Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

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

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Nosedive of our U.S. Alexa rank[edit]

For some reason that's of yet unclear to me (it can't be seasonal variation alone) our Alexa ranking in the U.S. has taken a worse nosedive than a 737 max with mcas on steroids. It doesn't seem to have caused real world consequences yet, but we should probably find out what's going on before it's too late Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this observation is true. The cause is as unexplainable as the jump about two years ago. The nosedive started about three months ago (see here), is not yet stopped and was combined with a decrease of the count of U.S. visitors from about 15 % to 10 %. The values for India and Germany are more stable. The usual temporary changes within a year cannot explain this behavior, too. Maybe Wikitravel could improve its U.S. ranking. Unfortunately, the awareness of Wikivoyage is still low. The major part of traffic is coming from search engines and Wikipedias but not from direct access or from other websites. Social media cannot help, too, because of low usage. A better visibility of Wikivoyage could surely help but I do not know how to do this. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to compare it with other website rankings sites like SimilarWeb and see if it is a trend occurring everywhere or only on Alexa (in which case the way Alexa measures website popularity in the U.S. might have changed). The German Wikivoyage shows a Seitwert ranking though I don't quite understand it. As you say, Wikivoyage still has low general awareness. Many people who end up here from search or Wikipedia don't leave with a sufficiently strong impression that they remember the site and visit directly from then on or follow us on social media. Apart from the fork, we tend to get minimal mainstream media coverage as well. The only thing I can think of is to place "Share" buttons at the bottom of articles, so when a reader finishes an article and thinks it's worth sharing, they can share it via email or a social media platform. Gizza (roam) 08:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we should in theory enable sharing, but there's a problem with that, in that it could be controversial to associate ourselves in any way with sites like Twitter and Facebook that, shall we say, have played very dubious roles in world politics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Traffic for travel sites usually drops during northern autumn. Wikivoyage's drop in global Alexa rank is not worse than previous years. Also, the other site is no longer a relevant competitor. /Yvwv (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I support exploring the idea of a share button, though think the politics stuff is a red herring. For better or worse, billions of people use Twitter and Facebook, and our content getting shared on those platforms to reach more people should be seen as a good thing.
What do the figures say regarding Wikitravel? Can we discount them as "no longer a relevant competitor" just like that? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking about our global rank. Our U.S. rank shows dramatic short term movement that's not mirrored by that other site (in fact we've fallen behind it in the U.S.) or the global rank of either site... Could there be an explanation related to Google trying its hand with travel guides? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the data Roland linked to there are not one but two drops in the U.S. ranking as of lately; early August to mid-September 8,886 down to 18,911 (the ordinal numeral a little more than doubled) then the ranking improved somewhat up to 13,799 in October and then down to 28,458 until now (again the ordinal numeral a little more than doubled). Is that really normal? --Ypsilon (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, just chiming in here as a staff member who use to work with the search team and cares about Wikivoyage. :) It's possible that (the portal) traffic has diminished, but not the actual language variants. That's a little less alarming IMHO. Here's the stats for English Wikivoyage showing that since the beginning of 2019, page views have increased! And traffic to English Wikivoyage from the US makes up the overwhelming majority of traffic. That's pretty consistent over time too. Not to say we shouldn't be watching and be concerned, but to provide a little contextual relief (I hope!).
It could also be possible that Google, which makes upward of 95% of traffic (and there for greatly influences Alexa rankings) could be doing something different. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Throwing out another idea here: should Wikimedia be purchasing Google search ads? They could even be targeted to searches for "wikitravel", so that people could be educated and redirected to us. WT may not be a relevant competitor in terms of quality, but they are still very much a competitor in terms of traffic: their articles outrank ours for many search terms, leading many casual readers to make edits there. By representing themselves to the casual reader as the Wikipedia for travel, they also hijack and do ongoing harm to our reputation. Sdkb (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a non-profit site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed we do not advertise. The only place where Wikvoyage can and has promoted and raised awareness of itself are other Wikimedian sites. The edit-a-thon (to celebrate our 5th anniversary) was a moderate success. Many people came to the site for the first time and some new editors stayed on to varying degrees. As far as arbitrary statistical landmarks go, we are close to hitting 30,000 articles soon. Perhaps we should ask the WMF to post a box on the top of pages highlighting this and include a link directing people to main page. While it was nice to get people editing, it would be great to get people reading our best content. Gizza (roam) 10:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a big difference between advertising and being a profit/non-profit organisation. Would be interested to see Wikimedia guidelines on promotion of sites, can anyone point us in the right direction? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I rather agree with Traveler100. We don't, and shouldn't, allow advertising on Wikivoyage, but isn't that different from advertising of Wikivoyage? I think that's a question that's unanswered by virtue of never having been asked: Wikipedia obviously has enough name recognition to preclude any need for advertising, and the issue has apparently never come up in any of the smaller WMF wikis, but that doesn't mean we know how the WMF would respond to such an idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Google used to donate a small amount of free advertising to non-profits, but I'm not sure if (a) they still do this, or (b) if we would qualify. (My guess is that they probably have the program, but that we wouldn't qualify.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I, perhaps wrongly, read Ikan's comment as less about what we as a nonprofit should be doing, more about what we realistically can do. The Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, and clearly charities do advertise. But how much does an ad campaign on YouTube, targeted at travel videos, say, cost? How much would it cost to purchase Google search ads, as suggested above by Sdkb? I like the idea of advertising outside of the Wikimedia bubble in principle, but my concern is how practical it is. The first question the WMF would ask if we were to propose this as an idea is "how much will this cost?" --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would support the idea as long as we were in agreement with the WMF and the advertising campaign showed some potential. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On a separate note, while I know that one person is unlikely to significantly change the website's rank, there was a period when I was extremely active here, sometimes making thousands of edits within a few days. Since I've not been so active on Wikivoyage, especially over the last couple of months, the rank has dropped noticably. Is it possible that there is a connection? Or would one user not be enough to impact the U.S. rank even by a thousand or so? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Getting back to the suggestion of Google advertising: Since Wikimedia doesn't profit from an increase in this site's Alexa ranking, what would be the good reason to spend money advertising it? Charities advertise because they need money for poor people, disaster areas, political causes, arts organizations, etc. I suppose Wikimedia needs money for servers, paid staff and such, so if they thought it was cost-effective to advertise, they'd probably already be doing it. But I don't think advertising on Google to raise a Wikimedia site's profile is likely to be cost-effective. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It would not be aimed at making money, i.e. financial contributions, but encouraging new readers to the site and hopefully more contributors. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
On how much it costs, you decide what your daily budget is and are charge between $1 and $2 dollars per click through. So basically look at $2 per new reader, but obviously no guarantee they will stay. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, if the Wikimedia Foundation feels like just spending money with no money coming back to them. You think they do, considering that they've been asking for contributions for Wikipedia? I think not. I wouldn't even consider suggesting this to them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Their aim isn't to make money, though, so the fact that no profit will be generated from this venture is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the potential rewards of the venture (attracting more readers, a subset of whom will become contributors - this ought to be a goal the Foundation shares) are significant enough to outweigh the cost. What do they fundraise for if not to make the wikis better in various ways, whether that be by hiring full-time staff, developing software improvements, or in this case increasing traffic? I still think it could be rather costly, and certainly don't think the chances of this being approved are very high, but it's worth exploring, potentially alongside other smaller sister-wikis. I am also grateful to Traveler100 for the brief explanation.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The last half year or so Alexa have had more information. E.g., Similar sites by audience overlap and sites linking in. It is clear that WV is way behind on sites linking in, except that one of them is Wikipedia (92 percent comes from Dictionaries and Encyclopedias of which Wikipedia is of course the top one). Elgaard (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Google Trends comparison of Wikivoyage with WT ([1]), you will notice that WT is a more popular search term everywhere except in Venezuela. Some countries are greyed out but it seems that WT triumphs over Wikivoyage is well over 100 countries. We benefit from Wikipedia's links to us, but apart from that I still feel WV is behind the old site on many measures. Gizza (roam) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually over a 5-year trend, we have made progress against them. In 2014, WT was being searched for 20 times more than us and now it's only 8 times more than us. That can be partially attributed to WT declining rather than us becoming more well known though [2]. When you compare Wikivoyage with Lonely Planet, in 2014 LP was searched 30x more than WV, while nowadays is 20x. So you could say moderate but not substantial progress has been made [3]. Gizza (roam) 23:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Re WikiTravel vs WikiVoyage: Probably not completely relevant to Alexa Rankings but earlier this year travelling Peru, Bolivia & Chile I started using WikiVoyage but switched to WikiTravel as their coverage was more up to date and broader (i.e. they included towns WikiVoyage had nothing about). I believe there are reasons for this but I'm travelling SE Asia at the moment and not ready to get into a discussion (which would be a separate subject/thread/section anyway). I'll start a new discussion when I get home in a few months (or longer or whenever). Maybe relevant to Google search results (I've no idea how those affect Alexa. Reality is WikiVoyage should be way way above other other sites e.g. TripAdvisor keeps coming up in Google searches but whenever I look at it it's pretty useless and they "tours" they advertise are a complete joke. PsamatheM (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update @PsamatheM:. Do you remember the names of any of the towns where Wikivoyage's coverage was weak or non-existent? We should make closing any gaps with them a priority. Gizza (roam) 05:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@DaGizza: I'm travelling at the moment on "variable" internet and with only a tablet. So for now it's brief (and unverified) responses. From memory e.g. I wasted a lot of walking and sweat (very hot) in Trujillo (Peru) as the bus information is/was disastrously wrong (relevant bus companies have their own ticket sales not at central bus station so its walk and walk and walk). When I visited Jauja (Peru) WV then had no page (and Jauja is a quite amazing place, massive Tunanmarca ruins, Canoncitos de Pichiluli, etc.). But even now WV's page is pretty poor compared to what WT offer. Inaccurate information that causes travellers problems is a guaranteed way to quickly drive people away from the site. I gave up applying updates to WV soon after arriving in Peru when I posted a listing for an excellent tour (I'd done, free) and the "policy police" descended deleting it, followed by endless discussion to try and form consensus and I believe the listing was restored but "life is too short" and for one listing it was a farce. I actually have a really strong belief in projects like Wikipedia, WV, etc. but I believe WV needs to significantly reconsider aspects of it's attitude. I'm sort of preparing my ideas but wont start putting them up until I'm home and can properly engage in any discussion they might prompt (of course the might not prompt anything).PsamatheM (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: I agree that there's excess biting of newbies and even semi-established editors and blind adherence to many policies which don't necessarily improve Wikivoyage in the long run. One policy we do need to adopt from Wikipedia is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia (or in our case Wikivoyage), ignore it." See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Many times, edits are just reverted without even an explanation in the edit summary let alone a personal message to the good-faith editor who would feel like they're being stalked and not welcome here. Gizza (roam) 01:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that I'd think could improve Wikivoyage that would deviate greatly from the Wikivoyage Manual of style, but that's my opinion, not the collective opinion of the site. And my question to you would be: How does Wikipedia prevent people from driving a truck through their guidelines, with their policy of ignoring rules? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Reverting an edit without explanation is just plain ignorant, except in the case of (a) obvious vandalism, or (b) repeated touting. At the same time, giving people licence to ignore rules would set us up for edit wars between someone who wants things done one way, and someone who thinks it's better done another way. The rules resolve these disputes and avoid wasteful edit warring. Eventually, anyone who joins a collaborative project has to learn that their work will be edited and changed by other users. It does not help newbies to let them think that their contributions are perfect just the way they are and aren't going to be changed by others. At the same time, not biting newbies is a really important practice, and I am sure I have been guilty of doing so in the past. Where an experienced editor is too heavy handed with newbies, it is important that other oldsters call them out on it. Ground Zero (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: I have substantially expanded the Jauja article with text adapted from the Wikipedia article. Could you take a look at it and add/delete/improve on my contributions as you see fit based on your experience there? With your help, and selective borrowing from Wikipedia, we could end up with a decent article, Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: Two aspects.
1. I was not being critical of the article but using it as an example of somewhere that WT had good coverage for but (at that time) WV have no page at all about. (One of the contributory reasons that back then I gave up using WV as a source of information whilst travelling Peru, Bolivia & Chile.
2. Having only tablet, phone and variable internet I would not be able to work on the article until I return (maybe many months away). Probably breaking rules but specifically see posts on my own web site Tunamarca is a very significant site. Cañoncitos de Pichiluli is amazing. There are not any tours so info on e.g. WV becomes even more useful. Both are close to the town to be part of the town article. Pueblo Viejo isn't enough to visit on its own but is worth going via it on your walk to Cañoncitos de Pichiluli (but you'd need the GPS coordinates as there is no "way to go" just a good start point and a network of paths used by local farmers and shepherds).
So for now (due to my current "mid-travels" state) I'll have to pass any work on the article back to you (or others). Feel free to take any info/text from my personal website, you have my permission to take any photos (either directly into WV or onto Commons (though please credit them to - though they are just a few photos I'd be putting up there anyway in due course and but I'd be exporting them from raws so quality/resolution would be better (but more about info than photographic perfection). Let me know if you need any details or info and anything (but I don't have originals with me). Sorry if I appear lazy not doing the work myself but if you/somebody could do the bulk I doubt there would be much for me to tweak.PsamatheM (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: In addition to above, Getting in by bus is at the bottom of the page PsamatheM (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Never fear, there's no problem in linking your blog in a discussion thread! Enjoy your continuing travels! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of stuff from your cool blog, and another hotel, but I should stop procrastinating and get to planning my imminent trip. Ground Zero (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, the English Wikipedia addresses the "Ignore all rules" problem these days mostly by giving it lip service and then rigidly enforcing Teh Rules in contradiction of the policy. When it does come up, there's usually a conversation about it. In its best form, it's really no different than how we decide things that aren't regulated, like whether a particular restaurant/bar combination business should be listed in ==Eat== or ==Drink==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that, WhatamIdoing. So I'm not sure having a similar policy would really result in any change here, other than confusion. Would you agree, or do you think it would be useful somehow? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that it has the potential to reduce the number of "Can we really block this guy, even though technically there's no obvious category in the blocking policy?" discussions from maybe two per year to one, which might be a small win. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
By replacing the long discussion about whether it's okay to block a user with a statement that "I decided to 'ignore all rules' and block that guy". It won't stop them all, but it might stop some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's more of a value or principle than a policy. Thinking about it a bit more, WV:the traveller comes first covers similar territory so it's probably not needed here. Gizza (roam) 08:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Making the Content Translation Tool available for Wikivoyage[edit]

I don't know if any of you have ever tried Wikipedia's Content translation Tool, but i'll just say that this is a very strong tool that has helped the Wikipedia community translate A LOT of articles between the various Wikipedia editions (mostly translation of articles from the English Wikipedia to the smaller Wikipedia editions).

So far this tool is only used in Wikipedia.

As part of the current Community Wishlist Survey, a suggestion has been brought forward to make this tool available for all Wikivoyage editions as well:


If you support making this tool available for Wikivoyage as well, please add your vote in that page. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This one is just a handful of votes away from winning. Voting is very simple: Go to the page, and click the blue button to "Support". You can add an optional comment if you want, but most people don't. Voting ends soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: How soon?
This one could be really valuable, guys; mainly for our smaller sisters, but also where destination articles are more developed on another language version than they are here. I encourage you all to vote. —The preceding comment was added by ThunderingTyphoons! (talkcontribs)
How good are the resulting translations? Any better than Google Translate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Google Translate isn't good enough to be presented as a final document, but it is good enough to do a lot of the initial legwork of translating meaning. A decent (human) translator can then focus on improving flow, getting the idiomatic language nailed, and cleaning up any errors in understanding or missed nuances caused by the machine. That is how professional translators work (not necessarily with Google, but certainly with translation software), because it's quicker, and thus the translator can dedicate more of their time on doing the stuff that actually requires their expertise.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, but my question is what's so valuable about this translation tool, and is it any better than Google Translate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I haven't used it, so can't answer your question. It seems to me that these questions can come later though; the vote is the priority. Just because it passes the vote, doesn't mean we have to use it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי and WhatamIdoing, any feedback on my question? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
And do you know how it has worked in practice? The worst problem that I see, is that there are a lot of people who would skip the "cleaning up any errors in understanding or missed nuances caused by the machine" part, especially as using a machine you do not necessarily have to understand the origin language. I haven't looked for a long time, but Google used to sometimes produce good-looking text with severe misinformation, as it was good at finding idiomatic language, but useless at understanding. The worst I saw was it translating currencies (dollars to markka) without changing the numbers. I think we should vote for the tool only if we find it useful and not too dangerous. We can fix bad language, but it is hard to fix non-obvious misinformation --LPfi (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons!, voting ends today.
Ikan Kekek, it's software to make it easy for bilingual editors to translate articles. It isn't automatic translation. There's a setting to make sure that pure machine translation doesn't get dumped in articles. It won't let you click the "Publish" button if you don't clean it up first. The minimum amount of clean up work is configurable per language. Also, there's some system that basically stops individual editors (IPs can't use it at all) from using it if the articles they translate get deleted too many times. It's really quite a well-designed system overall. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Alright. On the basis of your recommendation, I'll vote for it. Have you used the tool? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I got an error message, "Sorry! The survey has closed." Next time, if an announcement could be made a bit further in advance, to give us time to discuss a proposal, that would work out better. You can't really blame us for not being willing to vote for something purely on faith or just because we were asked to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The Wishlist vote was announced in the Pub on 4th November, with a reminder on 22nd November. If you wanted to vote for any of the proposals, leaving it to the very last day was not the best idea. Of course this particular proposal was only brought up here a couple of days ago, but all the proposals have been there to see for the best part of a month. It's not blame to point out that everyone here had an opportunity to vote.
Results come out 6th December; fingers crossed we have something to celebrate. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The point is, I had no idea this tool was useful, or that it was important to vote for. I voted for other things quite a while ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like we aren't getting this feature. It finished at a admirable 8th place (which isn't all that bad when top 4 out of 5 are Wikisource proposals) OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
And the fifth was about how Wiktionary could have an easier time linking to Wikisource. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Admins, please read[edit]

Hello friends. Could those of you with a good knowledge of how the filters work please direct your attention to filter #37? There seems to be an issue or a bug. I'd be grateful for some expertise.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a page about best practices for making changes to the filter? You don't get to be administrator because of your experience with regular expressions, bug tracking & al, so we cannot expect our admins to have the expertise (we do have some experts, but they are not always available). I spent quite some time figuring out the syntax and how some of the filter tools work, and learning more would make this kind of work a lot easier. I am able to read and understand the technical documentation, but still I would benefit from a tutorial. --LPfi (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this still an issue (1 Month later) ? If so I can look. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There was a trivial error hiding deep down. A page with guidance would still be welcome. --LPfi (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request for Template:Warningbox[edit]

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


Hello, I have a question that does not seem in the FAQ. How to edit the wikicode on a article? Blackcurrant9 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I found out :D Blackcurrant9 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Too Many Requests on loading complex dynamic maps[edit]

In the recent days, when I open pages with multi-region maps like Vienna or Budapest, the dinamic map fails to load. It tries to load GeoJSON for each regions, but some of them are rejected by the server '' with response '429 Too Many Requests'. So it seems that the rate limiting configured on the server too low. Can somebody fix it? --City-busz (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

City-busz, Vienna's dynamic map loaded for me. Are you still having problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's still not loaded for me. I can see only a static image. --City-busz (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind clicking on (and agreeing to purge the cache), and letting me know if that improves things? If it doesn't (my guess is that it won't help, but that it's worth a try), then I think it would be useful to know a bit about your internet situation, like what country you're in, what kind of device you're using, and what your web browser is. You can send me e-mail if you'd rather not post that information in public.
The other thing that would help a lot is if anyone else could check Vienna#Districts and post whether you're getting errors/not seeing the dynamic map. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Purging the cache does not help. I'm from Hungary, and I get the same results using Firefox and Chromium on Linux desktop either when I logged in or not. Also, when I click on a maplink like Vienna#/maplink/20, I can see only an empty map (white background). --City-busz (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The map loaded slowly, a maplink map empty (white with controls). Firefox on old Ubuntu laptop, DSL, Finland. Maps from other articles seem to load as usual --LPfi (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I can see the dynamic map at Vienna, but the controls don't work—I can't zoom in or out or move the map. Firefox on Mac OS 10.14.6. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Granger, if controls don't work, it means that you see the static snapshot of the dynamic map, and the dynamic map is not loaded properly due to server rate limit. This is my problem.--City-busz (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the page needs a rethink. The dynamic map does appear to have too much shape data information being plotted. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me the article doesn't need a dynamic map. Just use the static map and save dynamic maps for the district articles. I think we have a policy somewhere that double maps should be avoided when possible. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The static Vienna map is close to useless in my opinion.-- 22:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
City-busz, isn't that the issue, which is ongoing for quite some time already? JCrespo (WMF) was informing about it but nothing really improved since then (see Wikivoyage_talk:Mapmaking_Expedition#Maps_instability).-- 22:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it's something different, because the tiles are loaded correctly, just the mapshape requests are rejected by the server. --City-busz (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Paris#/maplink/22 is still empty for me. The Paris page tries to load mapshapes for each districts individually. It means that the browser sends 20 requests at once to the server, and the map server usually reject some of them.--City-busz (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Vienna works for me, but not Budapest. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The processing of mapshape external source I believe is the costly culprit. Actually I found the request limit to be around 15. (creating Points limit on the other hand is close to 300+). Kartographer as applied does not allow chaining of external requests as well. Supposedly there are future developments to be had that may resolve the issue (javascript?). To get around the issue, I believe that one might be able to hard code the regional coordinates separately. -- Matroc (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot speak for your particular case, but I can throw some light regarding the error. 429 HTTP Error is a measure that too many requests have been received by the server. As a protective measure, site operators rate-limit the number of requests a single client can do without causing performance problems. As you may be aware, the Wikipedia servers have been the target of (D)DOS attacks in the past, and that is one of the measures put in place to prevent the service (the site) from having performance issues or going down after a limit that is believed no healthy user, client or bot should achieve (I cannot say how many request exactly that is, as I am not in charge of traffic security, but even if you reloaded the browser on a normal page as fast as possible, you wouldn't reach it, it has to be something programmatic). The idea is that, when you receive a 429 Error (temporary) you should stop and or slow down doing requests because they are too fast, as it could be damaging the server performance- it is a time-based limit, so not a permanent error. So my guess here is that maybe the javascript handing the map loading is, erroneously, doing too many requests, too fast. If you believe that, without extra gadgets and custom js, and the map is not showing to legitimate users, please report it on Phabricator so the map code maintainer can optimize it so it doesn't do so many requests that it gets itself blocked. For example, while map tiles could be loaded in parallel for faster load, it should not go overboard with the number of connections as to consider legitimate users as "damaging". As you may imagine, not many of you should have not encountered 429 errors, as the limit is quite generous. It is true that certain services could override such limit and set it lower if it cannot handle so many requests, I also don't know if that is the case here. Please contact the js implementor/maintainer of the functionality to fix the connection pattern. Editors and readers should not, for the most part, change its desired behavior because there is a bug on code- if 2 maps are desired by the community, 2 maps should be supported- just the bug reported and code be fixed. Feel free to CC me on the ticket for help. PS: The previous problem I reported should be fixed long time ago, if you found new issues, please report them on Phabricator, too. While we get notified immediately if a site is fully down, small amount of errors on smaller communities may go undetected due to its small percentage compared to the total of all sites requests. That doesn't mean they are not equally important. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Now I opened a ticket here: --City-busz (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I have (hopefully) added the right group tags so it should be handled by the right development team. Please be patient these days as several WMF developers are on vacations. Cheers, and sorry for the inconveniences, hopefully it has an easy resolution, --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Updating rint template[edit]

WikiVoyage has a "rint" template, for example {{rint|amsterdam|5}} produces:  5 . However the template does not support tram line 6 in Amsterdam, which opened May 27, 2019 with rush-hour service only. I found the rint documentation. I have never updated a template, and don't know how to do it or whether I should do it. The question is: How can I update this template? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks easy enough. Just edit Template:Rail-interchange (not the documentation, but the actual template). Scroll down about 70-80 lines to where the options for Amsterdam are defined (or just search for "amsterdam"). To add support for tram line 6, you should just have to copy-paste one existing line of that code, and modify the new line of code to have the correct number (6), color, and name (which is shown when you hover your mouse over the icon).
If you're still uncomfortable updating it yourself, let me know what color it should use and what the name should be in order to match the existing entries, and I can put it in there. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I updated both the template and its documentation. I don't know if the colour (  6  ) I selected was the most appropriate, but it was sufficiently different. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hosting official subway maps[edit]

Is there any way for us to host them without running into copyright issues? I know a lot of work must have been put into creating our custom ones, but they're just not as good as the official ones in most cases, and they're at an automatic disadvantage since they don't correspond to what travelers will be seeing in the field. Sdkb (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

These are almost certainly under a copyright (tho not if they were produced by certain governments, such as the American federal government or California's government). Did you have some kind of alternative in mind other than scanning and uploading? It's possible that some official maps are so basic that they don't meet a threshold of originality but that seems unlikely to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a case by case basis. I had a look at London and that map is pretty useless but on Commons Wikimedia there is which may or may not be official or 100% but is massively better than what is used here at present. I assume that as it's published on Commons it can be used here i.e. the copyright has been considered by others and decided on (unless it's a clear oversight in which case maybe it should be raised and dealt with on Commons rather than WV). I have no idea what the "policy" is but as Sdkb says, WV corresponding to the map people might have printed or see on a poster much better and it will never be possible to do every subway or public transport system but do the best possible where possible. PsamatheM (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That's not an official map, but I agree it's way better than the one we use.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Media published at Commons can be used here, yes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I think as a general matter more effort should be put into putting the urban rail lines on the dynamic map and keeping them updated as needed... We've got a lot of missing lines there, especially in the light rail department... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Where good static maps already exist, it's not a case of either/or; both can be present in an article. FWIW, I don't find those coloured lines on a dynamic map all that special. Where no static map of the system is available, they're better than nothing, and they are also good for seeing at a glance which lines pass through a given neighbourhood. But other than that, their practical use for planning and executing a journey are limited: they don't show stations, service patterns, interchanges etc. I don't know why anyone would use them as an alternative to an official map when the likes of Google Maps have a brilliant real time public transport overlay.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Book template[edit]

Do we have a template for entries in "Read" sections, like Armenia#Read? If not, i think we should both to encourage consistent formatting, and to emit machine-readable metadata. We could import w:Template:Cite book (which is used in biliography sections as well as for citations) from en.Wikipedia as a starting point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We can only import {{Cite book}} if we're willing to important dozens of other pages. The CS1 template system is a maintenance nightmare, and the possibility that its primary maintainer could get hit by a bus should be keeping people awake at night.
Andy, Wikivoyage has a project-wide goal of using the smallest number of templates possible. Also, it looks like there are only 12 articles using that section, and some of them, such as Bath#Read, merely mention a famous book in the middle of a paragraph. I cannot imagine us setting up a template for use in so few articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There is {{ISBN}} which is used on a number of page. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are definitely more than 12 such articles. Your regex doesn't account for the space being optional; I found an additional 123 articles just by removing it. There are 72 results just for pages that contain "ISBN" (and a similar number of articles that use Template:ISBN), which is as close as we've come so far to having a hyperlinked book reference, but not all articles that refer to a book include the ISBN. Plenty of articles are probably using a different name for the section, such as Japan#Further reading and South Korea#Further reading.
Also, WV's goal is not to use "the smallest number of templates possible". That number would be 0, because it's possible to write this entire site without using a single template... it's just not very easy to maintain. Per WV:Welcome, Wikipedians#Information and formatting using MediaWiki templates, we use them "sparingly". Sorry to be a stickler, but I think it's important to get the language right for the purpose of this question. I'm not weighing in yet on whether we should bother with a template for referencing books (and what about film and TV shows? Would they get one too?), but there's certainly a dearth of regular contributors on WV and I don't think templates (or the lack thereof) are what's keeping people away. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear I'm not talking about referencing books, but listing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I know (and I should be consistent in being nit-picky about terminology), but it amounts to the same thing. Even if it's just listings instead of footnote citations, it may still need to be written as a module and not a pure template in order to output the metadata, plus it will need a lot of error checking to make sure users enter data in the correct format (particularly author names). On the plus side, do we really need anything other than author, title, date, and ISBN? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ISBN}} is a start, but it doesn't encode other metadata, such as title, and doesn't work for older books which have no ISBN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. I'm all in favor of templates, better and more consistent formatting, metadata, and hyperlinks. And particularly for something that's edited as infrequently as reading lists, I don't think the use of templates would substantially harm editability, although I'll warn you that this template would not be as simple as it first appears: you need to figure out how to handle cases like Buffalo#Read and San Francisco#Read where multiple books by one author are mentioned without repeating the author's name, and books are mentioned in running prose without interrupting the flow.
The issue is that we have very limited labor around here, so we have to prioritize what projects we work on. What tangible benefits would these templates bring to WV? Would the improved formatting or the metadata improve our SEO? Would it help draw more contributors to WV? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"you need to figure out how to handle cases ... where multiple books by one author are mentioned without repeating the author's name" - 'Cite book' already caters for this. "books are mentioned in running prose" It is not propsed to template these. You ask how a template would benefit Wikivoyage. I propose one because it would benefit our users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I find your response inadequate.
I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm on your side! I'm asking questions that would help you explain to others why we should do this. But if you dismiss what I say and don't answer the questions we're asking, then this is going to go absolutely nowhere.
Look at Buffalo#Read. There are 3 books by Mark Goldman mentioned. Just like we do for listings of restaurants that have multiple locations, we don't repeat the name on each one. You say 'Cite book' would handle this, but I don't see how. If anything, it explicitly doesn't handle this. It's designed for producing a complete bibliography, even if that means repeating the authors' names over and over. If it did avoid repeating them, I would expect it to substitute the rather academic-sounding "Ibid.", but in fact, Wikipedia explicitly discourages the use of "ibid." and prefers to explicitly repeat authors' names. So there's a difference between how WP and WV prefer to style things, and while I'm sure we could make something work here, 'Cite book' does not do this for us.
You've also ignored where multiple people have already responded and said there's no way we're going to use 'Cite book' because its dependencies are way too complicated for what WV needs. A simple text-based template is sufficient.
Look at San Francisco#Read. Multiple entries there refer to several books by an author in running prose. It's only reasonable that if we add the ability to hyperlink and add metadata for books, we would want to do this everywhere, not just in places where it fits nicely into a simple template. Again, I'm sure we could solve this, much like how we have {{marker}} for inline entries that don't fit well as a normal {{listing}}, and sometimes we do rearrange and rephrase text in order to make it fit with our templates. But I'm not impressed by your answer because it comes across as very dismissive, like you plan to do a half-assed job and haven't considered the broader implications.
"You ask how a template would benefit Wikivoyage. I propose one because it would benefit our users."
That's not an answer to my question. How would it benefit our users? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
"I'm not trying to antagonize you." You say that; while at the same time you have told me I need to "figure out" something that I not only figured out a long time ago, but was personally responsible for instigating; you falsely accuse me of having "ignored multiple people", and you tell me my response is inadequate because I answered the question you asked, and not the one you wish you'd asked. And in the process of dismissing me in this fashion, you say I'm "very dismissive", imply that I "plan to do a half-assed job" and "haven't considered the broader implications". If this is you trying not to antagonise: Try harder.
No wonder WikiVoyage is short of volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We should have a template for collecting metadata in a machine-readable format, we should not import w:en:Template:Cite book because 1.) these are not citations and 2.) it is a huge pain to have to maintain all of the dependencies, etc. A very simple template that gives structure to sources (not just books) is handy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Also note that some "Read" sections have been converted to "Read and Watch". Some articles go beyond recommending books to read and include movies, television series and documentaries to help the traveller understand a destination or travel topic. Gizza (roam) 00:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that a number of articles still use noun subheadings like "Literature", "Books", "Films" and "Television" (in addition to the "Further Reading" spotted by Bigpete) instead of the verbs "Read" and "Watch" which are prescribed by our Manual of Style. I'm trying to fix these now though it means the number of articles with books and films mentioned are much greater than the numbers found above. I have no opinion on whether a template is needed though. Gizza (roam) 04:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Not at this point saying we should do this, but what would be the minimum information to handle and display? Feel free to edit this sandbox. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The minimum to display in this template would be just a title field. Everything else is helpful but not necessary. Structured data should be handled a little differently (e.g. creating ISBN links with the appropriate field filled in) but it shouldn't be a template error. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Who benefits?[edit]

Andy, you say that consistent formatting and machine-readable metadata will benefit users. Which users will it benefit? I suppose that "not people who click on the article link on their phones" is the obvious answer for the bit about machine-readable metadata, but who exactly would benefit, and how? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I want to know the answer to this too. In theory I'm open to a new template, but it needs to be justified by the needs of this wiki and its users.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-definition of Kyrgyz regions intended[edit]

... input needed: Talk:Kyrgyzstan#Adjustment of region definition. Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Listing labyrinth[edit]

Someone started comprehensively filling this county's article of Taiwan. However, most listings are without any valuable information, and I feel this is not very much of a help to travellers, because 1) we certainly do not want to replace Openstreetmap nor Google Maps - this is just duplicating their information without any updates guaranteed, 2) finding the actual valuable information in between all this "noise" now became more difficult.

I mean we should point out what is of interest to the traveller, not overwhelm him with countless and contentless listings, right? Not to mention the map that becomes similar unbearable.

Is there a guideline to handle this situation? Should we reduce the content to actual relevant listing? Thoughts?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ceever. Based on your description, I was expecting something much worse than what I see in this article. Most of the listings have some degree of description, though the list of night markets is indeed completely contentless. I think part of the solution could be to create articles for more of the towns in the county and move listings to those new articles. Of course I do agree that there should be descriptions of every point of interest, but I'm unconvinced the number of listings is an issue. I did see a peculiar description, though:
  • 1 House of Citizen-Memorial Hall of Attendance (行啟紀念公民會館). The hall was built for the Crown Prince Hirohito's visit to Taiwan in 1841. Wu Keming initiated the construction of the hall with funds he raised from community donations and government. It was also used as a public gathering venue for residents for meetings, seminars, banquets, and performances. House of Citizen-Memorial Hall of Attendance (Q21473088) on Wikidata House of Citizen-Memorial Hall of Attendance on Wikipedia
1841? What year was this really built? If this refers to w:Hirohito, he wasn't even born till 1901 and would have been Crown Prince till 25 December 1926, when he became Emperor. So if this was built in a year ending in 1, 1921 seems most likely, as he would have been 19 or 20. In 1911, he would have been 9 or 10. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
That was something I edited to try to make sense of it, but the original says the same thing:
"The establishment of the hall originated from the Crown Prince Hirohito's visit to Taiwan in 1841. The construction of the hall was initiated by Wu Keming, with funds he raised from community donations and government funds. It was alsoused as a public gathering venue for residents for meetings, seminars, banquets, and performances."
Was there an earlier Crown Prince Hirohito? Ground Zero (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought of that, too, but the Wikipedia disambiguation is silent on that question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, Taiwan was occupied by Japan only starting in 1895. I feel it's unlikely this building predates that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the 1841 date is just wrong. w:zh:斗六行啟記念館 says it was built around 1927 in memory of Hirohito's 1923 visit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense in terms of its appearance, too. If you feel inspired to do so, please edit the year of completion in the infobox in the Wikipedia article about the building as well as the listing at the linked article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
You can always step in and split it into smaller regions. Hungary was in such state for long time, until a local hero started redacting it. And it's still ongoing (see e.g. Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok_County). I'd say having more listings is better than none, even if it's currently useless for a traveller - it's surely useful for the editors as a starting point (and it can be cleaned if they turned out to be really useless)... Still, I'd assume the guy adding those listings adds the most interesting stuff, not some encyclopedic lists - but who knows... -- 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Over-abbreviation; "min" vs "minutes"[edit]

So this edit got me thinking. Is there any guidance on when to abbreviate stuff like "minute(s)"? And if so does it lean towards abbreviating? I think unlike paper guides we can "afford to" spell it out which in my opinion is more readable... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd abbreviate minutes "min", though in certain situations, that could get confused with "minimum", but I agree that there's usually no important reason to abbreviate that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Measurements#Duration says
"Always abbreviate units in listings.
hour = hr
minute = min"
Abbreviating in text is not required, so I guess it's optional. Ground Zero (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the non-abbreviated version of minutes too. Wikivoyage:Measurements says to "always abbreviate in listings" though I think that only makes sense for the non-content parts of the listing. It's logical to shorten minutes to min in the "Directions" field but "Content" is prose and should read like prose. It's rare in English for minute to be shortened to min in a paragraph of text. Gizza (roam) 23:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with DaGizza. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Minutes is not unambiguous (e.g. "minutes of arc"). I thought there was high importance placed on keeping text short e.g. for viewing on a mobile phone. It was one of the reasons given why addresses cannot be complete and thus cannot be pasted into a mapping application. Most of the time we (as a world) seem to manage fine with the abbreviated form. Cases of ambiguity would be few and far between and obvious so only then use the unabbreviated form PsamatheM (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I was merely trying to streamline the article, because some had the long and some the short minutes format. But go ahead correcting the min to minute in proper text paragraphs. But for short information and listing where the information is essential, e.g. "Get in", I really believe it helps to give the traveller the information right away instead of beating it around the bush using unbearable prose. Cheers Ceever (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I definitely agree with your last sentence, Ceever. If we're listing multiple journey times in 'Get in', then "1 hr 40 min" is infinitely preferable to "one hour and forty minutes". Otherwise, I agree with the Geezer.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
In the case of 1 hr 40 min, shouldn't it be 1:40 ? PsamatheM (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Not according to our time and date formats policy. Personally, I find our recommended version clearer than what you suggest, but here is not really the place to argue for that change (that would be Wikivoyage talk:Time and date formats).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Yijes. Yikes Do you mean 1:40AM or 1:40PM? Or are you using 1:40 to indicate a duration? How would the poor reader know? I think IRS gets it's best to follow wv:tdf and use "1 hr 40 min" to avoid confusion. Ground Zero (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement, but can you proofread your posts please? What's IRS? What's Yijes? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Used files not used[edit]

There was a note put on a lot of talk pages that files are nominated for deletion. Good to have those messages, and the nomination (of a lot of files) seems to be justified. The odd thing is that on at least some of those pages I cannot find any of the files mentioned (see e.g. Northern Mindanao or Negros Occidental). No recent changes in the page history. What is going on? --LPfi (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(On the file description page the articles are mentioned as using the files. --LPfi (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC))
(Also in the link list, such as Special:WhatLinksHere/File:BacolodCollageByMcLovintosh.jpg --LPfi (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC))
I too was puzzled about this phenomenon a few months ago. The pics are in the image parameter of Wikidata items linked to from the articles, and therefore the bot thinks they are in the article. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, found it too, now. So we are warned about a default image for an item we are linking. A bit farther than I would bother, but perhaps better that way. --LPfi (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps the bot message should be changed to hint at that possibility. I suppose there are users who only care about a couple of articles in their home (or favourite vacation) region, not following discussions in the pub and knowing little about Wikidata. No use confusing them. --LPfi (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Embassy and Consulate listings[edit]

While I agree that this should be kept as it is useful for travellers who want to get visas or renew their passports, in the interest of usefulness to travellers, I think we should perhaps agree on a set of rules as to what we should list to keep the lists from becoming too unwieldy. For instance, some embassies have separate chancery and consular locations, so in that case, I think we should only list the consular sections, since there is probably no reason for you to visit the chancery unless you are some important government official (and if you are, your government will make all the arrangements, and you probably won't be relying to Wikivoyage). In the Canberra article for instance, I don't think we should be listing the U.S. embassy since it doesn't provide consular services. Residents of Canberra would have to go to the consulate in Sydney if they want to apply for a U.S. visa, and likewise, U.S. citizens based in Canberra need to go to Sydney to renew their passports. And in most cities with a Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (with the exception of Shanghai), that office does not provide consular services, and you'll have to go to the Chinese embassy/consulate if you want to apply for a Hong Kong visa, so it makes no sense to list the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.

There is one complication though. In Singapore for instance, there is a separate visa application centre if you want to apply for a Chinese visa, and the embassy does not handle visa applications. On the other hand, if you are a Chinese citizen based in Singapore and want to renew your passport, that is handled by the Chinese embassy itself. In such cases, how should we handle the listing? The dog2 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good points. There's no point listing embassies that don't offer consular services to the general public. I would hope diplomatic staff do use Wikivoyage during their postings, but not to find their own office!
Issues like the China Embassy in Singapore can be handled on a case-by-case basis; both offices in that case are useful to travellers, so they should both be listed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we should only list offices that provide consular services and visa application centres. This is not the place for trade office information. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Consular services for residents of a country are not just routine stuff like passports, but also support for those in prison, or support to business travellers. So I think it is OK to list a consulate if it doesn't handle the routine stuff but would be useful to a small business looking to export.
I think we should also think about how we arrange the listings. In most cases travellers are either interested in their country's consulate to get help or a particular country's consulate to apply for a visa etc. Travellers are not going to look at the list of consulates in a city to decide which to visit - it would be more useful to have a page which showed where all the consulates of a particular country are on the map - a set of pages like Consulates of Australia. AlasdairW (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
In the scenario you mentioned, I guess the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office would assist you if you own a business and want to expand into Hong Kong, because that falls under the umbrella of trade relations. On the other hand, if you are a Hong Kong resident who is arrested in a foreign country, it is the Chinese embassy/consulate that will provide you with consular assistance, not the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office.
And yes, I think it might be useful to have pages listing the consulates and embassies of each country, but we need to figure out what articles like that should be classified under. The dog2 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I'm not sure how it works in different countries but in Singapore, even though Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland each have their own embassies, visa applications for all the Nordic countries (including Iceland) are handled by the Danish embassy, though each of those individual embassies will provide consular services for their own respective citizens, so I guess that is an additional complication. I've tried to reflect that in the Singapore article, so let me know if you think this is an acceptable solution. The dog2 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The Singapore list looks good. The small size of the country does eases one aspect of this - there is no question of do I look in Perth, Adelaide or Melbourne for the nearest consulate if I am in Coober Pedy. AlasdairW (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore[edit]

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the photos that result from their contest might be of interest to us. We should particularly be looking for photos illustrating UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we could do with more mention of cultural traditions within our Wikivoyage articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Subway mapshapes for Hamburg not working[edit]

For some reason the mapshapes for the Hamburg U-Bahn and S-Bahn do not show up in the dynamic maps despite still being present in the source code. I just checked the Nuremberg article where the lines still show up so the issue seems to be specific to those lines, not the template in general. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably someone on Wikidata or somewhere inadvertently screwing up something... --Ypsilon (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks like an OSM-user has gone ahead and moved the wikidata links into the route masters (A ↔ B) rather than a single route (A → B). I suspect this is the reason why it broke, since {{Mapshapes}} gets a bit pedantic about route masters (which don't show the lines themselves even in OSM. Take for example U4's master and Billstedt-Elbbrücke). I can understand why the edit on OSM was made: The WD item is for the line itself, not the line in one of its directions. I'm not sure if the template here can be modified to also work with route masters in OSM or not ( If not, the edit on OSM will have to be reverted to fix this issue.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep, this is most likely the reason. Unfortunately {{Mapshapes}} can't really do anything about this, as this is technically {{Mapshape}} work - which in turn just uses the kartographer code. This limitation is there since the beginning, probably (it's documented also, in {{Mapshapes}}). So either we add the wikidata back to the single routes too, or... well, I would say there's no other option that would work in the near months/years, for us. -- 06:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Complicated option until such fixes become available would be to get all the coordinates and make an extermal file in Commons and use that or use the coordinates and make a hard copy on the Hamburg (or some selected) page. Other articles could then transclude that code. -- Matroc (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation becoming the Wikipedia Foundation[edit]

There is now a community discussion on Meta around the proposal to rebrand the Wikimedia Foundation into the "Wikipedia Foundation". I would encourage as many of you as possible to go and take a couple of minutes to understand the idea, and then express your views. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have some doubts about this, honestly. The trigger for the discussion was apparently a Norwegian newspaper saying that the WMF hired a design agency to do something about its "visual profile", and somehow a couple of editors jumped from "visual profile" to "renaming the organization". Honestly, I'd be more concerned about them deciding to change the logos in a "visual profile" project.
It's true that people have been talking about the possibility of letting affiliates rename themselves. (I gather that would ultimately be m:AffCom's decision. As trademark owner, the WMF currently prohibits that, but if the WMF permitted the option, then AffCom could recommend for/against it for any given group.) It's also true that User:Doc James, who is a community-elected board member, has long favored renaming the WMF to "Wikipedia Foundation". But I haven't been hearing anything about renaming the WMF from the branding project for months (and I have been talking to them off and on). It's just not a possibility that they are dealing with right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing to clarify I am in favor of the WMF having the option of renaming itself similar to how affiliates should have the option of renaming themselves. I am not pushing in either direction right now.
The question on meta was "Is it acceptable for the Foundation to use the name Wikipedia to refer to itself?" and I am of the option that it is acceptable. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
So what you're saying is this is unlikely to happen? At any rate, the community so far seems to be panning the idea.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether "the community" (there's only one?) is panning this depends upon whether you think "the community" is synonymous with "the highly active editors who are comfortable posting in an English-language conversation on Meta".
I make no prediction about whether it will ever happen (beyond "not now"). I hate naming things, so I'd never volunteer to rename anything. That makes it difficult for me to make good predictions on any question about naming things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, if you get a message pop up from French Wikivoyage, it's because I mentioned your above comment over there to alleviate concerns that were brewing.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I put in my 2 cents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You did a great job of naming your account! Did that come before or after your employment? :)

There are indeed many communities and subcommunities within the wider Wikimedia community, and I do understand your concerns about an overconfident minority selectorate appearing to represent the whole movement ("will of the people, innit?"), but ultimately only those opinions which are expressed can be counted. Of the views expressed so far, a large majority is on one side of the argument.

There are some comments in languages other than English in the thread on Meta, and there are also discussions elsewhere in the community, such as on French Wikipedia's Bistro. We can all do our bit to encourage as wide participation in such discussions as possible, hence my posting here after seeing a post by another user on another wiki. I hope others will see this and put RfCs in other areas of the community they are familiar with.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You doubtless meant "of the views expressed on wiki so far". ;-) There are people communicating privately, too, and some of them are unwilling to make their views public for fear of backlash. There are also people who have communicated their view privately in the past and whom we can confidently expect to never participate on wiki. Think about the donors who ask (all the time, according to Fundraising) why their donation "to Wikipedia" is instead going to some outfit called "Wikimedia".
Whether to count votes according to stakeholders (e.g., Wikimedia France's view counts the same as the French Wikipedia's community's view) or according to the number of individual humans (Wikimedia France's corporate view counts the same as my view) is something that the movement has never settled. The branding project's plan seems to be sending it all to the Board, and letting them decide how much weight to put on the various groups.
(My username [What am I doing right now, and is that what I want to be doing with my time?] is older than my time at the WMF. I started editing more than 13 years ago. I'm now 6 years into a three-month-long, half-time temporary contract with the WMF. I'd never have applied if it was meant to be a permanent position, but I'm happy with how it has worked out so far. Eventually, I will reclaim my volunteer status. I find that being employed interferes with my editing time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Some people seem to feel that democracy is a basic principle of Wikimedia. It sounds like it isn't, and that the views of non-board users who don't donate money are merely advisory. Is that your feeling? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Movement Learning and Leadership Development Project[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Development team is seeking to learn more about the way volunteers learn and develop into the many different roles that exist in the movement. Our goal is to build a movement informed framework that provides shared clarity and outlines accessible pathways on how to grow and develop skills within the movement. To this end, we are looking to speak with you, our community to learn about your journey as a Wikimedia volunteer. Whether you joined yesterday or have been here from the very start, we want to hear about the many ways volunteers join and contribute to our movement.

To learn more about the project, please visit the Meta page. If you are interested in participating in the project, please complete this simple Google form. Although we may not be able to speak to everyone who expresses interest, we encourage you to complete this short form if you are interested in participating!

-- LMiranda (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)