Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question
QA icon clr.svg

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

"Few" and "a few"[edit]

An editors note: in many articles about Finland and Sweden, "few" is used instead of the intended "a few", probably either because Finnish editors have problems with articles (the Finnish language doesn't even have definite and indefinite forms), or because it is confused with other words, especially Swedish några ("a few"). The mistake seems to be common enough that I think copy editors should be watching for it in these articles. –LPfi (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I'll try and keep a look for this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's also an ongoing issue in articles about the Indian Subcontinent. Evidently, in Indian (Pakistani, etc.) English, "few" does mean what "a few" means in other dialects (the difference being that "few" means "almost none" while "a few" means "several", so the connotation of "a few" is positive, emphasizing more than two, and the connotation of "few" is negative, emphasizing close to zero). Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that how that word works in every variety of English? Both are found in Shakespeare: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" and "You few that loved me/And dare be bold to weep for Buckingham" for the one meaning, and "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none" and "Here are a few of the unpleasant'st words that ever blotted paper!" for the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare isn't in Indian English, and I've seen enough edits in articles about India to know that they use "few" the way other English dialects use "a few". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New template: Template:Routebox2[edit]

New template time again, but here it is.

For a long time, not being able to use Templates in routeboxes has been quite a problem. Given that we're shifting from images for roads and transports, to templates in particular note {{rint}} and the future RINTroad, it kinda sucks for routebox to not be able to accept templates. So here it is. Used it on the French Wikivoyage (infact I made a similar template there before coming and making the same here), and used the concept of voy:fr:Modèle:Routes and made this templates.

I'm still in the proposal of creating the documentation, but it's half done. This template can accept images if needed, just now the usual way of adding an image ([[File:qwerty|20px]] ) instead of the former way of using routebox.

Any feedback for this template is greatly appreciated :). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I'll be ignoring the preparation for RINTroad, which, as I detailed below, will not be done in the foreseeable future, nor is in any way, shape or form cleared for introduction to begin with. This template, as I understand it, builds off of the longer-existing idea of allowing route marker templates to be used in Routeboxes instead of purely images. There are some problems with this method of achieving this though:
Routebox2 allows only for the inclusion of templates, and is therefore not backwards compatible with {{Routebox}}. Since the introduction of templates into routeboxes will most certainly be slow and gradual in nature, you will eventually end up with two routeboxes, as neither can support a combination of images and templates, which I likely won't have to say is far from ideal. Meanwhile, Routebox uses a subtemplate ({{Routebox/row}}) for every image inclusion. The better way would be to allow for a switch between /row (image-mode) and a template mode (which would be Routebox/tl or something along those lines) within Routebox through a parameter, let's name that parameter "mode" for now. "mode" can be set to two, or if the need arises later, possibly more values: "image"/"img" or "template"/"tl". To allow for backwards compatibility out of the box, "image" needs to be the default option. By adding a line such as |mode3=template, you could make the third listing in the Routebox use a template rather than an image. This wouldn't break with the current workings of Routebox and leaves us from having two competing versions with the exact same goal.
This template, quite literally called Routebox2 should, if anything, work off of what exists as Routebox(1). Starting from scratch and introducing this as a stand-alone template will do nothing but complicate its introduction. Outside of that, I am still in favour of working templates (specifically RINT, as metro and tramlines labels are scarcely available on Commons) into Routeboxes in a way that does not disrupt the current usage of Routebox, which is already present on a whopping forty percent of articles.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon: Template dialog improvements for VisualEditor and new wiktext mode[edit]

/ Apologies for writing in English. It would be great if you could help translate this message. /

Hello! Here is more news from the focus area “Make working with templates easier” by Wikimedia Germany’s Technical Wishes project:

Your wiki will soon receive an overall improved interface for editing templates in VisualEditor and in the new wikitext mode (beta feature). This includes several improvements:

  • general redesign (more spacing, bigger window for better usability),
  • a better overview of parameters that are available for a template,
  • an easier way to add parameters via checkboxes and search filters,
  • better visibility of important information,
  • added links to documentation and help pages.

More in-depth information can be found on the project page on Meta. The planned deployment date for these changes is October 6.

Please note: The official VisualEditor help page on will only be changed later this year, when all wikis have received the feature. If you have a local help page about the feature, you can update it based on information on this page, which we will fill with content in late September.

We would be very happy to hear what you think of these changes. Please let us know on this talk page. -- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Unfortunately, this deployment will be postponed a bit:
  • Our team is currently still working on a few optimizations for mobile and for screen readers, so we’re planning to deploy the feature to your wiki in late October/beginning of November.
  • That also means that the texts on this subpage are not finished yet. We’ll give you an update here on your village pump once the texts are done. Then you can update your help page accordingly.
  • For those who are curious what to expect, here are two videos: One shows the current interface on English Wikipedia, the other one shows the improved interface which you’ll get soon (currently on betawiki):

Sorry for the inconvenience! – Johanna for the Technical Wishes team, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template for obsolete info[edit]

I just created a template to mark articles with obsolete information. Hopefully it might be useful for marking up information which does more harm than good. Tried out in the article Public transport in Stockholm County, which was extracted from Stockholm County and intended to get updated. /Yvwv (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I would support this template, just like what I do with every other template. LGTM SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think {{obsolete}} is useful. However, if information does more harm than good, it should be removed (or commented out, or moved to the talk page, if there still are bits that would be good if adjusted). A parameter for clarifying the problem is sometimes needed, and perhaps a hidden one, for editors (for tips on how to update), could be useful.
I was going to suggest also a {{best before}}, which is in effect the same one, but with a date. For example, I know the railway through Turku will be reworked next year, disrupting traffic, but the specific arrangements are not yet known, and there is no use already telling people that they have to take a connecting bus. I'd like to put in a best before 2021-06, to remind myself and others to update when details are known and people might be planning their transfers.
Then we have {{dubious}}. I suppose there is useful stuff in Brussels#Stay safe, but I wouldn't trust it to be entirely correct.
LPfi (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that {{obsolete}} will encourage editors to post notes telling other editors to remove information rather than removing it themselves. I don't understand why some people do that, but that tendency is strong in this wiki. This template could add clutter in our articles.
{{best before}} would be very useful. Ground Zero (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is essemtial that we give readers a clue why the information may be obsolete. "Local businesses may have closed since the closure of the steelworks in 2020" or "public transport in the area may have changed after the high speed rail line opened in 2021". The template should show the date it was added as it doesn't apply to any listings with later last edit dates. AlasdairW (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I share Ground Zero's feeling. This is what happens with the English Wikipedia: a few people spam tags all over articles, even for things they could fix in a couple of minutes. The articles don't get improved, but someone enjoyed dumping the tags in the articles. Have you seen this one from the English Wikipedia?
I don't want to encourage this. If you think that an article is significantly outdated, then w:en:WP:SOFIXIT yourself. If you can't, then ask for help. Don't spam in a note saying that some other editors should do things that you won't do yourself. There aren't legions of editors waiting for you to tell them what to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think WhatamIdoing’s proposed template would be a massive improvement, particularly “languish indefinitely,” which indicates the high readership of a page, assures the reader all information is up to date, and better still, leaves everyone baffled as to the problem and clarifies why the original updater hasn’t made the improvement. ;) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I rather just imported the English Wikipedia's Template:Show by date, and this should do the job. e.g. if the tram line is going to open in May 2023, then after May 2023, it should show that it's open. Unfortunately, I rather just copied the entire template's documentation from en.pedia so that will need some updating first. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is far better to simply say in text that the tram line will open in May 2023. Using a template is a bad idea beacause a)it adds complexity, b)it will say that the tram line is open in June 2023, when building delays might mean that it doesn't actualy open before July 2023. It is a different matter using this on WP about a solar eclipse that is expected tomorrow. AlasdairW (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their example (in the template documentation) is really bad: "Mr. Smith will take/took office on ...". What if he died in between, or there was a coup? Really confusing to read that he had taken office later. The sv-wp {{Bäst före}} by default just adds an [Uppdatering behövs] and a maintenance category. If it is just about a tram line opening on a set date, that can be said in text, but as in the Turku article, the railway works will happen, but little is known about the temporary arrangements, which will be complicated enough that I also don't want them to clutter the article longer than necessary. –LPfi (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor point, you didn't "import" the template. Importing pages involves using Special:Import. You "copied and pasted" it into this wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New template for banner discussions[edit]

I just created a template, {{newbanner}}, which its purpose is similar to that of {{Districts discussion}}. I've tested this out at Riga region to see how it looks (and it's still there if anyone wants to have a look). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep trying to make so many banners? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikivoyage:Requests for comment, which seems to do the job adequately. I’m not sure the proposed template would be an as effective or more effective method. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as necessary. In my mind, the reason for the "districts discussion" template is that districtification discussions tend to be complicated, protracted, and in need of extensive local knowledge. For those reasons, it's helpful to solicit input from people who might come across the article. In contrast, banner discussions tend to be quick and easy, and it's often possible to give an opinion on a banner without a lot of knowledge of the destination. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template creation rules[edit]

I read these statements in the policy Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates:

  • "In general, a template should be discussed prior to being created or modified."
  • "In some cases templates can be confusing for new users"
  • "having large numbers of templates that perform similar functions is counter-productive"

I wonder if we should consider updating these:

  • "Any admin may choose to delete any template created during the last month (including templates copied from another site) without warning, unless its creation was discussed in advance. If this rule about discussing templates before creating them is violated repeatedly by the same person, then immediate deletion is encouraged."
  • "Editing templates in wikitext is an advanced skill, and it is often confusing to new users. We use a small number of listing templates heavily, but we also have a goal of minimizing the number, variety, and complexity of templates used in Wikivoyage, so that we can simplify the editing process." (This could be mentioned in Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals.)
  • "having large numbers of templates, especially if they perform similar functions, is counter-productive. Do not create a new template if any existing template or a non-template process (e.g., posting a note at the Project:Travellers' pub or using the Wikivoyage:Requests for comment process) would suffice."

and perhaps adding these:

  • "Most forms of maintenance templates, such as those that add a request for improvements or a maintenance category, are not appropriate for a community with less than several thousand active contributors."
  • "Maintenance templates and/or maintenance categories should normally not be used unless a reasonable number of pages (more than 100, but less than 5,000) will be included, the problems require more than a few minutes of active editing time to solve, and more than one editor have agreed to work on addressing the problems. For smaller numbers of pages or if you will be working on the problem by yourself, please consider making a list of articles on a page in your userspace."
  • "Investing significant amounts of time organizing a mess, such as by tagging problems in articles rather than solving problems in articles, is not a goal." (for Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals).

Does any of this resonate with the rest of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the proposed updates, but I'd support the proposed additions to policy. A clarification regarding our policy on templates would help to alleviate the current strain on the community imposed by the new template proposals. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Just no, no no no no. I cannot stress the importance of "no". And no. Completely unreasonable. Time to analyse it:

"Any admin may choose to delete any template created during the last month (including templates copied from another site) without warning, unless its creation was discussed in advance. If this rule about discussing templates before creating them is violated repeatedly by the same person, then immediate deletion is encouraged."

We just recently agreed that we won't be deleting templates unless going through the vfd process. If not, they'll just be moved to a user's userspace. And why such heavy implementation of "no templates". For that matter, having a look at some older templates, Traveler100 has created so many templates which are currently "unapproved", including {{time}}.

"Editing templates in wikitext is an advanced skill, and it is often confusing to new users. We use a small number of listing templates heavily, but we also have a goal of minimizing the number, variety, and complexity of templates used in Wikivoyage, so that we can simplify the editing process."

Templates are a shortcut! Confusing? For some of the more complex ones, try outputting the same result without the template. That's about 10 times harder.

"having large numbers of templates, especially if they perform similar functions, is counter-productive. Do not create a new template if any existing template or a non-template process (e.g., posting a note at the Project:Travellers' pub or using the Wikivoyage:Requests for comment process) would suffice."

Again, templates are there for a reason. Even if a template does one function differently, there's a purpose for it. An example would be {{AU routebox}} as opposed to the under construction RINTroad. AU Routebox (or AUR) is much easier to use, and given that we try not to use userspace templates in mainspace. But when RINTroad is up and ready, will we be outright deleting AUR despite it coming into the mainspace earlier? Perhaps not.

"Most forms of maintenance templates, such as those that add a request for improvements or a maintenance category, are not appropriate for a community with less than several thousand active contributors."

We already have these.

"Maintenance templates and/or maintenance categories should normally not be used unless a reasonable number of pages (more than 100, but less than 5,000) will be included, the problems require more than a few minutes of active editing time to solve, and more than one editor have agreed to work on addressing the problems. For smaller numbers of pages or if you will be working on the problem by yourself, please consider making a list of articles on a page in your userspace."

I don't think that will turn into a success but I don't know.

* "Investing significant amounts of time organizing a mess, such as by tagging problems in articles rather than solving problems in articles, is not a goal." (for Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals).

That's the only one that I would agree to.
But overall, I strongly oppose this proposal. We don't even use enough templates to begin with, and we're not the French Wikivoyage to have templates for prices and hours. The English Wikivoyage already allows for a lot of freedom with policies, let's not make this any more restrictive. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you to oppose this, because the main point is to stop you from creating so many templates. I see that you've created 32 new templates this month, and there's another five days to go.
I am curious what you think "enough templates" would be. A thousand? Ten thousand? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's never something called "enough templates". Templates are something the MediaWiki developers designed for shortcuts. Why are you wanting to prevent shortcuts? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Templates were designed to place duplicate content into multiple articles at the English Wikipedia. The original design has very little to do with how any wiki uses them now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you still haven't realised that most of my templates are redirects or userspace templates. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that much of what's mentioned at #Coming soon: Template dialog improvements for VisualEditor and new wiktext mode will mitigate some of the concerns about new user confusion. I support the judicious use of templates when they are useful in improving Wikivoyage. Most other Wikimedia projects use templates with little or no ill effects. I don't think we should let some irrational fear prevent us from employing a helpful tool that 's a standard Mediawiki feature. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused by the "consider updating these" and "perhaps adding" bullets. They read like taken from some general guidelines at Meta. They are not useful as such for a project that has a known de facto user base.
On the de facto suggestions:
  1. I don't think it is useful to be forced to have a discussion before starting experimenting on a template. If it is labelled as experimental and not used in articles (it can be tested in a sandbox article) it does little harm, and the discussion is less frustrating if the template is reasonably mature when proposed, so that we know what we are supposed to discuss (some discussions here have been arguing about shortcomings that can be overcome with minor improvements to the templates).
  2. Like SHB2000 says, templates are shortcuts. We should weight the complexness of the template against the advantages compared to plain text and the complexness of implementing the formatting etc. in wikitext. Complexity of the template itself is a minor issue, as long as article editors and readers don't have to mess with it.
  3. I agree that having a large number of templates is confusing, especially if they differ in usage syntax and semantics (no problem with having both {{see}} and {{do}}). On the other hand, suggesting a new template might result in somebody showing how an established template can be used with the intended results, sometimes after adding some functionality.
The suggested additions are mostly discussions only, suggesting we should not invest in infrastructure. It is mostly sensible, but maintenance categories do really help in our work, such as identifying where effort should be put in, e.g. to get countries up to usable, or notifying on articles needing updates, such as the out of date categories for warning boxes.
LPfi (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi, about point #1, I think the problem is that we have a "known de factor user" who has created 185 new templates since the middle of May. I'd estimate that 90% of them are undiscussed. In fact, I suspect that almost everyone reading this page will be surprised to discover that he has created an average of 10 templates per week for the last four and a half months.
Several editors have asked him to stop. He doesn't stop. Several editors have said that we don't want so many templates here. He doesn't stop. I thought that giving other admins the option to remove newly created undiscussed templates (NB "may delete", not "must delete") might bring some balance to this flood of unrequested and undiscussed templates. Do you think another approach would be more effective? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should write guidelines because of single users. We can start deleting those templates without the guideline, if asking the user to stop doesn't work. We can block the user. It doesn't help to have ten templates a week to discuss in the Pub. Creating such an amount of templates is unreasonable, especially as it is clearly said in the guidelines that we don't want to have a lot of templates. I am surprised, although I have seen many more templates being made in the last year than through my time here before that. –LPfi (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I agree with our guideline to have few templates. A template should be introduced only if most established users can be expected to learn to use it, and start using it often enough that it is a real help.
For a template to be useful, it must be well-known. We cannot expect users to get acquainted to tens of templates a week, not even ten templates a year. If a template is obvious enough, it is not a great hindrance for new users as a single occurrence. But many templates you don't know are detrimental to feeling welcome, you start think you should know all those. Established technical users, on the other hand, want to know the templates that are used, and new templates thus take time to study, time that could have been used better. And this is true also for very handy well-documented ones. You have to use them quite many times before the time to learn them starts paying back.
LPfi (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, time to analyse your comments again:

I think the problem is that we have a "known de factor user" who has created 185 new templates since the middle of May. I'd estimate that 90% of them are undiscussed. In fact, I suspect that almost everyone reading this page will be surprised to discover that he has created an average of 10 templates per week for the last four and a half months.

"I'd estimate that 90% of them are undiscussed.". Yeah, because most of them are barncompass templates as well as userboxes. They don't need approval and this was confirmed by two users. We even had a discussion on it, and I've pasted the more important bit of the discussion:

As barn compasses are used only on user pages, and not in articles, I don't think that they pose any barrier to participation in Wikivoyage by new editors. And they build community, so I think we should keep them. Ground Zero (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Ground Zero.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, no-one would object to them. A little creativity in community-building is good, not bad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

And re the "we have a "known de factor user" who has created 185 new templates since the middle of May.". Just letting you know that I have created much more barncompasses that have been moved out of my userspace which aren't shown in the link you mentioned above.

Several editors have asked him to stop. He doesn't stop. Several editors have said that we don't want so many templates here. He doesn't stop. I thought that giving other admins the option to remove newly created undiscussed templates (NB "may delete", not "must delete") might bring some balance to this flood of unrequested and undiscussed templates. Do you think another approach would be more effective?

Well, only you have asked to stop, while TT asked to slow down (which isn't the same thing as "stop") so wrong. Ikan Kekek only asked to not use a (talk page stalker) template, which I later deleted. We don't propose policies based on one user (singular). You'd have noticed I start lengthy discussions on the pub about those templates. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Undent]: I want to highlight this remark by SHB2000, so that it doesn't get lost in the interior of this thread: "There's never something called 'enough templates'." SHB2000, you are well aware that the philosophy of this site has been not to use more than a few essential templates. In the past, I can remember non-admin users engaging in longstanding behavior in blatant flouting of site rules and guidelines, but you're an admin, so I'm quite uncomfortable with your apparent unwillingness to slow down or consider the existing consensus. And may I suggest, since you are so interested in software editing, might you find a way to work on making MediaWiki software or at least the forms of it we use here much easier for new users to use? That would be so much more valuable than templates that highlight text by changing its color, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'd have been more willing to slow down if this thread was taken in a more collaborative way, like this being taken to my talk page, instead of a repeat with the "redirect cult" thing against Ground Zero last winter. And may I ask, when Traveler100 created numerous templates few years back, why weren't they approved templates, which include {{time}}? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember. However, this is not the first time people have questioned your creating or importing so many templates. There's nothing inherently wrong about creating templates, but that's never what this site has mostly been about and might not be a thing to concentrate on here, whereas I think lowering the steepness of the learning curve for new users is an important issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but most of my templates aren't even intended for newbies anyway. And others, such as {{AUR}} is much easier to use than the future RINTroad. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but unless there's a real need for them, it might be a better user of everyone's time to concentrate on something else. And when you create one, I think it's incumbent upon you to detail what it's useful for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, the real need is that it's much easier than using plain wikitext. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Easier for whom? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who hates using plain wikitext. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not easier for new users, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using html markup is much harder and tedious to use than templates, even for newbies. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Using HTML is of course more tedious than a template, but usually we are assumed to use plain text. For the {{AUR}} that you mention, the first use in what links here is in Beauty Point#Get in. I'd argue that this is not less tedious to write than the equivalent in Loimaa#Get in, and arguably not easier for the readers.

I remember some Australian transportation templates being discussed, but I don't remember any conclusions on road templates, and the discussion isn't linked to from the template talk. I also see no instructions on when to use the template.

When a new user, having worked mainly on Australian articles, edits an article for some place elsewhere, say Finland, they might as first thing start looking for the equivalent {{FIR}} or {{FINR}} – and won't find it. I don't think we should introduce separate standards for individual countries, not without a very good reason anyway.

So a template might be a good shortcut, but it needs to be a good shortcut to something we really want to do, and it should be made into a standard that can be used all over the site (in the context it is intended for). It shouldn't be a shortcut for a single user. I know I expressed some doubt even about user boxes, but let's keep them out of this discussion.

LPfi (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this though is that AUR is meant to be used until RINTroad comes up and into the template space. But until RINTroad is used, what do we use? AUR is a widely used template on the French Wikivoyage but it's a shortcut for Modèle:Route australienne. But my concern for RINTroad is that it is much harder to remember than rint nor this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the link I provided, and you see how we have been handling this, and are handling it in articles not on Australia: we use plain text (and links if there are itineraries on the roads). –LPfi (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do use plain text, but then on the contrary we use rint which is used site wide, which we don't use plain text. And when rintroad goes into mainspace, pretty much we won't be using plain text at all. I might help work on RINTroad though, despite it being on hold. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the discussion on starting to use images (or coloured and framed text) when mentioning roads in Get in? I'd have a word or two to say on the issue. –LPfi (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion, but there's a template under progress although it has been put on a hold. See User:Wauteurz/RINTroad SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a template is going to result in "pretty much we won't be using plain text at all", I think a serious discussion is needed before putting any effort in developing the template. –LPfi (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True. Although re AUR, I don't think that template will be used after RINTroad comes out, and I'll probably manually replace all of them but I guess this is a placeholder template. Pinging @Wauteurz: here about rintroad. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about what RINTroad (documentation) is and is intended to be. It is a spin-off template of {{Rail-interchange}} (RINT), solely intended to generate (car) route labels for usage in {{Routebox}}. It has never been intended to be used in articles as substitute of plain text. Similarly, RINT should be used minimally in the article's plain text and should be reserved for listing templates instead. RINTroad is a personal project of mine to test the viability of this concept, essentially auto-generating route labels for routeboxes. It enjoys a low priority in my to-do list and there is no real ETA. It has in fact been largely dormant since November 2018, and I currently have no real plans to complete it either unless a genuine need for the template arises.
@LPfi: There is no discussion to link and there is none to be had, as RINTroad is a personal project of mine with no timeline for its development. The context in which SHB plans to use it (specifically in-line in Get in/around sections), is also not the intended context for that template. I hope that this resolves the confusion here. If there is any left though, then let's continue this discussion over on my or RINTroad's talk page.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with Whatamidoing proposing a policy whose "main point is to stop you from creating so many templates". As far as I can see, Whatamidoing has never raised this issue with SHB2000 on their talk page. Yes, there have been comments in various discussions, but I think that Whatamidoing owes a respected and productive contributor like SHB2000 the consideration of raising their concerns directly, rather than proposing a policy explicitly directed against one person. We should be working towards a collaborative project here, not a legislative one. Ground Zero (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have raised these concerns with him both "directly" on his talk page and also "in public", multiple times. Repeated requests from me and others do not seem to have registered; until now, I'm not sure that he really understood that anyone thought that his template-creation work was anything less than admired. Of course, if you have some reason to believe that me personally asking him on his user talk page would have more of an effect than when multiple admins made the same requests on his talk page earlier this year (e.g., User talk:SHB2000/Archive 2021#Template and User talk:SHB2000/Archive 2021#Minimal use of templates), then I would be happy to hear those reasons, but I don't assume that there is something special about a request from me on his talk page that would produce an effect different from a request from others on his talk page.
As for why we should consider changing the policy: It is possible that SHB2000 is not "the only", but merely "the first" editor to think that increasing the number of templates would be an indisputably Good Thing™. The rules should be the same for everyone, and they should be clear. If, despite these persistent, repeated, and gentle requests from multiple people, any editor can still believe that the multiplication of templates is desired by the community, then I think it is likely that the problem is a lack of clarity in our ruleset. "Stop it already, or we'll start deleting them on sight" offers a level of clarity that isn't currently present in that policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think WhatamIdoing has a point. Rapidly creating and/or importing large numbers of templates in a short amount of time, irrespective of advice to slow down and concerns about the creeping annulment of what's heretofore been site policy and style feels disruptive to some of us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but the numbers she's mentioning are completely wrong. How many of them are redirects, barncompasses, or just templates that newbies will never have to use. The answer is very few. I'd have been more accepting if WhatamIdoing told factual numbers, or even communicated in a collaborative manner, but it seems she didn't. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many of them are redirects? Eleven (11).
  • How many of them are barncompasses? Thirty-five (35).
  • How many of them are templates that newbies will never have to use? Any template used on any page that any newcomer might try to edit is a template that can affect a newcomer's willingness to continue contributing.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many of them are used in mainspace, very few. Stop trying to over-exaggerate my template use. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also WhatamIdoing, you also didn't count on how many of those templates were documentation templates (which don't count) but rather just counted them as a wholly individual templates, did you? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the last time anyone raised this on SHB2000's talk page was a month and a half ago. We are talking about someone who is an administrator, and therefore can be presumed to be responsible. I think it would have been better to leave a short note to say "Hey, you don't seem to be listening to what others are saying about not making so many templates. Do we need to adopt a new policy to stop you?" If that didn't work, then the need for such a policy would have been clearly demonstrated. And citing the number of new templates was a cheap shot when many of these templates are redirects, to be used on user pages or discussion pages only, or are otherwise templates that new users will never face. Ground Zero (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is taken, too. But this is an ongoing issue. And as an admin, I still don't think it can be presumed that if I were to decide to take a course of action contrary to site guidelines and persist in it despite concerns being raised on my user talk page and other discussions, it should then automatically be assumed that I was acting responsibly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, you mean, once? The very first time was when I was still quite new and I was still unaware of how WV worked. I'd edited under an IP before that but not to a mass scale level. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WhatamIdoing, the million dollar question is, how many times have you even asked me on my talk page: zero. And how many times has anyone asked me to stop. And the answer to that is also zero. That latter thread was only to ask me to slow down, which I did. I don't know what "too much" for you is, but you can't so call "cite" that I've been told to "stop" numerous times when the answer to how many people have told me to stop is zero. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read this comment, which begins with the words "SHB, would you please stop importing templates". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That as you just mentioned "SHB, would you please stop importing templates", but you didn't mention, for me to stop making templates entirely. My point still stands. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forget about history and persons.

We have three questions:

  • Do we need the guideline to be amended to stop excessive template creation? I don't think so, at least not with the suggested wordings. It is clear enough in words and in spirit, the problem now has been that the interpretation has been slipping. Something should probably be added on templates not intended for "general" or "widespread" use.
  • Should we in fact change our guideline to allow use of more templates. I don't think so. I have seen only one user having that opinion, and several who support the current (or pre-2021) practice.
  • Can the one user who wants more templates follow the guideline? I think so, only there is a clear consensus that this is demanded. He is acting in good faith, but does not see the problems some others among us are seeing or anticipating.

LPfi (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't see the big fuss. As long as a template is not disrupting regular day-to-day editing (which I very much doubt, it's just a box that a beginner contributor will skip in the visual editor; if we had template for each 'get around' section or whatever crazy like that, that would be disruptive), and helps maintaining the uniform style across WV, it's worth a try. Unless the target is to discourage advanced editors trying to improve WV. Go ahead, compare WV and WT articles, e.g. Paris/2nd_arrondissement - if having no templates produces better look, or if it helps to attract new editors. Yes, it's extreme argument - but if we don't try new stuff, we'll never have chance to pick the good ideas.
As for {{AUR}} in particular, no strong feelings (tm). But TBH these days, I doubt many people will take the WV directions to "get in" - they'll 99% use mobile/car navigation. I wouldn't want to google whatever "A87" road is, to get to Coober Pedy :-) It's plenty enough to have it in the routebox on the bottom of page(s), IMO - for whoever the information may be useful. -- andree 09:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Also, for anyone wondering how to put templates in routeboxes, use {{routebox2}} which an empty discussion can be seen above) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with LPfi, SelfieCity and Ikan Kekek's comments above. I support the existing policy of limiting the widespread use of templates and the need to discuss whether a new template should be created or not. Templates can increase the barriers to edit for newbies and non-techie established editors and tagging templates are visual eyesores. One tagging template on a page may look okay but on Wikipedia they pile up and they look horrible. Even with the templates where the pros outweigh the cons like the listing templates can be difficult to grasp. During the Nigerian edit-a-thon many good-faith, eager editors (who had prior Wiki editing experience) still weren't comfortable using them after a month of editing here. But I also don't think we need to changing the current wording in the guidelines. Gizza (roam) 02:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the reply tool automatically enabled?[edit]

Does anyone know why it randomly appeared around 09:00 today (AEST: UTC+10)? I checked Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and I haven't enabled the tool. Is there a way to opt out of the reply tool or am I stuck with it forever? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can disable it in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. This was announced in m:Tech/News for the last two weeks. I see that the latest copy is still on your talk page at User talk:SHB2000#Tech News: 2021-39. It's the last item. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Haven't read my tech news this week, but thanks for pointing it out. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly keen on this, but the crucial factor to watch will be new user participation via comments, and whether it improves. If so it will justify keeping this tool. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moving listings to their own pages and namespace?[edit]

We are currently adding listings directly to articles. However, my idea is to list attractions in their own pages in a new namespace, and transclude them instead. There are several advantages to doing this:

  1. Permanently closed attractions are usually removed from articles. Because it's a lot harder to find something within page revisions, this makes it hard for anyone who wants to look up a former attraction for reference. If each listing had its own page, then the listing templates could easily be adjusted to prevent transclusion if the attraction is marked as closed.
  2. Some listings may appear in more than one place. For example, Kitt Peak National Observatory is listed on both Astronomy and South Central Arizona. Putting a listing into its own page would allow us to update the listing for all places at once.
  3. It would be easier to find information for lesser-known attractions via Wikidata.
  4. If an article has many listings, then editors don't have to scroll through a bunch of text if manually editing the code. This would also reduce edit conflicts for heavily-edited articles.
  5. It's generally considered a best practice to modularize data.

What are everyone's thoughts? --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally oppose this change. Transcluding them can be done, but only via a different namespace as far as I know although that is part of your proposal. We do transclude certain things like Template:Canadian national park passes into all Canadian parks, so it's easier to keep things updated about Canadian Parks passes, but it doesn't really work that way for listings.
This also means that it can sometimes make things harder for those who don't know how transclusions work, and even for those who basically are familiar with transclusions, like me where my userpage is full of transclusions and templates, it's also a lot more time consuming. I'll take an example of what I once did recently in Ķemeri National Park recently. Went to their park and tourism website, and added them as I went. Didn't require too much effort nor time and it was pretty convenient.
I'll also share my experience on a wiki where this is done. On Wikispecies, this is done quite frequently, but given how time consuming it is through transcluding things, it has basically driven me away. On the other hand, I did see a duplicate word used on many pages, and instead of going on every single page where that text is used, all I needed to fix was that one template.
And finally then we have the touts who all they want is to promote their business. I can only imagine how easy it is for them to promote their business, and non-admins trying to have to delete that transclusion (although it's mostly Ikan Kekek who handles touts, and they're a 'crat here) and given that we don't have an eliminator group here.
Transclusions are a good thing, but not for listings. OTOH, templates are good, but those are also basically transclusions. It is a good concept, but the cons outweigh the pros to this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Building on what SHB says about the experience of other wikis, the English Wikipedia tried this for some citations (which get re-used there far more often than we re-use any listings there), and it was not a good thing in the end. It was confusing even for experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I wasn't aware this was tried on the English Wikipedia. Guess we learn something new every day! --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly done for medical journal articles, so if you don't play in that area, you might not have run across them. I think they were officially deprecated more than five years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it would make adding a listing more complicated to an average contributor. --FredTC (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am open about this proposal. Diffs are weird when a listing has been added, removed or moved, and being able to transclude a listing both in the destination article and in an itinerary would be nice. However, if editing a number of listings in an article (in wikitext mode) involves copying and pasting the listing name into the search box, right clicking the match, and clicking the edit tab – for each of the listings – that won't fly. Another problem is how to avoid cluttering the new namespace (we'd have many "Joe's bar" and "Sandy beach") and still make creating, finding and recognising the listings easy. Have such problems been considered and feasible solutions outlined? –LPfi (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking about places with the same name and do agree it's an issue. For example, Burger King has almost 40,000 locations worldwide. Even a disambiguation page could become impractical in this case! --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. In general, this would overhaul the entire system that Wikivoyage is built upon, and the way I look at it, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and sheer effort of materialising this proposal. Just going point by point on your listed advantages:
    1. Sounds great, but in practise this will leave you with a transclusion in an article that will print an error once a listing is removed, so this makes a single edit per page where the listing is mentioned into a N+1 amount of edits (N= amount of articles with this listing). You don't just remove the listing, you also remove every transclusion in an article. Furthermore, you cannot reasonably generalise descriptions for listings, seen as how as a result of the policy of listing listings in the most bottom-level article, each use case will be specific.
    2. As a direct continuation of the previous argument: If a restaurant appears in multiple articles, it should be different locations of the same branch, thus having different phone numbers, lat/longs and addresses. If an attraction appears in multiple articles, it can be more specific depending on the article. A heritage railway, for example, could see specific details about rolling stock added to a "Rail travel in X" article, whereas the article for "X" would contain more general information. Using your own example, Astronomy is a more specialised article and therefore can and should go into further depth than the listing in South Central Arizona. I know little about astronomy, but I would expect to hear why Kitt Peak is such a notable observatory and what makes it stand out in Astronomy, while a brief overview is plenty for South Central Arizona, as observatories aren't for everyone and some might want to just gloss over it.
    3. Please explain how you think this would be easier. If you want to avoid having seventy-nine listings of "Joe's Bar" as LPfi suggests, you'd index these by a serial number, so a drink listing could be DR(ink)563154 instead of simply "Joe's Bar". Index numbers aren't insightful to mere mortal people though. How many Wikidata item IDs can you name from the top of your head? You would have to look them up each and every time. Sure, you could offload a lot of the major attractions to Wikidata, but we already do this. Wikidata integration in listings has been up and running for a good few years.
    4. Are edit conflicts really a frequent issue to the point that this argument is valid? Generally, data stays valid for a good while. If a listing really requires updating, it won't be likely that a dozen editors immediately edit the same article. Furthermore, editing via the Listing Editor should avoid edit conflicts from forming, and when they do, it's because someone edited the same listing as you were editing it, which, again, I don't think is a frequent occurrence. The only edit conflicts I have ever encountered over ~5100 edits were in the Pub, never in an article.
    5. Modularising is only worth it if the data lends itself to modularisation. Sure, the information we list can be modularised, but as mentioned, both the names for listings and their description in each use case/article varies and is best left to be filled in by the editor adding said listing. Let's also not forget that sometimes, listings come as simple markers. Versatility in what elements would be transcluded from a template-ified listing would break great articles such as Alkmaar that don't hold true to the generic bulleted list concept we've all stuck to over time. I would even argue that articles such as Alkmaar are nicer to read because of them not following bulleted lists, and this edit would be likely to break that, destroying great articles in its wake.
Sure, modularising listings might seem like a rational idea, but it goes a few steps too far from being a practical change if you'd ask me. Not even to mention that you would be making listings less tangible if it's buried deep down in a different namespace than the one the reader generally interacts with. So no, this would add too many hurdles, have too many specific use-cases to adapt to to be a logical change, and would furthermore overhaul the website as whole with no real benefit to anyone in particular while also removing or seriously overhauling the process that many editors here are comfortable and well-versed in. If anything, such an overhaul would break the flow of more editors than it would improve. It's definitely a strong no from me, but feel free to write a practical concept of this idea that would be easy to use on a site-wide scale. I doubt it will change my mind, but there's a small chance that this might pass if the concept is more tangible than a mere proposal.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the well thought out response. For the first case, there wouldn't necessarily be any errors. It should be possible to configure the listing templates to simply not display anything if the attraction is marked as closed. Something like adding a closed parameter and putting the listing inside noinclude tags should be doable.
I do agree that that having multiple places that share the same name would be an issue. For example, Burger King has almost 40,000 locations worldwide. Even a disambiguation page could become impractical in this case!
Perhaps we can look at similar ideas in the event that Wikivoyage becomes as popular as Wikipedia is now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been considered before on another travel website. The proposed form here might be more "community-palatable" than a prior suggestion, and I'm inclined to see its merits, but it would require massive changes to the structure of WV, and therefore I don't think it would be appropriate at the present time. At Special:RecentChanges we're fortunate to get an edit per minute, and with only a few dozen regular contributors (at most), this would put a massive burden on the community. As it is, we are slowly but steadily improving our article coverage, and many countries have achieved usable status across all or almost all destinations. Continuing this process appears to be a best path forward while our contributor base is limited. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely for fast food chains. There's no questioning McDonalds (but we don't list maccas per wv:boring), but others like KFC, Hungry Jacks (as you mentioned above) or even donut stores like Dunkin's Donuts can have up to tens of thousands of listings. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, mostly. Afaik there was an initiative to move some attributes into wikidata (e.g. phone numbers of hotels) - data that could be shared between multiple languages and wiki pages. I think :de:wv tried it. In any case that's about how far I'd go. I see your point and in a non-wiki database, it'd be an obvious thing to do. But unless you significantly improve the page/listing editor to make this mostly transparent to the users, it is hardly acceptable. -- andree 19:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Centralized information is always a great idea, that's why Wikidata has been created and why we use (only partially at the moment) the wikidata "link" in every listing. But I oppose to the idea of transclude the listings because on top on all the cons already mentioned above, there's another one: when we edit and save a listing in an article, we'll land in the page of the transcluded listing instead of the main article. I can't imagine anything more annoying than this, especially when you need to update a dozen of listings. Ah let me add another technical point: listing editor would stop working as it is, and shall be at least partially modified. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple's iOS 15 IP hiding tool[edit]

Finally got around to reading this week's tech news, and:

iOS 15 has a new function called Private Relay (Apple website). This can hide the user's IP when they use Safari browser. This is like using a VPN in that we see another IP address instead. It is opt-in and only for those who pay extra for iCloud. It will come to Safari users on OSX later. There is a technical discussion about what this means for the Wikimedia wikis.

There's a full discussion at phab:T289795, but in short, this tool will essentially, with this tool, instead of using your own IP address, where instead of the actual IP address used, it will instead be an IP used on Apple's servers.

Given this, I'm presuming we're going to have to treat Apple IPs similar to how we treat VPNs and Open Proxies, and block them, and give users who have a genuine need to use this IP hiding tool IPBE just like VPNs.

There is already a discussion on the English Wikipedia and the Phricator about this. No harm in planning on what we should do about this, but it would be good to start to plan on our open proxies policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Apple providing privacy or is this a Trojan horse allowing Apple to spy on premium customers? Anyway, if we block the IP addresses concerned, we will be blocking those who use iCloud+ and Safari, the default browser on Apple smartphones. The WMF techs assume about 30% of Safari users will be affected, if trying to edit without logging in. Percentage of Safari edits among the anonymous edits vary from 0 to 50% between languages (on Wikipedia).
People won't know the consequences of enabling the service, so many will do it out of pure naïvety, and won't be able to disable it for editing Wikivoyage. At the moment, there is no specific message, so they won't know they are blocked because of iCloud+. The block affects also logged-in editors, as proxies are usually blocked with such settings.
–̃LPfi (talk)
Judging from LPfi's comment, it sounds like we shouldn't do those blocks. This explains why some of the recent IP range blocks have affected me only on Windows devices. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think proxy blocking is done centrally. The WMF technical folks are thinking hard about how this could be handled. –LPfi (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Good to know they're aware of things such as this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jon Kolbert put global blocks on (nearly?) all of these IP addresses at the end of August. People hit by these blocks are not able to create an account, which will cost us some new registered editors in addition to good-faith edits. The linked FAQ page at m:WikiProject on open proxies/Help:blocked provides no advice to existing registered editors affected by this. In this particular situation, your options are:
  • Turn off Apple's privacy features (seems like a bad idea, and against the movement's values?)
  • Switch to another web browser (I hear that others are planning to do similar things in the next year or so, though, so this isn't a long-term solution)
  • Request the "IPBE" userright at m:Global permissions#Requests for global IP block exemption
If you use Safari regularly (especially if you know that you/your network is a paying iCloud+ subscriber), it might not be a bad idea to request IPBE now. This is currently affecting some mobile editors, and it will start affecting some desktop users in a couple of weeks.
I'm not entirely sure that these should have been blocked. They're not really open proxies ("a proxy that anyone can use freely" – when you have to pay for the service, it's a closed proxy, not an open one). I suspect that this was blocked because it's like a large VPN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of other stewards who've been putting g blocks on these IP addresses as well, but yeah, mostly Jon Kolbert. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LPFi, if it's a regular VPN and not some deeper hack inside Safari, they can't spy too much - since most of the traffic nowadays is encrypted by https. They will just see you are going to wv, YouTube or whatever, but not any details.... -- andree 05:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a regular VPN, but anyway, seeing where you go tells plenty, if you go to places like, whiteforce.example, havingakid.example or findajob.example. –LPfi (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Love the site, both for actually planning trips and for daydreaming. But, I'm wondering why country articles don't seem to have a spot where they give a sense of the local climate. I was thinking to myself, 'do I want to go to Thailand in August or will it be too hot/too wet?' and there seemed to be no way of checking that. Extreme weather, I see, is mentioned in Stay Safe section, but normal weather doesn't seem to have a place in the article skeleton? This seems a strange gap - am I missing something? 13:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand#Climate --Ypsilon (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Ypsilon's post: the "Climate" section is normally a subsection of "Understand" in Wikivoyage articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Bangkok#Climate, Chiang_Mai#Climate, Nakhon_Ratchasima#Climate etc AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

Annotated Wikipedia Vector interface (logged-out).png


Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.


  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria Transportation and Recreation Expedition[edit]

Hello everyone, it's been about a couple of months since the Nigeria Expedition, but Edriiic has proposed a new expedition into improving everything about transportation in articles about Nigeria on both the English Wikivoyage and the English Wikipedia (which I presume for en.voy, it will largely improve our Get in and Get around sections). More information is at m:Grants:Project/Rapid/Nigeria Transportation and Recreation Expedition where you can also sign your support. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Draft Enforcement Guidelines review still needs your ideas and opinions[edit]

Hello everyone,

This is just a reminder that the Universal Code of Conduct Draft Enforcement Guidelines are open for review and comment. The Drafting Committee will start working on revisions and improvement in less than two weeks (October 17), so it is important that you give them your ideas and opinions soon!

There is now a short, simple version of the Draft Guidelines here to make your review easier. If possible, also help translate the short version into more languages!

We will also hold one last conversation hour on October 15, 2021 03:00 and 14:00 UTC.

On behalf of the Drafting Committee, much thanks to everyone who has given ideas so far. We hope to hear from more of you - the Guidelines will be much stronger if more opinions are included.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I've received a long email of the blocked user in the subject with a request of unblock. Since I have no idea of who is the user and why he was blocked (I have no time to look for the history), I was wondering if any or maybe all the en:voy admin have received such email. However, I suggest to anyone that can be interested on this case, to discuss here before taking any autonomous action.

(out of chrono) Please Tony1 stop sending me emails. I've started this topic because from one side it's fair and I'm fine with the fact that you want to rediscuss your block in one single wiki (not a global block) after several years, but from the other side I would avoid that an admin would remove a block without a public discussion. My personal suggestion to you is to wait the en:voy community will discuss about it and, after a reasonable time, if you want to add something, feel free to write it on your talk page of your main wiki (i.e. en:w) pinging anyone involved on this discussion and anyone you think may be interested (pings works from/to any wiki). Thanks for your understanding. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyrom75: It seems @Andre Carrotflower: blocked them per NOTHERE, but personally, I would Oppose an unblock. They're also blocked on frwiki as well for being disruptive as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This guy sent me an email too. I'm not going to fully out the email, but one of the reasons in his appeal was "The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members.". Uhm, nope. I still would not trust someone who broke community trust, which gave him consequences globally. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user did ask me to paste their reasons here, so here it is:
  • The block prevents me from accessing the Wikipedia Library of non-free academic journals to provide sources for articles at en.WP I edit.
  • The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members.
  • Crucially, I do not expect to edit Wikivoyage again.
Still no for me. And I'm confused on the first reason. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I’m confused on the third reason. If he does not want to edit Wikivoyage, why ask us for an unlock request? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it's because of reason 2: "The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members." Personally, if he abused the trust of the community, that's too bad he can't vote in the WMF board members election. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion he should be unblocked. It was not a community ban. The 2019 ban did not go through Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. The only ban nom was one from 8 years ago that resulted in a 3 day block. In 2019 Andre accidently pinged Tony (which he regretted), got into a brief argument with him, then unilaterally banned him. He should be unblocked and in the unlikely event that he starts problematic editing it can go through User ban nominations. Nurg (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be an ideal solution, but I'm also concerned about his behaviour on frwiki. This person seems to have cross wiki issues as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at discussions I found on his contribution page and I certainly got the impression he was a problem user. I did not look carefully enough to see whether this was his fault or whether he had been badly treated, and I did not look through his contributions. Anyway, on one hand problem users are not given the privilege of being able to vote on the WMF board or of having literature access financed through the WMF, and being banned (on several projects?) is seen as a measure on being a problem user. Having seen those discussions I am not too eager to give him these privileges.
On the other hand, if he was banned against our policy, I don't see how we can keep him banned, and I don't see it worthwhile to now have several users evaluate his edits, which might still not be a reason to ban him, as none of them is recent. If denying him privileges depend on us, then the system is broken, and fixing it is not our responsibility.
LPfi (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000 - If by pinging me you're soliciting my opinion, I'd echo other commenters in saying that voting for WMF board members is a privilege, not a right, and it's a privilege that is rightly denied to those who edit disruptively on any wiki. It is also correct to say that the problems with Tony1 aren't confined to his behavior at Wikivoyage; I don't have time to link diffs right now as I'm away from my office and editing on mobile, but a search through pages that link to his English Wikipedia userpage ought to be enlightening for anyone who's curious. And I'll also add with respect to Nurg's remarks that it's especially disappointing and shameful to see my actions as an admin, which were not against Wikivoyage policy and which had the broad support of the community at the time, being impugned and dismissed years after the fact by a user who was only marginally active in Wikivoyage affairs at the time the drama went down. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise to Andre – I didn't word my comments as carefully as I would have liked. Andre banned Tony1 with this comment, "Per exceptions list at Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban; user obviously is not here to help build a travel guide". Neither I nor anyone else (AFAIK) who was aware of the ban commented on it. In that sense, there was silent consensus. Accordingly one could say it was a community ban by silent consensus. No-one who was aware of the action said that explicit consensus needed to be gained through Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. I have not said, then or now, that Andre did anything wrong. And, until this present request from Tony, I had not said that the ban should be lifted. I apologise to Andre for any implication that his actions were wrong, as I had not intended that. Nurg (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that, if I'm reading this correctly, being blocked on any wiki is grounds for being denied the opportunity to vote for WMF board members? If that's the case, then unblocking him here wouldn't make a difference anyway; fr.wp would have to unblock him as well, and we have no control over that. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there was consensus at the time, or him not contributing positively was evident, then I don't think he needs to be unblocked (above I was too rule fixated, which is not the wiki way). The policy on not banning users is for contributors who might have a bad temper and get in conflict with individual admins; we do not need to protect users who don't intend to contribute. –LPfi (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andre Carrotflower: Yeah just wanted to get your opinion as you were the one who blocked this user. But regardless, even if all this didn't happen, I would still oppose an unblock for spamming my email (+Andyrom's as well).
But as both of you said, if he doesn't want to contribute, then we don't need to defend him into having the privilege of voting at the WMF board elections. OTOH, if we wasn't banned on frwiki for his behaviour, it's a different case, but I'm still not convinced that unblocking him is a good idea here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say unblock, for approximately the reasons Nurg gives above. Pashley (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support unblocking this user. Tony was nominated by Andre for a user ban back in 2013, and the latter commented at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#User:Tony1, "This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1. His interactions with the community have been almost uniformly combative, unconstructive, and insulting. He has no evident interest in advancing our project; on the contrary, he seems to openly resent the existence of Wikivoyage as a WMF project, and has even gone so far as to gleefully predict this site's demise on a frequent basis." After discussion, a three-day block was applied, but Tony was again nominated for a ban only a month later, which was met with a mixed response but ultimately, failed to gain consensus to block.
Since this incident WV's admins have tried to be patient with some new users, and found that despite apologies and requests for a clean start following troubled editing patterns, the same M.O. of each problem user has re-appeared and resulted in another block. WP has experienced this as well, but as a smaller site, we don't have Wikipedia's resources to support the rehabilitation and unblocking of banned users only to re-block them. WP's administrative body is dedicated to this, and I'd guess some of their administrators enjoy the administrative side of their project, but I think most of our administrators are more interested in writing travel content than administering bans or fighting vandalism, and do these activities only out of duty to the project.
In the last couple years since we took a stricter stance on contributor's M.O.'s, WV has become a more peaceful and enjoyable place to contribute, but re-instating this user wouldn't help us achieve this. It's clear that Tony was opposed to our goals when he contributed, and I don't see why unblocking him would benefit this wiki, even if he doesn't intend to edit here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This issue is new to me — 2013 is before my time here. I've read through the various discussions, and I have no concern about continuing this block. He was disruptive, combative, and generally a problem for those who were trying to build a travel guide. If there wasn't consensus then, I think there would be now because of our less patient mood, as noted by SelfieCity. This change in mood has resulted from spending too much time giving the kid-glove treatment to people like Tony1 who are not here to build a travel guide, as Andre Carrotflower pointed out. Someone as angry and disruptive as Tony1 has proven himself to be isn't going to make a constructive contribution to WMF elections. Ground Zero (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of a good reason to revisit this all these years later. If he wants to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation for permission to vote in board elections or whatever, that's up to him, not us. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support unblocking him. I don't see any need to maintain the block. For those that don't know, The Wikipedia Library offers free access to a variety of reliable sources, mainly useful for verifying content in Wikipedia articles. Being blocked anywhere means you can't use it. Tony's made a couple hundred thousand edits at the English Wikipedia, and he has been highly active in the Featured Article process. I don't think that we need to prevent that. Also, it seems a bit strange to jump from a three-day block in 2013 to an indef block six years later. I'm also not impressed with the excuse for the 2019 block. Basically, Andre pinged Tony1, in a comment in which Andre insults an opinion piece that Tony1 wrote on a different site as "a horribly one-sided hack job". Tony1 hadn't edited here for more than five years. Then Andre blocks Tony1 because he's apparently shocked, shocked to discover that authors feel angry when you insult their writing. See the discussion and Andre's edit summary here, in which Andre takes responsibility for triggering the angry exchange while removing Tony's replies (but not Andre's original insulting remarks). I wouldn't necessarily say that blame is equally divided here, but I don't think that a multi-year block is either a necessary or a proportional response to this situation. "Sorry, neither of us should be insulting anyone in public" would IMO have been a more proportional response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that him being able to access the Wikipedia Library was a privilege that he lost. Even if we unblock him, he's blocked on the French Wikipedia as well, and frwiki is known to be very harsh with blocks (they blocked a user (will not get into names) who was blocked only because they made a grammatical error). Even if, I was thinking to remove his email access for spamming our inboxes.
    Meanwhile, we have the same issue with the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, some admins there think that the English Wikipedia is the only WMF project (most of them who think that have almost zero edits outside enwiki and Commons + 1 edit on their meta userpage), and so if a user gets blocked on the English Wikipedia and its preventing them from doing something on another wiki, then they would remain blocked. If the English Wikipedia as a community wants to lose editors from other projects, then too bad. It's too bad that the community that Tony1 is a part has their actions backfire.
    And I think he should still be blocked per NOTHERE and agree with everyone who opposed an unblock. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m confused. I just went to this library, and I can find links to databases such as JSTOR, but JSTOR isn’t part of WP and can be accessed without using WP if you have an account with the third party. And while we are Wikimedia, we aren’t Wikipedia, so I don’t understand why a block on a different wiki would block access to a Wikipedia source. To me the fundamental question here is more why WV-blocked users can’t access a part of WP, rather than whether Tony should be unblocked. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say that I can't think of a good reason why Wikipedia would prevent someone from accessing their library because they're blocked on another Wiki project. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether its his voy based block, or is it his French Wikipedia block that's preventing him from accessing the library. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A French Wikipedia block seems the more likely explanation, I agree. In that case, does he need to be unblocked on WV at all? Or is this a matter solely for French Wikipedia? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Wikivoyage doesn't follow Wikipedia's standard offer (which ArticCynda claims is valid on WY), but in this case, Tony having 200k edits on Wikipedia is not a "get out of jail free card". He's never been constructive here, and by him spamming our emails, it's another sign of him not wanting to build a travel guide. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went into a deeper look, and all it says was no active blocks. These seem to be the ToS:
  • At their last login, did this user meet the criteria set forth in the terms of use?
  • Satisfies minimum account age?
  • Satisfies minimum edit count? (I don't what is the threshold for this)
  • Is not blocked on any project?
So it does appear that it's a block on any WMF site. Regardless, I'm still not convinced that they should be unblocked. Even if we wanted him to use this library, he lost the privilege of voting in the WMF board elections. This isn't really a Georgian Wikipedia block (I say this in risk of getting blocked on kawiki, but over there, if you criticise the behaviour of admins on kawiki, you get blocked for "personal attacks") SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think we can let him unblocked when he makes comments and edit summaries like this or disruptive comments like this or this towards non-English Wikipedia projects. Other disruptive comments by this user:
  • This thread beggars belief. It is symptomatic of a sick, isolationist, xenophobic culture that cannot tolerate criticism. How did WV get this way, or has it always been like this? [- on UBN]
  • Rschen, yes, you're the one who spat all over me a while ago. Not the kind of behaviour I'd expect from someone like you. [- also on UBN]
  • How more skewed and ego-centric could you get? [- User talk:Tony1]
This one is more ridiculous
  • I've not been uncivil to anyone [- on UBN]
  • You will condemn the site to failure if you hound out people who make systemic criticisms, since those criticisms are one way of thinking through solutions. [- on UBN]
For more matters, I don't feel comfortable unblocking someone who for the most part is disruptive, and makes personal attacks and harsh accusations against other editors. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does "[- on UBN]" mean? Pashley (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On User ban nominations. What's in the square brackets is just where he mentioned it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to plough through archives to be able to judge whether the ban was justified at the time, but it is evident that he is a problem user. There are productive and valuable problem users, and he might be one of those at Wikipedia, but he isn't one over here. If the Wikipedia community feels he is valuable, they can ask us to unblock him; I'd be glad to consent. –LPfi (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's also a problem on the English Wikinews as well, so I guess we're not alone in having to deal with Tony1 SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the unblock reason is mainly because he can't vote in the WMF election or access the Wikipedia Library because of the current blocks, he should be making a discussion at their respective talk pages, not asking the projects to overturn the blocks. Personally, I find that disqualifying someone from voting by having just a single block (whether for a certain length while the election is happening or indefinitely) in any project quite problematic and leads to the spectre of disenfranchisement. So for that reason, I oppose the unblock request but I am sympathetic to his situation. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with focusing on comments people made eight and nine years ago. SHB, I know your account is only eight months old, but imagine what it would be like. Do you want someone, eight or nine years from now, to come back to you and say "Yeah, well, I remember you edit warring with a Steward on Meta-Wiki, with you changing a line in a template that said right there next to the words you were changing, back in August 2021, and in October 2021, you were edit-warring with one of the official Wiki Loves organizers over how to organize the project pages [Also: multiple reverts in less than an hour, while insisting the the organizers were required to explain themselves to you? Really?], so you're obviously NOTHERE and need to be blocked forever". Would you feel a little dismayed to have years-old mistakes thrown up at you, as if you couldn't possibly have learned from those and would certainly make the same mistakes again if you were given the ability to edit?
I don't see a problem with an edit summary of "My prediction is that WV is going to fade over the next few years, and then die". What's the charge: "Failure to be sufficiently enthusiastic"? It feels like we're holding a permanent grudge because someone hurt our feelings (and by "our", I mean "people who were editing here in 2012", which does not include several of us in this discussion). The way to address a prediction of failure is to succeed, not to block people who were skeptical. Rejecting people because they're not enthusiastic about your hobby is something you expect from children. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least, for the most part, when Tony spammed our emails, he could have explained what got him blocked, just like what you need to do when you appeal a Wikipedia block (or really, a block anywhere). In those cases, the three reasons he gave in his appeal:
  • The block prevents me from accessing the Wikipedia Library of non-free academic journals to provide sources for articles at en.WP I edit.
  • The block prevented me from voting in the recent election of WMF board members.
  • Crucially, I do not expect to edit Wikivoyage again.
None of those reasons explain why he got blocked, and what benefit the project will get if you unblock him. What more, he never apologised to Andre and Rschen after this personal attacks directed at him.
Regarding "My prediction is that WV is going to fade over the next few years, and then die", that's a matter of opinion on how you interpret it. In my opinion, that could have been a little more acceptable if he had a good record here, but as Andre mentioned "This user has been a thorn in our side almost from Day 1". If you take cross wiki issues out, and a brand newbie comes and all they do is bicker on how Wikivoyage is going to fail, or negatively distract the community from project goals, then literally, it's easy to assume that they're not here to build a travel guide. Now Tony1 is a little different case since he has 200k edits on the English Wikipedia. But he's not just been an issue here, he's also a problem on frwiki as well, and unblocking him here will do little to benefit us. Given the fact that he has zero good contributions here, I'm not convinced he should get unblocked. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we expect anyone to follow the unblocking rules from another project?
(The enwiki rules are not perfect, and I would not recommend adopting them. The most common complaint is that they expect editors who were wrongly blocked to grovel about how wrong they were to do something that they thought, and still think, was reasonable. If you've got friends among the admins, you can usually get around this, but when the real problem is "hot-headed admin over-reacted instead of asking for a second opinion", most blocked editors are expected to say that they agree with the admin that it is harmful to Wikipedia to have editors who hold a different viewpoint, and that they'll never do that again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the enwiki things. An IP who has now retired from editing Wikivoyage (, was blocked there for trouting another user per "not here", which is a little silly IMO (Tony is different though, as he's made a tireless amount of personal attacks against Andre). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Signpost piece detailing what a piece of shit the English Wikvoyage is (and that other languages do not exist at all) is a dealbreaker for me. I oppose an unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think people have a right to write criticisms if our site if they want, but if they do, they can’t realistically expect us to accept those people as part of the Wikivoyage community — they don’t support our goal to be a travel guide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
130% agree. But even then, their personal attacks against Andre Carrotflower and Rschen7754 in my opinion, was unacceptable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unblock. Sucks that Tony is unable to do some stuff he wants to do now because of earlier misconduct, but who knew that actions had consequences? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than COVID and the anxieties that come along with it, and other than just plain being busy with other stuff, comments like those from WhatamIdoing are a good example of a reason I've yet to resume active Wikivoyage editing. Here is someone who, out of one side of their mouth, has waxed rhapsodic about the friendly editing environment here and how much more pleasant it is than Wikipedia, yet on the other hand, seems to be doing everything they can to degrade that friendly environment through a longstanding pattern of making veiled personal attacks on myself and other editors, performatively opposing popular proposals for nonsensical reasons and seemingly only for the sake of fomenting confrontation and obstruction, and rolling out the welcome mat for users whose conduct is uniformly disruptive and abhorrent. I have tried hard to stay patient and continue assuming good faith, largely for the sake of said friendly editing environment, but now it appears the disparagements, which were annoying enough when I was here and active, continue behind my back even in my absence. So now that I'm in a period of inactivity with no defined endpoint, the stakes are lower for me, and I can be more open about the fact that this conduct is hypocritical, bad-faith, and unbecoming a user who has the (WMF) suffix on their [alternate] account. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as TT says, actions have consequences, and Tony should have thought about his actions in the first place. I must say, I'm not a fan of the WP practice of, as some have identified it, groveling to admins in order to be unblocked. The requests for apology haven't worked on WV and I think in future we shouldn't be as willing to give opportunities for apologies. When someone like Tony does what he does, we need to say enough is enough when the harm is done, and not leave the door half-open for these users to continue to cause us problems in the future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had run-ins with Tony1 on multiple projects (mostly English Wikipedia), some positive, some unfortunately negative. He has a lot of skill when it comes to professional writing and citations which is unparalleled and which is largely why he has not been blocked from the project where he has the most edits, English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he has also made personal attacks as well as attacks on the English Wikivoyage (namely, the Signpost article mentioned earlier). Personally I think that an indefinite block was excessive and I would suggest unblocking him, but warning him that future disruptive conduct would lead to a block (possibly indefinite) being quickly reinstated. But, that is not an opinion that I hold strongly and would defer to the active community on that question. (And as far as the global consequences, he would have to get unblocked on French Wikipedia too in order to be reinstated in the areas he mentions). --Rschen7754 18:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the question of legitimate criticism, I as a former steward really do question the legitimacy of a few Wikimedia projects, and sometimes openly discuss those criticisms, but then I don't go around writing one-sided articles in venues like the Signpost. --Rschen7754 18:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From an envoy perspective, I wouldn't like the precedent that would be set if Tony was unblocked. Other recurring banned editors like AC and LM may also try to seek forgiveness after 8 or 9 years and it will open a can of worms here. From a WMF perspective, I do agree that it's unfair that a block/ban on a WMF wiki prevents a user from accessing the Wikipedia Library of non-free academic journals but that's an issue that should be resolved at the WMF level. There are likely to be other editors who were disruptive and net negatives in one project but net benefits to others and are stuck in a similar position to Tony1. A solution should be sought that will help all editors in the same boat as Tony1 and not just him. Gizza (roam) 01:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AC tried to appeal his ban a couple of days ago as well, so if we do unblock this guy and leave AC blocked, AC will accuse us of discrimination, since he got banned for a similar behaviour. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it would help, I would be willing to advocate access to the Wikipedia Library for all Wikipedia users in good standing (i.e., not blocked there), in the appropriate forum. Since he doesn't plan to make any edits here, his petition for reinstatement shouldn't be relevant. I don't agree that AC was banned for similar behavior. He made edits to destination articles here that were inaccurate, on the basis of bigotry. Tony1 was banned for these two posts, though with the previous baggage of this userban thread and this one, neither of which resulted in bans. It's unpleasant to relitigate this, but my feeling is, he went out of his way to defame the site and was openly hostile to the admins, not simply disagreeing with decisions but going much further than that. In no way do I think we would tolerate that kind of hostile behavior now, the way we did then. All that said, I sincerely wish him well and repeat my offer to speak up on his behalf elsewhere, but not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I meant "AC was banned for similar behaviour", I was talking in the sense he was disruptive and not what he actually did (both Tony and AC were disruptive, and so both got banned but AC was banned for bigotry, while Tony was banned for personal attacks which are both disruptive). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but to be honest, I don't care what AC or his anti-Wikivoyage allies think of us. It's pretty rich coming from AC to accuse us of discrimination, so that doesn't concern me. I agree with the comments above that we ought to remove this restriction from the Wikipedia Library, which doesn't make sense. If someone is accessing Wikipedia Library who shouldn't, the response is for Wikipedia to block that person. Wikivoyage blocks shouldn't be affecting other websites; that's equivalent to someone being banned from Gmail and consequently not being able to use Google Search. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting about AC, and back to Tony, but even if we manage to remove this restriction from the Wikipedia Library, he needs to get his French Wikipedia block sorted out. And being blocked on the French Wikipedia is a good reason to prevent someone accessing the library given that they are actually Wikipedia, not a sister project. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Do we know if he's contacted French Wikipedia yet? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last edit by him on the French Wikipedia was in 2011, and checking "WhatLinksHere", the only links about him were seen on ANI were in 2009. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - just a quick note here that Tony emailed us and we have whitelisted his account for access to the library, so that needn't be a concern for you here with respect to his block status. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know. I'm glad you did that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-). So the only concern of Tony's was not being able to vote in the board elections, but... as Andre Carrotflower mentioned, that's a privilege, not a right. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another new template, this time something that is actually useful[edit]

Another new template, and that is {{PartOfPhrasebook}}. In short, it works similar to how we categorise topics with {{PartOfTopic}} such as Wine Regions of Ontario is basically categorised into Category:Topics in Canada, the same way it's categorised into Category:Alcoholic beverages. Similarly, this template should also basically do something similar, the only thing is it does not change our breadcrumb structure, only our category structure. Currently, Category:Phrasebooks is somewhat an unfriendly long list, so this template does do a good job in breaking it up. The only article where this is currently used, at the time of writing this is the French phrasebook. On top of all this, this template also eliminates the need to use {{phrasebookguide}} as all the main purposes of that template is basically integrated into this. On how that template works, see the documentation page.

Some questions answered here:

  • How much more difficult would this template be for newbies?

Well, it's just as easy to use as {{PartOfTopic}}, {{IsPartOf}}, or {{PartOfItinerary}}. If those templates are too hard to use, uhm, I don't know what to say.

  • Regarding on how difficult to use this template for languages spoken across two continents.

It should be just as easy to use this template as {{PartOfTopic}}. But this shouldn't be too big of a problem as there's only about 10 languages spoken in more than 2 continents, and meaning that the chance of a newbie having to use any more than the first parameter is almost zero.

  • What are the chances of needing to create a new category?

Zero, because there is already six categories there, and as silly as it sounds, only if a new continent arises.

But in short, this template is no different to how other the two already existing templates of {{PartOfTopic}} and {{PartOfItinerary}} would work

Feel free to ask me any questions re this template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since these categories are not breadcrumbs, how would users find them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikivoyage, categories aren't meant to be found by users, they are for maintenance purposes only. I don't think it is much easier to find a phrasebook among 120 Asian phrasebooks, than it is to find it among the total of 260 phrasebooks. And there is already a break-up in Phrasebooks. If you use some automatic means to check that all phrasebooks are indeed listed at that page, subcategories force you to go through all of them instead of being able to compare single flat lists. So what is the use case? –LPfi (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is already how we treat itineraries, so if this structure seems like a problem, then we also have a problem with itineraries (the breadcrumb structure for itineraries also changed with no consensus a couple of years ago by Traveler100).
re LPfi's concern, this template does not remove the page from Category:Phrasebooks, it only adds the page to the additional category, just like we do for itineraries (except the {{PartOfItinerary}} template is not capable of handling itineraries in two or more continents). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the point. What's the point of these new categories? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Organisation. Keeps things much more cleaner SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who would look at them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People like me who do some maintenance work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does also help with expeditions as well, particularly continent expeditions such as WV:Africa Expedition or a future Wikivoyage:Oceania Expedition that I may propose in the future. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For other expeditions, such as the Nigerian, you'll need a break-up on country level. I feel there might be no end on what structures we might need for different purposes. And adding a group of categories isn't making things cleaner, unless there was some problem to begin with, and I can see none in this case. When there is real work to be done, repeat your suggestion. Perhaps somebody can propose a solution which does not require adding more infrastructure. The itinerary case is different, as the itineraries are split over continental pages. –LPfi (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the scope to country level. So something like Category:Australia language phrasebooks is useful for the Wikivoyage:Australia Expedition. Might be a good way to incorporate phrasebooks into country expeditions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That'd mean 200+ categories. And then you'd have to add French into how many of them? And Russian? –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sole purposes of country categories is for expedition purposes, and since not every country has its expedition. (so countries such as Finland or Norway won't have its own category since its part of the Wikivoyage:Nordic countries Expedition). Otherwise, they should all be sorted out by continent. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And then you'd need a continental section category for the Nordic phrasebooks, or country categories for the union to be used at the expedition page. Having categories for some countries but not for others is not a clean solution. Then you'd rather have a category tree of Categories by expedition or somesuch. But let's solve the problems at hand, not build solutions for possible future problems. Which means, explain the problem at a project page and let's discuss possible solutions together. –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But even with country expeditions, not all of them will need a category. For example, the Portugal Expedition won't ever need its own category since Portuguese is the only language spoken in Portugal. But for countries like the Philippines or India where there's a whole heap of languages used, it would be particularly useful, even if both of them don't have individual expeditions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh-hem. w:Mirandese language --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Never know Portugal had two three well spoken languages, including English SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The itineraries were split into continents because the main Itineraries page became unwieldy to navigate. This diff shows how it looked just before the split. On the other hand, Phrasebooks is easy to navigate on both mobile and desktop. There are less phrasebooks than itineraries as of now and it's easier to present all of them on one page because the links are generally shorter in length. I don't see a pressing need to restructure phrasebooks yet. Gizza (roam) 10:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reemphasise, this template does not place itineraries into new continent pages, it only adds an extra layer of categories. So this template will not change the hierarchy structure, it only adds to the unreadable category structure, and is meant to be a mere aid in an attempt to also bring phrasebooks to geographical expeditions as well as for better organisation within categories. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Also, there was consensus to redo the itineraries page and create the corresponding categories. See Talk:Itineraries#Long_lists. Six editors were involved in the discussion. Gizza (roam) 10:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus to redo the itineraries, but there was no consensus to use {{PartOfItinerary}} (which replaced {{Itinerary}}). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting begins for the MCDC Election[edit]

Voting for the election of the members for the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are running for 7 seats in this election.

Voting is open from October 12 to October 24, 2021.

The Movement Charter committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities will vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1, 2021.

You can learn more about each candidate to inform your vote here

You can also learn more about the Drafting Committee here

We are piloting a voting advice application for this election. Click through the tool and you will see which candidate is closest to you! To try out this tool, visit: App

Go vote at SecurePoll: Vote

Read the full announcement: here

Best,Zuz (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-number headings[edit]

I miss the Auto-number headings option in the Advanced options section of the Appearence tab of Preferences. Why did it disappear? --FredTC (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure either. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the answer is cache fragmentation and other serious server-side performance problems.
It is theoretically possible for a technically inclined editor to write a user script that does the same thing. I haven't heard of anyone doing this (yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday the option was still available for Wikipedia; now it has disappeared there as well. Without the numbering you need to browse the whole wiki source code, to check correctness of the hierarchy of the headings. That is why I'm missing the option. I don't understand the remark about "cache fragmentation ..."; I don't see the relation to a simple numbering function. --FredTC (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The auto-number headings preference option was removed (announced on m:Tech/News/2021/26). If necessary, this former core function can be replaced by a Javascript snipped as demonstrated in mw:Snippets/Auto-number headings. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I'm not happy with the change, but I guess it was necessary. --FredTC (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would the javascript solution work for you? I haven't tried it, but I am sure somebody can try to help you to get it work, if it doesn't out of the box. –LPfi (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Itineraries that need TLC[edit]

Came to mind, but given my mass load of deletions for itineraries recently, I've noticed some "keep" votes, even if there is little content. But I was wondering if we should bring a new page into projectspace (something like Wikivoyage:Itineraries that need TLC) where these itineraries are kept, and if someone wants to work on them, it can. Reasons for this:

  1. Often we don't want to delete the content some contributors have put into these articles
  2. If someone thinks working on it years later seems a viable option, it's there
  3. Often itineraries that were nominated on vfd were worked on for about 1 week

On the other hand:

  1. It still gives the creator incentive to make the article usable, and keep this in mainspace. Otherwise projectspace ≠ mainspace, for readers to view
  2. This page should only be for pages that are more than a useless stub (so a page like Erlian Grassland Tour Loop or Rama's journeys don't go into this page, and should just be deleted)

If the incentive thing doesn't work, I personally feel like if no one touches the article in this new storage page after a certain amount of time (let's say, 3 years?), it can be deleted without a nom.

Does that work better and a better alternative to deleting? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is TLC? LPfi (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tender loving care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that SHB2000's clean-up of dormant itineraries has been a good project, and has resulted in a number of itineraries being improved. Moving new outline itineraries into project space is a good idea. If a contributor starts an itinerary in the hope that someone else will make it usable, we should be able to figure that out pretty quickly. One year in project space should be enough time to determine whether there is interest in working on them or not. Ground Zero (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think our response to a new outline article being created should be encouragement and help in turning it into a detailed, high-quality article, not immediately relegating it to somewhere in project space where it is unlikely to be seen. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy when someone creates a new article with the intent of developing it, although that is better done in User space. Unfortunately what we see mostly is people creating articles for "someone else" to develop. We have hundreds and thousands of stub articles for regular contributors to work on (and I have been adding content to a lot of stub articles), we don't need more added to that list. For example, Kohoku and Miyaki, which were created in 2007 with no content at all, and nothing was done with them for 14 years. These articles don't benefit readers, and stub articles don't make Wikivoyage look like a useful resource. Ground Zero (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I myself have created some of these itineraries, although I've worked on them, and nearly all of them are usable. The only one I've created recently that remains outline (Alpine Way), was created as one of my redirects on Khancoban seemed controversial, and every time I went back to the Alpine Way page, I seemed to get emotional (it was the last place I was, before going into a 108 day lockdown, and every time I even saw a link of "Alpine Way", it seemed to give me pre lockdown memories). I do have plans to merge that page though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this thing does go ahead, would this proposal be a good rough draft on how long things should go where:
  • Outline itineraries that are not famously marked trails (i.e. something like Easy Rider or even Tanami Track) go here after six months, without a redirect. If there's no edits for six additional months, it can be nominated for deletion via vfd (similar what we already do).
  • Outline itineraries that are famously marked trails such as the newly created stub national historic trails go here after 18 months (I would prefer 12 or 15, but I don't think everyone would be happy with that) of no edits without a redirect, and if it remains an outline itinerary after 48 months, it gets deleted via vfd (that is more than enough for anyone to work on it, and the work doesn't get left to Someone else.
  • Once an article becomes usable in this project space, it immediately get's moved out
  • By definition of "no edits", it means actual actual edits about the itinerary, so things like reverting spam/vandalism, fixing typos, simple copyedits, or formatting fixes don't count
This is far lenient, and gives years to work on it. And I feel that our "don't delete famously marked trails" is somewhat used as an excuse to a) not delete the itinerary, but b) also leave the work to Someone else. So basically, it doesn't get moved here immediately and so it does give time to work on it, but at the same time, it forces the creator to make it usable and out into mainspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that after 18 months, the original creator has forgotten about it, and it being moved out of mainspace doesn't provide any discouragement. Any one who wanted to work on the itinerary has had plenty of time, but often we want a new user turning up to find and work on that itinerary. Will they find it in project space? By what mechanism? I still believe that the odd outline has a higher probability to be developed than a non-linked trail (this is different from stub travel topics, where the scope and structure is given by the author, not by our guidelines), and that the odd outline does not discourage readers.
One way to make projects space outlines findable would be to leave redlinks in the summary articles (such as United States National Trails System), and give a link to the project space article for users following that redlink (I suppose it could be done with some mediawiki-space magic). That would require the redirect to be deleted.
LPfi (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the goal is. Is it closer to "get pages improved" or "hide embarrassingly incomplete pages"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to itinerary and topic articles, we should not be encouraging article creation by people who aren't willing to make the articles usable. Itinerary and topic articles can bring colour and depth to a travel guide, but they are not the core of a travel guide. Dedicated editors are better off spending time improving destination articles than on itinerary and topic articles that are started and abandoned. Saying that such pages are not part of the guide is sensible if people are uncomfortable with deleting them. Ground Zero (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the reasoning, then why not outright delete them? Because we don't have the courage to do that? I don't like that line of thought. Moving the articles to project space signals that this is something the insiders should take care of – but you say we shan't use our energy on that. Then move them to the creators user space. But is this the way to go also for sufficiently famous marked routes? I assumed we wanted those to be written, i.e. have people spend time on them. –LPfi (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because some people think that someone else will work on these articles some day, so it is worth saving whatever text there is. Insiders can work on whatever they want without regard to what I think. For my part, I think that crappy articles put readers off Wikivoyage, so I work on improving the articles we have. But there are so many articles that need improvement to be useful. I think it is a bad idea to have people creating more articles to be improved by "other people". We don't have enough regular contributors to need passers-by to ge creating more clean-up/article improvement work for us.
This stub article sat for 16 years without any useful content being added. This one sat for 15 years waiting for "Someone Else", as did this one. Ground Zero (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And sadly that was the case for much of these. While some were actually worked on well, such as Nidaros Path (even to the point where LPfi made a mapline, which is time consuming but makes it usable), a lot of articles such as Mountains to Sound Greenway have remained an outline (although that has been taken care of) end up in the same state as they were before vfd.
To LPfi's "But is this the way to go also for sufficiently famous marked routes?", and under these proposed proposal, it also includes famously marked routes, so cases like National Historic trails don't get away, as they [some newly created ones] are just as useless since it has no travel info. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a long standing one. I personally feel the "notable itinerary" thing is being heavily misused to keep articles, and at the same time, leave it to Someone Else. This is not just for itineraries, but destination articles as well. When I upgraded about 400 articles from outline to usable, almost about 150 of them were stubs that were near useless that it may have been better to not have the article in the first place. I probably improved about 100 of them to bare usable, and redirected the other 50 or so. Such include Houtman Abrolhos, a set of uninhabited islands.
To be fair, I wouldn't normally quote someone who has made a ton of personal attacks, but in this case, KevRobbAU/SCO (since retired) has time and time said that it's better to get articles usable from the very start. And I think we can all agree on that – but sadly that's not the case. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we have too many weak outlines and that new ones shouldn't be created. I prefer redlinks in most cases where an article would be nice to have. Then, when there is some information not easy to reproduce, deletion is a shame (and redirects problematic). Ideally the proportion of weak outlines would be low enough not to give a bad impression, and we could then keep the few that don't get to usable to be worked on later.
If we disregard the historic baggage of existing stubs, I'd hope we could each avoid creating these outlines, and then we wouldn't have to discuss deleting them. Even if one can create an article with some info, the same work put into improving another article will usually be much more valuable and create no frustration in the community or among readers.
There may be exceptions, such as if you travel through part of an itinerary and thus have unique information on it that you want to save in a findable place, but things that can easily be researched on the net should either be put into a usable itinerary or restricted to a Do listing or Do subsection.
LPfi (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

email in listings[edit]

Today I noticed that there is an extra envelope at an email address in a listing: the one front of the email address and also one after it. Didn't I notice this second one before, or is it new?

--FredTC (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FredTC: noticed this on Tavares as well. Strange. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because of the listing but for any "clickable-email": It should be a new WMF setting. If confirmed there are two choices:
  1. hide this new feature through a dedicated CSS
  2. change the listing output to eliminate the first ✉ symbol
Well actually there's a third one: keep two mail symbols :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that a new WMF setting gives a new pdf icon as well for links that are pdfs as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked my question, it was because I noticed it here on English WV, checking the Dutch WV learned that it did not happen there. But today I checked the Dutch WV again and the same is happening there now as well.
Did WMF inform us about this change, including a warning that we might need to change things (like templates and help documentation)? If not, should we complain about it to WMF? Can we expect more of such changes, like for phone numbers?
Btw, I think we should take action 2.
--FredTC (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has done some other unusual things here as well, such as removing a list of authors in the page footer (see SelfieCity's talk page). A lot of us weren't happy with that change either, but maybe WhatamIdoing might know anything about this change. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, I've updated the discussion you mention. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any recent tasks that are only about icons for e-mail addresses, but I wonder if it's a consequence of phab:T191021. @Jdlrobson, what do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No that bug is not related.
It looks like Wikivoyage is making use of the ✉ character in the "listing" template. External icons which point to emails will be followed by a icon. I would suggest removing the ✉ character. If that icon is preferred it would be better to apply that via CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing the initial ✉ character (choice 2). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another misbehaving email icon, but does anyone know why the email listed is going on a completely new line in Budderoo National Park#Buy? I suppose this could be fixed by adding a   tag. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not blame the icon. The address is 40 chars, so the probability of it ending up in the hyphenation zone is quite big. Try widening the browser window (or narrowing it until you have the icon near the first column) and see whether there is still a line break after the icon. For me the line break disappeared. Non-Unicode browser might get odd control characters because of the icon (fs and ht + bit8), but I assume that's not your problem. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, I suppose you are talking of the existing icon. In this case, yes we could avoid the separation between icon and address, however, if I understand correctly the community will is to eliminate that icon, keeping the new one, and the new one do not have this issue. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the phone number, there is an ordinary space, not an  , between the icon and the phone number, which will equally allow a line break between the icon and the number. I assume that is voluntary, modelled after printed guides with narrow columns, and the e-mail icon has been behaving similarly. –LPfi (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Create new page"[edit]

When you create a new page on-wiki, you get a menu of possible templates with which to start your article. The menu reads "City • City District • Region • National Park • Phrasebook • Huge airport • Dive site • Itinerary • Event • Disambiguation • Redirect" currently. There is no link to "rural area" such as Template:Ruralarea skeleton. How do you edit this menu? Or is WMF needed to make this change? New users ought to be aware of all the article templates when creating a new article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SelfieCity: Yes Done. See Special:Diff/4313111. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks! You found that page really quickly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited that page a couple of times (when adding "itinerary" and "event"), so I was a bit familiar with this page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw once I checked the article history. Thanks again! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for our German East Africa article[edit]

Most of you will remember the history of this article back three months ago, but summary short:

  • It was an article that existed until it was nominated for deletion in July this year
  • It was deleted that same month, although Pashley had kept a copy of the article in their userspace to work on a few days before it was deleted
  • It was well improved by Pashley, and it became back into mainspace
  • Now while most of it was re-written, some of the original text remains

Now given that attribution is needed, does anybody know how to get the old history back? I don't know exactly how this will work, but I presume that the German East Africa article will need to be moved to another page (out of mainspace), restore this old page, move it into someone's userspace (feel free to move this into my userspace) and then link the attribution on the relevant talk page? I think I know how to fix this issue, but I thought I'd let everyone know first and if there's a better alt solution, please share it below. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The clean solution would be a history merge. This might be helpful: w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_guide/Fixing_cut-and-paste_moves. --El Grafo (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History merge is the way to do it – in this case. Done.
If there had been a content fork, then having revisions from the two forks intermingled would have been confusing, and each contributors contribution very hard to discern. In such cases it is much better to leave the history of one of the branches connected to another page. If one branch is going to be redirected to the other, leave the history there. In cases like this (development on user page, where pages aren't guaranteed to stay) finding a name for the branch to be redirected is harder. Luckily no edits had been done to the mainspace page after the copying.
LPfi (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map with previous DOTM and OTBP[edit]

Is there a place where I could find a map with all previous DOTM or OTBP like how the star articles have a map with all star articles highlighted. I'd be curious to see what regions and countries are under or overrepresented. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like something like that. It's quite obvious that most of Africa (except ZA), South America and Oceania (except Australia/PNG and NZ) are the most under-represented, but there may be an area not represented well that we're probably missed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I turn all the previous destinations into Markers (with coords) and add a map frame at the top of the article to provide this (a static map may look better but I can't use inkscape). Tai123.123 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through previous destinations and learned we've featured more destinations from Malawi than Austria. Tai123.123 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how Movement Strategy Implementation Grants can support your Movement Strategy plans[edit]

Movement Strategy Implementation grants now provide more than $2,000 USD to put Movement Strategy plans into action. Find out more about Movement Strategy Implementation grants, the criteria, and how to apply here.

Also, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee election is still ongoing. It would be great to increase community participation. If you haven't voted now is the time. Please vote here before October 24. Regards, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Read this message in another language


We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will begin on 27 October (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.


  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Update on the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes
  • Questions and answers


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]