to expanding the number of countries available in the template, but still feel that we need policies limiting their use and we should strive to reduce the number of advisories listed. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proposal

Let's have a policy rule that no warning box can list more than 3 country advisories. An endless lists of "sources" serves no useful purpose and creates noise that raises the scare factor. The limit could perhaps be 2. Thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

~~I would support a limit of four.~~ The U.S. and UK have the largest networks of embassies and consulates providing information, but the views of other countries will often be relevant too, France in Africa, and regional powers in other places. Ground Zero (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

After reading the discussion, I no longer support limiting the number of links. They are small, unobtrusive, and readers can skip over them if they don't want that information. Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that having "your" country is always useful, no matter which country you come from. Given our global readership, I think that being able to add links from countries that use a variety of global languages (e.g., English, French, Spanish, Arabic, especially if the destination speaks one of those languages) would be ideal, assuming that the messages are globally relevant (e.g., "This is a war zone", rather than "People of this specific nationality may have this nationality-specific problem"). I'm not sure that a simple numeric limit is the right approach. If we say three, but most of the travelers to that area come from four countries, how do we decide which one to leave out? And if we're putting the traveler first, why would we want to set an arbitrary limit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with WhatamIdoing that "having 'your' country is always useful", and on that basis, because this is the English Wikivoyage, I think it probably makes sense to include all English-speaking countries that have relevant travel advisories. For non-English travel advisories I think the case is less clear, but the links seem pretty harmless as they're small and don't take up much screen space. I don't see any reason to impose a limit of two or three or four – what would be the benefit of a limit? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. I could support a limit of like 7 if it starts getting too long. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with this sentiment. It often feels like a bully starting a fight and then a bunch of lackies try to get their punches in. The US or UK issue a lot of warnings, and then other countries issue theirs that essentially say nothing new or useful. Just "noise" that distracts. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps it "distracts" if your home country is the US or UK, but if your home country is Brazil, how could including a link to a warning from Brazil "distract" you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't find the links particularly distracting. The text is small, the color is unobtrusive, and I can quickly scan for the country that's relevant to me. They take up very little screen real estate, and because they're listed horizontally, ten countries would take up no more screen real estate than one, at least on my screen. If the "bully starting a fight" comment is alluding to advisories that are purely politically motivated, we should try not to create warning boxes for those at all. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the "bully starting a fight" comment refers to politcally motivated warnings. As a US citizen, I sometimes feel a bit ashamed of my own country's heavy-handedness when it comes to dealing with other countries. Some warnings seem to be of very low genuine merit, but possibly useful for certain politicians to "justify" military excursions or dissuade economic investment. I'm all for avoiding the warning boxes in such cases, but I think we're all ill-equipped to consistently spot them. Mrkstvns (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could we say "one per realm"? There is little difference from one five-eyes' country's warning to any other five-eyes' country's warning. If we can divvy the sources up a bit I think we'd both clean things up and be much more robust to tilted perspectives. We'd be reasonably safe saying one per five-eyes (just pick the most informative one) and then an unlimited amount on the others. Or one per five eyes, one per remaining Europe, and then unlimited others. Brycehughes (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

(The "Five Eyes" are the intelligence agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.)

The traveller will usually want a link to their own country's page.
Most of our readers come from the countries in the Five Eyes alliance.
Limiting the list to one link from a single Five Eyes country == not giving most travellers what they want.
Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're just assuming that everyone wants a link to their own country's advisories. I think what most travelers want is to have less flippin' administrative trash to wade through. Mrkstvns (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that you think most travelers see government travel advisories as administrative trash? In that case, should we avoid linking to them altogether, and remove those parameters from the template? Do you think readers are annoyed by seeing multiple countries' links, all on the same line, as opposed to just one or two? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do assume that people find their own country's advisories most relevant to themselves. If the actual situation is citizens of Mordor are welcome, but citizens of Gondor and the Shire may be imprisoned or executed for political reasons, then a travel advisory from Mordor about the possibility of volcanic activity doesn't do any good for travellers from those other countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

WhatamIdoing I used to agree with you in assuming that most of our readers were from five-eyes (or at least Western countries), but then someone schooled me on that with stats in the pub like two years ago. Turns out it isn't at all true. (I can't remember who did the schooling... it was some time around the start of the Ukraine war, during a discussion there about potentially promoting Ukraine articles.) Brycehughes (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Still, I assume the readership from the five is significant. Instead of deleting some of them, we could encourage editors to look up some countries that tent to have good advisories without the same political bias. That would include some big non-Western countries. I am a bit sceptic about Russia and China, but I have no idea about the quality of their advisories. Perhaps Brazil? What about India? –LPfi (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think close to half of our editors have English as a second language. The same is probably true of our readers. An advisory in German or Chinese does little harm, and e.g. Finland publishes its advisories also in English. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean, we can't really judge, or so I've learned, without expert advice, which we don't have. This is why I made the proposal above for de-emphasizing the warning boxes in favour of the caution boxes. It all gets very messy very fast. India? Are we going to trust their judgement on Pakistan? Or Canada? Re Canada, are we going to trust their judgement on Venezuela? Re Venezuela, are we going to trust their judgement on the United States? On the United States, are we going to trust their judgement on Iran? Re Iran, are we going to trust their judgement on Israel? Re Israel, are we going to trust their judgement on the West Bank? And the West Bank doesn't have any money so they don't get to express any judgement at all on WV. I think for genuine war-or-very-high-risk-zones, ACLED is a fantastic resource. The rest is just a political crapshoot. Fundamentally, I support Mrkstvns proposal. Aside from my own proposal above where we would demote the warning box, I don't have any better ideas. Perhaps we just have to pick a geopolitical team and run with them. Brycehughes (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In providing links to government websites, Wikivoyage is not endorsing the opinions expressed on those sites. Wikivoyage is just providing information that the reader can use in making their own decisions. For my part, I don't read the US State Department warnings. I will read the UK Foreign Office and Global Affairs Canada advice to inform my decision. If I were American, I would want to know what the State Department says. But this is just information: it is always my decision whether to go or . Ground Zero (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's great that you give that disclaimer here, but we only typically use sources from a select few countries (cough cough five-eyes), and that is an implied endorsement, and thus implicitly unfair. To be more fair, we could either 1) encourage a proliferation of warning boxes by encouraging a more diverse array of sources (woah every country is so dangerous eh!?) or 2) chill out on the warning boxes, and have a more targeted box (whatever that may be) specify that, hey, if you're from this country/countries, your country/countries says danger danger will robinson. Brycehughes (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be healthy to include links to advice from other, non-5 Eyes countries, and let readers chose which information is relevant to them. Ground Zero (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

And get big fat red pasty's on top of almost every country in world? I dunno, man. Don't agree. Brycehughes (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think any country recommends travelling to Syria. If the five have advice against travelling but all non-western countries think it's fine and dandy, warning about a railway accident upsetting communications, then we probably don't need the warning. Using multiple sources doesn't mean trusting any one country. As you know, giving those examples, we have some sense about where biases are to expect. –LPfi (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Syria's like the easiest/worst example. (Granted even there if we were really pro there's a strong argument you will be absolutely fine in Damascus nowadays, seriously.) You personally might have some sense about where the biases are to expect but our readers don't. All they see is a big fat red warning with a ton of scary links at the bottom. If we want to ally with the five, then fine, let's ally with the five, but then let's be explicit about it. Brycehughes (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the suggestion of adding links so that a wider range of countries are represented. This doesn't mean "big fat red pasty's on top of almost every country in world" – it is always up to our own editorial discretion whether to include a warning box at all, and as I said above, we should try not to include warning boxes for advisories that are purely politically motivated. To give some context to the discussion, this page says that a slight majority of our readers are in the US, UK, Germany, Canada, or Italy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh come on, we impose virtually zero discipline on the application of this warning box. It is not up to our collective editorial discretion, these boxes are applied singularly and spuriously. That's great that we have large numbers of American, British, German, Canadian and Italian(?) readers, but who is this website for? Americans, Britains, Germans, Canadians and Italians? Brycehughes (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is up to our collective editorial discretion; if one person adds it, anyone can remove it, as you removed those three (although this edit summary suggests that you don't understand wildfires; it's not just the inconvenience of "a tickle in your throat"; for the ~10% of people with asthma, COPD, or other breathing problems, smoke can put them in the hospital or even kill them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to get into a minutia discussion about whether or not some things should have been added or not. My point is, these big scary boxes should be up for discussion at the point they're added, or we go for Mrkstvns proposal here which is at least a legitimate attempt to try to chill this out. I think a lot of us acknowledge this is a problem. Brycehughes (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that we have an agreement that it's a problem for people to try to improve an article to the best of their ability, even when their best idea is to add a red box.

These (not always big, not IMO scary) boxes are up for discussion when they're added. Everything is up for discussion when it's added. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's simply not how it works here outside of some (not going to use the f-word, not going to use the f-word) efffffing fantasy. Brycehughes (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

WhatamIdoing is absolutely right: everything is up for discussion when it's added. Has someone given you the impression that it's not okay to start discussions about warning boxes? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

~~Ah yes, Granger, you got me. I somehow thought it was not up for discussion anytime a warning box was added. I'll admit, you got me there. Not sure what I was thinking here.~~ This sarcasm dripped a bit thick, I think. Brycehughes (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://stats.wikimedia.org/ says that 45% of our page views come from the Five Eyes (US, GB, CA, AU, IE, and NZ, in that order). If we wanted to increase relevance, we'd particularly include travelers from India, who are responsible for 12.4% of page views, and perhaps the Philippines (4.7%). Another way of slicing this is: The US, India, and UK+Ireland = half our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think we should seek to increase fairness, and then relevance will come. Brycehughes (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I guess I'll give up on this whole warning box thrust, this habit I've had over the past couple weeks. Eh, whatever, a cough say? Warning box it! Sharks!? Warning box it! War on some periphery!? Warning box it! I guess in the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter, we still have really great content that flows after these boxes, and a certain class of editor gets a high from being the warning box guy. Well, great. I'll only say that, I promise you, personally, that the world is not that scary or dangerous, despite what it might look like from our padded chairs or couches or beds. Most people are exceedingly kind and generous (taxi drivers excepted) almost anywhere you go in the world. WARNING! surely applies to a warzone. I'm not sure it applies to your Belarusian Airbnb. But hey, we're all from somewhere eh? Gotta pick a side. Brycehughes (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've even had good experiences with taxi drivers. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well now you really are my enemy :-) Brycehughes (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I guess it just proves that some of us are just more special than others. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

But seriously this shit (sorry WhatamIdoing for the cuss) is embarrassing. But I will relax, it's all good, zen, it's an embarrassing website and that's okay. I live and breathe. Brycehughes (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Proliferation of Warning boxes

Latest comment: 11 months ago41 comments10 people in discussion

Swept in from the pub

There is a tendency to add warning boxes whenever we read about a danger in the news -- terrorist attacks, earthquakes, pyramid sales scams -- but these warning boxes tend to linger long after the danger has passed. I have started to check on pages with warning boxes to see if they should be updated, downgraded to caution boxes, or removed. I would welcome assistance in this regard. Ground Zero (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

See Category:Has warning box with out of date warning and Category:Has warning box with no date (and the related ones on caution boxes). Those should probably be on people's watchlists. –LPfi (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The categories had 205 and 54 pages, respectively. I fixed a few. –LPfi (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I guess the Warning boxes that come via template:overseasjobscam will all be without date. So you have to see the page history to find out whether the warning is stil relevant. --FredTC (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The history doesn't tell whether the situation has changed. The linked page (in Cambodia, I didn't check other ones) is still up with the same warning, with no date. –LPfi (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Muchos thanks to Ground Zero for looking into this. I would also like to add that we should NOT "trickle down" the warnings. If there's a warning box on the country, it doesn't need to be on the regions and cities within that country. I would like to remove these unnecessary "trickled down" warning boxes as well as those that are simply outdated. You guys okay with that? Mrkstvns (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have not been making those deletions, but support that principle. Ground Zero (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Warnings for particular places within a country should be given only if there are specific things to warn about there that are different from the overall warning for the country. That does happen sometimes. For example, the situation in Southern Thailand is different from the situation in other regions of Thailand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this. I really hate a lot of the warning boxes here, and for a while I've had at the very back of my mind the thought to actually put the work in to propose a process to review new and existing warning boxes. I particularly don't like how the US and the UK (etc., western) foreign departments tend to dictate the big red banners we put on so many places. (I don't have any examples prepared, but Michoacan comes to mind, because yes some of the state is very dangerous but the rest of the state is very safe, so slapping a red banner on the entire state... well, you get the idea. It should at least be discussed.) Brycehughes (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is just information for travellers to use to make their own decisions. The US and UK foreign ministries have the most extensive networks for gathering information. Are there other sources that would be better? I think a key thing is that Wikivoyage should not provide advice, but indicate that governments are providing advice. And let's not have big blocks of text listing events and telling travellers what to do. Also, we should be using the cautionbox template more, and reserve the warningbox for the most most severe warnings. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agree strongly with your last sentence. Re "Are there other sources that would be better", no, but that's the point. Given information doesn't mean it's the truth or the "best" information, it's just information. And information re travel is cheaper for moneyed places like the US and the UK, so we get big fat red warning boxes. This isn't en.wp... we don't need to source everything, and that's to our benefit I think. We'd be better off relying on a discussion process rather than haphazardly slapping down a red warning anytime a western country loses its nerve for whatever reason. Brycehughes (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've started changing warningboxes to cautionboxes where the government warning is not at the highest level, e.g., unless the UK Foreign Office says "avoid all travel".

I disagree with relying on the discussion process. I trust the UK Foreign Office to advise me on risks of travel more than I do our dedicated but small group of contributors. And I think that's what we should base our warnings to other travellers on. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with that last part. If I'm an Indian citizen looking to travel to Iran, for example, I think I'd give few fucks about what the UK Foreign Office says. I think there needs to be a larger discussion about who these warning boxes are for in the context of who this website is for. Brycehughes (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, and even for someone from e.g. Belgium, a travel warning issued by the US or China may be equally irrelevant. El Grafo (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that relying on discussion would produce a different outcome. For the most part, it's going to be either "They issued a warning" or "a discussion between people whose knowledge is limited to what's in the issued warning". If we had half a dozen folks familiar with traveling to each place, we might be able to have a practical discussion. But we (mostly) don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, but we sort of do? I mean if not us then who? Yes it might lead to the same outcome but at least we're at least attempting to not parrot the US, or Canada's, or the UK's particular foreign policy sway at that moment, making at least an attempt to be an internationally-appealing website. Brycehughes (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We could just accept that pretty much any country in the world will have another country discouraging its citizens from going there for reasons that can range from actual danger of being killed to purely political bickering. No reason to yell DON'T GO THERE at everyone just because there's a bilateral beef going on. Just abandon the high alert templates for this kind of thing and add a standardized "travel warnings" subsection to the "Get in" section of any country that treats all warnings the same regardless of whether they were issued by the US or North Korea. No need for any discussions. El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Or just the CautionBox template in the Stay Safe section, which is the underused standard. Anyway, see the discussion here. There are some places that are legitimately dangerous, and so the Warningbox has its role, but yeah we've pasted it everywhere, it's pretty insane. Many thanks to Ground Zero for putting the work in to moderate some of this over-usage. Brycehughes (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero WhatamIdoing Shot my shot here. Brycehughes (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, to improve functionality of the Cautionbox template, I have made a proposal to allow external links in caution boxes at Template_talk:Cautionbox. Ground Zero (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I gave up on trying to deal with this. Holy moly are you guys conservative! I guess that's what keeps this place sweet. It's like living in a small town in West Texas or something. Brycehughes (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The impression I have from this discussion (and the one on the template talk) is that people mostly agree, but don't want to accept your suggestions as-is. You did not suggest any changes to the guideline now in the template documentation. I think it is followed most of the time (except the "sparingly" part). Until now we have trusted the travel warnings, and the warnings we add are indeed mostly about unobvious dangers to life or limb (except that any such danger in Afghanistan shouldn't come as a surprise).

The problem is that these dangers may be very unlikely in some cases (especially: terrorism – more people die in the traffic than even in spectacular incidents). I think we should reach a common view on what level of danger needs to be pointed out, and that common view cannot be quickly reached; we need to re-learn how to read the advisories.

–LPfi (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if you thought so but I'm not bitter about anything at all – this website is sweet, it is a bit conservative, and there is a part of me that has always fantasized about living in West Texas (I have never been there and I almost certainly will never live there) so while I was being a tad sarcastic I promise I wasn't being bitter. Just expression. Like I said on the talk page, I think the documentation is pretty good and describes how I'd (personally) like the template to be used. I think it's tough to enact change here particularly when it comes to potentially burdensome processes, which is fair enough – nobody likes that. I just went through a bunch of our usages of the warning template, and I fully expect to be reverted on a lot of them, but that's my only strategy for now. The thing is, I could burn out here, be gone in a month, stop being annoying/chatty at the pub, never edit again. My hope was that I could effect an impact that would last beyond my presence here, but that's a challenging goal on any wiki, and it's really (really) all good in this case, no worries. Brycehughes (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think you shouldn't try to test the limits. I think a change can come from showing cases where the boxes are indeed unneeded – and I think that doesn't apply to an airport where helping a stranger with their baggage can earn you a death penalty. "Come on" – yes, I think also the USA has earned a red box, as foreigners aren't covered by the constitutional rights to fair trial, and you can be thrown in jail for decades because of things that aren't crimes in your home country where you did them. I don't like pretending that harsh sentences and questionable legal procedures are just normal (and I am afraid also Finland may have earned a cautionbox on Work and Learn). –LPfi (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you really honestly – honestly – think that you could have your life or limb risked by what is in your baggage at Singapore Changi Airport? Really? I mean, yes if you're carrying a pound of heroin, a human head, uhhh I'm sure there's other things I could list here. But really? At Singapore Changi? Brycehughes (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Do you really honestly – honestly – think that you could have your life or limb risked by what is in your baggage at Singapore Changi Airport?" Yes, absolutely. Singapore is notoriously strict when it comes to drug trafficking. Just a few months ago someone was executed for trafficking 54 grams of heroin. I think some of your recent edits have been overly cavalier about dangers that are very real. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Do we have a policy or precedent on this? I'm not quite sure we shoud be slapping warnings about our abilities to traffic heroin. Brycehughes (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In my mind, the concern isn't so much "how can I get heroin into Singapore?" but rather "my acquaintance asked me to bring along a package to give his friend and I didn't check what was inside". In the news story I linked above, the now-executed defendant said that his friend asked him to deliver cigarettes and didn't tell him the package actually contained heroin. I'm not sure whether this merits a warning box, but as with saltwater crocodiles and landmines, we should not pretend the risk isn't real. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd say no it doesn't warrant a warning box, but it's a fair arg. Totally beside the point: one time I flew from Thailand to India and then going through my bag I found a baggie full of white powder. I swear it wasn't me and I have no idea. Also anytime I go to SE Asia one of my credit/debit cards gets skimmed. There are big risks in a lot of these countries, but I'm not sure to what degree they call for a WARNING. None of this is life or limb stuff, though perhaps it could have been if I had gotten caught with that powder (in Thailand who knows, in India it would be massively painful series of bribes). Brycehughes (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Either warnings in the articles for those things, or a big red box in Travel basics that getting executed for carrying a packet of cigarettes to the wrong country might get you executed. I prefer the former. If such things are just what travelling entails, OK, let's put it in Travel basics. –LPfi (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Almost entirely agree, but who executes you for a pack of cigs? Brycehughes (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

See Granger's post above. –LPfi (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't legitimately a pack of cigs and you are using outlandish tail-risk stuff to slap a giant warning on article pages in one of the most prominent travel websites in the world. Brycehughes (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Warningboxes are for dangers to life. Drugs in your luggage, however they got there, are a danger to life in Singapore and Malaysia, including for transit passengers, so a warningbox is warranted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that's overwrought but fine. Brycehughes (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I used to live in Malaysia. One of the first things you see on arrival in the airport is a warning in several languages that possession of drugs means death, but if that's the first time you see the warning, it could be too late for you. We have a responsibility of warning travelers to take such warnings very seriously. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are also crocodiles in Malaysia. I'd hate to get past customs with my heroin-stuffed cigarettes and then wade into a pond. I'm being flippant but the line where draw a warning box is unclear. Perhaps it doesn't need to be clear. If we want to say death for drugs gets a red box, then okay, that's an editorial call, death for drugs gets a red box. Brycehughes (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Crocodiles weren't common in Malaysia even in 1975. Compare the number of deaths per year in Malaysia from crocodile bites vs. executions from drug possession. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Crocodiles were used above as an example of where we should have a warning box. Executions for drugs => warning box on Wikivoyage is acceptable, even good. Brycehughes (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think in a warning box about drugs and also in a caution box, we should not address the drugs addicted, but the innocent person who could be lured into carrying a package for somebody else. The drugs addicted know that it is wrong and needs no heavy warning. FredTC (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not to beat a dead horse but I feel that some of these WarningBox removals have been overly cavalier and directly contradict Template:Warningbox's documentation "If a government agency has listed a travel warning for an area (see #Travel advisories), a warning box is appropriate. Other appropriate uses include: "death penalty for marijuana possession"". I reinstated the warning box for Lebanon and Socotra, because these areas have very explicit and broad travel advisories from nearly every government that apply to them right now. I don't personally feel that the WarningBoxes should have been removed or de-emphasized for Belarus, Russia, Iran and Venezuela (I'll leave North Korea out of this as I presume the risks there are very obvious), again, because they do meet the requirements for Template:WarningBox's assessment (life threatening such as the death penalty or the rapid escalation and prevlance of violent crime, and grounded in travel advisories) and not Template:Cautionbox which covers risks that not life-threatening. I really can't help but feel that Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first was entirely sidelined to make way for a handful of editor's subjective viewpoints about what counts as a danger, based on some of these edit descriptions. I concur entirely with Ikan Kekek that we certainly have a responsibility of warning travelers to take warnings seriously - we should exercise restraint when removing WarningBoxes because what is obvious to an experienced traveler is absolutely not always obvious to a less experienced one or one from a different background. I'm hoping that we can build some kind of consensus for either restoring some of the up-to-date WarningBoxes on WV, and formally re-consider the policies/documentation around the use of the WarningBox and CautionBox templates if we can't come to a consensus. Cyali (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alpha sort country links

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can we sort the list of country links aphabetically (as they were before we added China, Hong Kong and Singapore)? There doesn't seem to be a good reason to have it sorted alphabetically but then relegate China, Hong Kong and Singapore to the end of the list. Brycehughes (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this change would be uncontroversial for the most part. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It figures an Australian would support alphabetical listing. ;-) But I have to agree that it makes sense. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply