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

Contents

Alexa rank[edit]

I like to follow Alexa ranks. From mid-2018 to October 2018, Wikivoyage's Alexa rank climbed quite quickly, but steadily. However, the rank suddenly stopped climbing around this time, when it flattened out. Over the next couple months, it has started to fall, and though it seems to be fairly flat now, it's still not exactly in the position to start climbing greatly again. I wonder why this has occurred.

Back in early 2018, there was some kind of project where editors were encouraged to expand articles. Then more recently there was a project on Russian Wikivoyage. These were considered to be why the Alexa rank climbed in the past. Are any similar events coming up in the near future, or later this year?

Just curious. In the end of the day, we still get excellent numbers of readers, and we're working hard to make the travel guide better and better. But it would be interesting to know if these techniques could be used in future to get more readers. Just some thoughts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I've noticed it seems quieter on here recently, especially during the daytime (UTC). Talking about edits, of course, rather than readers, but I imagine a certain percentage of readers will also edit too. (On that theme, anyone know if there are any studies on what the average percentage of a wiki's readership make at least one edit? And how many of those become regular contributors?) Wikimedia ought to have a small external advertising budget, imo, because as effective as initiatives like the Editathon are, they're only targetted internally, i.e. other WMF wikis. Failing that, maybe we (as in Wikivoyage) should try to be noisier on social media. We have Facebook, YouTube (Twitter?), but does anyone follow us on them?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The usual figure given is 10%. We have another problem, in that our search rankings are usually low, especially compared to Wikipedia. Most people don't come to Wikivoyage to look for travel information, but look it up and then find themselves here. I was going to propose a COTM for this - there are several high-profile pages, that, when searched for, return results from Lonely Planet, TripAdvisor, Wikitravel, etc., on the first page, but not us. Probably the worst example I've found is Croatia. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, in the case of SEO, it's probably because the Croatia article has a lot of similar (or even duplicate) content to Wikitravel, or the content of the article does not use many catchphrases that would be picked up by a search engine.
I think it's true that it has been quieter lately. I was looking at the recent changes at 5:00 UTC (today, UTC) and I found that I could easily scroll through the changes. One example was that, apart from an account being created, no edits were made in the hour from 3:00-4:00. Imagine if a vandal had been on the site then, how much damage he could have caused.
I agree about social media. We have a social media nominations page, but it is rarely used. We ought to use it more, if possible. We could mention articles that have been significantly improved lately, etc. DOTMs are published on social media as I understand it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Previous years, both Wikivoyage and The Other Site have had low activity during October-February. Not strange, since English-speakers usually make their big holiday journeys during northern summer. We can expect more traffic during the coming months. /Yvwv (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm presently the only active administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook account who is more than marginally active on Wikivoyage itself. Currently every new DotM, OtBP and FTT gets posted on Facebook. I definitely feel like our account should be more active than that, but as I've said before, I feel like it's too big of a job for one person, especially someone as overextended as I am. But every time in the past that I've called out to the Wikivoyage community for anyone interested in helping manage our FB presence, whoever takes on the challenge seems like clockwork to fall inactive before very long. I still would love the help, but I hope that if I get any responses here from folks who'd like to be inducted as administrators to our FB page, it's from someone who plans to stick around awhile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I started Uni in October. Question solved. ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you compare our Alexa rank to 12 months ago, it is much higher. It has jumped from about 21,500 to 16,500. And that's the important measure since throughout the year there are seasonal chances as Yvwv mentioned above. But of course, there is always room for improvement. I have sometimes promoted Wikivoyage articles on online travel forums where I thought it was relevant to the question or conversation. All of the anecdotal feedback I've received is that of the people who read Wikivoyage, most of them like us. Very few people are not fans. It is just that barely anyone is aware that we exist. Our target audience is quite large (anyone interested in travel with an internet connection and is English-speaking including non-native) but of this large population how many have heard of us. All of the major alternatives to WV whether similar in scope (e.g. the other site, Lonely Planet, Frommers, Rough Guides) or having somewhat different but overlapping goals like TripAdvisor, BBC Travel and Nat Geo Travel, have millions of followers on social media. We have thousands. Our goal should be just getting our name out there so that travellers get to know about this site. SEO is the big reason why many of our articles are almost ghosts but there have to be other ways to create awareness in addition to differentiating ourselves from the other site. Gizza (roam) 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Name recognition is very important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideas[edit]

Has it ever been considered for WV to have some sort of blog? Didn't WT used have that back at one time? If we started it, we'd want it to be a group effort, of course, and if so, I'd be happy to help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth trying to partner with some existing Wikipedia-focused events. For example, maybe someone who is writing about a famous artist would also like to update the entry here about a museum where the art can be seen. If anyone's in New York City, London, or Berlin, then there are a lot of potential events there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is not very popular, after all, everyone only knows Wikipedia, not us... To make more people interested in our Wikivoyage, I think we need to work with other travel sites(eg [https://www.backpackers.com.tw/guide/ Backpackers).--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DOTM banners[edit]

I now have the tools (GIMP) and the know-how to do banners for DOTM, OTBP, and FTT. Hopefully this can take some of the burden off AndreCarrotflower in doing the banners, which can be quite a lot of work. Ypsilon has also been a help recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexa rank rise[edit]

Suddenly, in mid-March, Wikivoyage has zoomed up to its previous heights a few months before and is now between 15,000 and 16,000. This is interesting, and perhaps someone has a theory for why this has happened. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikitravel rank[edit]

Just in case this was not yet mentioned before. Because we always compare ourself to Wikitravel; WT has gradually declined over the last couple of months/years: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikitravel.org It is almost at par with WV now. So, I reckon we are doing pretty well. Cheers Ceever (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There are people who buy old travel guides at garage sales, so I guess it is not surprising that people are still reading Wikitravel. It is also interesting that of Wikivoyage's readers, 14% are from the US, and 35% are from the next four countries combined (Germany, Italy, China, Iran), meaning that a lot of our readers are not people whose first language is English. (You need a subscription to Alexa to find out about the remaining 51% of readers.) Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind, they are probably not reading our articles. They are probably going to de:, it: (the original WV sites and those with the biggest content advantage over WT), zh:, and fa:. I'm surprised ru: isn't near the top, with the all the work they do with monuments.
Based on this, I think it would be good for WV for the WMF to focus on creating more WV language editions, especially ones that WT already has, as, the later they are created, the harder it is to overcome that content gap, especially its effect on search engine rankings. There's little most of us can do about that, though. But, it is notable that 8.5% of WT's traffic comes from Japan, and ja: is still in incubator. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
WV's Alexa rank just surpassed WT's (see Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel). WT is still bigger in the United States (which makes up much of the Anglosphere). /Yvwv (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I've done a little work in Spanish-language Wikivoyage, but generally my knowledge of the language isn't nearly good enough that I can contribute significantly or freely there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I edited Chinese Wikivoyage a little bit and their coverage is abysmal. Even capital cities like Helsinki, Riga and Kiev are purely skeletons. (If I could type Chinese easily on computer rather than use dictation software on Android keyboard, I would have contributed more.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I am late... In our Chinese Wikivoyage, we have a lot more articles and editors than Chinese Wikitravel, but our Chinese Wikivoyage are still improving in the interface and funtion. Anyway,I think that Japanese and Korean really need to be incubated as soon as possible. After all, the long delay will be very unfavorable for the development of Wikivoyage in Korea and Japan.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
IIRC, when the fork happened, the Japanese Wikitravel community was the only one that voted to stick with Internet Brands rather than migrating to the WMF. At last check, they're still an active community and still happy to stay put where they are. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: No need to apologize, I was only pointing out the current state of Chinese WV articles and hopefully someone who's reading this discussion and can type in Chinese easily to contribute. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A BIG congratulations to everyone here. We have finally pulled ahead of WT in the Alexa rankings :-) Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

travellerspoint.com wiki too...[edit]

Alexa rank is nice and all, but most users probably come from google. Lately it seems that the above page often "wins" there if I enter "destination wiki guide". Our guides are usually much more comprehensive, so it'd be good find a reason why this happens... Could some of WV policies actually be cause of the relatively mediocre SEO results? -- andree.sk(talk) 13:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hum that website is down below the 100,000s in popularity. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to what many of us seem to have assumed (self included)...[edit]

...Wikivoyage is actually doing pretty well by comparison to our for-profit competition. Alexa puts us slightly ahead of Wikitravel and Fodor's; far ahead of Rough Guides, Frommer's, Travellerspoint, Backpackers.com, and Moon Travel Guides; and behind only Lonely Planet and TripAdvisor. I think this puts any talk of synergy with other sites squarely out of bounds, seeing as the only sites it would make sense for us to collaborate with (the latter two) are ones that are run very much on a commercial basis and thus any such collaboration would violate the WMF's nonprofit ethos.

Cc: Yuriy kosygin and andree.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexa's list of Travel Guide and Directories sites puts us in 7th position behind TripAdvisor, Timeout, Lonely Planet, Tripsavvy, Travelzoo and Ixigo. I hadn't heard of some of these sites but looking deeper, they seem to be very popular in a handful of countries. And Travelzoo doesn't seem to be a travel guide. There is also a list of Travel Publications websites which are travel magazines and cover similar territory and there a couple of websites with higher rankings at the moment. Also many news and documentary sites have popular travel guide sections like CNN Travel, BBC Travel and National Geographic Travel but unfortunately Alexa doesn't capture the rankings of the travel sections (though circumstantial evidence like social media followers suggests they are much more popular than WV).
I think Wikivoyage is close to peak popularity in many continental European countries (5774th in Germany, 2458th in Italy) and Iran (5273th) but still has significant opportunities for growth in native English-speaking countries and Asia. The US rank for WV is lower than WT and in Australia for example, Wikivoyage is not among the top 15 travel guide sites [1]. The main source of online travel knowledge in Australia is "Traveller" which has a rank in the 600s but it's not used in any other country. It is an offshoot of the Sydney Morning Herald but has a separate domain name so you can see how popular it is. The German and Italian Wikivoyages forked out earlier which is why they have become well established. But there is no reason why Wikivoyage can't become just as well known across the entire world. Gizza (roam) 22:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it's important not to compare apples with oranges. The sites you mentioned are travel-related, but they're not travel guides per se and thus we're not really competing with them. Wikivoyage is not a hack listicle site like Timeout, we're not an Expedia-esque booking engine like Travelzoo or Ixigo, we don't host travel essays or magazine-style articles as National Geographic does, and we're not analogous to the travel features on a television network like CNN or the BBC. (Frankly, though I know I was the one who brought TripAdvisor up, we're not even really comparable to them; I see them as being more akin to Yelp or Google Reviews than a site like ours.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of apples and oranges, I'd say that Tripadvisor isn't a travel guide but since it is used like a travel guide by many people, it's worth using for comparison. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is A and the other travel websites are B. They are not the same as us but there is still overlap. And one of our ultimate goals should be to become the first source most people on the internet choose to use to learn about the intersecting travel knowledge.
We present our information in a different format to many of the above but the information itself overlaps to a significant degree. From the traveller's perspective, it's the same information from different sources. Much of Nat Geo's online content on treks are very similar to our itinerary articles. In the case of Traveller in Australia, it not only has listicles and travel news articles but in-depth guides on particular destinations. The BBC has a section on travel tips which contains articles very similar to some of our travel topics such as budget travel. Many of the websites have a travel forum which has the same purpose as the tourist office here. I'd say most of the sites compared to us are apples and pears as opposed to oranges. It's similar to Wikipedia where its competitors (and therefore websites affected by its rise) were not just encyclopedias like Britannica but other general reference websites that presented similar information in a different way.
In any case, my point was more about being cautiously optimistic in the long run. Wikivoyage is capable of becoming just as famous and used in every country as it is in e.g. Italy, where it is a top 2,500 site. Regardless of whether the other sites mentioned are true alternatives to us, that is what we should be aiming for. Gizza (roam) 04:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Flight rights[edit]

Should we have an article with all the common flight right websites and their costs and services? I would appreciate an overwiew. Maybe we can add the rating of trustpilot?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please could you explain. Do you mean websites about your consumer rights when flying as an airline passenger? websites giving details of where you have a right to fly your aircraft, drone or hang-glider?, or is it flight booking and comparison websites? AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I meant website where you can reclaim money if your flight was delayed and cancelled. Many charge a lot of money but there are cheap alternatives. I thought it would be a good idea to give travellers an overview of all the big sights. Nevertheless, in addition it might also be a good point listing the specific links of airlines where you can make a claim. Many have such forms in place, like Eurowings: https://www.eurowings.com/de/4u/online-service-ausgleichsanspruch.html
Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO, sure. I don't know whether this merits an entire article or not, though. About how long an article do you think it would be if this topic were covered by itself? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It is already partially covered at At the airport#Delays / cancellations, so I think the best course of action would be to expand that section (with maybe a new section on the page if it's big enough) and put a redirect there from Flight rights. MSG17 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
At least some of what's in the following "Overbooking" section might be relevant, too. Bumped passengers have few rights in the U.S., but I guess it's different in Europe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it makes sense to add it to these existing sites. Actually, there is already some stuff there for Europe. I will try to put some work into it.
Indeed, Europe has quite strict rules for delays and such. Unfortunately, there is no immediate compensation of the price and fees if your flight does not go, but this also falls under the compensation scheme. Which is kind of weird.
Cheers Ceever (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You may now become 'Wikivoyage — A Wikipedia project'[edit]

According to this discussion at Meta, Wikimedia Foundation is considering rebranding. This means for you, that rather than Wikivoyage being a Wikimedia project, it would become a Wikipedia project.

The proposed changes also include

  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.

While raising such awareness in my opinion is a good thing, do you think classifying you as a 'Wikipedia' project would cause confusion? Do you think newcomers would have a high risk of erroneously applying some of Wikipedia principles and policies here which do not apply? If so, what confusion? Could you please detail this. I have raised a query about that HERE in general, but I am looking for specific feedback.

Please translate this message to other languages. --Gryllida (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure where to stand on this; I'm not strongly opposed to the idea, but at the same time we do, currently, clearly state that we're not Wikipedia. The above seems to go against that philosophy.
However, I think WV is gradually moving from the "old-fashioned" (in quotes because it's not really old-fashioned) travel guide style to a more modern Wikipedia-influenced travel guide with plenty of general information that implies, indirectly, rather than directly, to travelers. This shows strongest in many of our articles where WP content is used, and our many travel topic articles. More Wikidata content is being used by the month, and more integration in that process, and the whole idea of including coordinates is encouraging integration with WD. Therefore, I see a lot of connections, and by saying "Wikivoyage - a Wikipedia project", a good chance of getting more interested readership. The point is, I think in that last few years we've come a long way, and even made some progress in this area since I joined in late 2017, so I see large benefits and minor downsides. However, I can imagine why a rebranding of this nature may be unpopular with many Wikivoyage users who come from before this was a Wikimedia project and, therefore, a sister project of Wikipedia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi SelfieCity. Thank you for this feedback. I am glad to know that the two projects share a lot in common. As an alternative, how would you feel about changing 'a Wikimedia project' to 'a Wikimania project' to address the concerns raised by Wikimedia in their proposal, while this does not create confusion with Wikipedia? How would you think of such an alternative change? --Gryllida (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Related discussion: voting no due to serious CC/SA violating on WV, started by SpendrupsForAll. Gryllida (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sour grapes, with a probable side of conflict of interest. Spendrups was banned indefinitely from editing Wikivoyage after a short but incredibly disruptive history of participation here, which began shortly after the fork from Wikitravel and was characterized by a provocative and antagonistic series of edits with a hardline pro-Wikitravel and anti-Wikivoyage bias that community consensus held to be suspicious, especially in the wake of other, proven cases of trolls and vandals with essentially identical patterns of behavior whose IP addresses traced back to Internet Brands servers. It's notable that the issue he's griping about is a long-ago deprecated footer that used to be attached to each article that included a weblink to its analogous article on Wikitravel, whose removal does not actually do anything to remove proper attribution to Wikitravel contributors but does deny Wikitravel an avenue for site traffic. I would highly recommend you regard any contributions to your discussion from him through that lens. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Gryllida: does Meta have a "no legal threats" policy similar to ours? A big part of the rationale behind Spendrups' userban was the Wikivoyage community's conclusion that he was acting on behalf of a company that had engaged in litigation against us that could not truly have been said to be resolved by the settlement of the lawsuit, given the aforementioned subsequent pattern of trolling from Internet Brands. If there is such a policy, you might confer with the appropriate parties about getting that account globally locked, since the lawsuit was against the Wikimedia Foundation, and not Wikivoyage in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think asking Wikimedia Legal about this is a good idea? Gryllida (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Gryllida - Well, one impediment for Wikivoyage in dealing with Spendrups - and, indeed, the reason why it took so long for us to get around to userbanning him - is his low volume of edits. His M.O. was to disappear for months at a time, only to pop back up again in some random projectspace discussion with another hostile attack that would sow disruption as intended, then disappear into the ether again, not even bothering to follow up on the responses to his own comment, which in our minds would obviate the need for further action. (Similarly to that: if I were you, I would not be holding my breath for a reply to the follow-up question you posed to him at Meta.) If he behaves on other WMF sites the way he's behaved here, he's not going to be a persistent problem, so I doubt it's worth your time to get Legal involved. But in terms of the amount of disruption he can wreak with a single edit, he's going to punch way above his weight, so a userban may be worth exploring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record meta:Special:CentralAuth/SpendrupsForAll.
Renaming shouldn't be a problem for us. As ARR said below, our Main Page was recently changed to clearly show that we're a sister project of Wikipedia, a site that I think almost every Internet user knows nowadays. ϒψιλον (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We recently had a discussion that may be of interest, on changing the main page text. Some of the proposals included language about being part of the Wikimedia family. In the end, as the main page shows, it was decided that "sister site of Wikipedia" was the best phrasing, for multiple reasons outlined in that discussion, but partly because the name recognition of Wikipedia is stronger than that of Wikimedia. So, effectively, we have already come to the same conclusion, and have consensus in support of the rebrand. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I have not followed the discussion on Meta and have no time to do that now, but I am sceptic. Naming all projects after the most popular one seems to me a marketing trick, not a way to clarify matters. It seems to be a popular tactic among marketing folks, but a tactic were the interests of the company, not the consumers (or our case the readers and the editing community), is in focus. I am often angry at the tactic because of the confusion it causes.
I am concerned that the suggestion is a result of marketing tactics being given too much influence, when the project family has roots in popular education, which I find much more suitable. I know we have problems with getting enough readers and editors, but focusing on marketing tactics will make us not better, but more like our competitors.
A completely separate issue is that there has been a concern in sister projects that people forget them, as Wikipedia draws all the attention. Naming the family "Wikipedia" will not help with that.
--LPfi (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I like being a Wikimedia project. I also predict that this will harm Wikimedia Commons, where there are already many people who think of that site as just an adjunct to Wikipedia and vote against featuring any picture or even considering it a quality image if they think (sometimes wrongly) it will not be of any use in illustrating Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia does sound somewhat formal and changing the name or brand of the overall organisation to "Wikimania" or something like that may sound more exciting. And the smaller wikis including Wikivoyage can then say they are part of Wikimania. Confusing us with Wikipedia won't help anyone. Gizza (roam) 09:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK with changing the name of the umbrella organization to Wikimania and agree on all other points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with ARR8 that Wikipedia is a much stronger brand than Wikimedia, and as others have pointed out, that's why we changed our main page to refer to Wikipedia. It makes sense to associate ourselves with the more well-known project. If Wikimedia isn't a strong brand, changing it to Wikimania, which is even less well-known and doesn't sound like a serious project, will make things even worse. Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, Wikimania is (at least as of now) just the name of the annual event, nothing more. ϒψιλον (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To me, "Wikimania" sounds like we're joining insanity, and considering how many unusual wikis there must be in the world, I think calling ourselves a "Wikimania" project would make us sound as if we weren't serious about what we are doing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the status quo is just fine. In policy pages such as Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals and Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians, we take pains to emphasize the differences between the scope of this site and that of Wikipedia. Having a symbiotic relationship with Wikipedia and the other sites in the WMF family is a good thing, and we're already using our status as a WMF site to our mutual advantage by e.g. including interwiki links to analogous articles on each site, managing some content through Wikidata where appropriate, etc. But I fear that identifying Wikivoyage too closely with Wikipedia sends mixed messages to newbies, especially ones who are already active on Wikipedia. We have enough trouble already dealing with inappropriately encyclopedic content added to our articles by people confused about what our scope is, and we've also had issues in the past with culture clash vis-à-vis differences in our respective site policies. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Please join the brainstorming page at Meta, at your convenience: at minimum share your opinion of Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, as the suggested names; how to best make them clearer to readers; at maximum please spare your precious time to comment on other names or propose your own. Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

AndreCarrotflower, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, DaGizza, As an alternative to saying 'a Wikipedia project' there is the possibility of saying 'a sister of Wikipedia'. This in my opinion may reduce confusion: it makes the sister project stand out as a separate project more clearly. That's what I commonly do when speaking with people about one of the sister wikis, when asking them to release an image under a free licence. They usually understand quickly. Do you think this option can reduce confusion here caused by people misinterpreting Wikipedia policies as Wikivoyage's own? --Gryllida (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Ground Zero, Ypsilon: do you think that 'a Wikipedia project' would be more confusing than 'a sister of Wikipedia'? --Gryllida (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A 'sister of Wikipedia' sounds better, but 'a Wikipedia project' isn't that bad. It probably also depends on how familiar the individual reader is with the Wikipedia and wikis in the first place. ϒψιλον (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I continue to feel this is a solution in search of a problem. I vote to leave the status quo alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I was hovering between against, and neutral, and thought it's much ado about nothing, but having done fundraising, I am 99% sure I would've been more successful if I said "I am from Wikipedia" than saying "I am from Wikimedia"... Wikipedia Travel might sound wrong (besides the fact that most people don't know what an encyclopedia is) - but maybe there is a better idea: Get WMF to get us "travel.wiki" - and similar for other projects - don't you think that would get us a lot more readers, and more and better contributions? Dagelf (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Of the two, I prefer "a Wikipedia project", but since we just adopted "a sister site of Wikipedia" recently after a long discussion, I don't think we should open up the discussion again. Let's live with that for a while, and consider further changes later. Ground Zero (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Where was "a sister site of Wikipedia" adopted, and where is that wording implemented? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
#1 see discussion here. #2. At the top of the Main Page. Ground Zero (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The proposed phrasing and design look good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination to turn "don't delete real places" standard into policy[edit]

This just came up again at VFD, and it seems to me that we could save quite a lot of time if we added to policy that real places cannot be deleted, only redirected or merged. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That is policy. We make an exception for page creation vandalism, but otherwise, it's been policy since long before I was first editing here as an IP user, I think, and that takes it back to 2006 or earlier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a policy page that includes it, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. I didn't see anything conclusive at wiaa or Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page. But I think it's most relevant in the introduction to the vfd page, because this relates not to creating redirects from scratch but turning articles that don't meet wiaa into redirects instead of nominating them at vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It's just that, I think we should make it very clear if we're going to hold to this viewpoint strongly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree. It's surprising this policy has never been clearly written down. It should be in the introduction to vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Whaaaat, isn't this written out anywhere? Policies should always be written down at a place people can logically expect to find them, otherwise they can't be called policies. ϒψιλον (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have died out. I'm going to start one at Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion and link this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Please continue this discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion#Add "Don't delete real places" policy to the intro to Vfd. Both the policy itself and the phrasing of the text to be added are at issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing (including WP link) instead of marker for cities/towns (on region level) that do not have a WV article yet but only a WP article?[edit]

... this way, travellers have the opportunity to head to the WP article to find at least a little information. As long as we do not have an article ourself.

Would you agree with something like this? Could we make it a general rule? Example: Valles Calchaquíes.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but it would take a lot of work because we have created so many markers for towns and cities. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's definitely no reason, I feel, to use listings over markers. However, it should be possible to add some code to the marker template so that, if there is no WV page, it displays a Wikipedia icon automatically. I'd be happy to work on that, but, coincidentally, there's an ongoing RFC on the cosmetic look of the Wikipedia icon in our listings that should be settled first. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If wikidata id is present in the marker, should be able to get the appropriate language wikipedia entry... relying on the name parameter not so much as the article title in wikivoyage may differ from that of found in wikipedia... (from adding wikidata ids I noted that some have neither a wikidata id or a matching wikipedia article) just a thought. -- Matroc (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess it would be hard for the marker to identify whether the name is a WV link to an article or not, wouldn't it. But if we add the WP and WD functionality (I actually thought it was there in the past), we can add this information gradually. Never was there the need to do everything at once.
Also, I would not treat markers and listings different in this sense, by just having the WD id, and deriving WP somehow. Furthermore, many markers now have the WD id, so adding WP would not be so difficult and could even be achieved through a script. @Andree.sk:, would you be able to achieve something like this?
Everything that needs to be changed is that the marker also displays the WP link, if it is available. But, on second thought, if it could be achieved, showing the WP link based on the WD id if there is no WV article sounds also like a good approach. What do you guys think?
Either way, I think the travellers would appreciate more information on-site. And we would push the importance of the Wikimedia Network by keeping users in the network instead of letting them find the information through Google or such.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ceever, Matroc: Please take a look at Valles Calchaquíes now. I've made an experimental change to the marker template to do what I proposed. To see the cases where it would apply, see special:permalink/3749906; as that page shows, the icon will appear only in one specific case. As soon as a Wikivoyage article is created for one of these destinations, the Wikipedia icon will disappear. Any thoughts? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@ARR8: Looks marvellous. I believe this could be a good solution.
The only other case I would cover as well, would be where there is not WV link (weather dead or alive) at all, but a WD reference (and no WV article). Such that also Charyn Canyon would be covered. I think there are no cases where this would cause in-text issue - I have never seen a WD marker used inline anywhere. However, city listing sometimes contain no WV link, because it would be a dead one (and look ugly). Why should we omit the WP icon in this case?
Before introducing this change, could we have the consent of a few more people?
Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ceever: Thanks for the feedback.
I don't plan on making this change without community consensus. I'll make this an RFC after the changes are done. Maybe they're already done, I'm not sure.
Regarding the Charyn Canyon case: this is covered. So there is already a Charyn Canyon article on WV, so that is why there is no Wikipedia icon. However, that listing has no link in the title, so it's not helping the reader. In this case, there is an added maintenance category Category:Marker with Wikivoyage article but no wikilink (see the categories of the graffiti wall; the category doesn't exist yet). That way, an editor would notice and hopefully fix it. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
However, I think I know what you mean: if there is a marker with a wikidata ID, but there is neither a wikivoyage nor a wikipedia article? I'm not sure what to do in that case; currently nothing. You're suggesting the Wikidata link should appear? Maybe the wikidata link should always appear, like in listings. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Just noted that the case was already covered, but there was no example for it on the Graffiti page. Now it is and works: no. 5. Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
ARR8 Apologise for being bit late in looking at things; have been busy with some TEX issues. Looks pretty good to me - it would be up to members etc. for consensus - RFC would probably be best way to go... Matroc (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should set up a place where we can have a clear-cut vote on this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Matroc: No worries; there's no deadline here. As I said above, I recognize the need for consensus. Any feedback on the implementation?
@SelfieCity: As I said above, I'm not yet ready to roll this feature out. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm replying to Matroc's comment that "it would be up to members etc. for consensus". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this proposal should be discussed at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. I could easily see opposition to it on three grounds: (1) Once the WP links are added, it will be hard to remove them; (2) That will lead to creeping addition of another category of WP links without a consensus having developed in advance; (3) The WP link may make people lazy about creating needed WV articles. I, for one, would tend to oppose this additional scope of WP links on those bases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
3) Regular traveller for which the WP link is actually a help to, would not create new WV articles anyhow - I have never seen a newbie create an article. And I do not see how regular editors would have a problem with the WP link. It would instead actually help them to already fill the Understand of the new WV article. But it is funny to see what suddenly seems important to encouraged editors to contribute, while enthusiastic writers are regularly shied away with stiff bureaucracy elsewhere.
2) We already have WP links with regular listings, and they are comprehensively and happily maintained, which I think is a good thing. Why should a marker be an exception, especially where this link would contribute added value to the travellers. And yes, a consensus is what we are looking for - not an argument against it.
1) It is not much different from the WP links that appear to the left of WV articles. They are also there automatically. Even more reason to leave WP links with missing WV links, so editors are encouraged to finally create WV articles for the subject instead of having an "ugly" WP link.
I think it is a great and useful enhancement and would be an added value to WV ... Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
If you've never seen a newbie try to start a new article, I think you don't patrol recent changes very much. I've seen it dozens and dozens of times, and sometimes, they do a very good job and it becomes an excellent article. I have no problem with WP links in markers in many situations, but when we're talking about destinations that should have WV articles and don't, I think that's problematic and definitely requires a thorough debate, probably someplace other than just the pub. And as for "yes, a consensus is what we are looking for - not an argument against it", I guess it's too bad you don't get to unilaterally dictate policy changes on the site, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Created the rfc at Wikivoyage_talk:Links_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_in_markers ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I created something in userspace modeled after Presidents of the United States[edit]

Have a look. I decided to limit it to "postwar" because the chancellors of Weimar Germany are virtually unknown nowadays and I don't want to link any sort of "shrines to Hitler" (which afaik don't exist) Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Good idea not to include Hitler. I think the topic is fine but definitely needs more development. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Progress with custom page banners (COTM update)[edit]

This month we've been focusing on adding page banners to articles, and this has been going very well. The stats are included on that page and as of 19 March (UTC), we've seen an 18% decrease in standard page banners for non-city articles; the best categories are region articles (standard banners down 35%), travel topics (standard banners down 28%), and phrasebooks (standard banners down 27%).

If you do add a pagebanner to an article, make sure to add the category "Wikivoyage banners of [country/region name]" to the page banner image, and make sure to follow the steps at the Category:Banner missing from Wikidata page. Even if you normally aren't a big cotm person, please feel free to join in and participate in the fun! For those who've contributed to the cotm, thanks so much for your work.

In November 2019 another COTM is scheduled of this nature, custom banners for usable articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to suggest banners? For example, Cycling in the United States is in the list, and any of these images might be feasible: File:Golden Gardens cyclists silhouette 02.jpg, File:Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail St. Albans Vermont.JPG, File:Tour of Utah - Stage Two (28449152780).jpg, or File:Rental bicycles and rack, downtown Nashville.JPG. I don't really want to crop and upload the images myself, but I wouldn't mind looking for source images, if someone else wanted to do the other part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. I've created User:SelfieCity/Banner suggestions where they can be suggested, for now. There's an older page for Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions that is currently in the vfd process. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If it is a good idea, then why not just use the old page and vote "keep" at vfd? I see no reason to have the page in user space instead of project space. Moreover, the lack of visibility was cited as a reason for failure of the page now in vfd. --LPfi (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
AlasdairW, I believe, has adjusted the page as you wish. I currently plan to delete the page I created if WV:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions is kept, after the vfd discussion is closed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Mx. Granger modified the page. I just acted on the first suggestion and created a banner for Travelling on a low-carbohydrate diet. This was a useful suggestion as I had looked unsuccessfully for banners for this article a few weeks earlier. I hadn't thought of using a picture of nuts - the pictures of broccoli and kale that I looked at were unappealing. AlasdairW (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, though! I'd just say that we now have only about a week left to do the banners, so let's really do it on the final push! Perhaps, try to get region article banners down 50% — that number is currently around 38%. I think we can definitely do it — maybe we can even reach 55% or 60% if we really do it at the end. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Region article (default) page banners are now down 55% since the beginning of the month. Amazing progress. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Guide Michelin stars to restaurant listings?[edit]

Wikipedia has an entry on many of the restaurants listing in Guide Michelin, including information of number of stars (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz%C3%A9n). Could this be imported into Wikivoyage? Perhaps via the wikidata-item. In that way we do not have to manually change information about stars. Also, in the same way we could import information about dress code and if a restaurant has closed down. Many listings of restaurants are not up to date, and with this we could at lest get the top tier a bit more organized. --Jonte-- (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

A link to the Wikipedia article for the restaurant should be given in its Wikivoyage listing, but I wouldn't suggest copying or importing all the content of the Wikipedia article to Wikivoyage, because it includes historical information that's relevant for an encyclopedia but not really relevant to a visitor, who would usually be more interested in how good the restaurant is, what their specialties are, what the ambiance is like, how long in advance they need reservations in order to guarantee a table, how much it costs and possibly whether it has a dress code. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the idea is to to import certain specific details from the Wikidata item, not to copy the whole Wikipedia article. I think importing some information via Wikidata a good idea—at least the Michelin rating. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Using Wikidata to check for closed-down POIs is an intriguing idea too, not limited to Michelin reviewed restaurants or even to restaurants at all. Does Wikidata include statements about whether a place is closed down? If so, a bot could check for Wikivoyage listings connected to Wikidata items that say the place is closed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I should really wait a few minutes while I keep researching before pressing enter. I found wikidata:Property:P5817, which is what would help us detect closed POIs, but unfortunately I don't think it's used widely enough to be useful. I'm still interested in the idea of importing Michelin stars though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Why via Wikidata? I don't understand. The information we want is in the Wikipedia article, right? Please explain. Also, while Michelin is still considered quite reliable for France, it's to my knowledge never been considered reliable for Italy and is not very reliable for the U.S., so I don't think Wikivoyage should have some kind of Michelin star icon or something; instead, the number of Michelin stars should be given in prose in the "content" tab, just as the number of New York Times stars would be so given for New York-area restaurants, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Guide Michelin is the most comprehensive would-wide rating system there is for high-end restaurants. It is not limited to France. To my understanding the list on Wikipedia covers most, if not all, restaurants featured in this category. And to be clear, I only meant importing data items, which we could generate automatic. In the same way including a wikidata link adds coordinates. --Jonte-- (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say Michelin didn't cover restaurants in other countries; I said that their ratings are not considered reliable for Italy. To elaborate, if you ask Italians, they will tell you that Michelin highly rates restaurants in Italy whose cuisine is more similar to French food, rather than the cucina tipica most prized in Italy. And their ratings are also not very reliable in the U.S. On food discussion groups, Americans believe their standards are lower in the U.S. than they are in France, and some Americans believe that they simply don't understand cuisines not similar to French or Japanese cuisine all that well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To clarify, the information about Michelin stars is on both Wikidata and Wikipedia. If we import it via Wikidata, I assume it can be done automatically (or semi-automatically using the listing editor). I don't know if that can be done via Wikipedia. Of course if Michelin isn't reliable enough to be worth including in this way then that's a different story. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's absolutely good to mention in the description, but I don't think we should adopt Michelin stars as some kind of Wikivoyage icon. For one thing, that would mean promoting a commercial guidebook on a non-profit site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly, the Michelin stars are still interesting in the USA, Italy etc., but not important enough worldwide to have their dedicated place/icon in the listing template, and fetching them with bot or via the listing editor is feasible only if there is such a dedicated place (inserting text in the "content" field would be awkward and error prone). What could be done is to have a "hidden" field (showing up when editing), which would notify the editor on Michelin star status in case Wikidata knows the restaurant has or has had stars. If using the listing editor, the field would automatically be up to date, otherwise depending on last bot run. --LPfi (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine, although it's possible it might confuse some editors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
But back to the earlier point - what about the ratings of other guides that are better regarded in their own country, and that adopt multiple formats? Eg in Britain I'd argue for primacy of Good Food Guide and place less trust in Michelin. GFG is a commercial publication but relies on reader input backed by incognito inspectors, who always pay for their meals. They never accept payment or hospitality for listings and are somewhat kindred spirits to WV. But there are other candidate publications and we don't want edit wars over which of several ratings to import. Grahamsands (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's the general feeling among people knowledgeable about restaurants in Britain that the Good Food Guide is most reliable, their ratings should be mentioned in restaurant descriptions on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it is no problem for an editor to mention whatever rating feels relevant (unless others think it is not), and also easy for the listing editor or a bot to treat different countries differently, but the listing editor or a bot acting on some rating requires it to be machine readable and combined with the Wikidata ID. If there are several reliable ratings available on Wikidata, the system should probably be built to support them all (I suppose they are not too many). --LPfi (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up Wikivoyage in a job application[edit]

Has anyone here ever used their experiences of editing Wikivoyage, and/or what you have contributed to and learnt from WV, in the process of getting a new job (either at the initial application phase, or later interview stages)? If so, how did that go? I'd very much like to hear your experiences. If you haven't, would you consider doing so, or do you think it is a bad idea? Open to any and all viewpoints. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it would obviously be relevant if you are applying to anything at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/jobs/ ;-)
More generally, if the job is about writing, then they can find samples of your writing here. I also think that it's proof that you're self-motivated and self-organized, which is valued in many positions. It also demonstrates that you can find ways to work with others, because this is a collaborative environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Back when I worked in the hotel industry, I always put my Wikivoyage experience on my resume and it was a big help. Invariably, it was one of the things about which I could always count on the interviewer asking for more information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
(As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why I eventually stopped mentioning it was that my employers would use my expertise to justify giving me additional duties above and beyond the usual job description, i.e. responding to guests' TripAdvisor reviews, without any corresponding increase in salary. So in my case, you might say it worked a little too well.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that generally it would be good to briefly mention it, particularly if the application process has any "outside interests" questions. However this type of question is less common these days as it can lead to inadvertent race/gender bias. Wikis are often used as internal business platforms, so experience in wiki-editing can be relevant. It would be worth looking to see if the employer has had any friction with WP - is there a WP page which company management might want deleted, in which case approach it more cautiously. There are also a few jobs where open communication is a bad idea! AlasdairW (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
TT/whoever's interested in the topic, one thing to note: how would they know (we'll just use the name "Joe" for now) that Joe is the same person as ThunderingTyphoons/AlasdairW/Ikan Kekek on Wikivoyage? It's like if I applied for a job and included in my resume that I use Wikivoyage under the username "123456". It would be hard either to prove that I was 123456 or that I wasn't, since "123456" isn't my real name. You get the idea? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I have a huge photo of myself on my userpage, and if you go into the page history you see it was uploaded and placed on the page by the same account that did the bulk of the work on Buffalo and its districts and so forth. All of which happened years before the position even opened up. If it’s a con, it’s a long and strange one. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
My experience when mentioning hobbies like this in job interviews is that no one is trying to verify that what I'm saying is true. But if the interviewer is skeptical and wants you to prove your identity, that can be done using email or by logging in in front of them. I wouldn't worry about it.
I would suggest thinking of some examples of your best work on the wiki so that if they ask what articles you've contributed to, you'll have an answer ready. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Yes, you wouldn't have any problem. But when I wrote my comment I was talking in general. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm really grateful for everyone's opinions on this. There are replies I could write to each of you in turn, though sadly I haven't the time. But these answers are super! Thank you all, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Patrollers group[edit]

The patrollers group has the ability to mark edits as patrolled, and to use rollback. However, there are only 4 users with that right, per Special:ListUsers/patroller (and one of them, ARR8, is an administrator so they already have those abilities). Is there a desire to use this group more? If so, maybe admins should be allowed to grant and remove this permission (as opposed to only bureaucrats, as things currently stand)? Wikivoyage talk:Recent changes patrol contains a few times where that was proposed but nothing came of it. --Rschen7754 01:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I will note that admins can add/remove the template editor group, which is probably more consequential. --Rschen7754 01:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd support admins having the privilege, but I'm an admin and not a bureaucrat, so I am biased. Also, consider that if someone has the trust to patrol, they generally have trust to be administrators too — therefore, users usually go straight to admin. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd support giving admins this power. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I question the need for this group at all. In addition to the point SelfieCity made about trust, the act of patrolling edits as such is not something the community here generally bothers with. In other words, edit volume on Wikivoyage is low enough that most problematic contributions eventually get seen and followed up on by admins anyway, without any need for the intermediate step of patrollers toggling the red exclamation point on and off. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I'm wasting my time by marking anything as patrolled? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with that sentiment, and support the initiative to expand the number of patrollers. I only look at unpatrolled mainspace edits, and mark them as patrolled when I have checked them. I know I am not the only one doing this. I find it immensely helpful. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek and anyone who believes that we should mark edits as patrolled. It does no harm and helps us, whether marked by an admin or patroller. We've been doing it for years, and I don't think we should consider it a waste of time now. As for patrollers, I'm not so sure I think we should have them, but I think that point is worth discussing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that patrolling edits is a waste of time. What I am saying is that the volume of edits here by relation to the size and activity level of our admin community is such that we don't need a separate class of users who aren't admins, yet who have the power to mark edits as patrolled. In other words, SelfieCity was correct that if you're already keeping up with Recent Changes, reverting vandalism and touting, and counseling new users on mos issues, you're probably ready to be nominated for admin anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
That's at least partially what I think. I think your statement "the act of patrolling edits as such is not something the community here generally bothers with" was seen my those who commented below as meaning, "I don't support it." I think there are valid arguments on both sides. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
On this wiki, the patrollers group also has the rollback tool, so the group could be useful in that regard. --Rschen7754 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
That's true; however, currently on WV only admins and existing patrollers regularly do anti-vandal work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there consensus on this matter? I'm no longer very active here so I don't want to make that call. --Rschen7754 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rschen, I don't see anyone strongly objecting to the idea of letting admins grant and remove this right, which seems to be considered relatively unimportant. I don't know whether any admin will bother with it (and I suspect that the standard message will be "Here's the right, and now let's get you over to the admin page..."), but nobody seems to think that it needs to be restricted to buros. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving articles from an Android[edit]

I'd like to move Air sport to Skydiving per the discussion on the Talk:Air sport page, but I don't see any option for doing that on my Android, as the cellphone interface on this site still really sucks. Can any of you figure out how you'd move an article from an Android? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can cheat. Typing Special:MovePage/current-name into the search bar should take you to the right place. As for a good way to do it... Perhaps we'll find that some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, you shouldn't have to be a programmer to do this. But I'm glad someone here is. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The April Fool's article 2019: Nanotourism[edit]

Dear friends,

you're hereby all invited to contribute to this year's April Fool's Day article Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Nanotourism!

-- ϒψιλον (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know where to Nanotourism, it seems that I need to shrink myself, I have a way to go... XD--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

How to adress dissonance in values and norms?[edit]

Would the World Values Survey map be a relevant illustration?

In Respect sections and topics such as culture shock, differences in values might need to be addressed. Would parameters from the w:World Values Survey or other surveys be relevant in this case? /Yvwv (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to create stereotypes here. In the vast majority of countries, there are too many different groups to say that the country is traditional or not. Therefore, an attempt to categorize countries in this way may not be popular with some. Just a thought. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. One might be even more confused and culture shocked if the stereotypes are only true on a minority of people in a certain country. Philaweb (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are lots of ways to classify cultures on a spectrum, including individualism/collectivism, high-context/low-context, being/doing, and more. The image above gives two others. I think all of these terms are pretty abstract and technical, but sometimes they might give us hints about what would be useful to include in a "Respect" section. I've thought of trying to describe some of these differences in the Culture shock article, not sure how useful it would be. I guess we could also have a topic like Cultural differences. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Abstract is the right word. It's a result of theoretically pre-defined parameters that might or might not apply to reality. As an example, Denmark is in the Secular-Rational Values end, even though Protestantism is the state church and about 75% are members of Folkekirken (The People's Church), though only few attend service on a regular basis. Tourists might be surprised by this paradox. Philaweb (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
And some things just strike me as not seeming right about the chart (BTW, no offense, Yvwv). For example, Peru, the Philippines, Peru, and Iran are all shown in the same place. Do these countries really have so much in common? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Peru and the Philippines do have a common heritage from the Spanish Empire and the Catholic Church. And sometimes, cultures with no history in common end up with similar customs and values. To generalize the question: Should Wikivoyage make any statement at all about the norms and values in any specific country? / Yvwv (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I think so, but only to a very limited extent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: I actually use this kind of information at work.) I think this is really valuable information, but you have to bring it down to practicalities. IMO it's not so useful to say "They have survival values", but there is value in saying things like "They value taking care of their families, so you can show respect by asking after their family members" or "Don't be surprised if people boast about how much money they are earning".
As for where to put it, I usually think it would be more useful to put it in the country-level article, but then there's the question of what to use for the comparison point. For me, it's always "me vs whomever I'm trying to talk to", but more generally, I don't think that we want to have "everything vs American" in all the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree on practicality. The initial questions was: "How to adress dissonance in values and norms?". I guess the best we can do is not adress dissonance, but describe what the values and norms are, and then let the reader(s) do the math by themselves from their point of view (values and norms). Philaweb (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
In any case, this information should preferrably be written by people with broad on-site experience of these values. When it comes to the Nordic countries, I would consider to include the w:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world as an illustration. /Yvwv (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest excluding it and just describing those societies. I think a weird-looking map like that would just distract people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Ikan. If the reader knows nothing about the World Values Survey, the image does not make any sense in the context of a travel guide. Philaweb (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
What does "broad on-site experience of these values" encompass? Philaweb (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I suppose it means you should not repeat prejudices just because you have spent a week on the beach in the country in question. Perhaps Yvwv wants to elaborate. --LPfi (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That could be one definition. I found the wording ambiguous since "on-site" could also mean Wikivoyage. Philaweb (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata entry for Nogales[edit]

Does Nogales have a Wikidata entry? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've found a Wikidata function which makes finding the Wikidata entries for a WV article very easily, so I now know. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you going to share this function? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me for my laziness: the function is called Item by title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Nogales - Q230556 -- Nogales (Arizona) - Q79783 -- Nogales (Sonora) - Q990001 -- using a Module -- Matroc (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Translating the Marseillaise[edit]

So the article on Rugby football mentions the w:Marseillaise and gives a translation of the controversial line about "impure blood". Since its introduction, it has been edited twice with claims to improve the translation. Wikipedia translates the salient lines as "Let an impure blood // Water our furrows!" What should we write? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The line is both controversial and open to multiple interpretations. But the general poetic idea is that the impure blood will fertilise the soil of France, allowing a better future. With this in mind "furrow" (the grooves left by a plough) would be a more appropriate translation, however that has nothing to do with rugby. You could just expand the translation to read "field", or else find something else entirely for the caption. Incidentally, the caption is incorrect: the All Blacks' haka follows both national anthems, regardless of which side sings first.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've tweaked the caption accordingly. The point (made later in the text) was to underline the ceremonial nature of the haka. If it really was trying to scare the opposition, they should have right of reply or be free to diss it. But it's just a ceremony and no worse than the content of some national anthems. Grahamsands (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Travel and language learning Humble Bundle[edit]

https://www.humblebundle.com/software/learn-a-new-language-software Proceeds can go to the WMF if you choose them as your charity of choice. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Very cool and thanks for pointing it out. I'm debating whether to buy the $1 for 3-month subscription or $25 for one-year access to learn French. Either way, I'm picking WMF as the charity. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Under construction and In use templates[edit]

I just noticed a discussion on Ikan's talk page about edits getting lost when two users edit the same article at the same time. That reminded me of a suggestion of mine (which should probably have been posted here in the pub right away). In short: Wikipedia has two templates for articles that are undergoing major edits:w:Template:Under construction (for a longer time) and w:Template:In use (for an hour or so). Would it maybe be useful to import these templates here too, to avoid situations like above? -- ϒψιλον (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So basically, this would tell other users not to edit the article for a while? Definitely I'd agree we should include w:Template:In use but I'm not sure we need the other one. But I'm not opposed to having it here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Bad idea, just something else only those who know can use, and something to forget to remove later. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that we need these templates.
However, people who are less familiar with the edit-conflict system might want to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and enable "Two column edit conflict". You can read more about that at mw:Help:Two Column Edit Conflict View. Although I'm used to the old way, this is supposed to be better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Often you can just redo your changes in the new version or save yours and incorporate the other changes. Or save yours, undo, and ask for help. This should be noted somewhere in newbie instructions. It gets complicated when two or more editors are doing some restructuring at the same time, but that tends to happen only in situations that could be foreseen and avoided (not necessarily by newbies though). Instead of using the template you could wait with your changes until the article has been left in peace for some time, or use the talk page. --LPfi (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The default is to discard your changes, so remember that the edit-conflict page has lots of stuff underneath what's showing at the top.
The other typical workaround is to copy-and-paste your changes to a separate file (like a blank e-mail message), and then try to reconstruct it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The most frustrating case is where you have been doing a lot of editing all over the article and before you save someone comes along and restructures it. A copy of your version says little to help you and the diff of the edit conflict not much more. You need a diff between you version and the previous one, which requires you to save your version somewhere on-site, and the new version (in a separate tab or window) to find the context where to redo your changes. If you save your version anywhere but in the article history (temporarily overwriting the new version) you need to construct the diff URL or Special:Diff address manually, using the permalink oldurl= numbers: [[Special:Diff/old/new]] or [https://whatever?oldurl=old&diff=new]. Another approach is to copy your version, paste it into a fresh edit window and then mirror the changes until your version matches the current article structure. This might be easier, but it gets messy if you miss some paragraph splits, sentence moves or similar. --LPfi (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Joke article on the Main page[edit]

I can't remember what we did last year, but I assume normally the joke article only goes on the main page for April 1. I think we ought to leave it up for a few days, perhaps through April 3, so that more people can see it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the desire of folks who worked on the April Fool's article to have that work prominently showcased. But we are a travel guide, not a comedy site. Common scams is an article that an equal amount of work was put into and that's actually useful for travellers, and it's getting screwed out of one of its 30 days on the Main Page as it is, which is already kind of not fair to its authors. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, even if I love the April Fool's article tradition, I think we should just feature it one day. It's, in a way, the whole point with the April Fool's articles. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
One day is perfect; any more totally misses the point of April Fool's Day (and where I'm from, the foolery is only allowed before midday, so the extra twelve hours is already pushing it 😀). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
We do have editors (and readers) at least from New Zealand to California, though, so 24 hours is a good period of time to make sure everyone gets to see the joke article for at least a few hours on the right day... ;) -- ϒψιλον (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that it should be shown for the whole of 1 April in whatever country somebody is reading it. From Time zones this appears to be about 50 hours, although the extremes have small populations. It should be visible to somebody having an early breakfast in Auckland on 1 April until those in Hawaii are going to bed at midnight. I know that the foolery should end at noon on 1 April, but let people share it throughout the day. This means showing it from about noon UTC on 31 March until noon on 2 April. AlasdairW (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No need to waste our front page traffic on jokes any longer than necessary, IMO. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
April is only 30 days long, so even if we didn't observe April Fool's Day at all, its DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs would already be starting out at a one-day deficit compared to how long most features get to bask in the limelight. Take the one day away that we already take and we're down to 29. I think placing a joke article on the Main Page for April Fool's Day is a little bit silly and overly self-indulgent, but ultimately mostly harmless, especially since Wikipedia and presumably other WMF sites have the same tradition. But anything more than 0:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC) through 0:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC) is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. Our mission is to serve the traveller, not to goof around. And, again, folks have put in a lot of work making Common scams into a quality article for real-life travellers to use in planning their real-life travels, so it should get as close to a full term on the Main Page as possible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Andre - it should only be for the 24 hours of 1 April UTC, as we don't extend DOTMs or other serious articles to cater for different time zones. On the other hand, I am decidedly more positive to the concept of having an AFD article; I like the tradition, and wish it to continue. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear here, I'm not so much against the concept of the joke article as I am against the fact that it comes at the expense of our bona fide featured content. If there were a way to restructure our observance of April Fool's Day such that that's not an issue, my concerns would be fully assuaged. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
As the DotM, I agree with Andre and others: 24 hours is appropriate. As a Featured Event, a longer stay on the Main Page could make sense, but that would give it lower profile that as DotM. Ground Zero (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What if we created a separate carousel, below the normal main page carousel, where we display the joke article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Or have a note that reads something like, "Happy April Fool's! For this month's featured article, see..." and leave up the joke for 48 hours (since a calendar day actually does stretch across 48 hours, globally). —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the ideal solution would be some kind of script that decides what to show the reader based on what time zone they're in, but I don't know if that's technically feasible.
Barring that, I think the current system is pretty good—the fake content replaces our usual real content on the main page (which is the way online April Fool's jokes usually work). It's impossible to make it stay up for all and only April Fool's Day for all readers, but I think doing it for 24 hours following UTC is a good compromise. It does reduce the amount of time for real featured articles, but only by about 3%, which is the same effect that the difference between a 30-day month and a 31-day month has. In fact, March has 31 days, so for otbp and ftt we could think of this lost day as making up for the extra day in March. (Not that I think we need to do such exact accounting—24 hours is a very small fraction of the month, so not worth worrying about too much.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer no more than 24 hours, and possibly less. Starting at, say, 4:00 UTC and ending at 23:59 UTC seems like enough to me. I'm thinking that any earlier than that doesn't really feel like April Fool's Day yet. It feels more like "I can't believe I stayed up so late". Also, +1 to the excellent suggestion to provide at least a small link to the regular featured article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
04:00 UTC is 17:00 NZDT in Auckland, and 17:45 on the Chatham Islands, which is getting close to "time for dinner", and New Zealand takes April Fools "seriously". When considering how long the serous article will be "away" bear in mid that there are rarely suggestions that an article must be featured in March rather than February so as to get an extra 3 days. AlasdairW (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nanotourism[edit]

For the curious, this year's article: Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Nanotourism. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, also vote for your favorite banner at Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles/Nanotourism! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Should the article (and the banner) be up now? I already saw companies launching their April Fools Day posts on social media over the past few hours. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Nope, it goes up at midnight UTC. That's in just over 4 hours. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Though we weren't able to come to a consensus in the discussion about the joke feature (both in terms of the length of time it should stay on the Main Page and provisions to mitigate its effects on our real-life features) in time to avoid status quo bias dictating what happened on April Fools Day 2019, I absolutely think we should continue them and use the conclusions to guide us on how to proceed next year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about possibilities for next year but it's actually not easy to think of something that will interest a wide range of contributors but also be a good situation for a joke article. (Thinking along the lines of how sitcoms work, etc.) An article about a pretend ghost town, for example, would provide a good situation and for many Americans would work well, but people in most of the rest of the world have no familiarity with the subject. A possibility would be something along the lines of Travel as a miser which most people could contribute to, to varying degrees of knowledge if you see what I mean.
Brexit, which was mentioned last year, could be quite funny, but I'm not sure if a political topic is the best idea. (Anyway, it's hard to know yet how it will turn out, so we probably shouldn't decide to do that topic until we know what Brexit is like — if it ever happens — and its economic impact.) Apologies for thinking so early about joke articles, but you get my idea.
If we decided to do a political topic for the joke article, perhaps a historical political situation would be better, like East Berlin which was done in 2017. Probably a sarcastic, negative article about a place would be funny since it goes against everything we're about (WV:Avoid negative reviews, for example). It's just hard to think of a topic that's appropriate in such a way — most places for which writing a negative review makes sense are bad in some ways that are not funny.
In case anyone didn't already know, I wrote a lot of the content in the nanotourism article even though it's not my favorite topic or one I know too well. Those who originally supported the topic, in the end didn't put a lot of work into it. (Which is fine, we didn't have much time to write it and therefore most of it was written quite quickly.) Sorry for saying so many random thoughts that come into my head, but I think these are some things that might help.
Many of the past travel topics (to some extent, including this one) are about complete fantasy and I think it might be better next year if we don't go in that direction again. It gets to complete silliness but isn't genuinely funny. But it's hard to write something, on the spot, that's genuinely funny without having a set of characters, etc.
A thought that just came to me is, what if we did an article that was a parody of something else, like a film or book. Perhaps a book would be the best choice, since films and TV shows are more risky in terms of familiarity and popularity. Book characters like Don Quixote and Christian of Pilgrim's Progress seem like they would work quite well in a joke article.
That's all I've got for now --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Something about death and taxes would be pretty universal. Having an appointment with Death is one of the oldest known stories, and it involves a sudden trip. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Traveling with pets#Transport — in particular, the "Laika" picture — might give some inspiration — to be clear, not about appointments with death, but about joke articles for next year! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry that I keep coming up with ideas here, but what about something along the lines of Travel in the 2010s, talking about it as if it were primitive? Going into the 2020s, something celebrating the new decade might be worth considering. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    I like the idea, although I do not know whether it is viable. One could write it as if new trends were already dominating and include things obsolete already in the late 2010s. --LPfi (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe something about "driving" your fellow travelers crazy. It could be a small region: "Wall" (which is uphill from the others), "Crazy", "Nuts", "Mad", etc. One of these will have to be at the end of a bend in the road ("that whining is going to drive me round the bend"), and another will have to be at the end of a twisty road ("driving me round the twist"). ==Talk== will naturally include important local phrases, such as "Are we there yet?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Views[edit]

  • Nanotourism's period as FTT brought its total views since early March to about 1,700 views; while this may seem like a lot, there were more views when the article was being worked on the most than there were views when the article was featured. Therefore, I doubt that many people looked at the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There were 235 page views on April 1st (UTC). That's almost twice the daily page views that Istanbul is getting now, and significantly more than Siem Reap had. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Brainstorm[edit]

I've been thinking, and considering it all I think we ought to think about whether we do a joke article next year, and if so, how we can make it significantly better than how it was done this year. It should be considered, "are joke articles worth the effort?", etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Any commitments / agreements made by editors now can't possibly be guaranteed to be fulfilled in a year's time. None of us can even guarantee we'll even be here one year from now (I for one intend to be, but that's beside the point). I agree with the principle of holding this discussion, but suggest it be deferred for at least six months.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

New shortcuts and Toledo Settlement[edit]

I have added a couple new shortcuts which can be found at WV:Shortcuts. These include collaboration for our Collaboration of the month and choosebanner for Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions. Hopefully, these will come in handy.

Also, as we work to bring down the number of default page banners for regions, I have suggested merging Toledo Settlement into Toledo (Belize). Thanks for reading! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be better to delete these shortcuts per the arguments at w:Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. The existing ones are grandfathered in, but it is best we avoid making new ones. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I see. I'm sorry, I didn't know about that. What do you think about Toledo Settlement though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I'll delete them while they're not in use yet.
I haven't looked at Toledo yet; I'll do so now. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I've also removed the names of those from WV:Shortcuts. There's also dotm banners but I added that one some time ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

April cotmRio de Janeiro[edit]

Rio de Janeiro is of the best-known tourist destinations in the world, yet our Wikivoyage article on the city is mediocre, with many listings not where they should be. So this month is dedicated to organizing the article and perhaps even getting it up to guide status.

More details can be found at the Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

URL shortener for the Wikimedia projects will be available on April 11th[edit]

Hello all,

Having a service providing short links exclusively for the Wikimedia projects is a community request that came up regularly on Phabricator or in community discussions.

After a common work of developers from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany, we are now able to provide such a feature, it will be enabled on April 11th on Meta.

What is the URL Shortener doing?

The Wikimedia URL Shortener is a feature that allows you to create short URLs for any page on projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, in order to reuse them elsewhere, for example on social networks or on wikis.

The feature can be accessed from Meta wiki on the special page m:Special:URLShortener. (will be enabled on April 11th). On this page, you will be able to enter any web address from a service hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, to generate a short URL, and to copy it and reuse it anywhere.

The format of the URL is w.wiki/ followed by a string of letters and numbers. You can already test an example: w.wiki/3 redirects to wikimedia.org.

What are the limitations and security measures?

In order to assure the security of the links, and to avoid shortlinks pointing to external or dangerous websites, the URL shortener is restricted to services hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes for example: all Wikimedia projects, Meta, Mediawiki, the Wikidata Query Service, Phabricator. (see the full list here)

In order to avoid abuse of the tool, there is a rate limit: logged-in users can create up to 50 links every 2 minutes, and the IPs are limited to 10 creations per 2 minutes.

Where will this feature be available?

In order to enforce the rate limit described above, the page Special:URLShortener will only be enabled on Meta. You can of course create links or redirects to this page from your home wiki.

The next step we’re working on is to integrate the feature directly in the interface of the Wikidata Query Service, where bit.ly is currently used to generate short links for the results of the queries. For now, you will have to copy and paste the link of your query in the Meta page.

Documentation and requests

Thanks a lot to all the developers and volunteers who helped moving forward with this feature, and making it available today for everyone in the Wikimedia projects! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Neat idea! Useful if you want to email a link to an article you've written. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Something I've never seen before[edit]

Today I'm noticing a horizontal line like this:


at the top of every page on Wikivoyage, whether there's a title or not. Is this a design touch that's been added? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm seeing it too, someone has changed something somewhere during the last 24 hours. ϒψιλον (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It's an improvement that has moved the 'edit lede' button from next to the page title (which in WV's case was in the banner itself, which looked messy) to above it, separated by that line. Of course, you will only notice this a change if you had already enabled "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" under the 'Gadgets' tab on 'Preferences'. If there are other benefits to the switch, I haven't noticed them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have that enabled, so no wonder things seemed a little odd! I'll get it enabled, though, sounds useful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I have now found that opening the visual editor isn't working as it should, so I disabled the gadget and now it seems to be working. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This is supposed to be fixed now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Southern Rock Tour[edit]

Wondering if there has been some traveling routes suggested that focus on Southern Rock and maybe even music events, e.g. as festivals or similar. I would expect such route to be in Southern United States. --Ppso (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

WV:Plunge forward. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you're not sure how to plunge forward, you could simply add a suggestion that someone with more knowledge on this topic start it, by adding it to Requested articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
From User talk:Ppso I gather that the user is not intending to write about the topic, but rather find out information about it, and therefore I think the Tourist office is probably the best place for research and discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the swift response. My issue here seems solved and the Tourist office contacted. --Ppso (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

T-shirt awards[edit]

Hi, everyone! Does anyone know if there are still spare Wikipedia shirts to give to people who are nominated for their great work? If so, how would I nominate someone for such a shirt? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The only way I know of is meta:Merchandise giveaways. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Brunei owned Hotels (review inclusion)?[edit]

Given https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-47824896 (and the TripAdvisor actions), Should Wikivoyage review whether it's fair to the traveller to include the affected hotels and venues? I appreciate that generally Wikivoyage has not taken any political position on certain issues. The updated legal code in Brunei is already noted in that countries article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage cannot take part in boycotts, because there would be no end to them and it would destroy a collectively-authored travel guide. We have guides to countries engaging in genocidal behavior. Moreover, Brunei is far from the only country that persecutes LGBT people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
We could of course add a note to those hotel listings, saying they are under boycott for this reason, and leave to the traveller to draw any conclusions. I think many readers would be sad if they stayed there and only afterwords heard they were owned by the sultan. I hope we make this kind of things clear in the relevant country articles (Saudi Arabia, Israel, ...), and if major hotel chains are under boycott for good reasons we should mention it in Hotels or some other suitable article. --LPfi (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Ikan Kekek's comment. We can mention the boycotts if we want, but I'm not sure it would set a good precedent. While I agree that the new laws are terrible, there are lots of boycotts all the time, and lots of countries that persecute homosexuality. The attention on Brunei will die down like these things (unfortunately) always do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I support mentioning the boycott. It's information for travellers, which is what a travel guide is about. Taking out the hotel information would be high-handed of us. It's not our place to make that decision for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I am just wondering where to draw the line on boycotts. What boycotts should be mentioned? Is Wikivoyage a travel guide in English or is it a travel guide defending socalled western values in English? Can someone add values that does not coincide with the mainstream values represented by Wikivoyage? I am just wondering out loud. Philaweb (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest that this discussion is something like the flip side of the discussion at Talk:Xinjiang#Fake news, where it was posited that a systematic campaign of repression against Muslims in Xinjiang is "not exactly travel relevant", which doesn't make sense to me when you consider the fact that a Muslim traveler such as this one can be very much affected by the Chinese government's reported forceful denial of the rights of Uighurs to fast during Ramadan, making them eat pork, etc. My feeling is that the hotel chains in question should be neutrally described as owned by the Sultan of Brunei, period. Anyone who wants to know more will have to look it up. And no, I don't think this site should be about "defending so-called Western values". It's a travel guide. Human rights are universal values, and their denial can affect travelers, either directly or in the atmosphere within or at points of entry in a country, but actually advocating boycotts is a step way too far. We can do that in our own time off-site, if we like. Or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with mentioning nothing more than ownership for the reasons given. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Ikan Kekek. Just want to add: None mentioned, none forgotten – when it comes to boycotts. If we mention one, we should mention them all, for fairness sake. And we do not want to open up for that particular can of worms. Philaweb (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I like the suggestion of focusing on the traveler's experience. A temporary labor strike at a hotel is almost always going to be worth mentioning, because it could be noisy/dirty/unpleasant, even though that creates a lot of extra work for us (someone needs to check back every few days to find out whether it's been resolved yet). A request from people who live in a different country to not stay at a hotel because they're trying to punish the owner for his bad behavior? It's harder to see how that affects the traveler directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Does Brunei own any hotels outside of their own country (pardon me for my lack of research on this topic)? I'm just thinking if there was (and there probably has been somewhere along the way) a boycott of Trump hotels, for example, there would be great challenges in trying to identify all the businesses in such a large network. Speaking of boycotts, there are also boycotts of w:Dick's Sporting Goods (they've added comparatively severe — severe compared to how things were at the company and severe considering half or more of the U.S. holds very strongly to the 2nd Amendment — restrictions on gun sales, causing the boycott) and there have been near-boycotts at Target, also (over their bathrooms/gender issues). In the case of Target and Dick's, finding every mention we have for these stores and including that there is a boycott or that there are concerns would be a COTM-level task. If the boycott turns into headlines in the U.S. news, for any of these issues, it may be worth posting, but otherwise, we're talking about one boycott in many. And remember, while Brunei's new laws may sound shocking in the current age, throughout history and especially in countries following Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, laws against these kinds of practices were common — perhaps they weren't dealt with in the same way that Brunei's dealing with them, but still, laws closely restricting social behavior to religious standards have not been abnormal in the past, especially in states with strong religious ties. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the boycott affects many hotels outside Brunei, see Celebrities Boycott Sultan of Brunei’s Hotels as Anti-Gay Law Goes Into Effect. I'd say mentioning that in listings for the hotels is worthwhile.
On the other hand, I agree with Ikan that "Wikivoyage cannot take part in boycotts", if only because it would be almost impossible to choose which ones. I can make a pretty good case for boycotting Israel, for example, but many would disagree & some would argue for a boycott on various anti-Israel countries. We definitely do not need to have those arguments here. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell, a good case could be made for boycotting the U.S.! Nope, we definitely need not to go there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that we need to cover the impact on the traveller. I have seen photos of people protesting outside one of these hotels in California, but I doubt that this is regular enough to be worth mentioning. However if the boycott lasts months it may mean that the hotels have to drop their prices. The hotels may also have difficulty attracting bands to play in the bar or less likely in getting supplies or workers. AlasdairW (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Good points, but I think we should wait and see whether any of these things come to pass before mentioning them in listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Static map[edit]

I uploaded to Commons a static map today for Pleasanton, but what do you guys think about whether it should replace the existing dynamic map or not? (It's coming up as OTBP.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, not until you add all the points of interest that are on the dynamic map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was already resolved that dynamic maps are preferred for bottom-level destinations, and that while we would leave preexisting static maps in place for as long as they remain reasonably up to date, a static map should never replace a dynamic one in a BLD. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it can if it's better and there's a user who clearly has every intention of updating it when necessary, but this is not a case in which the static map is at this point superior to the dynamic map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I don't have to post it on Wikivoyage at all, which I don't mind doing if that's our conclusion, or I can place the static map somewhere lower in the article, like "get around" and show it just as a road map. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The map is seems to be useless for tourism in that city, IMO. Even hardly useful for navigation... If there were at least some landmarks included (in addition to the water area), perhaps it could be an overview map. But looking at the number of POIs, it's hardly possible to create a one good static map (unless it's really big). -- andree.sk(talk) 12:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we create an "island" template?[edit]

For relatively small islands that are neither cities nor regions. We would need outlineisland, usableisland, etc. Many of these island articles have in the past been region articles but have then been changed to "cities". Neither quite fits the description. Therefore, a new "island" category may make things easier. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but people will be confused about why larger islands like Madagascar, Greenland, Sumatra or even Long Island don't use it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we should focus on function, rather than nomenclature. The city template works well where the article covers the whole island; the region template works where there are two or more cities on the island. No island template would work well in both circumstances.
We do use the city template for towns, villages, hamlets, counties and regional municipalities, and we use the region template for districts, counties, regional municipalities, provinces, states, rayons and oblasts. Ground Zero (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
My intention is for the island template to be used for articles about the whole island, not for regions. It could also be called "small island". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Anticosti is not a small island, yet because of it's very low population, it has only one article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't find where the previous discussions have been swept or archived to but many editors have mentioned that the region/city hierarchy doesn't always work for sparsely populated rural regions and islands. In theory, as per above, the bottom-level article should always be a "city" (or a district) but there were many examples provided where this wasn't the case. Gizza (roam) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is Wikivoyage:Destination guides to rural areas, but I also cannot find the discussion on island template, which we have had before. Problem with sweeping to different places. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a very complicated question, like Green Island itself is a township, should it put a city template or an island template? and it is necessary to find out the islands of these hanging city template, I think this is a very complicated problem.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
In natural and human geography, continental islands are not inherently different from mainland. In some cases (Södertörn) it is not clear whether a geographic region is an island or not; and in other cases (Sylt) it is periodically part of the mainland. Small islands without the minimum number of venues can usually be described as part of an archipelago (Stockholm archipelago, Smålandsfarvandet) or a mainland region. /Yvwv (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The word city as used by this template should not be take too literally. It is basically the bottom of the destination's breadcrumb hierarchy. Can be a small settlement, and island, a rural area and also a city. There was a discussion some years ago about a different word but I do not think any consensus was achieved for a rename. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
If people really have difficulty with the idea that a destination could use the city format without actually technically/legally "a city", then I think we have two reasonable approaches:
  1. Tell people that if they're confused, the whole list is at Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates#What are all the possible section names that can be in a destination article, and their correct order?, and they should use whichever items seem relevant.
  2. Rename "City" to "Bottom-level destination". If you just can't stand the idea of copying a list of section headings out of the "Small city article template", then maybe you'd be happier copying it from the "Small bottom-level destination article template". Either way, the point is to get the correct list of section headings, no matter what page (if any) you copy them from.
w:en:Continents#Number might be interesting reading. Since we live in a world in which people cannot even agree how many continents exist, I think that an effort to "correctly" label all the island articles is beyond hopeless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Attractions map[edit]

The attractions map that I saw at Backpackers(Taiwanese travel forum site), It is the location of the person and the surrounding listing. When the traveler clicks on the placemark(listing), the listing of the placemark will be listed Information; I think this will be a good feature.

I think Wikivoyage can emulate this, the purpose is to make it easier for travelers to find nearby attractions.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you tried Special:Nearby? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have use it. Backpackers have show to map and listing.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Travel topics[edit]

Recently some issues have come up over various travel topics and their relevance to this wiki. It's to do with a broad sweep of travel topics that were mostly created around 2015 that have been expanded but, apparently, are not considered anymore to be very travel relevant.

A lot of them are historical, but not all of them. See Wildlife photography, Ancient Egypt, Music, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, etc. They have grown at various amounts, depending on whether editors tried to turn them into quality articles, just salvage them from being stubs, or left them alone completely.

I'd rather see most of these be kept and allowed, but I think the most important thing is that we make an ultimate decision on whether or not we keep these; otherwise, there's a lot of work going into these articles that gets wasted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The four articles you've listed are very different from each other; I don't think we need a one-size-fits-all decision for what to do with them. Better to evaluate each on its own merits. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
But they're all travel topics, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. If the question here is, "Should Wikivoyage continue to have travel topic articles?", my answer is a firm "yes". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I don't recall discussion about any of these. The discussion was about one individual article, created today, not in 2015, over at Talk:Ancient Israel.
Although I see there was also some discussion about Ancient Egypt, over at User talk:Mx. Granger.
Either way, it's not relevant here. None of these topics have anything in common. What I see here is a disingenous attempt to drown out legitimate complaints about bad, travel-irrelevant articles by associating them with actually-good articles, rather than arguing an article's merits to find the best solution for the site. No one suggested a global travel topic policy, and no one mentioned those articles.
This was not done in good faith and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth, frankly. I hope I'm badly mistaken. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are. Further explanation coming shortly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't support merging Ancient Egypt with Egypt. The borders don't correspond, like many historical regions, civilisations and empires. I imagine it's the same with Israel. Gizza (roam) 03:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It is the same with Israel. Some Jewish tribes had land on the East Bank (at least, that is the tradition - I don't know how much history or archeology is behind it), and there certainly are important Jewish sites in the West Bank, for instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Since I created the mentioned articles (except Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) I feel obliged to reply. Wikivoyage is (and The Other Site was) overall an experimental project without precedent. It is difficult to know which projects will be useful. Some travel topics (such as historical travel and music) might be useful as portals for more elaborate travel topics. /Yvwv (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, many of the travel topics in categories such as historical travel and fiction tourism are well-developed; some have been featured. The four examples above are not representative. /Yvwv (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A message to editors[edit]

Dear fellow editors,

From now on, I have decided that I am only going to do administrative work on this project, and perhaps some work on articles, like city articles, where I know that my work will not be deleted. After all, I’m an administrator, and the primary job of an administrator is a different kind of work than regular contributing.

The way I feel is that I cannot, and will not, contribute to a project or wiki where my contributions are deleted, or removed in some other way. Since I see Wikivoyage as a way of presenting my work, and showing it to the public, I see deletion of that same material as a complete waste of time, and effort, on my part. Honestly, I’m tired of seeing my hard work get removed completely, on one or two people’s basis that it’s not “travel relevant,” and somehow these people see efforts to improve a wiki, or to have clear discussion about what we should or shouldn’t do, as “not good faith” and “leaving a bad taste in my mouth.”

It has been said that such controversial articles can be merged, but I know that’s not practical. What will happen is that most content will simply be removed in the merge process, again resulting in work being deleted. The result is absolutely no value of the individuals who write the articles, and no value of the articles themselves. It’s not human. Unilateral decisions like one contributor writing, “the work [of creating this article] shouldn’t continue” completely go against the foundational principles of wiki sites in general.

If a wiki doesn’t value its contributors, it should not expect to grow.

This is not meant as an attempt to attack Wikivoyage, but just a decision I’ve made because of a very limited number of contributors (to be exact, most of the time one) who create an appearance of good faith but actually don’t seem to have the interests of the website’s growth in mind. In particular, this user and I can’t contribute together if we don’t believe each other’s intentions are made in good faith.

I thank many of the website’s contributors who’ve helped me become a better contributor and human being. They’ve defended me often and helped me get to where I am. Unfortunately, I’ve done the same kinds of things to others, like welcoming users, making admin nominations (well, only one, really), etc. and the fruits of these labours have not been productive; in fact, they’ve worked against my interests and, in my opinion, those of this Project.

I believe there are some among us who, though they act like they are the same as the rest of us, may be wolves in sheep’s clothing. They do not have the same motivations and loyalties as the rest of us do, but are determined to enforce their views, which may or may not be in our best interests, upon the rest of us. Just because someone appears to be civilized, does not mean that they are with us. Do not let those past individuals, who wrote offensive messages in all caps, become a stereotype for all problem users. There could be more sophisticated, yet still troublesome, individuals in our midst.

In all, I hope for the best in Wikivoyage. I hope that Wikivoyage doesn’t get undermined by those who don’t have its best interests in mind. Therefore, I’m going to try to take a different role, so I don’t have to combat those whose methods and motives are too complex for me, and so I’m not in a role where I cannot be sure that my work is preserved. I see it as very important, personally, that the material I post on Wikivoyage remains on Wikivoyage, not necessarily as I originally wrote it, but that it stays up there. If that’s not possible, then I can’t contribute here.

Thanks for understanding.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: I plan to still work on page banners, talk page discussions, and some COTMs—just those larger-scale contributions I plan to stop making. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Contribute wherever you are comfortable. I've seen some good stuff from you & nothing awful, though I have not followed closely. I want to encourage you.
But "I cannot, and will not, contribute to a project or wiki where my contributions are deleted, or ..." does not work. I've sometimes deleted or rewritten other people's text; that is how wikis work. I've been on the receiving end as well:
I've had a whole article that was mostly my writing deleted, despite my defense of it. See Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2013#Marriage_in_China
Recently I've had what I think was useful text taken out of an article for reasons I consider nonsense; see Talk:Philippines#Prostitution. I plan to continue that discussion ar Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy, just have not got around to it yet.
It is difficult, but you have to learn to live with such things. Pashley (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
SelfieCity, it's really not acceptable for you to impugn the motives of other excellent users, just because they disagree with you. I forget where I read this, but somewhere, there is or used to be a note saying something like "Do not edit this site unless you consent to having your work be deleted, completely rephrased, moved or disfigured in any number of ways". We're all volunteers, so participate however you feel like, but I hope you will be able to achieve a little distance and put some of this indignance behind you. No-one's contributions are inherently inviolable or immune from deletion or disfiguring edits on a Wiki, and being an admin in no way privileges your edits over anyone else's. You just have been trusted with certain tools other users have not or not yet been entrusted with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: I'm sorry to lose your contributions to articles. I understand that disputes with particular editors can be frustrating -- I have an ongoing dispute with a long-time editor who reverts my edits without providing a reason and without being willing to discuss the edits. But that is part of life in a collaborative project, and I encourage you to look at this as an opportunity to develop your skills in dealing with difficult people. I have to echo Ikan Kekek's and Pashley's comments: your contributions, their contributions and my contributions will be edited. And sometimes they will be deleted. That is how a wiki differs from a blog. No blog is ever going to provide information as comprehensive and up-to-date as Wikivoyage. That's why I use it and contribute to it. I hope that you will reconsider. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, guys. As I touched upon a little in my letter, I'll do some work on city articles where, while the content may be edited, it is unlikely to be outright deleted. So, for example, city and park articles in California will still get some of my edits. But I'm no longer going to work on those long-scale projects, especially on travel topics. Maybe that makes my stance a little clearer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Your contributions have been valuable. It is sad to see users quit over conflicts. I hope that these kinds of disagreements can get resolved in the future. /Yvwv (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Although this is an awkward moment to introduce this, I strongly recommend that anyone who cares about our wikis read meatball:GoodBye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I am familiar with that document, but it's important that I clarify that I'm not leaving: I'm simply changing my role. I have also deleted User:SelfieCity/Projects and other content of mine to make it clear that I really do plan to go ahead with what I'm saying. Those who are sorry to me go, it is entirely their decision to say that. Thanks, though, for mentioning the document; I agree that it's very related to what's going on, and I think contributors should be familiar with it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Scuba diving[edit]

This is a general shout for anyone who knows about scuba-diving, or who doesn't know much but is interested in the topic, to weigh in on the relevant pages. A few of us are trying to overhaul the top-level page Scuba diving, and see its "Talk" page for rationale. It's going to need a lot more of us, whether on that page, on "Scuba diving in XXX" where such pages exist, on individual city pages for diving destinations, and listings for specific sites and operators. Outsiders, rookies, casual but experienced divers and true experts will all have something they can bring to this. Grahamsands (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Just checking, have you got Peter Southwood involved? He's our resident diving expert.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I am there, Fully support this request. We need fresh perspectives. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Travel topic: Saving time Time management[edit]

I just started an experimental travel topic for saving time. Please contribute with hints and opinions. /Yvwv (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Yvwv: Thanks for seeking consensus on this. In my opinion, some of the advice so far is good (like the hint that novice travelers often do not plan itineraries very well) but some is fairly wv:obvious (like "flying is the fastest way to travel long distances" or "fast food is the fastest way to get fed"). I think the article would be improved with more of the former, of course, but also less of the latter. I recognize that some of the obvious advice is helpful for wikilinks or having something to put in a section, though, but I'm not sure it would help a reader very much. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Article is now named time management. /Yvwv (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Never understand the reason for keep creating trave topics that have not valuable content. This is all wv:obvious stuff. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There might be a deeper meaning to some of those trave topics, since we all are different and some people need things to be explicit. Anyway, the article could be an optimizer or checklist for inexperienced travelers to see if they missed something. I know people that get pretty stressed before they travel, even though they are very experienced travelers, and some of them need to have a checklist to minimize their anxiety. Philaweb (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, we have a travel basics article which I started as an article for Captain Obvious stuff to help readers who have little travel experience. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The Captain Obvious policy is, ironically, not very obvious. Implicitly it says that articles in the geographic hierarchy (countries, cities etc) should not contain advice which is not dependent on location. Travel topics develop over time, and are by nature experimental, as Wikivoyage hasn't really had any precedent for what an open-source digital guidebook should be like. The time management article has already a lot of information which is far from trivial. /Yvwv (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Template overkill?[edit]

It seems that in the last few months and years, without ever consciously taking that decision, we've moved towards using more and more templates, with the EUR template just the latest example. While they all individually have pretty clear upsides, I worry that they may in the long run reduce the accessibility of editing WV, particularly on mobile. If we want to live with that downside, we should at the very least consciously decide to do so, not just die the death of the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling water. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: Thanks for bringing this up; I was waiting for someone to do so as I plunged forward and began converting prices to use currency templates.
The way I see it, I agree on the upsides of inline templates, and I've given the downsides some thought. I don't think usability for editing would be impacted; new content can be added the old way, without templates, and then somebody else can put the templates in afterwards. I certainly wouldn't support a change in policy requiring the templates to be used by editors, but I would support language encouraging their use for experienced editors.
I've taken some measures to prevent some of the other downsides - for example, having one template used by many pages makes it a vandalism target, so I went ahead and semi-protected {{PHP}}, with which I replaced the majority of mentions of the Philippine peso. I've also changed the currency templates to support ranges with a dash, so that it would be easier to add them without looking it up, like {{convert}} requires you to do.
I would very much like to hear any argument against the use of these inline templates. I think many of the downsides may be addressed with some edits to the templates, and I think these sorts of templates overall can really enhance the usability of the site for readers. This is also a good way to deploy accessible code for screenreaders across the site, such as was discussed recently here for words in foreign languages. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Having worked on a number of different wikis, it is my opinion that:
  • The fewer templates used on a wiki, the better. You can use the same template a million times, but let's not have a million templates used once each.
  • The simpler the template, the better. It should be easy to figure out how to use it. For example, {{eur|1}} is going to be better than {{currency|1|€|1.13|$|0.86|£}}.
  • For wikis that are still growing content, templates should be used to save us work. So, for example, if this template means that we don't have to go back and update the currency conversion rates in hundreds of articles every few months, then this is good. If, on the other hand, the main effect was to save me the trouble of figuring out how to type a € from a US keyboard – well, we might have a template, but I might also suggest that this template should be automagically subst:d back out of the articles, to leave only the € character.
If I were going to suggest an enhancement that would both provide more information to readers and be easy for editors, it's that it might be possible to use this conversion approach automagically within the listings, when the listing content for |price= contains only numbers/ranges. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the concern about templates discouraging new editors from contributing, and we need more editors. But I have also created a bunch of templates that have saved me a lot of time and effort in updating currency exchange rates in country and subnational jurisdiction articles. Beyond saving time in updating euro exchange rates in one template instead of in the 34 articles in which it is used, Template:Exchange rate euros also ensures that readers see one set of euro exchange rates in Wikivoyage, rather than different rates that have been updated at different times. Template:Exchange rate EC, Template:Exchange rate CFA, Template:Exchange rate US, Template:Exchange rate GBP, and Template:Exchange rate NZD do the same for these other currencies that are used in many countries and jurisdictions (the East Carribean $, the CFA franc, the US$, the UK £, and the New Zealand $). I believe that these templates are justified. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
templates seem marvellous for saving the time of editors, but I personally have no idea how to use them. Not all travellers are technically savvy and the tutorials for wikimarkup read like a maths textbook.

If wikivoyage becomes harder to edit I suspect fewer people will contribute. Templates cause me considerable headaches because I edit on mobile and it's easy to mess them up. —The preceding comment was added by Billbarrelrider (talkcontribs)

These are some of the reasons this site had been opposed to template creep in the first place. Does it not give any of the supporters any pause? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that we should have unlimited templates, and I don't think you're saying we should have no templates. So it really comes down to determining which templates are useful enough to have, and which should be deleted, i.e., on a case-by-case basis. What do you propose? Ground Zero (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the important point to restate is that new users or those who find them difficult to enter can simple add readable text and other will come along later and edit the format. Templates, whether the standard See and Sleep listings, or more general ones like {{km}} help with keeping a constant format across all articles, as well as a method to facilitate easier mass updates and improvements. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What to do with listings that span articles[edit]

Specifically, I'm cleaning up and adding content to Huaraz, Caraz and Huascarán National Park. What I'm running into is certain listings (like Laguna Parón, Laguna 69... etc) are located in the park, but it's common to visit them via tours from Huaraz or Caraz.

More generally, what's the best way to organize listings that could be included in multiple articles while minimizing duplication (descriptions, pricing) while still having visibility. My thought is to have more general information in the Park article (this is what it is / why you should care / specific things you should know once you are there) and then the specific details for getting there in the city articles (this is how much a tour costs out of this town). However, this is bad for people who only have an offline city article because it may be missing details that they care about. It's also a bit of a challenge to write the city listing descriptions with the proper level of description and without copy-pasting the content between city articles.

Are there any articles that have examples of how to address this?

Muddyhikers (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and unfortunately for you, it's a situation where policy doesn't speak unequivocally. I've long been of the opinion that our policy against duplicating listings across multiple articles should be loosened in certain cases (see Talk:Buffalo#Delaware Park / Buffalo Zoo and Talk:Clarence (New York)#Amherst for two cases where I've run across this problem in my own work). The best answer I can give you is, in the spirit of "the traveller comes first", to do whatever makes the most sense and have a rationale at the ready if anyone questions why you're doing what you're doing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: I think the reason duplicate listings are not recommended is because people would use duplicate listings to advertise their business. In the case above, as I see it and according to the information provided in the above two comments, it's OK to add information to multiple articles at once because there's no touting involved. I'd say, place phone number, address, etc. in all the articles. Place information about getting in primarily in the city articles. Include a very short summary of the destination itself in each of the city articles, just saying basically what it is (perhaps accompanied by a picture); in the park article, include plenty, if possible, of specific information about the POI. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the policy should be that duplicating listings is generally not done, but allowable where it's the approach that makes the most sense for the traveller. Certainly duplicate listings can be a form of touting, but we already have a "don't tout" policy that could be used to justify reverting such edits. Nor do I think loosening this policy would open the floodgates to a deluge of duplicate listings; touts generally aren't the type of folks who concern themselves too much with policy in the first place.
I also think that we should loosen the policy against listing the same establishment in multiple sections for cases in which it makes sense from the traveller's perspective to do so. Take a case like the recently-closed Vera in Buffalo's Elmwood Village, which was notable both for really creative craft cocktails made with locally-distilled spirits and as the first place in Buffalo to really jump on the artisanal pizza bandwagon. There's no reason why someone who's looking for a good pizza should have to go to the "Drink" section to find that listing, nor is there any reason why someone who wants a craft cocktail should have to go to the "Eat" section to find the listing. So I listed the place in both categories under the principle that ttcf supersedes all other policies. And that's just one case out of a couple dozen that you could point to in the Buffalo district articles alone. If "ttcf supersedes all other policies" is invokable that frequently, that's a good sign that the policy ttcf is repeatedly superseding maybe ought to be rethought.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
One of my biggest concerns with the multiple listings is they begin to diverge over time (prices/details updated in one place and not the other). On one hand, duplication is a good thing for the traveler because it makes things easier to find, but it's also a very bad thing if the two listings have conflicting info as it's difficult/impossible to know what the authoritative source is. Ideas on how to reconcile this with ttcf?
Muddyhikers (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that duplicate listings are okay when that's what's best for the traveler. The issue of keeping the content up-to-date in both places is a real one, though. In some cases I try to centralize the information in one article and add pointers from all the other articles where it's relevant. For example, Bandar Seri Begawan#By boat has fairly detailed information about ferries, and other articles such as Brunei and Labuan have a basic summary and a link to the article with more information. A disadvantage to this strategy is that a reader who prints out a few articles might neglect to print the one that has the information, but I try to be careful in choosing where to centralize the information to make that problem less likely. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Duplication leads to a quick bit rot indeed - some guy started reorganization of a major city, left it halfway done - and it was quite a mess half a year later. I wouldn't say you cannot duplicate listings - but just put detailed info in one, and make the others a short "teaser" + link to the main one (e.g. Laguna Churup). The good question is, whether the visitors of WV usually download the offline page, or rather use some app, like OsmAnd or Maps.me - where you have the whole guide offline. -- andree.sk(talk) 05:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't this precisely why we added the lastedit= feature to the listing template? In the case of discrepancies between two duplicate listings, it should be a simple matter to determine which information is more recent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a nice idea in theory, but in practice people often update listings piecemeal, rather than bringing all the information up to date at once, and sometimes don't click the button to mark them up to date even when they should. Moreover, some kinds of information like transport options aren't usually presented in listings. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

American Popular Music[edit]

I just had a thought of perhaps creating an article on this. The U.S. is most certainly the world's main centre of pop culture, and I bet many tourists will want to visit the U.S. to make pilgrimages to sites connected to their favourite singers. And of course, we could cover all the different music styles that have influenced American popular music. For instance, country music is an obvious influence, but there's also genres such as jazz, blues and soul, and most recently, even influences from Latin America and the Caribbean. So there is a wealth of stuff we could cover. Of course, the main stumbling block is that I'm no expert on this, so help from someone who is well-versed in the history of American pop music would be most appreciated if this article goes ahead. The dog2 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is an article with potentially thousands of POI listings. Best to split it up by genre or maybe even by individual artist. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There are already genre-based articles on Jazz and Rock and roll and I'm also inclined to continuing that pattern. Nurg (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
But rock 'n' roll is part of popular music. I agree with Andre here. Define the genre more narrowly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, I guess the step forward would be to create more articles about different genres of American popular music then. Some that I guess we could cover would be "blues", "R&B", "country music" and "hip hop", if someone has enough expertise to expand on them. The dog2 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, something like that. R&B is a very problematic category, though, because of its history. Originally, the category was simply the new, post-WWII name for "race records" - in other words, music performed by black musicians and intended for black audiences. This started to break down in the 50s, but I don't think it was until the late 60s that R&B was actually stylistically different from rock 'n' roll, and it took quite a while for it be become widely accepted for white artists to be R&B performers as such. Rock 'n' roll was to my knowledge originally just a new name given to R&B records by Alan Freed, a DJ in Cleveland, in order to better sell it to his young white audiences ("rock 'n' roll" previously just meant to have sex, but the white folks who weren't hip to black slang didn't know that; many of the white young people probably did, making it even more titillating and appealing for them). But the first R&B style was the jump blues of people like Louis Jordan, which is really a kind of sung boogie-woogie with a group and not just a piano soloist behind it. And at least until pretty recently, even styles like hip hop were subsumed under R&B in the Grammys, if I remember correctly. So I would counsel treading very carefully with that particular diffuse, race-based category. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
While what you said is true, since the late 1970s there have also been cases of white artistes like Teena Marie crossing over onto the R&B charts and achieving massive popularity with black audiences, and you have many black artistes like Whitney Houston, Diana Ross, Lionel Ritchie and Michael Jackson who achieved massive popularity with white audiences, and made millions of dollars in the process. So I would say that while the racial origins of different musical genres can be mentioned, we should also be careful not to overstate the role of race in the different genres. Sure, I'm aware of the exploitation of black artistes by the white-dominated recording industry in the 1950s and 1960s, but these days a talented black or Latino singer can make millions of dollars, just as a talented white singer can, and there is so much crossover between genres that they are no longer strictly segregated by race. The dog2 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm of course quite aware of all of this, but the term R&B has quite a murky history, and also, there are huge differences style between jump blues, 1950s R&B, Motown, and 70s/80s soul/R&B, for example - all of which and more are subsumed under the term R&B. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I've had Blues on my watchlist for a while, so that I'll become aware if someone creates it. Nurg (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request[edit]

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

About {{wikivoyagelang}} in main page[edit]

The {{wikivoyagelang}} of the main page does not need to show in the mobile version, Because there have a button for Read in another language in mobile version, You can use