Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month - December 2017[edit]

As of today now only 1000 articles without geo templates, down 232 from the start on this month. Will a little more assistance with the task it could be completed by the end of the year. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's some links to city articles that are missing the {{geo}} template:

It should be possible to switch the search to a different type of article in the Category:Articles by type if you want to work on non-city articles; just take out "City articles" in the search box and replace it with a different category name, such as "Airport articles" and click the "Do it!" button (note that all of the airport articles already have the geo template, so there will be none in that list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed a few ones, mostly by copying existing coordinates from the linked Wikidata item. That made me think: How about using the coordinates of the Wikidata item when a geo template is not available? In the rare cases where the touristic center is far from the administrative center, all we would need is to add the template. That could save us some energy to deploy it elsewhere :-) Syced (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that Wikidata and Wikipedia are often wrong in the articles that do not have geo on Wikivoyage. Often the reason they currently do not have geo tags is because of wrong spelling or more than one place with the same name. I have spent as much time correcting (mainly merging or redirecting) Wikidata entries as I have adding geo tags with this project. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As of 31 December 2017 there are now only 18 articles without geo template, 2 are off planet so do not count, the rest are diving articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Can someone check the corrections I have made. I believe the Patalpani article which mentions the waterfall and a rail station is not the same as the location on wikipedia w:Patalpani, Bhopal. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Need your help convincing more prominent Wikipedians to help expand Wikivoyage[edit]

I am currently thinking of trying to convince some of the most prominent/prolific Wikipedians at the Hebrew Wikipedia to help expand the Hebrew Wikivoyage (there are only so many Hebrew speakers whom actually contribute to Hebrew Wiki websites, and the majority of them are mostly active on the Hebrew Wikipedia, so it makes most sense to me to go there in order to try and recruit potential editors).

Although through the years the Hebrew Wikivoyage was mostly disregarded by Hebrew speaking Wikipedians, probably because initially we had to build the foundation of the website from scratch + I think many Wikipedians never saw the advantages of Wikivoyage and probably prefered to mostly write encyclopedic articles instead... I am hoping that nowadays, that it is much more clear that the Hebrew Wikivoyage supplies a lot of valuable content which does not exist in Wikipedia and that it isn't a Wikipedia clone.... some of them might actually choose to join the effort.

If possible, please write below the main arguments ("pitch") which in your opinion might hopefully convince some of them to help expand Wikivoyage - Why in your opinion is Wikivoyage important/essential? Why should they invest their time and efforts in Wikivoyage in addition to Wikipedia? (any other ideas for arguments that might convince long time prominent Wikipedians to help out would be more than welcome). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

One thing that I would emphasize is how the writing at Wikivoyage is more casual and fun. It's still work but it's not like an encyclopedia so it gives you an opportunity to write in a different style which is more enjoyable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I echo Justin's comments. Wikipedia policy strikes me as restrictive and repressively applied. When editing there I feel almost like I'm in a straitjacket, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Wikivoyage is nothing like that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point, although it's probably not the main argument that would convince a prominent prolific Wikipedian to support Wikivoyage (because most likely, a typical prominent Wikipedia editor... I am talking about the 200-400 people whom made most of what is the Hebrew Wikipedia... has most likely gotten used to writing in the "Wikipedia" writing style by now, and doesn't see an advantage in not writing in a encyclopedic writing style). Also, the argument about the text in Wikivoyage being written in a less formal and more casual and fun style... this point is probably not yet well noticed in most Wikivoyage editions (including the Hebrew Wikivoyage) EXCEPT for the English Wikivoyage or the German Wikivoyage, since most Wikivoyage editions are low on text due to the relative low amounts of active prolific editors/writers. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I find de-WV at times overly formal an bureaucratic... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That may be your experience, but trashing Wikipedia is probably the worst way to attract Wikipedians here, and the most effective way of making them feel unwelcome. Maybe we could do a bit less of that so that we don't scare people away. Ground Zero (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to trash anyone... on the contrary (and I'm very sorry if you got that impression from what I wrote so far). I myself am a Wikipedian (one of those 200-400 people whom made most of what is the Hebrew Wikipedia nowadays) and through the last five years ALL the 8-10 prolific editors on the Hebrew Wikivoyage were also Wikipedians whom discovered Wikivoyage after first being active for a while at Wikipedia (and all but me eventually gave up due to various reasons). I tend to believe that most Wikivoyager on the Hebrew Wikivoyage are most likely to have been Wikipedians beforehand simply because people whom edit Wikipedia for a while acquire tools and knowledge about how to collaborative create decent quality content on wiki websites (while most people don't know how to do so or don't have any interest in doing so). Because of that, I tend to believe that the future of the Hebrew Wikivoyage (and maybe of other smaller editions of Wikivoyage) heavily relies on Wikipedians and that it is important to look into how to make the case that Wikivoyage is important, valuable, and that more Wikipedians should consider helping out (and I believe that in order to do so it is very important to listen to the arguments made by the prominent Wikipedians whom refuse to help improve/expand Wikivoyage). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@ויקיג'אנקי: No, I wasn't referring to your comment. I was referring to comments by other editors, here and in other discussions. Ground Zero (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I stay because it's fun and the people are nice.
Also, it's a good place for information that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If the overall mission appeals to you, then the idea of sharing your knowledge doesn't need much explaining. This is the place for that part of "the sum of human knowledge" that sounds like "whenever we have visitors, we always take them to..." or "the best value for your hotel money is at...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I actually also like the more relaxed tone. Another thing which I prefer with Wikivoyage is that I feel like I'm making a larger individual impact here. One additional active editor makes a much larger difference to Wikivoyage than to Wikipedia. I suspect that a good tactic for attracting new editors is to ask for specific help. E.g. if you see that a wikipedian is from X you can ask if the person could help editing the X Wikivoyage article. It is always nice to feel wanted, and I think that many wikipedians wouldn't mind doing a small task like updating one article. Once they try Wikivoyage for themselves they'll hopefully get hooked and stay. MartinJacobson (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried getting specific editors from the Hebrew Wikipedia that seem to be the experts about specific cities/countries (for example, people whom made most contributions to the articles of prominent cities/countries, but after a while I found out that in the Hebrew Wikivoyage most of those prolific writers actually never been to those cities/countries, but actually write a relative short summarized article based on the information which exists on the parallel articles in the English Wikipedia (this is most likely due to the fact that most Hebrew speakers live in Israel). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I think wikis can be revolutionary in many areas, not just the world of encyclopedias. I'm a fan of most not-for-profit wikis in existence and all the non-WP ones tend to be undervalued by readers and editors alike. Also I think there are many people interested in actively writing travel context that would never write for Wikipedia. The number of travel bloggers, travellers who post articles and comments on dedicated forums, people who review points of interest on Tripadvisor, Yelp, even Quora etc. is huge, far more than the number of people who edit Wikipedia. That is the much larger untapped pool IMO but the challenge is to get them to join us. Gizza (roam) 01:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing just latest changes on watchlist[edit]

I now see only the latest change of each article on the watchlist, although I have chosen to see all. As the latest change is no more likely to be important than the others (in fact major changes are usually followed by minor edits) the watchlist is now nearly useless. Am I supposed to look at the history of every article listed? A lot of unnecessary clicking. Is it just me or has there been some update causing this? I use the classic Monobook skin, which might affect things. --LPfi (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@LPfi: I also use Monobook and have "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" checked at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. Are you sure that you saved it as such? I am seeing all changes. 22:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I have had it marked for ages and haven't touched it recently. I also twice checked it was checked. I now un- and rechecked it. The problem persists. I did something to disable some new features some time ago, might there be some coupling? At sv-wp the watchlist works as expected. --LPfi (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The watchlist seems to work fine on other computers. I will get back if I find something. --LPfi (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Travel topics broken on mobile[edit]

We must think "mobile first", because most Internet users (and certainly most travelers) are on mobile.

Unfortunately, Travel topics is broken on mobile, each line is a bit longer than the "card" it is in, so for instance if you want to read the first paragraph you have to scroll left/right/left/right every 10 words.

The "sub-cards" also look weird because they do not start at the same height (when you are on mobile you can not see that it is the result of vertically aligning pairs of sub-cards).

Communication looks a bit better, but it is not responsive design or anything close. The paragraphs are so narrow that each line only contains 1 to 3 words.

I know wikicode does not make responsive design easy to implement, but I want to bring this positive criticism here in order to make Wikivoyage's experience for mobile users. Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this comment. The pages are attractively formatted on desktop, but on mobile they don't look great. I think a good solution would be to make it so that on mobile, the pages are displayed as just one column rather than two. I have no idea how to implement this, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have brought up the topic here before about mobile functionality. Totally agree should be thinking mobile first. Also have no idea how this is defined and who knows anything about the subject. Who do we ask about this subject? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing might be able to help, or if not maybe she knows someone at the WMF who can help with optimizing for mobile devices. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Major - undiscussed? - change to Jerusalem districts[edit]

So the user whose name consists of Hebrew characters made a major change to Jerusalem and moved the erstwhile district articles Jerusalem/Ein Kerem and Jerusalem/Haredi. I am agnostic as to the value of the district layout old or new, but it appears to me the old layout covered the entire city while the new one does not. What I want to stress for now is that I could not find any place where the changes were proposed or discussed before being implemented. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I created an expedition (in userspace)[edit]

So, I made this in my userspace. Before I move it to main, I would like someone - was it User:Traveler100 who did them in the past? - to make one of those nifty status update checkbar things we usually have for expeditions which tell us which listings are needed and which status articles have. You can of course weigh in, edit and ask me questions and I will make it a regular live expedition as soon as the aforementioned feature is added. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I will give it a go. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry for misspelling your username... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello... My is Herwia, good to know this Thank you

Best Regards, Herwia —The preceding comment was added by Herwia2018 (talkcontribs)

@Herwia2018: Hello and welcome. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


This template is broken somehow, given the disproportionate number of LintError pages that seem to be caused by it.

Can someone PLEASE repair it so that a vast number of LintError's can be eliminated very quickly?

The precise reasons for it's failure, have me head-scratching, and a template this important should be re-written so it can be maintained by normal users, and not a template genius. I am of the view it should be converted to Lua as soon as possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Tell me if this fixed it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Well it fixed some of the problems I'd been seeing. It's not a complete answer, as I am seeing some different issues now. I noted a few other concerns on your talk page, or in edit summaries when i found temporary soloutions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Diving in the United Kingdom showing up on LintErrors, No immediate concern found.[edit]

So what broke?

This is generating an unbalanced span somehow inside a template called {{divesitelisting}}?

Can someone good with templates figure out WHY it's unbalanced and add the appropriate tag in the correct location please? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of the divesitelisting have bullet points in them, that could be it.
On a general point, is there a page on Wikivoyage explaining why there is this Lint Error activity, what tools there are to identify them, what needs to be done etc. Edits appear to be affecting a lot of pages, would be useful to explain to people. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be helpful. Most of the remaining LintErrors in mainspace though seem to be directly connected with the listing template. As I've said elsewhere this should be re-written in Lua, and the design limitations owing to the use of bdi tags reconsidered. (For those technically minded see also and vs This would seem to suggest that putting multiple paragraphs inside BDI tags shouldn't work, and only does so because of a quirk in how media-wiki tidies up the HTML generated. Ideally the template should be re-written so that the generated HTML is properly structured.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Something like Wikivoyage:LintErrors Expedition. Would appreciate input on this as I have only just started looking at the topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
That's an excellent start, The stripped tags error, seems to be where the parser is encountering a unpaired closing tag, which typically means something is mismatched elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Amtrak Cascades accident[edit]

So according to media coverage there has been an accident on the Amtrak Cascades on its very first run over a new route (boy am I glad that the Nuremberg-Erfurt route "only" had some minor issues with ETCS that while causing delays have not actually hurt anybody). It seems the cause is not yet known but I would presume there are some service disruptions at least until the cause is clear and the issue addressed. We should probably put caution or warning or info boxes in the articles in question. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitely. It was a horrific accident with several fatalities and a larger number of injuries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Our media is now reporting that someone went around the corner 50 mph (80 km/h) too quickly. I presume we'd only use {{warningbox|The United States of America under Donald Trump is a trainwreck. Avoid all unnecessary travel}} in bright red to warn of things which would endanger life or limb for the next hapless voyager to blunder across the 49th parallel. If the impact on *the next voyager* is that the train is not running, then note the disruption in Get around#By train with something less than {{warningbox}}. If the impact is that the next visitor who boards Amtrak anywhere will most surely die, then place the warningboxes at once. K7L (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well if those "excessive velocity" reports turn out to be accurate, this becomes yet another entry in the mind-numbingly long list of "Modern train control could have prevented this accident". I mean yes, the hiccups with ETCS on the Nuremberg-Erfurt line are annoying, but we can see what happens if there is no system that puts in an emergency stop if it detects speeds of 350 km/h (220 mph) (and if only because someone put in a wrong diameter for the wheels). Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, Positive Train Control was installed on the new route but not yet active. Powers (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Postal Area Codes (Postleitzahlen) in Germany[edit]

this is one of several edits where postal area codes (Postleitzahlen) have been removed from an article about Germany as supposedly redundant. I know that this is in line with current policy, but I disagree with policy on that. First of all, an address is only fully clear and unambiguous with the area code. Just google "Goethestraße 20, Berlin" to see what I mean. Second of all, the PLZ will give locals an idea where it is and it will also help if you want to look up the place in google maps or OSM or an old style paper map. Lastly, people are also often immensely proud of their local area code as they often reflect suburbs that have since been annexed or divide a traditionally "red" borough from one where bourgeois Catholicism was strong, one soccer team from another or the "haves" from the "have nots". Perhaps the most iconic example of (former) area codes defining neighborhoods are the two parts of Berlin - Kreuzberg "SO 36" and "SW 61" with the former full of notorious anti-establishment types and surrounded by the wall on three sides and the latter, well, not. So in short we should allow German postal codes and to make this whole thing easier, we should simply add an extra field to listings for the area code to be added. If there is any serious objection that this information is supposed clutter, we can make display of said information and opt-in feature for registered users. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does this apply only to Berlin, or more generally to the country as a whole? If the latter, I have no problem modifying policy to add Germany to our exception(s) - this club of one with the UK as the sole member state is awfully lonely.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well even a city as seemingly small as Erlangen (~100 000 inhabitants) has several PLZs contained in it; I am not sure how many street addresses need the PLZ as disambiguation there, but if - for example - you send a letter to "Neustadt" (without PLZ) it has a lower chance of getting there than if you send it to [five digit code] without the name of the town, as the latter is much more precise and unique. Side note here, before reunification, there were four digit postal codes and the GDR played a practical joke on the West by giving Weimar the exact same postal code as Bonn - the "old" BRD is often known as the "Bonn Republic" while the failed 1919 constitution was debated passed and signed in Weimar, so yes, the GDR tried to make a political statement out of postal codes. At any rate, postal codes give people a rough indication as to which part of town something is in. They are not "accurate to within a few houses" like in the UK (5 digits can never be) but they can sometimes tell you "wrong side of the tracks". Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Federal Republic had the last laugh of course.The only remotely political postcoding I'm aware of here is Buckingham Palace getting assigned SW1A 1AA. The royal cult of personality is all consuming!
I'm thinking that postal usage is less important on Wikivoyage (otherwise why wouldn't we always including the code as standard?), but the PLZ would be helpful for navigating to the right neighbourhood, especially if the same street names come up a lot in different cities and even between districts of the same city. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
We talked about this a while back, and I thought that the conclusion was that the policy needed to be changed to be generally more permissive about postal codes, more or less on a "whenever it's useful to the traveler" basis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I've generally been opposed to including postal codes, but now that it seems more people are using them for sat nav, they are useful for travellers. I agree that it is time to loosen the policy, e.g., to allow them to be included "in countries where the postal codes is specific enough to enable its use in navigation apps", or something to that effect. Ground Zero (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Well in Nicaragua for instance, the postal code is probably of more use in Managua than elsewhere. By the way, the first digit of the postal code isn't too bad a scheme for subdividing the country if the current scheme ever disagrees with us. And it produces 9 regions, easily reducable to 8 by merging RAAN and RAAS. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And I would say there is no reason why we couldn't use postcodes in some cities of a country, and not others, depending on where they're useful (i.e. if they're useful in Managua, but not other parts of the country). The postcodes in Paris are reasonably useful, as they indicate the arrondissement, but elsewhere in the country most municipalities only have one or a few postcodes, assigned haphazardly. Well, all postcodes in France indicate the department, but most people outside of France don't know the department numbers by heart, so there's little use there as far as the average traveller is concerned! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

London tips[edit]

I'm posting this here rather than Talk:London to get more eyes on it and to also encourage others to see if they can find tips-and-tricks posts like this for other articles. Additionally, I don't know anything about London, so I'm not sure how legit these hacks are. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling these "hacks" is a stretch, as many are well-known attractions (perhaps not by tourists). We already list a lot of them, but maybe not all. They're worth looking at anyway, to check we haven't missed anything. Not sure whether you saw, Justin, but that article belongs to a whole section called "Hack your city", and has similar articles on Denver, Philly, Toronto, Houston... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I did, yes. But I'm ignorant about those cities as well, so I'm not sure the extent to which I want to blindly port them into our travel guide. I think it's a very useful resource in principle. Thanks, TT. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely worth looking over. I'm looking through the London one, and if there's anything that seems legit and we haven't already got, I'll add it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


So for a mountain of 6959m why are the only hits I get on Google are copies of Wikivoyage or Wiki-travel and is not listed in w:List of mountains in Nepal? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's misspelled? I get some results for "Numburchuli" and "Numbur" (possibly a nickname for the mountain?), including a Google Maps hit. Maybe a Nepali speaker would be able to find more information. Right now, though, the article has so little information that I wonder if it would be better to just merge to Numbur Cheese Circuit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Numburchuili is mentioned as an alternative name for Numbur in Peakbook as ref. - (Wikidata - Q20746995 may be correct from Numbur in dewikipedia?) -- Matroc (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems more often known as Numbur – "chuili" or "chuli" occurs in other mountain names, so maybe just means "mount". Redirect to Numbur Cheese Circuit, which already has a lot of the info. Nurg (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the German Wikipedia article describes the relevant mountain? –StellarD (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the useful input. Was also thinking Numbur Cheese Circuit should be rewritten as an itinerary. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is it exactly - challenge of the day[edit]

It's at co-ords 7.07, 0.60, immediately adjacent to the border with Togo. The only access from within Ghana is by walking track. There is road access – the only road access – from Togo, which causes some small political problems. Nurg (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks to be at about 20.467, 100.773, based on TripAdvisor. It's also labeled 'Gibbon Experience' on the Mapnik layer of GeoMap (visible if you zoom in to level 12+). –StellarD (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thulo Sailung apparently means 'Mt. Sailung', and the surrounding hilly region is also referred to as Sailung, or Sailungeshwor. Sailung Peak is shown on the Mapnik layer of GeoMap at 27.5614, 85.9744, and there's a village temple of Shree Sailungeschwor at 27.57519, 86.00453. I went ahead and added the peak's coordinates as a geotemplate – not sure if the village would be better. –StellarD (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross Country Skiing on Walking Trails[edit]

I've tried cross country skiing a few times and am curious to find any feedback to what I can do or even if possible to try cross country skiing on available walking trails just outside my door in our small town, compact snow. What type of ski I could try for this. Thanks for any suggestions. That is a question for Wikivoyage:Tourist office. /Yvwv (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata request for comment on the ideal data import proccess[edit]

Community Noun project 26481.svg

Dear all

We are currently running a discussion on Wikidata about what the ideal data import process looks like. We want to get the thoughts of people who work on different Wikimedia projects who have different needs and knowledge of different kinds of data to make it our roadmap as inclusive as possible, please take a look.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sweeping the pub[edit]

I've spent a bunch of time clearing out old discussions from the pub today, following the exhortation at the top of this page:

"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...."

I've done my best to move discussions to relevant pages, and failing that, to user talk pages or to the pub archive.

If you think there is a better place for something I've moved, please move it there. I won't be offended. If you'd rather complain about me moving something, please do so at the Pub Sweeping Customer Service Office in person.

You can avoid having your discussions moved somewhere you don't like by starting them on the correct page in the first place. You can add a note here in the pub to direct people to that discussion, which can be removed by a sweeper after a month, and that way we keep the pub tidy. Thank you, and a happy Christmas to those who celebrate it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon "5 years Wikivoyage"[edit]

See here for the preceding discussion, @ויקיג'אנקי, Hobbitschuster, ThunderingTyphoons!, AndreCarrotflower, DaGizza

We propose an edit-a-thon dedicated to the 5th anniversary of the Wikivoyage launch at the WMF servers that took place on January 15, 2013. At Russian Wikivoyage it will be combined with the celebration of our 5000th article that we expect in early January. In a nutshell, we plan to request central banner on relevant language versions of Wikipedia, and offer small presents to everyone who makes useful edits to Wikivoyage articles during the period of January 16 - February 15, 2018.

We prepared several pages:

  • Landing page that explains the basics of adding new objects and editing the existing ones; how to use Listing Editor and what to write in the description field
  • Getting started, where we explain how to use Wikivoyage (dynamic maps, images, GPX files, offline usage) and what is special about our project; how we are different from other travel guides
  • Rules of the edit-a-thon. The participants will score 1 point for each object added to an article, provided that they add practical information and write a meaningful description based on their first-hand knowledge. Copying information from the web is strongly discouraged.
Every participant who scored more than 10 points, will receive postcards (this is equivalent to the prizes given for the Asian Month in Wikipedia). Those participants who will write at least 2 articles with the usable or guide status will receive printed travel guide for the region of their choice.

These are the rules at Russian Wikivoyage. You should feel free to modify them in your own way, but please, stick to several general guidelines:

  • Prepare the landing page that will include brief instructions on which articles to edit, how to edit them, as well as links to relevant policies and guidelines in your language
  • Provide the text of the central notice in your language
  • Name one person who will be responsible for the communication
  • If you plan to give presents, draft formal rules and find the presents. Our presents are partly funded by Wikimedia Russia and partly by ourselves. Talking to your regional chapter or even writing a rapid grant application may be a good idea. The prizes are not compulsory, but they are likely to increase the number of participants and motivate them to work harder.

Deadline: January 4, 2018. After this date I will initiate the Central Notice request on meta. Without the landing page and other relevant information, I won't be able to include your language into the request, and you won't have the central banner. Should you have question, please, ask them here or on my talk page. Happy New Year, and all the best in 2018! --Alexander (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant to say this earlier: A CentralNotice about the "birthday" should be feasible. I suggest pinging Seddon when you post it, because the timeline will be tight.
(Prizes, even if "just" postcards that require people's real-world names and mailing addresses, add significantly to the complexity.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I will ping several Central Notice admins when we are ready.
Regarding the prizes, they are not compulsory (as I already said), and they are not difficult either. We give prizes for Wiki Loves Earth / Monuments on a regular basis. The prizes do show that the whole thing is serious. However, one can forget the prizes for now and focus on a much simpler task: find one person in each language who will be able to write the text of the central notice, prepare the landing page, and hold responsibility for the communication. --Alexander (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, some finicky and largely unreasonable editor appeared in the discussion on Meta. What would you recommend to do in this case? --Alexander (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that any single editor gets "veto rights". If it meets the usual guidelines, and you follow the usual process, then it will probably get approved in due course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Hebrew Wikivoyage is definitely in! I already sent Alexander the information about Hebvoy's landing page and the text in Hebrew for the central notice on Wikimedia's Hebrew sites (Alexander, please reply there as I don't want to open two different discussions on the matter).
I really hope the most prominent users at the other editions of Wikivoyage would also choose to join. I'll try pingining some of their most prominent users below:
ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikivoyage coleagues. Happy to hear good news from you. I want to inform you that we together with Antanana and with help of Wikimedia Ukraine are organizing contest in Ukrainian Wikivoyage "Support Wikivoyage in Ukrainian" which will take place during February. Unfortunatelly, Ukrainian Wikivoyage is not active enough, so we want to make some steps in promoting it. During this contest we expecting new articles in Ukrainian and also articles about Ukraine in foreign languages (in case it is already exist in Ukrainian version). So, we should think about how to combine with Edit-a-thon "5 years Wikivoyage". And I also invite you to the page of our contest and put some propositions of articles about your countries. Happy New Year holidays to everyone! --Visem (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank ויקיג'אנקי send an about Wikivoyage news, though we Chinese editors are not active and the plan time is too tight, but we will do our best! Take this opportunity to fight! The here is Chinese Wikivoyage first creating project (like the Russian one)--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yuriy, thanks for joining! Your landing page looks good. Consider translating other pages too, or at least provide links to relevant policies. --Alexander (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: By the way, Are these edit-a-thon awards from WMF provide?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yuriy, the prizes for the Russian contest are partly sponsored by Wikimedia Russia (it's not the same thing as WMF) and partly by the Russian Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: OK, I understand. so we Chinese Wikivoyage no awards can provide, and take Destination of the month candidates to replace(Cause Chinese editors are not active). Non Russia Wikivoyage maybe can see also Chinese Wikivoyage(Landing page, Getting started, and Rules of the edit-a-thon).--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi! As other users pointed out about their language's wiki our Hindi wikivoyage is also not active (for now). But we will still create landing page and banner text. Please give me English translation.--हिंदुस्थान वासी (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@हिंदुस्थान वासी: Please see the the links below to the translated versions that are currently and stored in my userspace. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding Spanish Wikivoyage, most of Spanish speakers users from the southern hemisphere (several countries in South America) currently are on summer holidays, so there would be not many contributors from there who could active contribute. Also I need a template to write the Spanish version of the Central Notice banner, if you could provide me one. --Zerabat (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat: zh:MediaWiki:Sitenotice is this you want Central Notice banner?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have translated it to es:Wikiviajes:Editatón_Wikiviajes_2018/Sitenotice waiting for more input from users. --Zerabat (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Zerabat, thank you! The automatic translation tells me that you "invite people to celebrate the 5th anniversary of Wikivoyage". Are you sure readers will understand that you actually invite them to contribute to Wikivoyage? --Alexander (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat: You can see Here, Spanish version was established at 2013-01-07!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course, German Wikivoyage will take part in the 2018 Wikivoyage edit-a-thon. We started to prepare the following pages:
We will extend these pages within the next days. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to prepare English versions of the Russian edit-a-thon pages[edit]

Without any doubt, I think what Alexander and the rest of the Russian Wikivoyage community created is the best source which would be the basis for any Wikivoyage edition that will try to create their own version of this edit-a-thon. As such, I think it would be best if we create English versions of the three Russian marathon pages so that people like Yuriy kosygin and Visem above could easily and quickly translate these pages to their own languages before January 4.

The three pages we need to translate to English (they'll be stored in my user space) are:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ויקיג'אנקי: I think these are translated well, should be able to create it! However, the image may need to change for english version.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I plan to create the English version of these images later on today. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I think the examples of high quality articles mentioned on the edit-a-thon page will need to change. The examples of Perm and Bled are high quality on Russian Wikivoyage but not necessarily so here (especially compared to other articles we have). Gizza (roam) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The linked Edit-a-thon article appears to be mainly about Edit-a-thons which happen in a physical room, rather than online only editing events. I assume that we are not planning to hire any editing venues, and should make it clear that this is an online only event which you can join in from the comfort of wherever you are. AlasdairW (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed that link. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Shifting the dates to February?[edit]

@RolandUnger, ויקיג'אנקי, Zerabat, Adehertogh, हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी, Lkcl it, Yuriy kosygin

After checking with one of the Central Notice admins, I would propose shifting the edit-a-thon by 2 weeks and running it in February (1.02-28.02.2018). There are several reasons behind that:

  • Ukrainian Wikivoyage has planned its edit-a-thon for February already long time ago. They would not be able to start on January 16.
  • Talking to Central Notice admins is very slow (I posted the request on January 4 and got the response just now), so we may not be done with the Central Notice by January 15.
  • There will be more time to polish everything and perhaps find the prizes ;)

Should you disagree, tell me ASAP. If you agree, please, update your landing pages and post an announcement in Wikipedia in your language. It is not entirely clear to me whether we have to seek an explicit permission of each Wikipedia where Central Notice will be placed (most people don't seem to do that). I would propose that you make a more general announcement, where you advertise the edit-a-thon itself, invite Wikipedia editors to participate, request comments, and mention that central notice will be enabled. Thank you for cooperation! --Alexander (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In Spanish Wikivoyage case, there isn't many active editors, so meanwhile we aren't displaying banners on all [Spanish] Wikimedia projects who could make aware of the event to other Wikimedians, there shouldn't be any problem to change this event to February, and could be more beneficial to the esvoy community since it allows us to get ready, but I'd like to know if other editions would be willing to do the same change. --Zerabat (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking about Italian Wikivoyage I think that the most important thing is to obtain the central notice banner. If to do this it's better to shift the dates then let's shift them! —Lkcl it (Talk) 09:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We Chinese Wikivoyage also supports Shifting the dates to February, Because time is too fast!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I was browsing through the language editions pages of this event and could see that no one other than ruvoy and ukvoy have changed the dates to February 1st to 28th. Was this proposal finally aproved or are we still going to celebrate this from the next week? --Zerabat (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Zerabat, well, you are free to choose the dates, but central notice is planned for February 1-28. Please, don't forget to post a notification on Wikipedia. --Alexander (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Posting an announcement on Wikipedia[edit]

@RolandUnger, ויקיג'אנקי, Zerabat, Adehertogh, हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी, Lkcl it, Yuriy kosygin

It would be good to post an announcement on Wikipedia in your language and add a link to our request on Meta (some links are already there, but commented out for the time being). This announcement will pursue two goals: first, inform the Wikipedia community about the edit-a-thon; second, fulfill Central Notice guidelines that require a notification of the projects involved.

If you need an example of the announcement, check my recent post at the forum of Russian Wikipedia. I think it is important to put more weight on the edit-a-thon, to avoid nit-picky opinions about the Central Notice itself. It also makes sense to use the wording that implies the Central Notice will be there anyway, and the question is only about its fine-tuning, like banner text and display frequency.

Thank you in advance! --Alexander (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So we have a provisional approval by the Central Notice admin, but he asks us explicitly to notify individual projects (viz. Wikipedias). --Alexander (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
We Chinese Wikivoyage also submitted a request to Wikipedia.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Spanish Wikipedia done. --Zerabat (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Italian Wikipedia and Commons done. --Lkcl it (Talk) 09:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
French wikipedia done.--Adehertogh (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Central Notice design[edit]

Currently, we have two options, one with the cake and one with the logo. Please, make the choice for your language. We may also be asked to use the same banner design in all languages. I would go for the logo then, because posting the cake on top of Wikipedia pages is a bit showy and may not be appreciated by the community. --Alexander (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • We Chinese need 2 logo(Traditional Chinese: 維基導遊, Simplified Chinese: 维基导游), and 4 year (Traditional Chinese: 4週年, Simplified Chinese: 4周年), but we Chinese wikivoyage nobody one can make logo....--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yuriy kosygin, since we have time, I can try to create the logos in Chinese (can't promise it, though, because characters are exotic). However, I don't quite understand why you need the different writings. Are there two different Wikipedias for the Traditional and Simplified Chinese? If not, how should one know which banner to use? --Alexander (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
On the Chinese Wikipedia, users can choose which type of characters they prefer to see, and the software automatically converts them. I assume the software would be able to decide which banner to show in the same way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Alexander, Because Chinese have 2 version user, The Simplified Chinese for China, Malaysia and Singapore use it, and the Traditional Chinese for Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong use it. as Granger talk, On the Chinese Wikipedia, users can choose which type of characters they prefer to see, and the software automatically converts them.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I also like the design with two images, copying and paste yours, I have created the Italian version, but I wasn't able to translate the svg file. Can someone help (years->anni)?. Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 09:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lkcl_it: I created what you've asked for: File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-it 5years.svg. --Zerabat (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Yuriy kosygin: I could make both logos for Chinese wikivoyage, but I don't have a lot of CJK typefaces in my computer to choose from. I have a few Heiti, Ming and Song typefaces, but I don't know if those have proper coverage of chinese characters. Also I don't have any Kaiti font. Are you OK if I use WenQuanYi for the text of 4 years? --Zerabat (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zerabat: I think Heiti typefaces is good, and you can use WenQuanYi for the text of 4 years.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: Yes Done: File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-zh-hans 5years.svg and File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-zh-hant 5years.svg. Do you think both look OK? --Zerabat (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat: It's OK! Not bad.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the one with the logo without cake seems real better. Someone could make a logo in french? "Wikivoyage" = "Wikivoyage" and "5 years" = "5 ans". Thanks--Adehertogh (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Adehertogh: Yes Done, File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-fr 5years.svg. Please tell me if you need me to make a fix. --Zerabat (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Go next" sections[edit]

The article Nuremberg has a rather long "go next" section listing stuff some 200 km south. Is this too much? How much is too much? Hobbitschuster (talk)

It's a bit longer than usual, but not problematically so. Buffalo#Go next links to Finger Lakes, which are a comparable distance away. I'd say leave well enough alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, IMO it's not long enough to be a problem, and it's well-organized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well if you look at the edit history, a lot of those items were added quite recently. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why does that matter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Because I thought "leaving well enough alone" has a built in status quo bias... And the lengthening is not yet very entrenched. But I may be misreading this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me be unambiguous: There is IMO no problem with that section and no reason to shorten it for the sake of shortening it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas missing "add listing" buttons[edit]

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

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

Broken breadcrumbs(?)[edit]

Guys, what does the "tree" icon at the bottom of the article mean? The breadcrumb path of the article looks okay to me, cleaning the cache doesn't fix it.... (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a new region article but no corresponding category has been created. If you click on the icon it will go into create/edit mode. You should then enter the parent region of the new region in the area marked. No problem leaving for a while, the web pages work, just bots will not find articles and searches will not always be complete. In the case of the ones you are creating I have already done the categories. For example Category:Heves County. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
But please do not rename regions unless really necessary. Lot of work to delete categories, create new one and edit again all cities. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, for both info and the fixes! I just made up my mind shortly after I created those, since rest of WV seems to use "XXX County" rather than "XXX (county)"... Won't happen again hopefully :) (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So far, the main options seem to be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article status[edit]

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

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

Common travel scams infographic[edit] It ends up citing the other travel wiki. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Only natural, since they still get more views than us, and are higher up the Alexa rankings. However, with every passing month we are slowly making up the ground. It's a shame just how slow progress is, but if the increased number of active editors on here since this time last year is anything to go by, the process is speeding up. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Map/photo copyright question[edit]

Tambobo Bay is a yachting harbour in the Philippines. Looking at it with Google Earth the profusion of boats is clearly visible. Wow! I'd like to use that type of image in our article but don't want to violate copyright. One link for the Earth image is here; the Bay is near the point East of the town & you need to zoom in to see the boats.

Are the underlying photos from NASA? Another source? Pashley (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am no expert at all, and may just be telling you what you already know, but am mainly answering so this post gets noticed in amongst all the other goings on at the pub. However, I think Google Earth material is all copyrighted to them, as they watermark everything with their logo. OTOH, if you find out the underlying images do indeed belong to NASA, then you are free to use them as you wish, as NASA photography is free of copyright as long as you credit them (it's a bit like our CC licence). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The Google images are under Google copyright, the purchased the images, not published by someone else. You can use them under "fair use" if attributed. See here for some information. Basically you can only use the image on an article covering the subject of the image, must clearly state it is from Google and cannot upload to Commons. Also under Philippines law you will have to make sure there are no pieces of art or architecture in the photo that is under copyright.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think using images from Google Earth would be prohibited by EDP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 - Do you support having the English Wikivoyage participate as well?[edit]

In the recent days I have created the following two pages in my user space - Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage_edit-a-thon_2018 and Wikivoyage:Short guide for new editors - which are mostly based on the edit-a-thon pages created by the Russian Wikivoyage, as well as the pages of Asia Month on the English Wikipedia. I was hoping that having those pages in English would help all other Wikivoyage editions to easily translate them to their own languages, after they would be collaboratively improved (Instead of having each Wikivoyage edition translate these pages by themselves from Russian).

At this point we already have six Wikivoyage editions that would participate in this edit-a-thon: The German Wikivoyage, The Spanish Wikivoyage, The French Wikivoyage, The Russian Wikivoyage, The Chinese Wikivoyage, The Hebrew Wikivoyage.

I wanted to suggest that the English Wikivoyage as well would join this Edit-a-thon. Please express your support in having the English Wikivoyage participate in the edit-a-thon as well + having the two project pages I made moved to the project space (and help me improve them as much as possible).

In my opinion, having the English Wikivoyage join is very important as this might help us ensure that the edit-a-thon would be approved and that as a result many people would be exposed to Wikivoyage and consider joining the efforts to develop it. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note, as of now I haven't yet re-created the included images in the two translated pages with screen grabs from the English Wikivoyage (they currently show the original screen grabs from the Russian Wikivoyage). I plan on creating the new screen grabs in a couple of hours. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think having English Wikivoyage on board is that important. What counts here is the solid preparation work and the interest of the community, which does not seem to be the case, given the fact that I pinged several active editors already a week ago, but none of them ever took a minute to respond.
Anyway, the Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage_edit-a-thon_2018 page is not needed when no prizes are given out. People can also contribute less than 400 words, why would it matter? As for the second page, Wikivoyage:Short guide for new editors (thanks a lot for translating it!), it has to be proof-read from the perspective of English Wikivoyage. From my side, I can mention two points. First, the section 'About Wikivoyage' promotes Wikivoyage as a place to find information beyond printed travel guides, which would be true for Russian Wikivoyage, but it's not quite the case here (see the infamous discussion about featuring Riga as Destination of the Month, and similar stories). Second, the concept of 'What deserves its own article?' is quite different in English and Russian Wikivoyages, and this might require additional comments. English Wikivoyage is more open to articles with whatever listings have been added, whereas Russian Wikivoyage tends to only host articles about places of significant interest to travelers. --Alexander (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. What's the scope of this? Is the aim to just add content/create articles for any destination or is there a specific area of interest? Drat70 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, while the main goal is to encourage many more people to expand or create the articles they have most knowledge about or are mostly interested in... it would be ideal to also use this opportunity to pick around 200 articles, which are the ones we think are considered the most sought after articles that still need a lot of work (maybe selected articles from the Outline articles category), and have them listed on this page under the headline "Selected articles that especially need improvement" (that's what I did on the parallel page at the Hebrew Wikivoyage). Under the same headline we could also refer the participants to Wikivoyage:Requested articles. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I am supportive of the edit-a-thon though it seems to somewhat overlap with the Collaboration of the month, which was successfully revived on English Wikivoyage half a year ago. One of current Cotm nominations is to improve around 200 outline districts. Not sure if other languages have an active Cotm at the moment. Gizza (roam) 03:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between the edit-a-thon and Collaboration of the Month. The latter event is for experienced editors, while the former seeks to attract new editors. The Collaboration of the Month does not require the landing page and Central notice. --Alexander (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: do you think that there should be a scope to this edit-a-thon though? or do you think it would be better if it just encourages people to expand or create ANY article they have most knowledge about while completely refraining from adding any list of suggested articles that mostly need to be expanded/improved? How do you feel about my suggestion above? ("In my opinion, while the main goal is to encourage many more people to expand or create the articles they have most knowledge about or are mostly interested in... it would be ideal to also use this opportunity to pick around 200 articles, which are the ones we think are considered the most sought after articles that still need a lot of work"). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that this event should encourage new editors to share their knowledge at Wikivoyage. If you restrict everything to 200 cities, people may not find any familiar name in this list and will refrain from participating.
However, it's up to the community to decide. So far the community did not express much interest in this edit-a-thon. --Alexander (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I support having the edit-a-thon and think it sounds like a good way to attract new editors. My instinct is that we don't need to recommend a list of specific destinations, but it probably wouldn't hurt as long as we're clear that it's just a set of suggestions, and improvements to any article would be much appreciated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: thanks for clarifying. If it is meant for new editors, I don't think we should restrict the articles at all then. Let them add content to whatever they want. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Definitely no restriction! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I support English Wikivoyage participating in the Edit-a-thon. I've seen and done a bit of editing of a draft statement for the event. Is there a proposed timeline for when to have the statement finished and posted to Wikipedia? Would we post a much shorter announcement to Wikipedia and link it to the Edit-a-thon 2018 page here? Where on Wikipedia would we post the announcement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
w:en:WP:VPM is the usual place for announcements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you; I wouldn't have guessed that would be the place. Is there a timeline for when to have the statement ready and publish it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It should be ready and published now, see Posting an announcement on Wikipedia. --Alexander (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Shunpike advice[edit]

Should we give advice of how to avoid tolls? It is not in and by itself illegal, but it often involves somewhat local knowledge and it is not always looked upon with friendly eyes by locals. Furthermore, in countries like Switzerland or Austria, trying to avoid tolls is usually a fool's errand, especially as you have to avoid all toll roads, not just some of them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything unethical about it, though if your financial position is such that road tolls can make or break you, you probably can't afford to travel in the first place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You can drive from Lille to Seville almost exclusively on toll roads. That 2000 km péage fee won't look pretty, whatever your financial situation. This advice would be obviously useful to travellers, and no dubious claims of locals taking against it are going to outweigh that. I say if anyone has shunpike advice to give, don't hold back on giving it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I for one think nearly every single thing associated with driving is too cheap, but that is neither here nor there. France has a better system of tolls than does Austria - in Austria you pay a lump sum for all toll roads with the exception of a few singular roads that have their own special toll... And I think locals are justified in their anger if a whole caravan of vehicles waltzes through their downtown just to save a few coins... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And I don't drive at all, but can still see why people who do would find this info helpful. NIMBY rage from 'locals' is not WV's concern, no matter how legitimate the grievance. All we can do is tell travellers how to respect their surroundings, we can't actually force them to do it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, this is definitely useful advise. Of course where there are issues created by those avoiding tolls clogging up local roads, this should probably be mentioned as well, just like we would mention other cases where tourism might have an impact on the sentiments of local people (I can think of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park for instance). Drat70 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Should for each country, or state give the plus and minus. From my experience: Austria and Switzerland - virtually impossible to avoid, not worth the effort; France and USA - journey takes much longer and more starts and stops so costs more in fuel; UK can save time and distance too, but London should not use car unless really have to; Sweden can avoid with effort and time, more useful to know about time dependent fees; Italy - prices so low not worth avoiding. From the unethical side, living in a village that trucks pass though to avoid tolls, this point should also be mentioned. On the plus side of avoiding toll roads, the traveller gets to see more of the region, more towns and sites, and can bring income to local businesses.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Need your help figuring out how to add the GPX feature to the Hebrew Wikivoyage[edit]

I have been trying to add the top GPX icon+link to all the relevant articles on the Hebrew Wikivoyage without much luck. Maybe anyone around here know how to fix the following issue?

The icon is isn't displayed neatly next to the little map+magnifying glass icon but instead it is displayed above it AND it also affects the banner below which becomes smaller as a result. (See example)

Does anyone here know how to fix these two issues? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I had the same issue in Spanish Wikivoyage. The issue with the banner appears when there isn't a breadcrumb (in Wikivoyage editions with a breadcrumb above the banner), but it's fixed by adding it. I don't know how to permanently fix this problem. --Zerabat (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The breadcrumb generating template (ispartof) is placed at the bottom of the pag here, but the breadcrumb is displayed above the pagebanner. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

San Ysidro[edit]

So an IP editor wrote this (also look at the delightful edit summary). Can somebody other than me try to find an accurate and fair wording? I just don't want to get into a fight with that IP over this... Edited to add: The contributions of the IP editor seem to indicate that a rougher tone is employed by said user quite often... —The preceding comment was added by Hobbitschuster (talkcontribs)

Already addressed at User talk: Let's wait and see what happens next. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
There are some cases where a user might benefit from being counseled because s/he doesn't know how s/he comes off. This isn't one of those cases. I would have no compunction about giving this user the escalating-blocks treatment if this kind of blatantly uncivil behavior continues. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, one warning and then blocks if needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct time notation for Egypt[edit]

Hi there, could you please comment and "vote" on Talk:Egypt#Correct time notation, where we need a decision.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Euro templales[edit]

It would be useful to get some more opinions on whether to keep the template that lists all of the countries in which the euro is accepted. Pease comment here: Template_talk:Euro#Reconsidering_the_templates. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The kmh template[edit]

Over at Talk:New Zealand, I raised whether or not the kmh template is to be used after having my use of it reverted, yet got no answer. Please give this a few more eyeballs. And given that this affects more than just this one article, please weigh in even if you don't care about highway speeds in New Zealand. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback on Wikivoyage articles[edit]

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

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

Hyderabad, India[edit]

I've been working on the Hyderabad article. The current obstacle to further progress is the districts. The exact district boundaries are unclear, and there are also large areas that seem to not be in any district - see here. I asked the person who originally made the districts, but he doesn't seem to be active anymore. Does anyone have local knowledge who could help out here? Ar2332 (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a real problem. It's really too bad User:Ravikiran r has been gone since May - hopefully, life intervened in a good way. I hope someone can help. If not, you could try posting to w:Talk:Hyderabad and see if that might rustle up anyone who's interested. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for raising the problem here. After some searching I found the following lists and maps: w:List of Hyderabad Corporation wards. They might help in defining the boundaries of each of the districts for our purposes. Xsobev (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those boundaries don't correspond to the Hyderabad boundary on OpenStreetMap (or the one on Google Maps), and also don't seem to be helpful to the traveler (natural destinations are split between zones). So I think it better not to use those. Ar2332 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Google has started up a travel guide[edit]

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

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

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

Wikidata links to sub-topics[edit]

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

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

Shapes on maps etc.[edit]

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

Making sure our coverage of Spain is top-notch[edit]

It's evidently overtaken my homeland as the second-most traveled destination after France. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

unfortunately Spanish Wikivoyage is not as good or active as the number of Spanish speakers might indicate... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, but we are doing our best to improve those articles little by little. --Zerabat (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)