Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
  • If you 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


Please help migrate related site links[edit]

The RelatedSites extension (which creates the links in the "Related sites" sidebar section) will be disabled sometime in the next few months. In most cases, this won't cause any problems since these links are now automatically created by the Wikibase client extension (under the "In other projects" sidebar section). For example, on the article Africa (permalink in case someone fixes it), the links under "Related sites" are repeated under "In other projects" and are exactly the same links. In some cases, however, these links differ. There can be many causes of this: one link is more up to date (e.g. reflecting a page move on Wikipedia); one link is wrong (e.g. linking to a disambiguation page instead of the exact topic); one link is more specific or general (e.g. linking to a city instead of a region); two Wikidata items need to be merged, etc. Please help to resolve these difference before the extension is disabled. Here are the pages that need to be fixed:

If the link in the "In other projects" section is the better link, simply remove the {{RelatedWikipedia}}, {{RelatedCommons}}, or {{RelatedCommonsCat}} template from the page. If the link in the "Related sites" section is the better link, please update the data in Wikidata to match it and then remove the template from the Wikivoyage page. If you have questions, please ping me or Traveler100. Thanks! Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are some special cases which I don't think Wikidata can handle. For example both Rail travel in Canada and Across Canada by train use {{RelatedWikipedia}} to link to w:Rail transport in Canada. I understand that the Wikidata page can only take one Wikivoyage link. I think that we should look at how to handle these (and the cases where the two links are different).
Maybe the related templates could become a text box in "Go next", like the WP template Wikivoyage that is used to link in the other direction. I would also like this to allow for multiple WP links (max 5?), but I am happy to back down on this if it is a step too far for some. AlasdairW (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Was thinking along similar lines. In the sandbox of the related template there is a version that makes the Wikipedia a reference box if it is not the same as that on Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
{{RelatedWikipedia}} updated, will not display the Wikipedia link in the Related Sites section of the side bar if it is identical to the In other projects name. If the parameter rel=y is added the sidebar entry will be moved to an info box at the bottom of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
See tasks for May Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I processed 10 articles from the second category: Eight were redirects and thus redundant, while two were erroneous. This is a small sample but it seems to indicate that a mass removal might not be such a bad idea for this category. Cheers! Syced (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done all main-space articles have been fixed, still a few user pages and project pages using RelatedSites. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

maplink: The JSON content is not valid GeoJSON+simplestyle[edit]

I see this error message at could someone please check? :-) Syced (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like some bug in either the wikidata or {{mapshapes}}. I'll check it, later... (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
If not - there may be something incorrect in OSM -- Matroc (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata Q409036 --> OSM 272078 -- Mapshape/Inner is outputting "| stroke=#00888A, 00888a" for 5th line to be drawn thus GeoJSON error - Issue is the extra 00088a in the stroke parameter. The other 14 pieces are fine... -- Matroc (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) -- see Talk Page
Fixed it. There was a duplicate sRGB color value, now it is gone. MSG17 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Getting this error when copying lat/long numbers from GeoHack to McBride. (Also, the Geomap "find on map" function appears to be broken - all I see is the left-hand menu, no matter which browser or OS I use.) --Robkelk (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue apparently was type=Go and not type=go -- corrected to type=go --- Matroc (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what we're doing, but let's keep doing it.[edit]

It's really astonishing that the edit-a-thon has been over for nearly two months yet our Alexa rank continues to improve. This is very different from what happened during the site launch in 2013, when the line on the graph shot up into the stratosphere briefly but came right back down afterward, without much if any lasting improvement. What do you all think might be behind that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably the 2013 spike came from Wikimedians, who might have been interested in WV primarily as a new sister, while those who now found WV might be more interested in the subject matter. A curious thing: the fraction coming via a search engine fell drastically that month (so they came via other links), but the rank persisted after that effect was gone. Is this due to some technicality at Alexa? Another thing that puzzles me is that we share audience with wikitravel (more so than with lonelyplanet, tripadvisor & co). Does that mean Wikitravel users actually are aware of us? --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am quite new here and I found Wikitravel before finding Wikivoyage. I actually found Wikivoyage after clicking on a Wikitravel editor's profile page and saw that they had said that they moved to Wikivoyage and I decided to check it out. I now prefer this over Wikitravel as it is obviously more kept up to date. However, I would say that most Wikitravel users are not aware of Wikivoyage because I had used (not edited until about two months ago) Wikitravel for probably two or three years with no knowledge of Wikivoyage. BrysonH44 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is brilliant news! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikitravel seems to have shifted to slower servers, as there is visible loading time for their images. I haven't seen that for years; at least not on a website which intends to be market leading. Their travellers' pub is mostly a charade between a few administrators, struggling not to mention the elephant in the room (Wikivoyage). /Yvwv (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
May is the critical month for us as Alexa uses a 90 day timeframe to measure the popularity of a website. We are still doing better than 2013 because 1) more editors have stayed on post edit-a-thon, 2) more original content was created, which is helps with the SEO and 3) the site itself is much more appealing with higher quality banners, adding a current events destination on the main page, adding dates to listings, removing poorly written and touty language and so on. Gizza (roam) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage's Alexa ranking is now in freefall. The second honeymoon is well and truly over. While the edit-a-thon was still very beneficial, we should think about ways to improve a similar event in the future so that more readers and editors stick around in the long run. Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the increase in views in the month of February were just people going to the edit-a-thon page (2.7 million of them) and not exploring Wikivoyage any further. The main page would be a better starting point for readers and potential editors in terms of exploring the site but as stated earlier, the mobile version for the main page is not well designed. Gizza (roam) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment at #Mobile above if you want to see the main page for mobile re-designed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The good news is that some of that decline can be attributed to the seasonal nature of the way our page views fluctuate, and that the overall trend is still up. March 2018's page view numbers were at 2.7M readers vs. 2.6M in March 2017; April 2018's were at 2.5M vs. 2.2M for April 2017; May 2018's projected number of 1.9M views is similarly a solid improvement over 1.7M in May '17. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Despite the fall, things are actually looking quite good now with our Alexa rank. Since January 2018, the rank hasn't fallen as much as it went up and the Alexa trend is now returning to an upward direction now. Hopefully we can soon overtake Wikitravel's rank, which seems to have a steady downward trend. Selfie City (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How to find Wikidata or Wikipedia entries by their GPS position?[edit]

Specifically, can I open a map and zoom into a certain place and get all Wikidata/Wikipedia items displayed that have a proper GPS coordinate?

This would be very useful to identify WD and WP items and relate them to WV listings, because often the name search in WD shows too many item or it does not give any results because of language barriers.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For Wikipedia articles go to the Category of an area, if it does not have already add GeoGroupTemplate. See for example w:Category:Towns in Derbyshire. Do not know about Wikidata --Traveler100 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
There is a map for Wikivoyage, I am sure I have seen one for Commons but cannot find one now. Would be useful to have one for Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For Wikipedia OpenSeaMap has on option under View. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For Wikidata try Wikidata Locations Tool and also Wikidata Map (I think the first is a lot better), both from wmflabs. There used to be a "nearby" option in the beta features on Wikipedia, but I can't find it in the preferences over there. AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Very helpful! Anyone know the difference between red and blue markers here: ? Ceever (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This shows articles around you: It could be coupled with a fake GPS app if you want to see a place which is not around you. Syced (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Top! Cheers, Ceever (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Temporary permissions bump?[edit]


I was hoping to implement a few updates to the pagebanner template. Looks like the css files are (smartly) locked from editing. I was hoping to be granted access to (I think it's common.css and mobile.css?) for a week or so to: push the table of contents off the banner image, line up the text a little better, and swap the transparent square behind the page title for a drop shadow. I brought this idea up here awhile ago and it seemed to get a positive response. I'd commit the changes in 2-3 separate edits so they may be rolled back more easily. I'll comment again when I'm done and someone can bump my account back down. I also get it that this is a very important template, so if this request is a whole thing, no big deal. Thanks!

--ButteBag (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if the above question was gauche! Let's try it another way. If anyone has access to edit whichever css files affect the page banner, here are the updates to the code I'd like to make. Maybe you could make them instead? Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

#1: Move TOC off pagebanner image

   @media screen and (min-width: 768px)
   .wpb-topbanner-toc {
       /* remove these two styles */
       /* position: absolute; */
       /* background: rgba(0,0,0,0.5) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; */
       /* add this one style */
       background-color: #171717;

#2: Replace transparent box behind TOC title text with a dropshadow

   .ext-wpb-pagebanner .wpb-topbanner .wpb-name {
       /* background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgba(0,0,0,0.3); */
       text-shadow: 0 0 15px black;

#3: text in TOC should align with text in disambig=yes in pagebanner template, printDistricts template (, and maybe others ?)

   @media screen and (min-width: 768px)
   .wpb-banner-toc {
       /* padding: 0.2em 2em; */
       padding: 0.2em 1.25em;

#4: Dots in TOC shouldn't highlight onhover:

   /* remove this entire style
   .ext-wpb-pagebanner li.toclevel-1 > a:after {
       content: " ·";
       font-weight: bold;
       padding: 0 0 0 0.1em;
   /* add these two new stlyes */
   .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:after {
       content: " ·";
       font-weight: bold;
       padding: 0 0 0 0.1em;
   .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:last-child:after {
       content: none;
   /* finally, edit this one style */
   @media screen and (min-width: 768px)
   .wpb-banner-toc a, .wpb-banner-toc a:visited, .wpb-banner-toc a:active {
       /* display: block; */

OK, I've got it sorted on my end. Did you know you can edit your own personal style settings? If someone is an admin and wants to update MediaWiki:Common.css, you can use the styles here: User:ButteBag/common.css. I clicked around to a bunch of different pages and it's looking like a nice improvement to my eyes. Very 70's Vignelli chic! Styles copied below if you want to try them out in your own personal style file. Thanks for looking! --ButteBag (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 /* Move TOC off pagebanner image */
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
   .wpb-topbanner-toc {
     position: relative;
     background: #171717;
 /* Replace transparent box behind TOC title text with a dropshadow */
 .ext-wpb-pagebanner .wpb-topbanner .wpb-name {
   background: none;
   text-shadow: 0 0 15px black;
 /* Text in TOC should align with other template text */
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
   .wpb-banner-toc {
     padding: 0.2em 1.25em;
 /* Dots in TOC shouldn't highlight onhover */
 .ext-wpb-pagebanner li.toclevel-1 > a:after {
   content: none;
 .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:after {
   content: " ·";
   font-weight: bold;
   padding: 0 0 0 0.1em;
 .wpb-banner-toc li.toclevel-1:last-child:after {
   content: none;
 @media screen and (min-width: 768px) {
   .wpb-banner-toc a, .wpb-banner-toc a:visited, .wpb-banner-toc a:active {
     display: inline;

Problem with listings editor?[edit]

Does anyone have an idea what went wrong in this edit? I used the listings editor to add some text to the "content" of the listing, but a lot of different parts were affected in the surrounding section that I didn't even touch. Please also look at the resulting page [1]. Xsobev (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the listings editor doesn't handle line breaks. Looks like in the edit you linked, there was an addition of two paragraph tags without their corresponding closing tags. I think I've had to add paragraphs to listings by hand before. Good luck! --ButteBag (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The listing editor was written to convert newlines to paragraph tags, but in your example the airport was an inline listing, so the listing content should not have contained newlines (and now shouldn't contain paragraph tags). For a non-inline listing, newlines must be converted to paragraph tags for the listing to render properly in the lists used on Wikivoyage - leaving a newline in the listing would close the list and cause the content to appear as paragraphs following the list. See the following example::
  • listing content with newlines

content following a newline more content following a newline

...versus the following, which replaces newlines with paragraph tags:
  • listing content with paragraph tags

    content following a newline

    more content following a newline

-- Ryan • (talk) • 02:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. So if a section is edited with "edit source", then a regular line break (by hitting enter) in the "content" field of the listings template will cause problems both with rendering and with the listings editor later on. Only that in the linked edit the rendering problems were not visible, because the listing was not part of an itemized list. So the only way to manually (with "edit source") add a correct line break in the "content" field of a listing template is to use "<p>" (or "<br>"?) instead. Is that correct? If using the listings editor and adding a regular line break (by hitting enter) in the "content" field, then the listings editor will automatically turn that into "<p>" when saving, and turn "<p>" into regular line breaks when showing the content. Is that also correct? So there seems to be a case, which isn't handled correctly: if the listings editor encounters regular line breaks that are already in the wiki source text. It should just convert them to "<p>" when saving, but somehow that doesn't happen.
I now also saw another use of the p-tag, which also seems to cause problems when using the listings editor: the first listing for Rome/Vatican#St._Peter's_Basilica. It replaces the "<p>", but not the (incorrect?) "</p>". Also the first "<p>" seems to cause two regular line breaks in the listings editor. Xsobev (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I tried to "fix" the line breaks in the airport listing in Edinburgh#Get in by replacing them with "<p>", but the preview shows the same display errors (all following line breaks in the section are screwed up) as they can be seen here. Xsobev (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


d:Q14773 lists the emergency phone number for Macau as 999. That looks reasonable, but the {{quickbar}} on my cow here is displaying this as +1-999, which is nonsense. Same issue with United Kingdom, Emergencies +1-999, 112. Huh? Canada looks correct with 911. The template is supposedly pulling this data from Wikidata, so what went wrong? K7L (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just corrected the phone number field on d:Q3086706, which was showing +1-999. Changing it to 999 does result in a format "potential issue" warning. This looks to have fixed it for Macau and United Kingdom. It looks like the problem was caused by a bot edit in February. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not a good sign when one asks a very expensive computer "What's the number for 999?" and the machine gets it wrong. K7L (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

U.S. National Park Pass for seniors 62+[edit]

Last August, the lifetime price was raised from $10 to $80 (an eight-fold increase!). Unfortunately, I can't find the template to edit the new amount. Also, a new annual pass for seniors is available (for those who can't afford the $80 or rarely visit).

The template has double brackets with the words "USA national park passes." [2] —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) 2018-05-08T19:26:57‎

Yes Done Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Map internationalization launched everywhere—and embedded maps now live on 276 Wikipedias[edit]

As of today, interactive (Kartographer) maps no longer display in the language of the territory mapped; instead, you’ll read them in the content language of the wiki where they appear—or in the language their authors specify (subject to availability of multilingual data). In addition, mapframe, the feature that automatically embeds dynamic maps right on a wiki page, is now live on most Wikipedias that lacked the feature. (Not included in the mapframe launch are nine Wikipedias that use the stricter version of Flagged Revisions).

If you you’re new to mapframe, this Kartographer help page shows how to get started putting dynamic maps on your pages.  If you’d like to read more about map internationalization: this Special Update explains the feature and its limitations; this post and this one describe the uses of the new parameter, lang=”xx”, which  lets you specify a map’s language. And here are some example maps, to illustrate the new capabilities.

These features could not have been created without the generous programming contributions and advice of map-loving volunteers, including Yurik, Framawiki, Naveenpf, TheDJ, Milu92, Atsirlin, Evad37, Pigsonthewing, Mike Peel, Eran Roz, Gareth and Abbe98. My apologies to anyone I’ve missed.

The Collaboration team's Map Improvements 2018 project wraps up at the end of June, so please give internationalized maps and mapframe a try soon and give us your feedback on the project talk page. We’re listening. —JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 results[edit]

The results for Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 is ready. It took some time to compile and review, and I'm quite liberal with what's considered as an expanded article (something beyond adding a few short sentences or fixing typos). I have also included a few that began on January 31 since not everyone lives in UTC timezone.

One thing to note is that future edit-a-thon should consider using dashboard to make user-editing tracking easier and minimize the manual checking work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Shanghai districts again[edit]

Setting up districts for Shanghai is a difficult problem; we've had at least three structures so far & it is not clear we have it right yet. Both the talk page & its archive have long discussions. The latest round is at Talk:Shanghai#More_on_districts.

If you can contribute here, please do. Pashley (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Decision needed[edit]

Could you help finding a solution here: Talk:Argentina#Currency_notation Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Page loading performance study[edit]

The survey will look pretty close to this.

Hello, all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Technology department would like to run a (very) small survey about performance on a few wikis. You can read more about it at phab:T187299.

I think that it would be ideal for this wiki to participate because the English Wikivoyage gets more traffic than many Wikipedias, and it's desirable to look outside the Wikipedias.

This survey would likely start in about two weeks. It would show a box with one question on a very small percentage of page views. (The results will be subject to the privacy policy, of course.)

If you have concerns about this, then please contact me directly by pinging me or leaving a note on my user talk page. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Corporate shouting in Blue Lagoon[edit]

See here. Should we follow our de facto rule not to have corporate shouting show up in our writing? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. If it's not an acronym then it shouldn't be in all caps. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata links to Wikivoyage redirect pages[edit]

Can anyone explain why the number of wikidata references to redirect pages on Wikivoyage is increasing so much? Increase of 70 in the last 11 days. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Two villages, wrong link[edit]

Hello. In Cyprus there are two villages with similar name. One is w:Platres and the other is w:Kato Platres.

Kato Platres (Kato means lower) previously was named as Tornarides but they change their name. Because of that, Platres was called from people as Pano Platres (Pano means upper). But their official name is Platres. This two villages are two separate community counclis. Are separate villages.

In en.wikivoyage article of Platres is said:

"Platres is a village in Limassol district. It is subdivided into Pano (upper) and Kato (Lower) Platres, which fuels healthy local rivalry (the Pano lot consider themselves superior) but for all intents and purposes its is the same village."

This is extremely wrong.

Moreover, the en.wikivoyage article of Platres is connected to wikidata page of Kato Platres [3].

My opinion is that the wikivoyage article must me an article for Platres (knowing as Pano Platres). And must be connected with the wikidata page of Platres.

Xaris333 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the Wikivoyage can stay as an article about the two villages, maybe what is need on Wikipedia is move Platers to Pano Platres. Is already on the Wikidata links to fix list. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Xaris333: As for the sentence about local rivalry; if you know this to be wrong then please correct it. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Traveler100 the article is saying that "Platres is a village in Limassol district. It is subdivided into Pano (upper) and Kato (Lower) Platres,". That is wrong. There are two villages. One with the name Platres [4] and one with the name Kato Platres [5]. And the article in wikivoyage has informations only about Platres, nothing about Kato Platres. Xaris333 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You probably know better then anyone the details so I suggest you make the edits. Is not clear to me if all the listings are in one village. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


While traveling, it's inevitable to be confronted with technical problems occasionally, particularly during longer trips. The growing popularity/spreading of fablabs, hackerspaces and makerspaces is of interest to the traveler, because they're the ideal places to patch up a ripped backpack, fix a broken headlight, charge up batteries, and so on. They're also ideal places to find a wired and wireless internet connection without being touted into purchasing food or drinks. Run and visited by locals, they're a de facto safe bet to seek for unbiased help if you run into trouble during travels.

Unfortunately, despite their importance/relevance, these places are currently often missing from Wikivoyage! In the rare instances they're mentioned, they're usually buried somewhere in the Cope section between hairdressers, veterinarians and endless lists of embassies... However, from a traveler's perspective, it's important to find a place where you can stich up a ripped backpack, particularly in more rural areas where alternatives are few and far between.

As such, it could be argued that such places are more important/relevant to mention than anything listed under the "Drink" section for example, since not all travelers are nightlife/party animals, but most will sooner or later be confronted with issues that could be resolved in a fablab or makerspace.

Which leads to the question: how can these be integrated into Wikivoyage? Do we need a new top level section, define a sub section to any of the existing sections, or redefine the scope of "Cope" (no pun intended)? Does it deserve its proper listing/marker color, or do we go with the generic green ones? What do other Wikivoyagers think? ArticCynda (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

In many cases I think that the alternative to going to a hacker space is to go to a shop - either to buy needle and thread, or to buy a replacement backpack. So following that logic they could go in "Buy". However if a traveller is more likely to go to such a hacker space as an alternative way of spending the afternoon, coming away with just a keyring to put in a drawer back home, then they belong in "Do". If you have a lot of experience of these places, then maybe you could start a travel topic on these facilities. AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly the ambiguity I wanted to point out and fix: depending on one's interpretation it could go in nearly any section, and that's confusing for the traveler. Hence why a better solution is needed, in my opinion, than throwing it into "Buy" and/or "Do" and/or "Cope".ArticCynda (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think most such spaces would fit best under Do. Adding them is a good idea & they'd make a fine travel topic if someone wanted to do the work. They might also be mentioned at Digital nomad. Pashley (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda, are you suggesting putting it in the "Connect" section? That's the only other possibility I can think of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No because it's not in the scope of the Connect section -- which is should focus on internet and phone access. It doesn't seem to fit into any of the existing sections aside from a loose relation to "Cope", so it might be clearer to introduce a new top level section called "Fix" for something like that. ArticCynda (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There isn't such a thing as a "loose relation to Cope" as "Cope" is merely a catch-all section for items that don't fit anywhere else. In some truly remote places, we have been known to list which villages offer fuel or repairs - for instance, Labrador#Get around lists the fuel with the transportation. If something isn't transportation and doesn't fit in "Buy" with the shop listings, "Cope" is the fallback. K7L (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
As a preliminary reaction, I would tend to agree with K7L and oppose a "Fix" section, which could easily get filled with car repair shops and who knows what else (home appliance or building repairs, anyone?), but I'd be willing to hear out an argument. Considering that repairs are sometimes needed while traveling but even more likely to be needed at home, why is a new first-order section needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
If the goal is to fix stuff, then ==Cope== is the right section. If the best thing to say about it is an internet connection, then ==Connect== makes sense (listing an internet+woodworking shop there makes just as much sense as listing internet+coffee shop there).
I'm not sure that I can agree with the overall premise, though. I kind of doubt that a typical business traveler (accounting for ~30% of US flights) would ever drop by a makerspace to stitch up a broken backpack, especially not when the nearest dry cleaner would likely stitch it up for you, and without requiring an annual membership fee. Also, makerspaces that are open to the general public (e.g., not inside a school) are tolerably rare in rural areas. I've got nothing against including them when they exist and offer something useful to a traveler, but it's more of an urban phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hackerspaces are going out of business and closing down after all the 3d printing hype. There is alway a wiki page listing all hackerspaces but it is very out of date.

Local guides[edit]

We normally don't list local guides (persons) or Wikivoyage:Tours unless they provide something that can't be done as easily independently (for instance, a "fishing charter" is a guide and a boat, while a Chornobyl tour crosses into an exclusion zone which isn't accessible outside the tour). What, then, do we do with Internet platforms like these: which are basically forums (fora?) to connect voyagers to local guides in individual cities? Do we list the sites in a travel topic, much like we'd list ride sharing sites or home stay networks in those respective articles? K7L (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

jcarousel implementation[edit]

Hi everyone! I am very new to mediawiki and web design in general, and I absolutely love the layout of the main page. I figured out how to do the banner, but I'm struggling with the carousel. Can anyone explain to me how I can create a carousel? I tried reading documentation and it didn't help. Thank you so much everyone! You guys are amazing! 21:33, 17 May 2018‎ (UTC)

Did you find and ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did! I'm not sure how to implement the two files though. Do I have to write something on MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css to enable the feature? 15:26, 18 May 2018‎ (UTC)

This site looks to be using mw:Extension:Gadgets to load the javascript? K7L (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Carousel implementation was moved from Mediawiki:Common.js and made a part of Extension:Gadgets around March 2015. I was told not to use it in article pages etc. Perhaps someone can clarify that assumption. -- Matroc (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know how to implement jCarousel with Extension:Gadgets?

I used carousel several years ago and it may already be enabled by default. I don't remember having to do anything to use it. Check your Preferences - Gadgets and see if its box is checked. I would try doing a simple carousel on your Talk page or Sandbox and see what happens. There are several samples to be found by Google searching; also, may find some samples on GitHub... I also remember seeing a tutorial somewhere too. Others may know much more than I about this subject. -- Matroc (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Never mind I figured it out!

Star attractions[edit]

Our friends from the Russian Wikivoyage project have star attractions I discovered a few minutes ago. This indicates must see attractions such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Colosseum in Rome, and is displayed as a star icon between the attraction's marker and its title/name. A few examples in the Russian Wikivoyage page on Moskow.

I personally find this a convenient sorting method because there currently is no hierarchy in "See" or "Do" attractions (note: according to Wikivoyage guidelines, these should be ordered alphabetically and not in order of perceived signficance). For travelers who have limited time to spend in a particular destination, it makes it easier to plan a day with most of the "highlights" of the destination rather than walking from fountain to park, and eventually leaving without seeing the city's gem that turned out to be at the bottom of the "See" listings.

Is there a reason the English Wikivoyage doesn't have this functionality? ArticCynda (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The "must see" attractions are often mentioned in the overview paragraphs of the See sections, for cities like Moscow already in the city article (while the listings are in the district articles). For minor places the star attractions are usually mentioned already in the lead section. --LPfi (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
In some cities like Siena, there's a longstanding consensus on what the main sights are. But try getting agreement on where a list of the main sights ends in New York, London or Rome. Sure, a few may be obvious, but when you go beyond that, you run into huge problems. I'd absolutely say the same is true of Paris. In Paris, the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame and the Arc de Triomph are probably obvious, but after that, will you get agreement on the following? The Tuileries, Musee d'Orsay, Pont Neuf, Sacree Coeur (mostly for the view), Cluny, the Sorbonne, Les Invalides, Musee Guimet, the Musees Picasso and Rodin, Place Vendome, the Sainte-Chapelle...the list of possible main sights is quite long, and they will be rated differently by different people, depending on their interests and tastes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I follow your logic, but the people writing articles are already forming a consensus, for example by choosing which attractions to deliberately omit. And clearly the Russians can come to a consensus on the matter, so why can't/wouldn't we? ArticCynda (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Because we don't want to waste time debating it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
We could adapt the English Wikipedia's rule for disputed external links, which is basically that disputed links are immediately removed, until there's a consensus to restore them. In the case of the Parisian example, that would mean starring whatever "obvious" items people agree upon, and nothing else (until people agreed upon more). It doesn't require much time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, that seems a good idea to reach a consensus. Suggesting the following work flow:
  • a star can be added to any attraction
  • that star can be removed at any time, after which a discussion must be opened on the talk page
  • the star is only reinstated when a consensus is reached
@Ikan Kekek, is that a good compromise to your time waste concerns? ArticCynda (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea in the first place. It's a cinch for people to find "Top 10" lists for the world's most visited cities, but most of them are districted on en.voy, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That's an odd point of view because I would think that marking star attractions is particularly useful to districted cities, which tend to lose a proper overview of where attractions/landmarks with the highest value to the average traveler are located. I'm not fundamentally opposed to making lists, I usually only have a day or two to spend in a city, so I always make lists of attractions/landmarks I really want to visit in a city, making optimal use of my time there. ArticCynda (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda, it would be less work if the discussion only has to be started if someone wants to restore the star. So I add the star (5 seconds), you remove it (5 seconds), and I decide you're right (or that I don't care enough to object to the removal), and we're done already.
If, on the other hand, I add a star, you remove it, and someone (maybe me, maybe someone else) wants to advocate for including the dispute star, then *that* person should start the discussion. That approach means that the burden on the person disagreeing with a star remains low, and we stay efficient when everyone agrees. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the input WhatamIdoing, it would indeed be more efficient but the problem with this approach is that it leads to jojo effects. For example, consider user A who adds a star to an attraction. User B doesn't agree and removes the star, but then doesn't open a discussion on the talk page. User C reviews the article a day later and also thinks that attraction deserves a star, but unaware of the previous star/destar cycle immediately adds a star again, because there is no evidence on the talk page of a star/destar cycle. By opening a debate the moment the star is removed, that problem is solved because user C can reasonably be expected to check the talk page before making such modifications. ArticCynda (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
User C probably isn't going to check the talk page before plunging forward to add the star, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek's point about the debatability of what constitutes star attractions is well taken, but I'd go a little bit further with it and say that each individual reader is going to have their own personal list of star attractions, and none of those lists are invalid or "wrong". For instance, the question of what place a visitor to Manhattan would gravitate to before any other would depend entirely on their own personal interests. Nature lovers might head to Inwood Hill Park; aficionados of medieval art might make a beeline for the Cloisters; immigrant history buffs might head to the Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side; those poor saps still unsophisticated enough to be unironically impressed by Disneyfied corporate-driven faux-placemaking would likely head to Times Square. Wikivoyage should be in the business of recognizing the individuality and diverse interests of its readership - and we largely already do that, by categorizing "See" sections by broad themes such as "Art", "Museums", "Parks", etc. - rather than trying to find the rough average among them. Especially if that means we end up funneling readers to the same handful of obvious cliché attractions that other guidebooks highlight. For a small fry like Wikivoyage to carve out a niche in a world of Lonely Planets and Frommer'ses means we have to offer something different than our competitors, not ape them. Plus, designating certain attractions as "stars" in an at least partially arbitrary way smacks of touting, anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
On the face of it, I agree with this. Some people visit New York to go to bars and nightclubs in Williamsburg, Bushwick and the Lower East Side, others go to all the art museums, others go to parks, others just like to walk around different neighborhoods. It's possible in individual entries to suggest that something is a highlight, and it's also possible to highlight some sights in the summary in the "See" sections of districted cities, but except where it's really obvious and uncontroversial what the main sights are (as in my example of Siena), I don't think we want to have a separate section expressly called "Main sights", let alone a particular arbitrary number of them. I mean, let's look at New York a little more. Is the Empire State Building a top-10 sight? It's certainly a major landmark, but the Chrysler Building and various other shorter skyscrapers are more beautiful, plus it won't be worth it to many people to pay a lot of money to go to the top of a skyscraper and probably see a hazy view. Just to take one example. I think it would be less controversial as a top-20 sight, but let's not spend time debating which sights in what order should be specially featured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
These are strong arguments, AndreCarrotflower and Ikan Kekek, and convinced me that assigning stars to attractions wouldn't be as good of an idea as I originally thought it would be. It is indeed a better strategy to emphasize on value or importance in the description rather than assiging a binary score. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion may be closed! ArticCynda (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I am really late to this, but I have learned that if you want to highlight a particular listing, use a picture. Pictures make the listing so much more noticeable, just like a "starred" or "featured" mechanism would. And like Ikan mentioned, bubbling up truly amazing listings to the parent article (and bolding them) is also a great idea. This is a writing focused site, so almost every problem can be solved with better copy, and not always better technology. --ButteBag (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That last sentence is a beautiful summary, ButteBag, if previous comments wouldn't have convinced me already, then that would have done it! ArticCynda (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Need your help fixing an annoying dynamic maps bug on Hebvoy[edit]

As a result of having the new dynamic maps fully integrated at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, we now have various bugs that need to be fixed.

The one bug that needs to be fixed the most happens When loading any article on Hebvoy that has a dynamic map - the interface always requests that the user would give permission to access an external source (this message keeps coming up on articles with dynamic maps unless the user clicks on "it's okay"). once the user click on "it's okay" the interface displays the map layer "articles nearby" automatically. (example - look for the dynamic map in this article)

how would I be able to fix this bug so that the dynamic maps wouldn't try to present the "articles nearby" automatically? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

CC from previous maps discussions: AlasdairW, Andrewssi2, Atsirlin, Ibaman, JamesA, JuliasTravels, Matroc, MaxSem, Mey2008, Shaundd, Sumit.iitp, Syced, TheTrolleyPole, Torty3, WhatamIdoing, Wrh2 -- ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that you call these 'articles nearby' from some template, but I can't say more without knowing which templates are used. This is a bit hard to figure out in Hebrew. --Alexander (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Managed to fix it by myself :) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Another technical question for the map experts[edit]

One of the main features that dissapeared when the new maps were integrated to the Hebrew Wikivoyage was the option to display specific map layers automaitcally when a certain artice loads - for example, for an article about a hiking trails I would usually display the Hiking layer and the Hill Shading layer. These layers do not load automatically anymore when they are defined to do so in the code (example - look for the dynamic map in this article).

Do you know by any chance if this could be fixed?

CC from previous maps discussions: AlasdairW, Andrewssi2, Atsirlin, Ibaman, JamesA, JuliasTravels, Matroc, MaxSem, Mey2008, Shaundd, Sumit.iitp, Syced, TheTrolleyPole, Torty3, WhatamIdoing, Wrh2 -- ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly this was an issue raised some time ago. I think that the parameter layer may have became defunct? As an aside, be aware that recent changes are happening and that the code for mapframe and maplink in Wikivoyage is slightly different from that to be found in Wikipedia. ie. group and show is not available and the box to select layers, groups etc. no longer exists and other quirks. The most recent update to the Kartographer extension in Wikivoyage dated May 7 of this year shows that sidebar.js was updated. Hopefully, any future changes to Wikipedia implementation will have no effect on our present capabilities. -- Matroc (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Matroc - Is there anyone I can ask for help with this? appearntly this feature has not been removed... it actually still works - one can select the Hiking layer or the Hill Shading layer from the side box after the map has loaded, but it simply does not load automatically anymore. Maybe they changed the code so that a different code needs to be entered to display it automatically? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The ability to select a layer using a parameter rather than a button was disabled here a while ago. This was to address privacy concerns as some of the layers used external sources. The button method still works. See Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Layers. Unfortunately there has been no interest in just enabling the options that are not privacy concerns, but disabling those (eg Mapnik) that use external servers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Create an actual Mars travel guide?[edit]

I know that a little while ago a joke article was created for Mars, but since Mars has been reached by rovers and spacecraft like the moon, couldn't there be a more serious article about visiting the planet? The same is the case with some of the other planets in the solar system. Selfie City (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We can create such an article after a human being sets foot on those planets, not now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Or even later, when private trips or colonisation start? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to move the Moon or Space into the joke category, frankly, than to move Mars out of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely do not think Space should be moved, since it is already a possible travel destination. As for the Moon, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt since it might be possible in the foreseeable future & someone has taken the trouble to write it. Starting a Mars article would, I think, be seriously premature. Pashley (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The only travel destination ever willed into existence by someone writing about it was Israel and then he was no travel book writer. While I would like to see Mars travel in my lifetime, I fear we'll have to wait until it is actually a thing to write the guide to it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not fundamentally opposed against a travel article on Mars, but given the cost and preparation time required for such a journey, not many are ever going to make the trip. Shouldn't it be better to focus our efforts on the countless destinations that are actually credible travel destinations, but currently missing form WikiVoyage? Once planet Earth is completely covered, we can talk about other planets. ArticCynda (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We should probably have an article on the deep sea before Mars. The Mariana Trench will probably be open to the masses at an earlier point in time than the red planet. Gizza (roam) 03:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think a Deep sea or Submarines article would be a great idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gizza @Granger You seem to be missing my previous point; what's the added value of creating new articles about places that are too impractical to visit? If you want to know how to reach the bottom of the Mariana Trench then read the Wikipedia articles on deep sea exploration, not Wikivoyage. ArticCynda (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not the Mariana Trench, but it is possible for tourists to go on submarine tours, which I think could make a good travel topic. I don't know how deep it's realistically possible for a tourist to go—that would be good information for the article to have. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of Richard Branson's Virgin Oceanic venture which unfortunately has been put on hold. But as Granger says, deep sea tourism has already started although tourists don't go as low as the bottom of the ocean yet. Gizza (roam) 05:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What about creating Underwater travel as a travel topic? Selfie City (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

An idea for April fool's 2019[edit]

I know this is discussing this way early, but I cannot see the harm in that given how we have in the past struggled to get something together in the last days of March... An idle thought I had yesterday was travel for space aliens or Guide for extraterrestrial visitors or some such. I think the possibilities are boundless and we could do a lot of tongue in cheek humor. And if it doesn't "work" we have eleven month to come up with something better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion might not be practical or even possible, but wouldn't it be funny if on April fool's day we put every article in the "star" category, no matter what condition the article was in, just for that day. I can imagine the confusion of many Wikivoyage users, in particular, who saw the "star" template on every single page they visited! Selfie City (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Elon Musk could be convinced to sponsor the creation of such content! Jokes aside though, I have my doubts about the coverage these April fool's articles get, since I wasn't aware of their existance until I stumbled on the category a few weeks ago by coincidence. So if, as you mentioned, it's a recurring struggle to get something together in the last days of March then perhaps the idea of running an April fool's joke itself should be reconsidered? Is it really worth spending the effort on it? ArticCynda (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I find that kind of pages as a waste of time for the project and something that might encourage the creation of junk or troll pages. Just saying. --Zerabat (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
After thinking this over a little, I'd have to agree with ArticCynda. Do we really need a April fool's joke every year? Or even at all? We're a travel guide, not a comedy show. Selfie City (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Indentation nitpicking[edit]

We fairly often have conversations that run off the right hand edge of my screen because there are too many layers of indentation. I think part of the problem is that people are indenting one more than the most recent comment when the rule should be one more than the comment you are replying to.

Not to pick on one user, since almost everyone seems to be doing this, but one clear example is at #Create_an_actual_Mars_travel_guide? above. It currently looks like this:


I know that a little while ago a joke article was created for Mars, but ,,, Selfie City (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We can create such an article after a human being sets foot on those planets, not now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Or even later, when private trips or colonisation start? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to move the Moon or Space into the joke category, frankly, than to move Mars out of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely do not think Space should be moved, ... Pashley (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The only travel destination ever willed into existence ... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(end quote)

Since Andre's comment is a reply to the original post, not to my remark above it, I think it should have less indentation; then the replies to it would as well, so overall we would have:


I know that a little while ago a joke article was created for Mars, but ,,, Selfie City (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We can create such an article after a human being sets foot on those planets, not now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Or even later, when private trips or colonisation start? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to move the Moon or Space into the joke category, frankly, than to move Mars out of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I definitely do not think Space should be moved, ... Pashley (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The only travel destination ever willed into existence ... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(end quote)

In my view this both makes the conversation more readable & keeps the indentation levels down, so doing it this way is a no-brainer. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just being an old curmudgeon, wanting things to still be done the way I learned for Usenet comments back in the early 90s. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Indentation replies are an issue on every project ..... I agree it can be confusing at times but that's the way the MediaWiki software is ..... Not much anyone can do I'm afraid. –Davey2010Talk 14:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the excessive indentation is an intentional thing, it just so happens that in a discussion one usually replies to the previous post, and so on. It is relatively rare to trace back to a previous post far back and reply to it, which is why the indentation is often fairly linear. Personally I don't think it's much of a problem since computer screens are fairly large these days (and the aspect ratios keep increasing, which is great for indentation!). ArticCynda (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We could solve the problem with indentation by switching to Flow (renamed Structured Discussions). I've been using it on for a while now (all new talk pages default to it, and all the major discussion pages there have been converted). It has advantages and disadvantages, but it does a reasonable job of resolving threading problems. (It also brings people back to the wikis using it, because every reply or new thread to a watched page appears in your Echo/Notifications, no matter what wiki you're on today.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
A notification for every reply? I use watchlists for that (and it works threadwise if people leave the section heading in the summary). Notifications of foreign wikis take non-trivial time to load, so I would certainly turn that off for any half-active project. I prefer checking watchlists regularly. One can check foreign notifications more seldom, but I think that requires having them turned on only on some seldom visited wiki (I have that configuration). I think the indentation issue is minor, not worth any radical solutions. --LPfi (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Template Template:Kilometer[edit]

Do we really want to show every km in miles (in brackets) as well? I find it a little overload of complexity. And if I am in a country that uses km, why also show miles? For that one country that is not able to stick to metric standards? Do you guys support this level of detail, or would you say away with this (template)? We had a similar template that was showing dollars in brackets for every currency and decided against it. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken there are actually 3 countries that haven't yet adopted modern measurement systems, but that aside: meters (and thus km) are the standard unit, and for the sake of simplicity, we should stick with it. That's what standards are for in the first place. Of course you can mention other distance units where they're relevant (for example, how the ancient Egyptians used unit XYZ to measure the base of pyramids) but only as exception and not as a rule. ArticCynda (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Putting the traveller first, I think it some cases it makes sense to serve UK and US readers by including the conversions. A lot of our readers in the English Wikivoyage come from those two countries. I don't include the conversion in every instance in an article, but in a few.
Currency conversion is another matter: exchange rates change, so we put prices (for the most part) in the local currency, and leave it to readers to learn the current exchange rate for their preferred currency. As far as I know, the mile:kilometre conversion doesn't vary over time. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Currency conversion is pretty pointless indeed since it's too volatile, so I agree with your point of view Ground Zero. Unless travelers are likely to be confronted with multiple currencies (for example in Croatia where kuna (kn) is official tender but euro is widely accepted in tourist areas), only stick with the local currency and leave it up to the traveler to quickly look up the exchange rate before they visit. ArticCynda (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The exchange rates in the template are kept reasonably up to date. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
On a related point, I'd say neither 'kilometre' nor 'kilometer' should ever be used; just avoid the dialect issue by using 'km' everywhere. Pashley (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The {{km}} template was not created to show every km in miles in brackets as well; it is intended for showing both units when the author feels both values need to be shown. Also the $ currency conversion display (also not for every entry) as far as I know was not a consensus decision to not adopt, was a unilateral one.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The 'metre' was never a thing, the 'meter' is the only valid definition. Only use 'km' and there is no confusion anywhere. ArticCynda (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Eh? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
A "meter" is a measuring device, a "metre" is a unit of length. The only country which doesn't grasp this distinction may be safely ignored as they happen to be stubbornly opposing metrication every inch of the way. K7L (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's just introduce the metr and end this debate once and for all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You win! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

However, there is also this one lying around Template:convert, which does something similar. Shouldn't we really reduce complexity instead of inventing new template all the time? Ceever (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Typing {{km|20}} is simpler than {{convert|20|km|mi}}, less text and easier to remember, and the km template users convert to work. Is just easier to type and remember. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Issue with vandal[edit]

Ground Zero, User:MSG17, any other users on Wikivoyage: watch out, a really serious vandal is making several acts of vandalism on Wikivoyage, and I need help dealing with this guy. Selfie City (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

He's blocked now. Thanks for the heads-up. Ground Zero (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting the contributor. We now need to delete a page he created in the process: I've put it up on the VFD page. Selfie City (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the article. Now I'll ask for help in watching User: I don't like blocking IP addresses, so I blocked this vandal for 2 hours. On his talk page he promised to come back after 2 hours, so I extended the block to a day, but I'll be without Wifi for a couple of days, so I have to leave it to others to manage. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Also, a user (not an experienced one) recently created the page Vumanhtuan8493, which just has a URL (I don't know what it links to). It would be good if someone deletes the page. Selfie City (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Let there be light[edit]

What's up with this edit censoring the following text from electrical systems?:

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.Genesis 1:3

Is there any prohibition on recognising that God creating heaven and earth out of chaos is engineering, making this the second-oldest profession? K7L (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is opposition from some atheists to "recognizing" that, as you say, and anyone taking the Biblical creation story literally and objecting to it on the basis that it is not scientific also might object. But I think that objectively, unless you're really offended by any reference to a deity, this would stand pretty low on a list of potentially offensive verses from a religion's sacred scriptures. I'm not sure it's important to include, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
is there a quote from the Bagvad Gita (or whatever it's spelled) on our nuclear travel article? Iirc we never got to a consensus whether or not to include a particular quote on the Jerusalem page... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Bhagavad Gita. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
For Jerusalem, a quote would be tricky because the city is holy to 3 religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
True, but we'd be more likely to mention all three than to completely ignore the presence of religion in Jerusalem at all. K7L (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Well two of the three share a number of holy books and a different set of two of the three recognize a claimant for messiah who died in Jerusalem... By the way, does Jerusalem play a major role in any pre 1800 faiths besides Islam Judaism and Christianity? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
w:Mandaeism --Traveler100 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Restore the text. It is part of at least three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) & perhaps Baha'i as well. Even for atheists, it is a recognisable quote, part of the culture. Pashley (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It was I who added the quote, as well as other illustrative quotes from the Bible (eg Clothes) and quotes influenced by Christianity (eg Postwar United States). My intention has been that these quotes should be read as pieces of classical literature, presumably known by an English-speaking reader, regardless of faith. Illustrative quotes inspired by other religions would be just as welcome as the Biblical ones. I would prefer if User:Beland clarified their argument. /Yvwv (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think including quotes from the Bible, Quran, Vedas or whatever other holy books isn't a problem as long as it is treated as a piece of classical literature and not used to proselytise. In any case, it is a well known verse from the Bible, even among non-Christians, and it does add some colour to an otherwise dry article, so I don't see what the problem is with including it. The dog2 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, you listen here: 'e's not the Messiah, 'e's a very naughty boy! Now, go away!Brian's mum

--Traveler100 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am against introducing quotes that can be understood as religious. If I am in the minority feel free to ignore me, though. Syced (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Where it's not specifically relevant, if it's offending anyone, we should probably remove the quotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yvwv: Well, I'm an atheist and I found the quote off-putting. Yes, Genesis is literature, but it is also used by lots of people to assert a false narrative that the universe was created by a sentient being, and also that being has lots of ideas about how you should live your life (which for me would have to include leaving the person I love). Using it here reinforces that idea, so as quotes go it seems like a divisive choice. There are other bits of fun color that could be added to the article; a picture might be nice. -- Beland (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Or how about a fun quote from Edison or Tesla, or some other real-life person? -- Beland (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Googling "quotes electricity" turns up several collections of quotes like Brainy Quote & Goodreads. On both those sites, the first quote is one I like, George Carlin's “Electricity is really just organized lightning.” Pashley (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
If you know any good quotes from them, then by all means replace the Biblical quote. I have no issue with that. For the record, I was raised Buddhist (albeit not really practising these days), and I don't find quotes from non-Buddhist religious texts offensive as I consider them to just be pieces of classical literature (like how you would classify Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" or Dante's "Inferno"), but if other people do, then I have no issue replacing religious quotes with more secular ones. The dog2 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the Carlin quote; it's funny, short, and surprisingly accurate. -- Beland (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a nice quote too. If there are no objections, I don't mind switching the Biblical quote with the Carlin quote. The dog2 (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't want the end result of this discussion to be removing "bits of fun color" that might irritate a small group of people. Should we include patently offensive things, such as quotations that demean people on racial, gender, or national grounds? No, never. Should we include things that someone people personally dislike, like quotations from the "wrong" religion or names selected by the "wrong" government? Yes, sometimes. Classical religious texts shouldn't be prohibited.
That said, in this particular instance, I personally like the Carlin quote better, even though a traveler who who is desperately searching for the light switch in an unfamiliar hotel room might well be wondering whether a divine miracle will be needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As Carlin would have said, it's also about the context. It's just not important to have a Biblical quote in an article about electrical systems, so if it bothers even one reader and another quote doesn't, super, and there's no good reason to marginalize atheist Wikivoyagers by characterizing them as a "small group of people" who are removing "local color". There is no local color in an article on a worldwide travel topic about technology. In the article on Christianity, it's completely appropriate to have a quote that summarizes the crux of the religion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That said, I disagree that we should never have bigoted quotes on WV, as I think there are times where such quotes will be appropriate. In this case, I agree that it's not important to have a Biblical quote, and the Carlin quote is nicer than the Biblical quote. But with regards to bigoted quotes, there are tourist attractions that are significant because of their important role in some genocide or other gross human rights violations. For instance, there are "slave castles" in West Africa where the Africans were rounded up to be shipped to the Americas to be sold, and there are also Nazi concentration camps in Europe that have become tourist attractions. And not to mention, in China, you can visit one of the old Japanese research institutes where the Japanese performed human vivisections on other Asians without anaesthetic. For articles about these, bigoted quotes from the leaders that initiated such atrocities could be appropriate. Not because we want to demean people or promote bigotry, but because we want to remind ourselves of the ugly side of human nature, and what it can lead to if we're not careful. The dog2 (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with. It's all about the context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing mentioned that quotes that demean based on racial, gender or national grounds should never be allowed. That's what I disagree with because I think that we can use such quotes in an appropriate context, such as when its purpose is clearly to highlight the ugly side of human nature. The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, yes, you and I agree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine any Wikivoyage article being improved by the addition of pullquote that directly demeans any group of people. If you think otherwise, then I'd be willing to consider specific examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's very easy to imagine such topics, and The dog2 gave some possible examples. I can think of some others, such as a topic on the Crusades or the Inquisition. And would "Arbeit macht frei" be an inappropriate quote for Holocaust remembrance? I don't think so, because in its brutal, lying sarcasm, it encapsulates the entire vast evil of the Nazi regime and its industrial murder factories. Instead, though, a better choice was made to have that big lie be in the pagebanner, with a Biblical verse more relevant to memory and the living given for a pagequote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any examples of actual quotations, nor any examples of articles in which these quotations could be placed. Holocaust remembrance currently contains a perfectly reasonable sentence that says, "The extermination policy makes the notorious slogan Arbeit macht frei — "Work makes (you) free" which was displayed on many camp gates — bitterly ironic" but I can't really imagine us putting {{quote|Arbeit macht frei}} at the top of that ==section== (i.e., the thing we're actually talking about here). Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I could see mentioning the quote '"One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin' in an article specifically about the gulags, the pogroms and the Holodomor... if the article explained the context behind these atrocities. Conversely, I wouldn't put that quote on a generic destination article about Russia as that would merely open a can of worms.
In any case, this isn't the sort of thing that the original user was on about - the edits I was questioning were systematically removing literary quotes like "let there be light" from electrical systems or Eve's fig leaf of modesty from clothing on little more basis than "I don't like the book of Genesis because it fails to recognise and validate my primary relationship". There are a few contexts, like Harriet Tubman being the "Moses of her people", where a reference to one of these texts is entirely appropriate.
At one point, the removals of quotes were citing this discussion as if it were policy - and I'd prefer not to have a policy banning use of literary quotes just because they came from one or another well-known religious text. That's a bit of a different animal from using the texts to proselytize or to damn followers of every other religion or non-religion to eternal torment and damnation. K7L (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see what you mean. I merely agreed to replacing the quote in the Electrical Systems article, but not any of the others quotes. As far as I know, we do not have a policy that banning quotes from religious texts, and I would vote against instituting such a policy. That being said, WV should absolutely not be used to proselytise.

But it's true that this has become a very touchy issue in the US, where unlike in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or Europe, the Bible actually features very prominently in politics, and right-wing politicians often cite the Bible to justify their policy decisions (like trying to pass laws that mandate that Genesis be taught in biology class as an alternative to evolution). And given the current obsession with PC on the left, where people are constantly looking for new reasons to get offended (like when Chinese-Americans got offended by that white girl wearing a cheongsam to prom, even though Chinese people actually from China weren't even the slightest bit offended), you can see what a volatile mix this has become. The dog2 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Wikivoyage should have no prohibition on using quotes that come from sacred texts, but we should surely respect the sensitivities of any reader who speaks up about one, so I'm glad we did in this instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but for what it's worth I think this sets an unfortunate precedent. Common sense applies in obvious cases such as the aforementioned "arbeit macht frei", but I think it's not only perfectly acceptable but actually very important to evaluate whether or not a user's sensitivities are reasonable, and to feel free to revert their edits if warranted (which I think would absolutely be warranted in this case). At the end of the day, it's not our job to avoid hurting people's feelings; Wikipedia is not censored and neither should we be. AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I actually agree with AndreCarrotflower on this. I think we should revert all the edits except the one we agreed on here. If we allow an article to be edited just on the basis that some atheist got offended by a religious quote, a religious person can also claim offence because Karl Marx, who was an atheist, is quoted. The dog2 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
False analogy: the equivalent would be being offended by something proselyting atheism, not by an atheist. No one is saying that we should not use quotes by people who happen to be Christians. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has a neutral-point-of-view policy; and asserting that one particular god created light, or indeed that that particular god exists, is not neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
You're seriously overthinking this. Using "let there be light" in the context of an article that has nothing to do with religion is not an endorsement of the veracity of the Bible and/or Torah; it's simply a well-known quote that at least obliquely references electricity. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, page quotes are inessential, and certainly this one was. So if it offended someone, it should go. When it's more important or more obviously relevant, that'll be a different situation and call for a different action. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
In this particular case, I do think the new quote is better, and I'm not avocating reverting in this particular case. But do we really want to go about removing every Biblical quote from all pages other than the Judaism and Christianity articles just because some person got offended? And with regards to Karl Marx, his writings actually did preach atheism, and because of that, all communist countries are officially atheist. In fact, civil servants in China are still required by law to be atheist, and many communist countries did launch crackdowns against relgion. So a religious person could just as easily be offended because one of Karl Marx's writings is quoted. Do we really want to go that far not to offend? If the Biblical, Quranic or Vedic quote is being used to proselytise, that's a different thing and I absolutely oppose using WV to do that. But simply quoting one of those holy books does not mean we are endorsing that particular religion. I see them as just pieces of classical literature and nothing more. And if it adds colour to an otherwise dry article, I don't see why we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending everyone. These days almost anything can offend someone somewhere, so how far do we want to go with this? The dog2 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd keep it simple: If someone states that they are offended and the quote is not obviously topical or necessary, we can remove it. Not we must remove it, we can remove it (and in that kind of easy case, maybe we should remove it). No reason to be definitive about this stuff. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Will we cite old Charly M in communist travel? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We could. He arguably had very little to do with the totalitarian regimes that claimed to be following him, but that's another matter... Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Just as you could argue that Jesus himself had very little to do with the people who led the Crusades, the Inquisition, or even the hate crimes being committed against gays today using the Bible as justification. And likewise, you could argue that Muhammad had very little to do with modern-day ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
But back to my point, I agree that we can discuss the possibility of replacing quotes from holy books with more secular ones, but I don't think it is OK to let someone unilaterally remove the quotes from every single article that has them on the basis that quotes from the Bible/Quran/Vedas/Tanakh/whatever offends him/her. We need to discuss each of those cases separately and come to a consensus based on the merits of each case. What if a left-wing Japanese-American decides that (s)he is offended by the presence of the Purchasing a kimono article because it is "teaching people to commit cultural appropriation", and insists that we delete the article. Or what if some right-wing evangelical Christian from the Bible Belt decides that (s)he is offended by the mention in the Africa article that "Africa is the wellspring of the human race" as it contradicts the Biblical account in Genesis. After all, most evangelical Christians believe that the Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia and therefore, the wellspring of the human race would be Mesopotamia and not Africa. I know these are extreme examples, but do you see where I'm going with this? Yes, we can discuss each of those cases and try to come to a consensus to replace the quotes if better ones are found, but I don't think anyone should be allowed to unilaterally insist that we make changes to our articles merely on the basis of being offended. The dog2 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And just one more point here. Yes, you have the right to be offended. And yes, you have the right to bring it up on the talk page and tell us why you are offended, and we can try to accommodate you within reasonable limits (as we have done here). But ultimately, we work here by coming to a consensus, and being offended is no excuse to force edits that go against the consensus. The dog2 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree on procedure: A talk page discussion would have been most appropriate and we don't want to encourage the kinds of unilateral actions you describe. However, this was a new user acting IMO in good faith, and I don't think we should revert just to stand on a procedural principle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"Just as you could argue that Jesus himself had very little to do with the people who led the Crusades, the Inquisition, or even the hate crimes being committed against gays today using the Bible as justification. And likewise, you could argue that Muhammad had very little to do with modern-day ISIS and Al-Qaeda." Yeah, I would argue these things, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not to argue a total side-point, but Muhammad personally led armies. Jesus did not. Similarly, Marx didn't do half of the things Lenin did but Lenin had to rule over a country that is difficult to rule; still I neither consider all blame for Stalin laid at Lenin's feet justified nor all of it unjustified. But to get from Marx to Stalin takes a leap about as big as to get from "love thy neighbor" to "Crusades against the wrong kind of Christian" Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm going to state both sides of the argument for this one. The reasons to have are that it's a quote that everyone knows and actually draws more attention than most quotes because it's unexpected. Also, if we took it out, we'd have to consider removing Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, and probably even Atheist quotes (Christians and Muslims wouldn't agree with those). However, the quote being discussed is at best a loose connection with electric systems. It's not that relevant and there are more related quotes that could go in its place.

If we reach consensus, I might state my opinion on this, but as it stands, I think I'd rather stay neutral. Selfie City (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

SelfieCity: I checked. As far as I can tell, we don't actually have any quotes from any Buddhist or Hindu works nor any quotes from books espousing atheism, and the only Islamic quotes are on pages about that religion. There is a Jewish quote on Holocaust remembrance which seems appropriate. There are Judeo-Christian quotes remaining on three pages unrelated to religion (Clothes, Sleep, and Fishing) which I find objectionable. If people are saying these quotes were chosen because of their beauty, those lopsided numbers do not seem like a fair representation of the world's cultural traditions. -- Beland (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who looking for things to be offended by will eventually find what they're searching for, no matter where they look. If you're really here to help write a travel guide, I wish you'd get to it, but I suspect you're not. In either case, please either find something more productive to do here or else some other forum to crusade against religion on. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The lopsided numbers may reflect a bias in author base. I for one could not add quotes from that other religious (or atheist) literature as I do not know them well enough (to put it mildly). I suppose no one of those defending the Christian quotes would oppose a Buddhist one based on it being Buddhist. --LPfi (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Restaurants on Wikidata[edit]

Wikidata has 2500 famous restaurants.

Check the map (press "▷") and make sure the restaurants in your pet areas exist and are linked to Wikidata... if they are worth being on Wikivoyage, obviously :-)

This is a first step towards maybe sharing attributes like coordinates/website/phone/email between various languages of Wikivoyage. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

About one and a half year ago we started to add hotels to Wikidata (restaurants are similar) like the Steigenberger Hotel El Tahrir Cairo. It is very important to use this data immediately by adding a Commons link or to use it in a listing template to prevent deletion. Transferring data to Wikidata can be very helpful for our smaller communities. But we must not do all by ourselves. Many landmark hotels and restaurants are already available but with missing data like phone numbers (for instance Mena House). --RolandUnger (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I of course appreciate the effort, but still - too bad those data aren't synced with the OSM data. Like in the example, the OSM building doesn't even have name/type=hotel, not to mention wikidata reference. But I can always hope that once, some hero will come and somehow (re)unite both databases (and I'll get the wikidata into my mobile phone/navigation/whatever). :-) (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Filipino phrasebook[edit]

Request for someone who know the subject to sort out Wikipedia and other language links for this article. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Another draft opened:-[edit]

Nominally toy museums, but some overlap with Models and minatures.

User:ShakespeareFan00/Toys, Games and other amusements

Intended focus was musuems that featured games (but not sports as such) as well.. Anyone able to draft this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume that this is about toy museums, rather than an answer to "How to I entertain my 5 year old on the 10 hour journey?". I wonder if it could also include other childhood museums, like school museums. It may be worth thinking of a new title. AlasdairW (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If it includes games, then the game of Go needs links to at least the Sensei's Library Go wiki, quite likely w:Go (game), and probably places where WV mentions the game such as Kunming#Buy, Mount_Wuyi#Buy and Fuzhou#Do. Probably other games such as chess & backgammon need similar treatment. Pashley (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed about toy museums mostly, but I didn't want to limit it by age as such. AlisdairW, if you want to suggest a different title feel free. Isn't your second topic mention covered by Travelleing with children? Pashly, Yes, plunge forward, Go and chess should certainly be added, although I am wondering if Chess/GO etc aren't 'games' that could have their own articles..
Oh and an aside... Where to stick what the UK calls 'crazy golf', i.e novelty minature golf courses with unusual obstacles , (are these what the US calls "Pitch and Putt"?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thari confusion[edit]

Would welcome a second opinion on the confusion with Thari and w:Tharri. Started discussion at Talk:Thari (disambiguation). --Traveler100 (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Recommended ages as a field for See and Do listings[edit]

I've added some listings around south-east Wisconsin and realized that some venues are suitable for families with children and some are more suitable for older kids or adults. I think there be value in adding an age range/recommended ages field to see and do listings.

Examples: a playspace built specifically for kids under 6, an escape room which explicitly calls out that they don't recommend kids under 13 attempt it, a museum with interactive features designed for ages 6 to 12, an art museum that isn't designed with children in mind (doesn't forbid them, just doesn't have things specifically tailored towards children/is geared more towards adults), a museum that showcases torture methods/devices or sex toys throughout history.

Unless the venue specifically calls an age range out, I understand the age range would be subjective to the editors opinion however I think there is already precedence for this because eat and drink price ranges already are subjective. Obviously parents know their kid best and can decide whether a venue is appropriate. You could call out these things in the description, but having a dedicated/default field in the listing template might encourage editors to consider what ages the venue is tailored toward. I think this would help the traveler make a decision about frequenting a venue. I have no idea how to add fields to listings or how large an undertaking this change would be. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Just put it in "content". I don't want a field, because it will be inapplicable in many cases. And no need to specify exact ages; it's enough to say "Younger children may be bored" or "Some content, such as x and y, may be inappropriate for children". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek, the description of the attraction will usually already give clues about the suitability for specific ages. Having specific fields for this is unnecessary, because the same could be said about access/suitability for wheelchairs, visitors with heart conditions or pacemakers, pregnant women, and so on. The resulting wild growth of rarely used fields would be confusing. ArticCynda (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I added age information just the other day. It's a factory tour (awesome, if you're into that kind of thing) that prohibits anyone under the age of 13. I think that putting it into the main description was adequate. I've similarly noted that a few restaurants are notoriously (and intentionally, as a marketing strategy) unfriendly to children. Child-oriented attractions should also get notes about which ages are most appropriate (e.g., "Toddlers usually congregate in the sandbox, but older kids will be excited by the 12-meter-high playground structure").
IMO the main reason to put such information in a separate field would be making it machine-readable. If someone wants to be able to systematically extract all listings that might be appropriate for <age>, then we'd need a separate field. I don't think that is likely to happen in the foreseeable future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's improve the articles, not argue over minor issues[edit]

I've gotten out of the discussion about the Esperanto phrasebook because it's gone so far. In my opinion, Esperanto should have been deleted, but it's gotten pointless to discuss the phrasebook because the discussion has lasted for almost a month now and nothing's been done. All that's happened is that Wikivoyagers have been distracted from actually contributing to articles and have instead just debated endlessly over things that don't matter very much. I don't really mind if we keep or delete the phrasebook now, the argument's gone on so long. I think it should just end. Somehow.

The recent, almost infinite discussion about Genesis 1:3 beats them all. I have my own opinion about this, but I'm not going to share it because it'll just make the debate go on even longer and create more arguments. Once again, it's not important whether the Genesis quote is there or not - definitely not important enough to spend, according to, more than 3000 words and almost 20,000 characters arguing over it. Can't we just move on to things that need to be done, like contributing to articles, voting on DotMs, and so on? Wikivoyage's editing group is too small to just argue over minor issues. And if you want to get into discussion about Bible verses, first think of "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Mark 3) Selfie City (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that these discussions have resulted in less time or effectiveness in editing articles? Respectfully, I think that the biggest waste of time is to argue people are wasting time discussing things, when they're actually related to policy (I would make an exception for some of the debates at Talk:United States of America)... Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that time spent on pointless discussions can't be spent more usefully on improving or copy editing articles, @ Ikan Kekek. Don't understand me wrong, I do see the value of Talk page discussions or the Travellers' pub, but it's not efficient to spend thousands of words discussing each little detail since there is a nearly infinite number of such discussion material on Wikivoyage! Talk:United States of America seems a good example, the majority of the issues there are so insignificant that they fall under Wikivoyage:Plunge_forward and should be edited straight away without discussion at all. ArticCynda (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
My take on discussions there is different, but I won't bore you with it. My feeling is that this thread should be at the vfd discussion about the Esperanto phrasebook, not here, where guess what? We're wasting time discussing it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I much rather have people air out their grievances and have discussions than it being kept bottled in until someone snaps (or leaves). Of course the discussions on minutiae on the USA article have at times gotten out of hand, but that's just the US for ya. What I am amazed at is that this here site has during my tenure never once had a Middle East meltdown. Knock on wood. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First, I don't think we're talking about people's grievances, exactly. The Genesis 1:3 debate began as an issue of what Wikivoyage wouldn't allow up, I think. Then it became a debate over whether we could include Biblical quotes and whether or not it would offend anyone. As it turned out, more than 3000 words were spent arguing over 11 words of text. What if everyone contributed 3000 words to articles? Now, that would actually improve the website.

Also, the amount of discussion I have started here already shows where the contributions are going. The belief that we should just increase the number of Wikivoyagers before contributing articles has dominated Wikivoyage for a few years now, and all that's happened is that people have argued more and more about policies, phrasebooks, quotes, etc., and done less and less contributing to real articles. Let me tell you all something: it doesn't really matter whether there's a quote at the top of the Electrical systems travel topic page or not. Quotes don't do any harm, but they're not really useful either. What is useful is writing another "star" article (which we haven't done in ages) or even just writing articles up to usable and guide status. Try exploring the Wikivoyage site. How many outline articles can you find? Plenty. The travelers' pub seems far from empty, though. Selfie City (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

While it may be true that quotes are inessential, it is also true that they help to provide an otherwise dry article with just a bit more colour. After all, one of WV's policies is to encourage lively writing, and having a humorous but relevant quote helps us attain that. It's just unfortunate that things have become so politically charged these days that seemingly anything can potentially offend someone. The dog2 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Selfie City, I like to think in terms of every argument we have now serves to prevent an argument (or multiple arguments) in the future. Clear policies and precedents make it easier to get along here, and it's through discussions like the ones for the Esperanto phrasebook and the Genesis quote, as tedious as they may seem in the moment, that we attain that clarity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I rather agree with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
But if we only didn't need to have the debates in the first place... Selfie City (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between long-winded discussions that create or change policy (which can be applied to many articles) and those that change a few words in an article. The latter definitely seems like a waste of time. Gizza (roam) 23:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the quote from Genesis in Electrical systems, we had (have?) the opportunity to take one user's concerns about the implications of affirming the removal of the quote (as opposed to reverting it) and use it to establish a precedent in a broader sense of how much consideration we want to give to an oversensitive editor who is offended by something innocuous. I think a lot of people in the discussion missed that point. The precedent that discussion sets can either make it easier or more difficult to argue against edits made by future oversensitive editors who may be unduly offended by something more important to the content of an article than an easily replaceable throwaway quote. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't agree that we can have different standards for more important content? I would strongly assert that we can and should. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For important discussions, if they really are important, there's a reason for discussion. However, the Esperanto phrasebook is on the border-line of that "important", and the debate over the Genesis 1:3 quote is definitely not within the "important" category. If we were discussing removing every single ideological/religious/belief system quote, that would be different. But the debate over Genesis 1:3 hasn't reached that stage yet. I simply think there are more important issues on Wikivoyage than either Esperanto or whether or not we have a quote on a particular page. Selfie City (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Arguing at length that we should spend less time arguing about unimportant issues is really a waste of time, but arguing about the limits of policy and of this travel guide is not a waste of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, my hope was that this would stop people from arguing, but it's actually done just the opposite. Selfie City (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, but I think you'll find that trying to direct others' work in a voluntary project doesn't ever work. People argue about things that they think are important. If I see a big argument over something I don't think is important, I find it best just to move along and go back to creating new content or improving existing content. Occasionally I'll try to mediate, but if the argument has gone on too long, I probably can't really help. This is the nature of collaborative projects. Ground Zero (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason why this became a policy discussion is because the user who proposed the change to the Electrical systems article went on to change the Biblical quote in the Clothes article, and cited in his comments that it was agreed upon here. The fact is, an agreement was only reached for the first change. The second change wasn't even discussed, and the user did mention in one of his comments that he's offended by having a Biblical quote in a secular article because he is an atheist. I personally think the Biblical quote that was replaced is nicer than the one currently on the page (and I am not a Christian), and I really don't think it should have been changed just like that on the basis of him being offended. I'm actually tempted to revert that particular edit, but I haven't because I am waiting to see if we can get any sort of consensus on this. We most certainly need to establish proper policy guidelines for this so we can avoid the need to have such debates in the future. I know this is a small issue and not important for that particular article, but as far as policy goes, how far do we want to go to accommodate everyone's different sensitivities? If the article was written in a bigoted way, that's another thing, but if we decide that offending someone is the benchmark for requiring changes to be made to an article, some nationalist can easily insist that we don't write anything negative about his/her country because he/she is offended by that. And no, this is not far-fetched; I have actually run into such issues with Korean nationalists on Wikipedia, because they felt offended by the notion that Korean culture was influenced by Chinese culture. Do we really want to go that far? The dog2 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I was (grudgingly) willing to entertain the idea that something about the "let there be light" quote might have stuck in the user's craw, and that if we indulged him on that one individual edit he would move on to other activities. A second edit on the same basis of oversensitivity or phony outrage represents a pattern that needs to be nipped in the bud. I reverted the second edit on that basis and am tempted to go back to Electrical systems and revert that one too. This is precisely, precisely, what I was talking about in terms of setting the wrong precedent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I just said my piece there. In no way would I countenance replacing that beautiful, directly relevant Biblical passage with his suggested prosaic quote. This is no more a place for an atheistic crusade against all Biblical language than it is for a crusade by any religion against coverage of other religions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We don't need to change everything that someone somewhere feels offended by. You, me, anyone could feel offended by anything, which leads to political correctness justified censorship, and needlessly long debates. If people feel offended by biblical quotes then it's up to them to lighten up a bit, rather than forcing the entire travel guide to be changed to make it comply to their narrow view of the world. And preferences aside, it's a fact that mythology and superstition have had a tremendous influence on every culture, and meeting other cultures is one of the most important reasons we travel, isn't it? So whoever feels offended by a few phrases from mythological literature, should probably not travel at all, since they are likely to be offended by many of the See attractions of almost any destination: religious architecture, art in museums, or even street names! Hence, why would a travel guide need to be changed and endlessly debated about by people who are too immature to travel in the first place? ArticCynda (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I was willing to humor him in one article, but no more. If he's triggered by all Biblical references, there's a hell of a lot of other literature he can never read, which is probably too bad but not my business. However, he has no right to censor this site to his individual preferences. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
That was precisely what I was getting at. I was reluctant to explicitly say this because I didn't want to open a can of worms given the current political climate, but my view is that if all it takes for a quote to offend you is the fact that it comes from a particular holy book, you're being oversensitive and need to learn to chill. The world does not revolve around any single person, and neither should WV. I'm glad that we were able to let commonsense prevail here and set the right precedent. The dog2 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There are as many different political climates as there are countries on the planet, so we can't reasonably make Wikivoyage cope with any particular political/religious/social belief out there. Political correctness is hopefully just another phase/trend that will pass again, just like countless others have before it, and countless others will in the future. If we keep adapting our content to whatever phase/trend is 'in' then we never get forward, which was exactly Selfie Citys concern. ArticCynda (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Andre, please don't revert the change at Electrical systems. I think that the new quotation is more relevant. Also, thank you for changing Clothing. I agree with you that the older quotation is better (more relevant) than the new substitute. It seems to me that a traveler is more likely to encounter the "nothing to wear" problem than the situation in which he's wearing a sweater because his mother is cold. If someone finds a specifically travel-related quotation, then that might be even better, but when the choice is between these two, I prefer the older one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The continued tunnel vision on the Clothing/Electrical systems issue is dismaying to say the least. The argument ceased long ago to be about which quote is better, if indeed it ever was. This is about how much we're willing to cater to the censorious crusades of users who are easily triggered and/or given to feigning outrage in order to burnish their own "progressive" bona fides. Let's look at this in the long term. I think that if this discussion is used as precedent in a future discussion, it's far more likely to be employed for or against the idea of catering to oversensitive users than for any other purpose, and I think the importance of not censoring Wikivoyage far supersedes that of having the best incidental quotes in our articles. In other words, our Electrical systems article will not be substantially worse off in the long run if we have "Let there be light" as the quote rather than the Carlin one, but Wikivoyage as a whole will be substantially worse off in the long run if we allow a culture to develop where editors have to walk on eggshells to avoid inadvertently hurting the feelings of every imaginable class of perpetually offended user. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Given this controversy, I was wondering if we should perhaps add "Avoiding every possible offence" or something similar to our list of non-goals. Of course, we will not write our articles in an intentionally offensive and bigoted way, but with that being said, we also need to be reasonable and we can't cater to the whims of anyone who decides to be oversensitive over innocuous content, or is just trying to come up with new reasons to get offended. I think having this explicitly stated will make it easier for us to deal with similar issues in the future. The dog2 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, articles should not be written to intentionally offend or insult groups or ideas, but banning everything that could potentially be offensive is also ridiculous. Write articles in a way that most readers would enjoy. The few that still feel offended are free to make a fork of Wikivoyage and start their own Travel Guide for Oversensitive IndividualsTM . ArticCynda (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Travel Brochures[edit]

How do I make a Travel Brochure in multilanguage

The good news is that all text in any language version of WV is under a Creative Commons license that allows re-use, provided you comply with the license terms; the most important are giving attribution to the source & licensing your work the same way. See Wikivoyage:Copyleft for details. Photos & maps from WM Commons are also under open licenses, but you have to check each one since details may vary. Open Streetmap also has an open license, but I have no idea of details.
As for what tools to use to create a brochure, how to format one in an appealing way & so on, those questions are outside the scope of a travel guide. It is possible some people here will have suggestions, but I haven't a clue. Pashley (talk)

Dive sites, why not hiking, cycling routes?[edit]

I don't want this to be another long debate, although this could potentially be a more important issue than the Genesis 1:3 quote or keeping/deleting the Esperanto phrasebook: I do not know how dive sites got to be on Wikivoyage. They're not quite like anything else on Wikivoyage. However, I've been thinking recently about why Wikivoyage hasn't reached the heights of Wikipedia. There are several notable reasons.

  1. First, Wikivoyage and Wikitravel have for several years now been operating like competitors, and Wikitravel has managed to steal a lot of potential Wikivoyage readers and users. Having both of these competing, along with Tripadvisor and other travel guides, have stopped Wikivoyage from becoming the world's main travel guide in the same way that Wikipedia has become the world's main encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there's not a lot we can do about this issue.
  2. Second, we lack content in many articles. Although major city articles are mostly well-developed and have been a Wikivoyage success, there are probably thousands of Wikivoyage destinations that are outlines - still. It would take a lot more Wikivoyage editors and years of work to change this, so dealing with this issue isn't very practical at the moment (unless we stopped debating, which is obviously not going to stop in real life - just check out #Let's improve the articles, not argue over minor issues to see why).
  3. Third, practically every article on Wikivoyage has an article on the bigger site, Wikipedia, with the same name. Pretty much ever Wikivoyage destination is also a Wikipedia article. So why would people come here when there's a much more well-known site that covers just as much and more (think Wikipedia's biographies and other articles). However, we could deal with the issues of the second point: create some more specific destination articles so we could go more in-depth about travel than Wikipedia does. For example, create hiking trail guides that have a similar page layout to diving sites. The same could be done with cycling routes. I know most of these article possibilities don't pass the sleep test, but dive sites don't either - people don't sleep underwater while scuba diving. This one could be expanded and really improve the usefulness of Wikivoyage.

Finally, I'd like to say that if most people don't agree about this, I'm not going to continually debate it because improving articles should the priority. However, if we added these types of travel guides, it would give us more opportunity to expand articles and make Wikivoyage just as good as Wikipedia. Selfie City (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. They would be Itinerary articles. I believe we do already have some. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I just want to clarify first, though, that I'm here referring to (for example), a three-mile trail in a park; I'm not referring to the Appalachian Trail. What I'm more talking about is perhaps a guide to a three- or four-mile trail, with some pictures of the trail and a description of where it goes, or something like that. Selfie City (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I think in some cases that can make sense. Land Art Trail on Mt. Učka is one example of an itinerary article about a shorter hike. Sometimes a simple route can be incorporated into another article instead, as in Florianopolis#Do. Another possibility is writing a travel topic article with information about multiple hikes in a particular area, like Hiking around Ljubljana. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd say more on hiking or cycle routes is a fine idea & anyone so inclined should go ahead & write about them.
Some existing itineraries like Karakoram Highway say something about cycling that could be much expanded. Pashley (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
We have a principle established in Wikivoyage:What is an article? that could be extended:
"Cases where exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are... so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article. A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered."
I think that a hiking or cycling route for which we have more than 3-4 paragraphs in an article could be broken out into its own article. What we want to avoid is a bunch of articles that have no more content than "The Waterfront Route is a 3-mile-long cycling route in Springfield." Ground Zero (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we could perhaps have an article about Rail Trails, where abandoned railway lines are converted for pedestrian or cycling use. When I lived in Australia, there was a nice one that ran through Clare Valley, and there is also the Coast to Vines Rail Trail. I've never completed them, but if anyone here is a cycling enthusiast and has done so, please plunge forward. The dog2 (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
We do have Hiking and Cycling articles but yes we could have many more. A good example of a short distance one is Ad's Path. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
In reference to the first point made, it is not that WT steals readers or contributors from WV, it is that Google treats WV as a fork of WT and whenever there is identical or similar content between the sites, we are the ones that get punished, always. From personal experience, any WV article which is 90% or more identical with the WT equivalent cannot be found on Google at all. And there are still many articles (I suspect thousands) which have not had a non-minor, non-bot edit in over 5 years. These articles are virtually ghosts on the internet and can only be seen by a link or search within Wikivoyage (or a sister wiki). And articles with an overlap of less than 90% but still quite high will at best appear on the 3rd or 4th page of search results. This severely hampers organic growth. And it's worse for some countries than others. Gizza (roam) 07:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I have cycled on some rail trails. They're great. None of the ones I cycled on are probably long enough to merit their own article, but rail trails certainly can be covered in itinerary articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
One example cycle path that could be expanded is Little Miami Bike Trail. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of out walking itineraries are multiple day tracks like Milford Track, but there are some shorter ones, for example:

In the past there has been some negative comments on itineraries being "too personal", which did result in a number of itineraries being deleted. I think that we could clarify what are "personal" itineraries - whilst it is obvious that "stopped here to visit granny" is personal, it is not clear that one selection of a set of paths in the woods is. AlasdairW (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For point 3 in the original post, of course WP is better known than WV. We should be taking advantage of that as much as possible by ensuring that there are plenty of WP->WV links. Pashley (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:Links from Wikipedia --Traveler100 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone. I've just done a couple articles in the Tri-Valley area with hiking routes in mind: Hiking in the East Bay and the Ohlone Trail itinerary. I'm also just about to work on a shorter hiking itinerary. This is an area I know well, but I can't do these types of itineraries for every hike in the world. It would be great if others could work on hiking itineraries for areas they know, so we can really expand our Wikivoyage hiking itineraries. Selfie City (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Wikidata Expedition[edit]

After last months CotM clean up, I have updated this expedition page. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Joined the expedition, thanks for the contributions! ArticCynda (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Marker/Listing templates with wikidata support[edit]

Guys, I'd like to replace the current {{Marker}} with {{Marker/sandbox}}, and {{listing}} with {{listing/sandbox2}}. Basically it should work 1:1, except that marker now accepts wikidata IDs. Thanks to that, missing title/url/lat/long/image are automagically fetched from the wikidata entry. This is also a step to allow nice (and simply implemented by a bot) region maps/lists. If you guys could test it (like this) on a few pages - check that all works (at least as good) as previously, that'd be great. I'll do a few more tests within the following days too, of course. (PS: @RolandUnger: will probably introduce a less 'hacky' version of this sometime, but I was waiting for it for 1/2 year already, so I decided to implement it for the time being... :-) ). (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Introducing Toolhub[edit]

What does your participation on the Wikimedia projects look like? Do you edit articles? Upload files? Patrol vandalism? Translate articles? Translate interface messages? Do you organize people, online or offline? Do you train new editors, or new trainers? Do you write code?

There are many different ways to contribute to Wikimedia – more than you would expect just from reading Wikipedia articles. Over the past several years, volunteers have developed technical tools that help Wikimedians improve content, patrol vandalism, and perform many other tasks. They make it possible to do what the wiki software alone cannot accomplish. Without these tools, many of our projects would slow down to a crawl.

I am very happy to announce a new project called Toolhub which seeks to create a searchable index of these tools in all languages. We are building this tool catalog based on what our communities need. If you would like to help, please take a look at m:Toolhub and review the question at the top of the page. You can also leave feedback in any language on the talkpage. You can also email me private feedback. Harej (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Usable/guide status?[edit]

I'm often not sure if articles are at usable status or guide status, and what the requirements are for a guide article. I'll use an example, and I'd like to know whether it's a guide or not: Marshall (North Carolina). I put it at guide status but I am not totally sure if it's really a guide or not. How many listings do you need for a guide article? I think this could be made much clearer so we nominate the right articles for DotMs and OtBPs. Selfie City (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is already described here (or more generally here). I'd say making it about the number of listings wouldn't be a good idea... (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The standards of guide status don't seem as high as I thought. It sounds like you need multiple Sleep listings, multiple Eat and Drink, multiple See and Do, multiple ways of getting in and around, some one-liners in Go Next, an Understand section of reasonable length and if applicable, all of the city's districts are at least usable. I think many usable cities should have their status upgraded, just as many outlines should really be usable. Gizza (roam) 05:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The technical level of guide is low. The Marshall article ticks all the boxes as far as listing entries are concerned but personally I would expect to see more description prose at the start of each section and in the content of the listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I know there is a basic description of what a guide article is, but the current description of each article status is not very useful because it doesn't say enough. I think we need a very solid standard guide article level (perhaps using an article like Marshall as an example) so we can promote a lot of destinations to the levels they need to be at. Also, I want to thank you for the second link you gave me - that is a help, but we still need a longer description of guide and usable article status. Selfie City (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been a lot of good work done on Marshall, but I think that there is still plenty of room for improvement. The Get in section is very basic - By car says nothing about parking, By train only says there is no station, not where the nearest one is, and there is no info on other public transport, apart from a mention of buses in by car "U.S. Bus Route 70", but where does this bus go from. Are any of the see listings open to see inside? AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this, how to get in is a pretty essential part of every article. It's useful to mention the railway station isn't serviced anymore (avoids people from waiting at the platforms indefinitely), but surely the locals can also today still get in and out! So list the bus line(s) going passing through the town, mark the most important bus stops with a marker on the map, explain where to get tickets and how much they would cost from the nearest adjacent destinations, and so on. Definitely leave by car, but without mentioning where a car can be rented to reach it, it's not very useful. ArticCynda (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the article is not currently at guide standard, because there are not "are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in", as required by Wikivoyage:City guide status. The only way of getting in given is by car. AlasdairW (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I have put the article back to usable, as there is still only one way to get in which is described. AlasdairW (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

For your interest, there is a discussion about an aspect of this underway already. Should all / most / some POIs in an article have geocoordinates in order for that article to qualify for guide status? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is the main new feature of OsmAnd 3[edit]

OsmAnd is a popular offline GPS maps app for Android. Version 3.0 has just been released, and guess what's the biggest new feature? Wikivoyage! Half of the changelog is about Wikivoyage (in the app the feature is called "Travel" though lol):

I have not tested it yet (busy at the moment) but it sounds promising. I wonder whether it reuses data from my pet project or not. Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this is amazing and great work! I only know about one other option - kiwix (mediawiki offline browser). But the GPS stuff is broken there for a year+ now, and there's no way(?) to show the maps of the listings. This all seems to work nicely in OsmAnd... Now if only they improved the map rendering engine to be less sluggish :-) (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This is very interesting. Great to have an app promoting Wikivoyage. Quite a bit of downloading to do, particularly if you travel a lot. Not sure how much sim card this could take up but has the advantage of working in those locations where there is no cell signal. The standard map has a good deal of detailed information, at least in the areas I briefly tested. As far as I can work out the Wikivoyage POIs only appear on the map once you view an article, or is there another method? The key advantage, which our own in article map on mobile phone does not do (and thus a reason why we will never be a popular site), it show your current location so you can see what POIs are nearby.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC), Their rendering engine improved a lot since one of their latest releases! Give it a try, if you haven't yet. I was positively surprised. It is the only app I ever bought, by the way. --Renek78 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I'm following the updates (when I use GPS)... But compare it e.g. to, if you want to know how state-of-art rendering should work :-) Granted, they don't render to such details, nor do they allow styling etc. So I use for car stuff mostly, and osmand for walking... (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting approach to integrating OSM and WikiVoyage, if only OsmAnd wouldn't have severely restrictive download policy of seven-ish datasets, I'd use it more... ArticCynda (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
On that matter a little help:
  1. If you use one of the two "multi-user" storage places under "Setting" in OsmAnd, you can reset the app's data (under Settings (Android) >> Apps) without deleting the maps, and you will get another 7 maps.
  2. Maps can be simply shared with other people if you know where to find them. (Android/obb/ or Android/data/ or Android/data/net.osmand)
  3. There is a free full version of OsmAnd in f-Droid available. Get f-Droid and you problems are gone.
  4. If you have iOS, you decided to be on the commercial side of life, so spend some god-dam money on the App. ;-)
Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, only listings with a Wikidata attribute are used. That's another argument for linking to Wikidata :-) Also, you have to enable the layer in "Configure map > POI Overlay > Tourism" Syced (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Virtual reality travel into space[edit]

Courtesy of NASA, the future of affordable space tourism is here. (Sorry I have been AWOL lately, I'll be back soon. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC))

Help needed in getting a page moved back to right place,[edit]

User:Government,_politics_and_opposition and the relevant talk page should be in my userspace, but I botched the move back.

Due to complete incompetence it's now all over the place. Can someone PLEASE put it at (and the relevant talk page at) User: ShakespeareFan00/Government,_politics_and_opposition or delete it entirely? ( and in the process clear up the complete mess of redirects that got created during a series of botched move attempt. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

is now User:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition --Traveler100 (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes and the talk page needs relocating as well. User:User:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition, to it's correct location at User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition.  :( Apologies.. In any event this article needs a re think as it's too widely scoped and thus incoherently broad. Someone else should decide on ONE scoped focus to follow and split the article if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And another unintentional botched move results because I'm incompetent... There's no comma at the end of the name (Sigh)... I wonder if there is a way to prevent such issues in the future, by sanity checking moves ike this automatically.

In short the article should be at User:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition and the talk page at User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition. Okay folks how long a block do you want to apply against me for my incompetence? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

By the power vested in me as a member of this community, I hereby sentence thee to hard labor, namely improving any single article of your choice, in whatever manner suits you best, to the extent that you feel like. After that, you will be forgiven and your record will be expunged.
More seriously, it'd be possible to set up an edit filter that would warn you if you're moving a page from or to userspace, or moving a page to userspace that isn't your own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Embassies and consulates - collapsed list[edit]

Although I see the reason for listing all diplomatic missions I do find them annoying taking up so much of the page. One of those topics you are not at all interested in, until you really need it. Proposing to collapse the list, here is an example on London article. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I like the collapsing function. Great idea. Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, for long embassy lists like this it's a clear improvement in the online version. My only concern is the print/offline version—when I used the "Download as PDF" link from the London article, the list stayed collapsed, so none of the embassies show up in the PDF. Is there a way to make it so that the table is collapsed by default for online viewers but is expanded when you use the PDF feature? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent idea. This is probably applicable to some other sections, too. I could see using it in some long articles like United States of America. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This is already being done for the national capital cities, Sarajevo is a fine example with map markers, telephone, fax, email etc. ArticCynda (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed content has some accessibility issues. I think it's better to avoid it, in general. If it's not important enough to display, maybe we could consider putting it in a sub-page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
What are the accessibility issues? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It being left out from PDF:s mentioned above is one. Uncollapsing it may may be difficult in some situations, and it may confuse the web browser (internal links can lead astray, as the correct position is often computed before collapsing). The foremost problem I have experienced is the temptation to include too much content as it is not cluttering the view for most editors. It is still downloaded no matter how bad and expensive your connection is, and without javascript all of it is shown. --LPfi (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
These are valid issues that need to be addressed. It seems to me that making a sub page with only embassies and consulates for each national capital city is a bit overkill, though. Would it be possible to modify the PDF renderer to make it expand collapsed sections first before rendering them? ArticCynda (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Why would it be overkill? Making a separate page is easy. And, of course, you would not need that for capital cities with only a handful of them (our article on Mbabane of Swaziland lists two). Non-capitals with loads of consulates could use the same solution. But then we have the issue about people overlooking printing/downloading those separate pages. Modifying the PDF renderer should be easy, but that depends on how it is coded (if we are lucky we just need to mark the sections for printing), and does not address the other issues. --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Overkill was probably not the correct word, I'm rather skeptical about how such a separate page can be cleanly linked/integrated into the main national capital page. But if a good solution for that can be found, I'll definitely reconsider my objection against sub pages as a solution to the problem. ArticCynda (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


A quick question.

Why is there not a Draft namespace on English Wikivoyage? Two items are currently in my User space, for the lack of a better location. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it has not been introduced. I think en-wp is in a minority having it. On sv-wp it has been discussed, but we have concluded pages in a draft namespace would mostly be forgotten. In mainspace they get attention and have some chances to develop. If they are not mature enough for mainspace (after some quick fixes, usually done by patrollers), they are probably not mature enough to be worked on by the general community. Unless the original author (and those who join developing in userspace) can get the article past that threshold, it is better they stay as that user's private bad conscience. --LPfi (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Enwiki is definitely a minority, and the wiki-researchers (including some of the people who helped create the draftspace originally) are concerned about it. It's basically the place new articles go to die. If you want a growing community and growing content, you should not introduce draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what LPfi and WhatamIdoing said (and I agree with what they said), one of the main reasons it was introduced on en-wp doesn't apply to us. It was a place where experienced editors look at newbies writing new articles can be monitored more easily. We don't get many of those in the first place. Experienced users can just use user subpages if they want to start an article that isn't finished from their perspective. Gizza (roam) 07:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been on en.wp for a couple of years, but recall that it differs from other projects by refusing to let unregistered users create articles directly in mainspace. Instead, they have this broken articles for creation wikiproject where new articles proposed by unregistered users languish for weeks at a time before an "experienced" editor reviews the texts to reject many or most of them. WP:AFC therefore ends up paralleling WP:NPP, the new pages patrol for newly-created articles by logged-in users. The wording of the templates encourage rejected authors to keep revising and resubmitting articles, which is generally a waste of time as most are merely rejected again on some arbitrary basis. There is an attitude on en.wp that "another AFC special" (an article which made it through the articles for creation tarpit and actually made it to mainspace) is still a bigger target to be nominated for deletion (AfD) because it was written by a newbie and many new users are prone to submit poorly-sourced or self-promotional topics as articles. So yes, it's where new articles go to die. K7L (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Enwiki is even more restrictive, as of a few months ago. Now, to create an article in the mainspace, your account has to be at least four days old, and you must have made at least ten edits to any page (even whitespace changes count). So now there are many paid spammers that make ten trivial edits before dumping their spam straight into the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It is also easy to tell about a page in userspace and invite others to fix issues you need help with. I think such an announcement (probably in the pub, then moved to a dedicated page listing such pages needing work) gives most of the advantages of a draft space over userspace drafts without introducing any significant problems. --LPfi (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Would a category for Draft articles be accpetable then? (we already have cateories for outline articles..) etc..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A category sounds like a good idea to me. It would help interested editors find userspace drafts to help work on. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
So a decision on a name then? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Articles needing improvement or Category:Stub articles these being set by {{Needsimprovement}} or {{stub}}. Or plain old {{outlinecity}} etc. Do not see a need for another? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree, there are already sufficient categories/indicators for the draft status, the argument to create a new category seems rather weak to me. ArticCynda (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, a mainspace article in need of repair is not the same animal as a userspace draft which isn't finished yet. Each category should have one purpose and only one purpose, anything else makes the category structure much less usable and less useful. Different purpose? Different category. K7L (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - Any chance of copyediting {{Userdraft}} ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why is a category needed? Just create the draft in your userspace and let people know you invite them to read and edit by posting s notice in the pub. It's not like we have 20 zillion of these. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Content from the pub (Should get swept) from time to time. The category idea is to keep track of them, but I'll consider the categories noted previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Using the general stub and outline categories would interfere with using those categories for maintenance. Needsimprovement is probably fine, unless it gets crowded, at which point it could be split up. --LPfi (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Updated the relevant template, and this disscussion could be swept to it's talk page. In the meantime feel free to mark your Userspace Drafts with

{{Userdraft}}. Please let me know if the wording on that template could be improved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps <includeonly>Category:Article drafts in userspace</includeonly> should have their own category instead of misusing an existing articles in need of improvement category? K7L (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cape Consolidation?[edit]

Comments welcome!

--ButteBag (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I made a stub on Musicals[edit]

I thought it was something of an omission that we cover classical music in Europe and literary travel but not this art form. Feel free to expand the topic as you wish. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Not something found by a direct search on that term..

Plenty in the UK (and ruins), and probably Western European, probably any topic would want to pick the top 20 or so key examples.

However, where else has castle-like fortifcations? China and Japan certainly, and I've seen photos on Wikimedia Commons that are of so termed 'hill-forts' in the Indian sub-continent.

Worth an attempted draft, or wait until someone else writes something? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been on my to do list for some time. As you say UK and Germany has a lot of potential as well as some of the eastern European countries. Mid-east has some interesting castle but many are too dangerous to visit at the moment with Syria being off limits. The other question would be, do you also include fortifications or is that another article? Forts would take you out of medieval times and into many more countries. Also a challenge are fortified homes, what in Germany would be a Schloss (some are like medieval castles other more like manor houses or stately homes or château). --Traveler100 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
And you have the one in Bavaria(?) that was not really a military fortification, but looks awesome on postcards :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Well that is just a slightly older one than the one in Euro Disney. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
There are also walled or formerly walled cities like Palmanova or Shanghai/Old City. Nanjing had the world's longest city wall & parts of it still stand. Also other fortified dwellings like Hakka Tulou, & likely various related things I don't know about. Pashley (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Not every castle is a fortification. Some are grand old hotels, some are merely dwelling houses for the overprivileged wealthy. Conversely, not every fortress is a castle. K7L (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Traditionally, a castle is supposed to be a fortified dwelling that is meant to provide defence for the lord living inside. So Schloss Neuschwanstein is often called Neuschwanstein Castle in English, but is not really a castle as it has no functional battlements or other fortifications; it's simply a palace built to resemble a castle. On the other hand, China's Forbidden City and South Korea's Gyeongbokgung and Changdeokgung were built with fortifications that gave soldiers an advantage when they were defending the emperor/king, so you could argue that those could count as castles. The dog2 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Without getting into too much debate here, just wanted to make the point that an article on "Medieval Castles" would be a very good idea. And then other article for "Fortifications" and another for "Noble Residences". --Traveler100 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of the chateaux in France would also classify as castles. Many are private property and inhabited, but quite a few are open to the public and worth a visit. ArticCynda (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
A side comment I'd prefer the topic Grand and Great houses over Noble residences.
For various reasons I'd count Tower Houses as Castles of a sort, but not necessarily later Chateux.. You have edge cases like Bodiam in Sussex ( althought it has much of the architectural design of a true castle, they are mostly for show if I am reading the Wikipedia article.)
"Grand and Great houses", I find that a good term. Have been searching for some generic term for chateux, stately home, manor house, Schloß, Resedenz, palace. That would work. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That title works for me. Alternatively, it can just be called "Palaces", since "Schloß" and "château" are just the German and French words for "palace" respectively. As for castles, I know that it common usage these days, we no longer stick to that strict definition, which is why we have the Sleeping Beauty Castle in Disneyland, but traditionally, a castle had to be fortified. If the creation of the "Medieval castles" articles goes ahead, I think we can mention both the traditional definition, and how it's applied much more loosely these days. It's true that not all fortresses are castles, but traditionally, all castles had to be fortresses. The dog2 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
OK lets get started on Castles, Fortifications and Grand and Great houses. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Side note, besides proper names and those who reject even the most uncontroversial aspects of the 1998 spelling reform nobody spells it "Schloß" any more. And that says somebody who once lived in a street with the idiosyncratic spelling. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

& Multiple Travel topic articles per country could be looked at... see: Forts and Palaces of India as an example. Use template related on that particular country's article page ... Depending upon size one could end up creating a rather large index which I have been told is not really acceptable, thus smaller groupings might be necessary. If need be, multiple travel topic pages can be combined together through the use of transclusion. ie. Castles, Fortifications and Grand and Great Houses of Scandinavia could be combined from those topic pages for Denmark, Sweden etc.
  • Separate section headings for Medieval, Renaissance, World War I, World War II etc. could also be used to identify entities and again transcluded to separate travel topic pages. In the examples above the approach would be to create source pages that provide information for multiple pages as well.
  • Whether or not Wikidata could be used through some jquery is also something that could be examined.
  • Many ears ago I used templates containing hidden keywords to provide extra searching capabilities but that was using a different search engine in Mediawiki.
Just a thought! Matroc (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

World Cup 2018[edit]

As we get closer to the tournament, it is likely that the World Cup page, Russia, the 11 host cities, and the 13 districts articles for Moscow and Saint Petersburg will all see increases in traffic. To anyone interested, there are 26 articles altogether that we should improve and tidy up as World Cup fever takes over much of the globe.

On the bright side, every one of these articles has a custom banner though many of them have empty sections and/or dead links that we ought to update. Gizza (roam) 01:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it's a seriously overhyped event, unworthy of all the attention it's receiving. Feel free to make improvements and edits, but I don't think a World Cup Expedition is justified for this. ArticCynda (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not every person is interested in the event but that's the case with everything in life. I suggested this because whenever destinations are in the news and spotlight, for good or bad, they tend to get more views and quite often people reading Wikivoyage for the first time. It's the case with other sporting events, music festivals, natural disasters, terror attacks, or anything else. If there are new readers of these articles, we have an opportunity to leave a good impression and make them long-term users of Wikivoyage. Gizza (roam) 11:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the World Cup will come and go in a few short weeks, so any event-specific pages will be dead stock. But if we take it as a prompt to update existing relevant WV pages, this has lasting value and may attract new readers and contributors. The fans have long ago sorted out getting there and accommodation, it’s a visa requirement. They don’t need tips about the football, they have their own better sources. They may appreciate non-commercial advice on getting around, eating & drinking, and see & do.

Time is short as the event kicks off on 14 June. I suggest the priority for EN-WV will be those cities where group-stage matches are being played by English-speaking nations. So, Australia play in Kazan, Samara and Sochi, while England play in Volgograd, Nizhny Novgorod and Kaliningrad. Just six to go at, let’s take one apiece.

As proposer, bags-I Kazan, since I’ve been there in the last 12 months, and I’ve started overhauling that page. (Inflated prices are a difficulty, these will need revisiting after the event.) Any takers for the other five? Grahamsands (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Subject area topics...[edit]

Currently we have travel topics, itenaries and destinations... A few of the ideas I've suggested or started tend to be interest area articles, like Botnaical Tourism, Aviation history, Castles (thanks for starting it BTW), and so on that don't necessarily sit clearly on the boundary between destinations and travel topics, (or don't fit into the destination structure like British Coast.)

So do we need a category for 'thematic interest' articles?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The examples you give sound like perfect Travel Topics, not sure why another classification is needed. In fact I would like to propose scrapping Itineraries and just make all travel topics but index by region as well as topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
These are all well and good, and I am always happy to see more content being created, but I'll point out that as a travel guide we still have so very many destination articles that lack content. People looking for ways to contribute might consider helping us fill out or update or clean up our destination articles. Ground Zero (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


I've signed myself up for WT, made a useful contribution, and asked WT on their Travellers' pub the following:

I know and understand why Wikitravellers are not allowed to use the name of a competing travel guide on this website. However, the fork that happened more than five years ago is no longer an issue, so could it possible to allow users to use the name of that travel guide on user pages? For example, I'd like to say that I'm mainly a contributor to Wiki---age but am now signed up on Wikitravel as well. Any thoughts from Internet Brands? Just asking, I don't mind if you don't want to change that word ban. SelfieCity (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2018 (EDT)

Chances are, they're remove the info and perhaps ban me from that site, but I'm just interested to see what happens. After several years Internet Brands might have recovered from their hostilities toward us. But after looking at the history of the travellers' pub and seeing all the discussions they removed, I don't feel like the result will be good. Also, I would like to say that the WT website works pretty well now compared to how it used to be (I know this by looking through their travellers' pub archives). Selfie City (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What will happen is they will ban you, then threaten you and possibly the WMF with legal action. It happened to me, and I never even visited WT. Three months on, and I'm still waiting for them to prove their claims that the person who vandalised their site is both me and a troublesome user both of our sites used to have called W.Frank. I'm also waiting for WT to fulfil their promise to get me banned from editing here using the Foundation's own lawyers. Honestly, Selfie City, you're wasting your time. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
That's crazy! You've got me worried now. I'm glad I've been pretty careful about my identity on WV and WT. Selfie City (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, in that situation, I think someone pretended to be you and one of the Internet Brands staff assumed that you were messing up the WT website. Still, I'll be careful. Selfie City (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
So far, so good. Nothing's happened. If nothing happens and they keep the ban, I don't really mind because I don't plan to be a regular editor on the WT website. Selfie City (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
WT still exists? Good heavens. Why? Ground Zero (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. They still do DotMs, OtBPs, and so on, although they don't use the DotM system anymore but instead just do it on the travellers' pub. And the website works pretty well now; they don't seem to have many problems with vandalism (except for the alleged ThunderingTyphoons! vandalism) and the website is pretty fast, perhaps even faster than Wikivoyage. Selfie City (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
They also seem to have very little actual activity going on. Their pub is a quiet, empty place. There are relatively few edits to articles. I don't mean to gloat. I wasn't here when the split happened, so I have no grudge to bear, but it does make me wonder what motivates people to continue contributing there. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, I would think a lot of the people on WT don't know about WV because WT doesn't allow mentions of Wikivoyage on its website. And I think WT's owners, Internet Brands, haven't been as bad as some Wikivoyagers make out. They have kept the Wikitravel website going and the WT website in itself now functions quite well. Just because they showed ads with pictures of people eating spiders doesn't mean it was their fault. And they have reason not to like us - we've taken away a lot of their business. Selfie City (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a hornet’s nest that really needs to not be poked by anyone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. Maybe one of the other editors who were around when this whole thing was going down could back me up with links to the appropriate talk page discussions or whatnot, but the long and short of it is 1) our argument with Internet Brands went far beyond placing advertising on the site and, more importantly, 2) the legal arguments that underpinned Internet Brands’ subsequent lawsuit against the WMF, and two of our editors individually, included wide-ranging allegations of defamation that, while they were eventually thrown out of court, were still litigation and as such expensive, time-consuming, and stressful. We were advised at that time to avoid broaching the subject of our breakup from Wikitravel whenever possible, and with the exception of Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel which was very carefully worded to avoid inspiring further litigation, we have continued to operate under the model of the less said about it the better. In fact, I’ve probably said too much myself in this comment. And aside from legal concerns, I hope that given the toll the whole thing took on the two editors who were personally sued, you can understand why statements like the one directly above this one might be perceived as insulting. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
A search for "Internet Brands sues Wikivoyage" turns up plenty of info like this:
No need to comment, the thing speaks for itself. K7L (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm one of the old time editors who started off before WV was created. I must say that we have actually grown more productive since the WT days. One of the things that caused me to move over here was that I found it much more difficult to get a consensus from the old site, even when it was an edit that seemed like commonsense to me. Take the "Talk" section of the Switzerland article. Look at what you have on WT, and it's way too long-winded, such that unless you are a professional linguist, your will likely get bogged down in all that information that you'll miss the important points. What you see there is more or less what you had here before I trimmed it down to the much more manageable amount of text that we have over here while still retaining the important points for travellers (and of course, it's been further improved by other editors since I did the trimming down). When I did the same thing on WT, I just got reverted with the comment that "that's just your own very personal opinion" when I mentioned in my edit summary that it was too long-winded. And nobody entertained me on the talk page when I tried to get a consensus. So in short, while perhaps more could be done to improve our exposure, I think we are in general doing a good job here, and I'd say in terms of quality of content, we are actually better than WT for the most part. The dog2 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE, verify the GPS coordinates when copying Wikidata information![edit]

Dear all, please, I beg you to really put some additional effort into verifying (OpenStreetMap, Google Maps) that the GPS information copied from Wikidata is correct.

I see many listings being updated with the Wikidata code and consequently the GPS information being copied into Wikivoyage. E.g.

However, the GPS information on Wikidata, IMHO, is far from correct and of rather low quality. I actually trust Wikivoyage more to have more accurate GPS information. The problem is not using Wikidata, which in the future might correct the false GPS information. The sad thing is that we are deleting high quality information from Wikivoyage this way, instead of spreading it.

Therefore, in case you find the Wikidata GPS information to be incorrect, please head over to the relevant item and correct the GPS coordinates on Wikidata using "English Wikivoyage" as a reference.

Please, help to keep up the good data quality on Wikivoyage.

Many thanks, Ceever (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that it is unfortunate that the listing editor only gives the option of updating all the fields using the Wikidata values, not just the empty ones. With large venues Wikivoyage may deliberately have different co-ordinates from Wikipedia - We may want to show where the entrance or ticket office is, and WP may want to show somewhere in the centre of the site. AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AlasdairW. Is it possible to change the listing editor so that the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" button will only update empty fields? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Btw, the marker/listing templates now do exactly this (automagically adds location/images from wikidata, if specified; doesn't override)... If we added also wikipedia/url autofetching, the 'update from wikidata' button would become obsolete. (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC), would it be technologically feasible to have a single click update button for Wikidata? I've made it a habit to fill in the Wikidata field of any attraction I add or edit, and noticed a lot of Wikidata records indeed have inaccurate coordinate information. I believe it wouldn't be a bad idea if the data flow could be bidirectional. ArticCynda (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess anything is possible in the end, but I'm not sure wikidatians would like WV "autooverriding" their database. Who's to say WV coords are better than the ones imported from WP? I guess if we don't like the WD coords and they are somewhat correct (aka - are better the coords of center of the building, or of its entrance?), we should simply override in WV. Otherwise I'm sure WP:WV edit wars will ensue :) If the WD coords are completely off, like in this case, we should fix WD - it would also help fellows from DE/FR/... WV branches. (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Non-overriding updates would be a good place to start.
In the fairly rare case of desired differences (e.g., venue center vs entrance), I think that Wikidata can support multiple values, with qualifiers and rankings to identify why there are more than one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
An extreme example is w:Caledonian Canal which runs for 60 miles from Fort Augustus to the outskirts of Fort William, and has listings in both, with the lat/longs being good locations to see the canal if you are in that town. The WD lat/long is 5 miles from Fort August. (The Fort William listing could be changed to be specific to a set of locks there.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't surprise me at all. When Wikidata was introduced it was noted that this type of thing could happen very easilty because of multiple input sources and appears to prove Wikidata to be a tiny bit less reliable than one would have hoped. Double checking would be a good practise to follow. -- Matroc (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
And it gives credence to my earlier warning to be wary of too much integration with, and ceding too much control over our content to, an unrelated WMF project that doesn't necessarily share (or even have much familiarity with) our goals. I recently had to remove several Wikidata values from the Buffalo article because it made no sense to associate a specific set of geo coordinates to (in two cases) a local restaurant chain with multiple locations and (in the remaining case) an annual event whose venue changes every year. Until these issues get ironed out, I propose a moratorium on any further addition of Wikidata values to local listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think stopping adding is a little rash, but checking before changing and after adding I totally agree with. Even better fix the wikidata, which I have done a number of times. Particularly when totally wrong. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
👍 Ceever (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Доверяй, но проверяй --Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as advocating a moratorium on adding Wikidata links, but would rather propose we make an effort to correct Wikidata in the process where necessary. That way, both WMF projects enjoy the benefits. ArticCynda (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I can tell you people one thing; the coordinates given for Wildwood State Park in Wading River, New York are way off the coast of Long Island Sound(,-72.8107658/41,-72.8/@40.9672569,-72.9050227,11250m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2?hl=en ), instead of the correct location, which should show up on that google map. ----DanTD (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Takes only a few seconds to correct, so I did! ArticCynda (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
👍 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
One caveat to this: I've noticed that Google Maps gives me the GPS coordinates of the centre of the map instead of the GPS coordinates of the pointer that I searched for. I've had to move the location slightly off the map and then search for it in order to get even semi-reliable numbers that way. --Robkelk (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

More intuitive direct links aka functional buttons (for articles)[edit]

I have been noticing that the PDF functionality, the printing view, and the WP, WC, and WD links are in a quite unfortunate location and do not really get the attention needed or are overseen by the user, even though very relevant. Also, they kind of fall together with links relevant for editors, what makes them more advanced and hard to find.

Would we maybe be interested moving them to a more visible location where they can be of real use for the user? See my proposal: (upper right corner)

What do you think? Of course the design is worth improvement. Here I am just asking for a general opinion on the relocation and a more effective place for the general user.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Although a neat looking proposal, I have my doubts about the usefulness of such a redesign because I wonder how often the Print to PDF function is actually used nowadays. As for WC, WP and WD, I'd rather see all relevant information to the traveler integrated into WV articles rather than linking to them. Boldly said, if there is a need to link to WP, then the WV article is incomplete. But that's just my opinion, of course. ArticCynda (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the links are important. Doubling the information of Wikipedia would be an enormous project for very little gain, and there is no reason for us to have a dozen images for every church at the destination. There is another reason we should not add the proposed buttons: the current placement is the same as on Wikipedia, which is well-known by lots of people. Moving them away would make these people not find them, while having them in two locations might get people click on both. Web pages with lots of links, some of which lead to the same information, is very frustrating when you are looking for something that is not easily find (and possibly missing – it is important to be able to conclude that). --LPfi (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

European copyright law changes[edit]

At least to me, both the organisation whose site this on (EFF) and the writer (Cory Doctorow) are highly credible.

Will this affect us & if so, how? Is it something we need to worry about or can that be left to WMF? Pashley (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pashley, I think it's more of an issue for Wikipedia than us, although it could still be a problem: basically, it'll create more problems with external links. Selfie City (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The other problem is false positives of copyvio detection. Every now and then the wording you use would be blocked. I think how to handle this technically can largely be left to WMF (checking how the solutions work for us), but politically, I urge every EU citizen to try to do something to stop it. --LPfi (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also prevent reuse and redistribution of our content (which is permitted and encouraged under copyleft), or worse potentially have our own content flagged as infringing the copyright of a mirror? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead of setting up such copyrighted material databases and checking all uploaded content against it, I propose to simply move all the WMF servers to Switzerland. It may be a bit more work, and incur a higher cost intitially, but it's a better long term solution to the problem. ArticCynda (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't help. The proposed legislation does not affect USA directly, but it probably affects Switzerland (I do not know the details of the agreements between it and EU). Moving servers has been proposed many times, but every jurisdiction has its own problems. Reusing WV content would not be directly affected, as it is licensed as required, but would be affected by copyfraud and other false positives. The reverse problem could probably be solved by whitelisting existing content (including history not reverted as copyvio). --LPfi (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Switzerland doesn't follow EU copyright law (see Copyright law of Switzerland) since it's not part of the EU. Switzerland is also de facto immune to mass surveillance (unlike EU or USA) so I think it's a superior location for the WMF servers than the current situation. ArticCynda (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any mention in the linked article that Switzerland does not implement the EU copyright directive, or is not mandated to implement the possible changes. Switzerland is not part of EU, but it has a relation to EU resembling that of Norway & co (which belong to EEA). Is copyright exempted from the areas of coordination? --LPfi (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
May I suggest the topic about whether the WMF can move servers is best handled elsewhere (i.e. somewhere on Meta)? There is nothing we on Wikivoyage can do about which country our servers are hosted in, but we can try to establish what exactly the effects of the new law will be on our work and discuss how we're going to respond. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image filters[edit]

Began with the discussion "Theocracies and monarchies"

Yes, Granger, and both can go. By the way, what about the UK National Parks list? I started on the pictures of scenic areas, and while on Wikimedia Commons accidentally ran into an inappropriate image, which is why I suddenly stopped contributing to the images on the list. Does Commons have any sort of filter for users or anything? Or is there any other way of searching independent files? The worst area for this seems to be Commons categories, so the best thing I've thought of so far is just avoiding the Commons categories. Selfie City (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hazard of working on these projects, and especially of looking for images on Commons. There's no built-in filter on Commons as far as I know, but the information at w:Help:Options to hide an image may be able to help. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but unfortunately the filter didn't work on Wikivoyage, and I assume it wouldn't work on Commons. But you gave me an idea: I could go to the Wikipedia page for each place, for example, Ben Nevis, and get the image(s) from there. And on Wikipedia, I wouldn't immediately see the image because I've installed the filter that helps block them; then I can go to edit history and make sure no suspicious users have been making edits for getting the image. Thanks for giving me an idea and helping me with this. Selfie City (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Selfie City, this is about Commons, right? You could broach the subject of a filter at the Village Pump on Commons. But the problem, as you may know, is that scripts on Commons are poorly maintained, with several functions (e.g., Valued Image sets) abandoned as a result. I think it would be uncommon to see anything obscene in the galleries for the categories for destinations, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, you're describing pretty much exactly what happened. Selfie City (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's uncommon, though. Now, if only the searches for Featured Picture, Quality Image and Valued Image ever worked anymore....But really, these are things to discuss on Commons, not here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Well, I think I've got more of a solution now. Thanks for your help. Selfie City (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you should not start a discussion on Commons without checking the previous ones. A majority on Commons was very decidedly against the proposed filters, and this is a can of worms. There is no way to make the filters work in a reliably enough way for Commons: too easy to get false positives, no way to classify images sensibly. On the other hand, I have been working quite much on Commons and have yet to have an obscene image pop up on me, so really, you did have bad luck. --LPfi (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Filters rarely (if ever) work properly, and its the first step towards censorship. So I don't see any advantages of implementing filters. What exactly is the problem, anyway? ArticCynda (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that they generally fall into a few categories:
  • People see stuff that they don't want to see (e.g., an image that reminds you of a traumatic experience).
  • People see stuff that others don't want them to (e.g., an image that can get you in trouble with your school/employer/internet cafe).
  • People see stuff that is surprising/inappropriate to the context (e.g., looking for a photo of a vegetable and being shown pornography instead).
Contributors generally agree that out-of-place results are "our problem", and that those should be fixed, regardless of whether the image is frequently considered offensive or frequently considered innocuous. That is, if you're looking for a photo of a vegetable, then you shouldn't see pornography, but you also shouldn't see sunsets or kittens or rainbows. Some contributors don't want to be associated with addressing the other two problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
These are valid concerns, but implementing filters will probably do more harm than good I think. For instance, following your example, consider a scenario in which your best friend died in your arms after getting hit by a bus in Prague. This is without a doubt a traumatic experience that benefits from such a filter, but where would you draw the line? Remove all content related to bus transport in Prague, buses in general, remove all references to Prague, or even remove anything related to Czech Republic? This would depend on the circumstances and personal preferences of each individual, and both are very hard to implement in rule sets for filters. But even if it worked, how would you prevent the filter from censoring the Berlin article because it mentions that Flixbus operates daily bus lines between Berlin and Prague? I'm not a software engineer, but it appears to me that such issues would be technologically immensively complex due to the nearly infinite variety of possible traumas, combinations of traumas, and so on. ArticCynda (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you have mentioned this sort of highly personal, unpredictable case. I believe that the basic argument that perfection is impossible has been popular among contributors who didn't want to do something that might be helpful in the vast majority of cases (e.g., the porn collection that features a long-time Wikimedian, which almost no readers want to be surprised by, and which I'd bet that even fewer long-time editors want to see at all, ever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
It is an example you suggested in your previous post — traumatic experience. Isn't a trauma by definition a highly personal, unpredicatable case?
As for the porn issue, it's 2018 now, not 1918 anymore. It's time to stop being offended by nudity and sex. ArticCynda (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Some traumatic experiences aren't that personal (e.g., images depicting rape, for the millions of rape victims in the world; images of the Twin Towers collapsing, for New Yorkers of a certain generation). And the point isn't "stop being offended"; it's that most people want to find certain kinds of images (most commonly: sexual, religious, violent, disgusting) when they're looking for them, but not to get surprised by those images when they're not looking for them. Even the most enthusiastic consumers of porn and sex-positive imagery don't always want those images to turn up when they're engaged in unrelated tasks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
No one is disputing the things you mentioned are traumatic to specific groups of people, the problem is rather that it would be very difficult — if not impossible — to design image filters that block images a certain individual could experience as traumatic due to the very long list of potentially traumatic things in the world. So based on which criteria would you configure filters? In your Twin Tower example, you could argue that such images should/could be blocked for New York IP addresses, but what about New Yorkers living abroad? And what about New Yorkers living around ground zero who choose to face their history instead of censoring it away? Personally I'm not upset by Twin Tower images at all so I wouldn't want them to be censored, so where would you draw the line for a Twin Tower image filter? The same question/issue arises for every other situation, it's an endless debate. ArticCynda (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The most popular approach was to have a filtering system available (which we don't now), and then let people manually opt-in if (and only if) they individually choose to do so. The only thing that would matter is what the individual chose, so questions of geolocation, etc., are irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
So based on which rule(s) would such filter(s) operate? How would it/they identify inappropriate images for certain users then? That is the most important issue, and still has not been answered. ArticCynda (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think Wikivoyage is the right place for this discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. This is a Commons issue. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
And it was discussed at length at Commons. I think there are few points that were not considered carefully, with solutions proposed and found troublesome. Read enough of those threads to find your solutions to the problems and the criticism of those solution. --LPfi (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way to automatically make a list of parts of pages' content?[edit]

I was hoping to be able to put together a quick page in my sandbox showing when each of the Warning Boxes on the wiki was last updated (so I could update the stale boxes - I found one yesterday that hadn't been touched in over five years, so this is something worth doing).

If we had the Dynamic Page List 3 extension, I could write the code in two minutes - search for pages in Category:Has warning box, and display the page title and the contents of the "lastedit" field in the page's warningbox template. Alas, it appears we don't have DPL3 installed.

Do we have some other way to do this, or should I ask for DPL3 to be installed here? If the latter, how would I go about making the request? --Robkelk (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is we make the template a little smarter. Create a category for all warning boxed with no lastedit date. Create a category for warning boxes were lastedit date is more than, say, 6 months ago. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea to me. It would certainly be good to have some way of tracking articles with old warning boxes. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Added Category:Has warning box with no date to {{Warningbox}}. The check on date longer as 6 month, working on it.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Now have Category:Has warning box with out of date warning which checks if older than 6 months. Also added to no date category if the date format of last edit is incorrect. Adds some light grey text to page after the warningbox, may want to consider the text or remove it. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful! IMO the new light grey text isn't necessary—I think displaying the date is enough for giving readers a sense of whether the information is up-to-date or not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
OK will remove the text. Should a lastedit value of permanent be allows for warning that are always valid? For example Mont Saint-Michel#Get in would be taken out of the no date category. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Everest Base Camp Trek is another article where that would be appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's still worthwhile reviewing those warningboxes. For example, the warningbox in Mont Saint-Michel#Get in mentions a causeway that the main text says has been demolished. --Robkelk (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Some of them are permanent, like Mecca. K7L (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, and thanks for the help. --Robkelk (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Polar Maps[edit]

As we here use w:Mercator Projection, polar regions are comparatively extremely distorted, which makes region articles like Antarctic Islands unwieldy. Is there some crutch to fix that with dynamic maps or do we have to draw static maps to avoid the issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster, the best way to solve this is to increase the width of the map and decreasing the height of it. Check out the map on Antarctic Islands now, and you can see that it's much better than it used to be. Selfie City (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's conceivable that one may want to centre a map of Antartica on the South Pole. Only way to do that is change the projection, so in this case a static map would be entirely justified. K7L (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Can't we just do a map thingy that automatically distorts other regions and keeps the poles undistorted? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
No, not really. People have tried for hundreds of years to create a map projection that kept all the parts equal, and the only one that has truly worked is the globe, and that's 3D and for obvious reasons wouldn't fit on a webpage. Selfie City (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the current map in Antarctic Islands is pretty dreadful—as Hobbitschuster says, it's extremely distorted. I think a map using a different projection, centered on the South Pole, would be better, which probably means a static map (like the one used in Antarctica). The Islands of the Arctic Ocean map has the same problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the problem with that static map for Antarctica is that I need a mapmaker to change the coloring. Still, if you think you can improve Antarctic Islands, go ahead; I think for an OpenStreetMap there's nothing better that can be done. Selfie City (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know all maps distort. Which is why I say that we should use a map for the Poles that distorts the polar region the least. Such a map would obviously horribly distort the tropical region and the opposite polar region, but that doesn't matter for a polar map. Sorry for being a bit unclear earlier. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think you were unclear, I'm just having a trouble envisioning that kind of map; I think static maps are a better choice, particularly for West Antarctica and East Antarctica. Selfie City (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There are projections that work well for the polar region, just look in any atlas (OK, those are static). The question is whether our mechanisms for creating maps can use those projections. Is the Mercator Projection hard-coded? I suppose for polar regions you have to use truly polar coordinates, while it is easier to pretend the coordinates are Cartesian when you have a Mercator projection. Which, depending on implementation, means a dynamic map suiting the polar regions needs a lot of new code. You can still pretend you are using Cartesian coordinates, but instead of just changing offset and scale you have to transform the coordinates with trigonometrical expressions. --LPfi (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we use a transversal mercator projection with a strip around the pole in the center? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
De-facto online standard nowadays is the mercator projection - the tile server (used by Extension:Kartographer) 99% only renders those tiles, and the relatead scripts probably expect that as well. I'm no wikimedia guru nor spokesman, but I have a feeling that chances of spinning up non-mercator map service are practically zero. I suggest to just use Antarctica.svg or whatever... (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

How can one add colored metro lines using Wikidata to dynamic maps?[edit]

I have seen this done in various articles like this one. The wiki code only the wikidata entry Q190271 with no info about color.... and therefore, when I copy it to the Hebrew Wikivoyage it comes out as only black. How would I go about copying the colored metro lines to the dynamic maps on Hebvoy? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: Generally speaking, you add one wikidata entry using {{Mapshapes}}. The item consists of several lines that are linked under P527 (has part). All of these individual lines link to an OSM Relation ID (P402) and optionally an sRGB color hex triplet (P465). The latter of these defines the colour in which this one line is displayed, and is most likely what you'll need to fill out to get this to work. If you have, then consider waiting a few days. The synchronisation sometimes takes a while and I do not know of a way to force it to sync.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a note (well, my observation...) - only the OSM-wikidata sync takes a few days. And actually, it seems the OSM->WD link is what's needed (so, the OSM relations need to be edited to contain the WD reference), WD->OSM not really. The changes in wikidata are basically immediate, you just need to force "re-rendering" of the WV page. Or wait... (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I added the metro mapshape to this article. It should show up in color in a few days? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This looks to me like some bug in the Kartographer or one of your other templates, as it is glitching quite a bit when moving the map around. The module:mapshapes there seems to work ok (I tried via the module debugger manually), it grabs the color from WD - but the template:mapshape doesn't show it. I tried to add there, and it just used the gray color for some reason (whereas here on EN WV, it shows in red, as expected). (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Your Template:Mapshape/Inner was out of date, so I resynced it... Now the colors show up correctly ;-) (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Just wanted to suggest considering implementing something we are implementing these days at the Hebrew Wikivoyage - there are currently over 200 mapmasks at hebvoy and they are all going to be moved from the main space to "map:" (מפה:) space. We decided this is necessary because they take up a lot of space and make it harder to spot articles that don't have a lot of text yet. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)