Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

You can review old Pub discussions in the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread

FYI: The Ideal Vacation Length for Peak Relaxation, According to Experts[edit] (koavf)TCM 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koavf This makes sense. I like short trips, I have a 5-day one planned this year actually. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm coming off of a month long vacation and I definitely agree that the novelty wears off after a while and it becomes pretty tedious and exhausting. I'd probably do more 9 or 10 day trips after going through that. I had fun nonetheless but at a less optimal rate I guess. Cyali (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Climate Info[edit]

I am currently editing an article for a city in the U.S, that doesnt have a station in the national weather service, should I use the climate info for the nearest station (while that station is in another city which has its own article here, which has its climate listed.)? Someonehere12345 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know enough about the area to know that the nearby city's weather is similar? If so, I'd use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(putting my hat on as a trained Canadian climatologist) Yes it is reasonable to use the nearest station but only if the elevation, geographical features (e.g. facing the same side of the river/large lake) are similar. Care should be taken on precipitation as they vary a lot over shorter distance than temperature. Can you tell us which city you're writing about and which city's station you're trying to borrow the weather data from? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could also just characterize the climate in words and possibly refer the reader to the "Climate" subsection of the relevant region article, if it has one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am writing the article for Carrollton,VA. The National Weather Service doesnt have a station in Carrollton. But they do have a station in the next town over being Newport News, secpificly the airport, which is about 15 miles away from Carrollton. But although it is the next town over, Newport News is on the other side of the James River Bridge, and is elevated 7 feet lower then Carrollton. Someonehere12345 (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elevation won't be an issue (7 ft = 2.1 metres). Our rule-of-thumb is a maximum difference of 5 metres (16 ft). After comparing the climate normals data between Norfolk, Newport News and Wakefield, I don't think the opposite shores of Chesapeake Bay would have large difference. Wakefield appears to be colder in daily minimum (by 1C/3F) and wetter (10 mm/0.4 in) per month than Newport News. Carrollton is probably somewhere in the middle. For presenting a general picture of the climate on a climate chart? I would say it's close enough to use Newport News. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I used the Newport News climate. Someonehere12345 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User ban nomination[edit]

I invite your participation in a new user ban nomination. If you have any comments about the nomination, please make them there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the best way of linking to tourist information sites?[edit]

On many pages, the placename as the first word of the text has a link to tourist information site embedded. This way of linking is not satisfactory, I think, for the reasons below:

  1. The reader can't know what kind of website is linked before clicking. Some explanations on the site are needed: official or unofficial, what languages are used, well-maintained or not, etc. (In fact, some placename links lead to the local government's site, not a tourist information site.)
  2. Some regions have more than one good guide site, say one by the local government and another by a civilian commercial organization.
  3. Broken links can't be fixed easily without the site's name at least.

Isn't it better to put the link and explanations as the last sentence of the lead section? Hnishy63 (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a bad proposal. I will say that re: issue 1, it's just our policy that the link is to a tourism site versus say a general government portal or a Wikipedia article or a Web directory, etc. so users should be familiar with what that first link will be based on it being consistent across the travel guide. That said, your point about link rot is valid and there could be templates and bots that can track this. Since our articles typically don't have sources or any other links minus those in listings (and those are at least tracked by the dates in the listing template), this could have some legs. As far as issue 2, do you have a proposal on how to fix the issue of there being multiple valid tourist info sites? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that the first word of a Wikivoyage article should be a link to an external site. Let's try to get the reader to read a bit if Wikivoyage first. I agree with Hnishy that the reader shouldn't be expected to know what purpose policy us on links.
A better way that is used in some articles is to put a listing template for the tourism bureau in the Understand section so that it is clear what is being linked (e.g., Bobcaygeon). And there could be more than one listing template if they "have more than one good guide site", each template identifying which organizations is behind the link.
If the link is just to the local government because there is no tourism bureau, that should be noted. Ground Zero (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Putting links in Understand also allows linking to multiple sites if it's necessary which would otherwise seem awkward if it's in the lede (e.g. Mount Aspiring National Park). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with all Hnishy's points & support the proposal. It seems to me unreasonable to rely on what "users should be familiar with"; we want the site to work for everyone & given that new editors (even some with much experience on other wikis) often need some advice on local conventions it seems foolish to expect that new readers will know anything that is not utterly obvious.
Having multiple links should not be a problem if there are several good possibilities; just label them as "tourist bureau", "municipal government" or whatever. For that matter, I'd include a WP link since the one in the sidebar may not be obvious to all users, and consider adding other links like a local expat forum. Pashley (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hasn't this been discussed before? Wikivoyage:External links#External link usage says "If an official website exists for the destination, it should be linked to only once, towards the end of the Understand section. If a destination maintains separate websites for tourism and for civic administration purposes, both may be linked in the Understand section and should be identified clearly. (This policy was changed in 2020. Websites should no longer be linked in the lead paragraph, but since this affects almost every article it will take some time to implement this change.)" —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh...a week ago, my addition of the official tourist information site of Kagoshima (prefecture) was confidently replaced with a first-word link by a more experienced user....Was I right? Hnishy63 (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion and the change of policy probably went unnoticed by some – not everybody engages in all discussions, and there are no wide announcements on such changes (perhaps there should be). If the tourist bureau maintains a tourist web site, I don't see why the bureau listing shouldn't be listed to that site. As I don't read Japanese, I cannot see whether the Yakushima Tourism Association (linked to as the English version of the first-word-linked site) runs the Yakushima Tourism Center, which has an unlinked listing in Understand (Yakushima was given as example in the revert summary). Perhaps ChubbyWimbus just hasn't noted the policy change?
    (I confess that I often link the place name as before in cases where I don't take the time to figure out details about a possible tourist bureau.)
    LPfi (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, above, I described the official policy, without realizing it was the official policy. We have a lot of policies, and often even experienced users aren't aware of all if them. Ground Zero (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, I was not aware of this change, so I apologize.
To clarify a few things:
Are we no longer linking from the lede at all or is this just adding a link to the physical listing of the tourism bureau?
Would we list just a website if there is no physical place to go under "Tourist Information" or leave it off altogether?
The point about listing "multiple good sites" doesn't make sense to me. If a private organization or a personal travel website is better than the official tourism website, I don't think we should care. I think we should still just list the official one. It seems antithetical to our goals for us to scout the internet for better travel websites to send our users to. I also don't like the proposal of adding more Wikipedia links. I'd prefer less annoying Wikipedia links. I also don't like the idea of listing forums. We should be trying to get people to read OUR guides and to use OUR guides. If our own contributors don't think WV is worth using, we should discuss that rather than using WV to promote all of the guides we like better. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Visitor information section in Understand should include websites and physical tourist offices. The multiple websites listed should all be official (primary) sources. In many cases there will only be one, but there may be the local tourist office, the city government, the national park authority for the area (if the city is in or next a national park) and a national tourist office page on that city. They should not be other travel websites. AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've started to move tourism website links from the first line to the last line of the intro paragraph, identifying them as tourist office sites. I'm working on country articles and articles for capitals as a way of modelling the intended approach with high-profile articles. If anyone would like to join me in this, this would help change the norm Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing this. However, according to Wikivoyage:External_links#External_link_usage they should go at the end of Understand in Visitor information. I think that this policy only considered cities etc where Understand is the first section, and not countries and regions where it is much further down the article, and the end of intro may be a good place in that case. AlasdairW (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a change proposal on the Wikivoyage:External_links policy Talk page.--Hnishy63 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charter will close on 2 February 2024. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you've made 300 edits (total, not just here) and meet a few other smaller requirements, you should be eligible to vote. You can check at if you're not sure.
Please vote. Votes are secret; the optional comments are public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Rint needs updating for Los Angeles[edit]

Sorry if this isn't the right place - but Los Angeles assigned new letters to its Metro lines and built a new pink K line. Could someone please add the new line and change the existing ones? Shortbrief (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shortbrief, thanks for this note. Do you have a link to information about the new letters and where the new line runts? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shortbrief: Edit requests for RINT are usually to be made here. That said, I've gone ahead and updated the metro lines, and renamed their labels to the letter system now in place. I also found Metrolink's Arrow service to be missing and added that as well. Feel free to @ me if there's anything else missing or in need of an update.
Wauteurz (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to format km²?[edit]

How do you think we should write the exponent in square kilometres? One can either write km² as such, or write an ordinary 2 as superscript: km2. Wikipedia recommends the latter for any exponents, but I think the situation on Wikivoyage is different, as we don't need complicated expressions: km² is hardly ever ambiguous even if you don't see the exponent. In the wikitext km² is nicer than km<sup>2</sup>. {{km2}} uses km2.

This is not a big deal, especially if either is difficult to type for you, but for the template and for AWB, there should probably be a consensus. Also in normal editing, consistency would be nice.

The exponent in km² is included in any font and should thus be optimised – by whatever criteria the designers used – while the one in km2 is an ordinary digit, the position of which is decided by the web browser (and browser designers don't seem to worry too much about such details). The latter may look nicer by chance. The appearance of both options vary depending on browser, font used and line spacing (which may need to be locally increased for the "2" to fit), so what looks nicer for one person may not for another.

One example where km² is extensively used is Finnish national parks: km² and km2 (with the caveats above on different rendering in different configurations).

LPfi (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer km<sup>2</sup> because I have no idea how to format km² on a Mac without using cmd+C and cmd+V. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exponents (¹, ² and ³) are available from the Special characters menu above the editing window, in section Symbols. Regardless, what you type can be changed by anybody copy editing the article like the hyphen → dash issue (or people just writing "km2"). With my keyboard the exponent is available as dead caret followed by the digit, on keyboards without dead keys probably as compose caret digit (on Unix & co). No idea about Mac. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have Template:Squarekilometer which has the benefit of also translating the the number into square miles: 15 km2 (5.8 sq mi). For square values the conversion is very useful as readers are less likely to know the conversion than with linear values. AlasdairW (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the {{km2}} I mentioned above (which seems to be a redirect). Probably the template should be used where the area is important but, as with temperatures, there are places where a lot of parentheses are distracting. And the template is easy to tweak if we decide to prefer km². –LPfi (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think km<sup>2</sup> is easier from the perspective of content authoring, but km² does look better. Not sure it's really a very important issue though. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture format[edit]

Images are important to the readability of WV. A good size for the majority of pictures is 300px, and this is widely used, but some contributors prefer “default” with no px size set.

I therefore compared images as viewed on an office worktop, a laptop, a tablet and a smart phone. I took the example of Lanzarote as displayed on WV, Wikipedia, Jet2 and TUI – these two are the leading providers of holidays to Lanzarote so their brochures are likely to reflect good practice. Jet2 appear to be at 300px and TUI at 250px.

The results were consistent: images at 300px worked well on all devices. They loaded quickly, were clear and eye-catching, and did not crowd out the text or distort the page balance.

Default images were never better, but acceptable provided the image was intrinsically bold and the display size was not less than 250px. For instance the pic of Lagomar is bold and still works, whereas Cactus Garden is a great pic at 300px but loses its wealth of colour and texture at 250px.

Some default images on WV were smaller, down to 150px, and these were just miserable postage stamps that threw away all their impact. All smaller formats had the problem that greater gaps between pix gave the page a slabby stodgy appearance.

These results were confirmed by a couple of colleagues “blind”, unaware of my own preferences or input to the pages.

Could advocates of “default” please explain the circumstances in which those images show to advantage? Otherwise I recommend 300px as the size to specify for most. Grahamsands (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never set a size because I assume the default is the preferred size. If 300px is better, can we change the default to 300px, instead of changing every picture? Ground Zero (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember that pictures have to be public domain (or your own work given to public domain). For significant locations such as Paris then it isn't a problem to find images of high resolution, however some small town in Nebraska or a tiny island in Japan may have very limited pd images. Question is, are these 'postage stamps' a worse reader experience than having none at all? Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Technically, images have to be "free". Public domain is a specific, narrower concept in copyright law.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree 300px is better – 250px is far too small to read. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is that the WMF denied us a change of site-wide default. Users can set their default to 300 px, but that doesn't help non-logged in readers, or those that aren't aware of preference options. The rationale was that the WMF doesn't want to cache multiple sizes according to whims of different projects, and doesn't want to special-case us. I think allowing one more default size would be no issue, but I am not sure the time has come to re-raise the request. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can unilaterally change policy to by default explicitly use 300 px. The downside is, in addition to oddness in the transitional period, that users who have set their preference to, say, 400 px will then get the same 300 px. –LPfi (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how the feature for image size in preferences came there, but the makers of the Wiki-software must have reacted to signals coming from users who wanted some control over the size of the images. With "traveller comes first" we should also respect the size preference of the users. So I think we must not force 300px images upon them when another size is their preference. Exeptions sould only be made for images that contain text that must be legible when it is displayed in the article and clicking it to enlarge is not wanted in that situation; maps are an example of such images. --FredTC (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi, when did we request the site-wide change? This is a small wiki. They shouldn't care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were worried that it would set a precedent. I think it has been discussed several times and there are several discussion not directly involving Wikivoyage. I don't find the discussion I tried to find, but Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2013#Can we make image defaults bigger now? points to phab:T49332, with some of the reasons for turning this down. Setting a global default of 300 px has been suggested, and in phab:T69709 ("eternally stalled") TheDJ writes:
"I propose we just have this sit around until someone comes asking again, and then we point them here, saying there is no technical reasons not to do it, only political and that if they show us something that resembles a community agreement _across_ the wiki's, we will deploy this."
That seems to be where this is standing: too big a mess for anybody in the tech teams to want to take the initiative. The default image size in MediaWiki seems to have been changed to 300 px.
For getting this forward, note the "across the wikis". en-wp seems to have rejected the proposal (in 2014) in a confused discussion ending in "no consensus": w:Wikipedia:Village pump_(technical)/Archive 128#Time for the semi-annual enlarging of thumbnail images.
LPfi (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I am not advocating for 300px to become a new default. Apart from the technical difficulty, there are bound to be too many exceptions where that size is unwanted. My proposal is that 300px can and should be specified for the majority of pictures, because they look good and because "default" looks worse. Please state circumstances in which they don't?
I am left behind by the discussion about "preferences" because in my user area I can see a button to change my gender, which could save a lot of bother at the dysphoria clinic, but nothing referring to image sizes. And IMHO it is the very opposite of TTCF to say that's what folk should do. It drives away the casual reader, tomorrow's contributor, who stumbles upon WV and needs to be grabbed by powerful images and engaging informative text. Does TUI or Jet2 or any other travel mag tell me I must sign up to something and turn somersaults to render their brochures attractive? To insist upon such a process is to empower only a signed-up WV brotherhood while offering the real world out there a poor product. Grahamsands (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi, that Phab task was ten years ago. It's okay now. Big wikis require some thought and advance work, but small wikis are just a matter of flipping a switch. (See, e.g., the comment from @Jdforrester (WMF) in phab:T355914#9494792 that "small wikis can get away with this").
Graham, if 300px should be used for the majority of pictures, we should make that the default, and specify a different size for the ones where it doesn't work (if any). Any logged-in user can change the setting for themselves at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-files (the "Thumbnail size"). The problem we want to avoid is:
  1. We agree that most images should be 300px.
  2. We decide to leave the default at 220px, and manually override the default for most images.
  3. A logged-in user has picked a non-standard default (e.g., the biggest size because of visual impairments, or the smallest size to save bandwidth).
  4. But they get 300px on most images anyway, because we are manually overriding their chosen settings.
The better approach is:
  1. We agree that most images should be 300px.
  2. We change the default to 300px, although there are a few images for which we decide to manually override the default setting.
  3. Almost everyone sees 300px, and we don't have to do any extra work to specify the size of each image. But if you picked a different size, then you get your chosen size on almost all images.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, sounds like that would achieve the objective, that non-signed-in readers automatically see images at a good size. So if it is nowadays technically simple and has no serious side effects then I support. But to check on the latter point, could those who have set a user preference please state their chosen size, and their reasons for it? Grahamsands (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally I use 120px, but occasionally 400px.
  • The 120px is what I standard use when I access an article direct at the website (not PDF of printed), which I call interactive use. In that case the 120px size photo's, as small as they are, give me a good idea of what is on the photo's and of which ones I want to have a closer look by clicking them.
  • I use 400px only if I look together with 1 or 2 others to the article on my laptop screen and there s a need to see the photo's an not read big parts of the text. I also tried 400px when doing an export to PDF but that did not result in bigger photo's in the PDF.
btw, I just checked the 400px with the PDF export on the Penicuik article to be shure that what I wrote above is still true, and I noticed that the balance between text and photo is about ⅔ text an ⅓ photo for 250px (and no px specified) photo's, which is ½ text and ½ photo for the 300px photo's. For me the ⅔–⅓ balance looked better, but that is a matter of personal taste. --FredTC (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice to hear. It seems I searched in the wrong way – and there should probably be better practices to make finding such chances easier. I myself usually use the default, on Wikivoyage to see what most readers see, on Wikipedia because I am more interested in the textual content than in the illustrations (which is true also here). On a slow connection, I often click stop before the images have loaded, when I suppose I already got the essentials. One thing that is irritating is static maps or in-image legends being fuzzy enough to be unreadable, probably because of an unlucky resizing ratio. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As there is no objection to setting default = 300px, and we're told no technical barrier, can this now be actioned? Grahamsands (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If default= 300 px cannot be implemented for whatever reason, I go back to my original proposal, that this size is specified for most pictures. It appears that only a few users would have minor inconvenience from this, and it would much improve the reading experience for the majority. Grahamsands (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no objection against changing the default to 300px, so we could ask for it and leave any discussions for the case it is denied. One thing to look out for are images with "upright=1.5" or the like, which may get too large with the new default (I found 123 searching for 'insource:"upright=1.5"', 197 for …=2, which includes 2.5 & al, and 5 for …=3, including this). I tried to look for how this works out with "?useskin=vector-2022" added to the page URLs, as the line length is restricted in that layout (or so I have understood), but did not get any comprehensible results. –LPfi (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so what is the lever to pull to launch this request? I've not been involved in a system tweak before. Grahamsands (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I filed a request. On the technical side, there's no significant barrier. We are a tiny fraction of the pages the servers parse, and a tiny fraction page views. However, the English Wikipedia has made a similar request, which does involve substantial technical barriers, so there's a chance that they'll block everyone else while they worry about enwiki. Even if they had unlimited staffing resources, enwiki's problems would take a few months to solve, and doing it right would probably take a few months more than that (because pre-generating tens of millions of thumbnails doesn't happen instantly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks for that. We can but hope. Grahamsands (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related Pages[edit]

What's up with the Related Pages at the bottom of each article? I can't help but notice that they've recently gotten overly large (and rather ugly). Did somebody unilaterally decide to update a CSS or something? Am I the only person who finds the bigger blocks to be in-elegant and inconsistent with the look and feel of the rest of the page? Mrkstvns (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you change the zoom level in your web browser? Try resetting it and seeing if that looks more familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're a genius! I don't remember ever trying to zoom in on anything, but guess I must have.... Mrkstvns (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have accidentally changed the zoom settings on my laptop (usually while scrolling) so many times... WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing related to the zoom, but why is everything now in bold? I'm not a fan of the bold text and preferred the old minimalist approach.--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing anything in bold. Is it this page? every page? other wikis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of Abuse Filter rules[edit]

I checked out Abuse filter management – Travel guide at Wikivoyage (not visible to everyone) and can see that:

1) There are rules picking up false positives and blocking valid edits

2) There are rules that have not been triggered in many years

I could go through and clean these up but would like to achieve consensus first. The idea would be to take rules and choose to delete or change action from block to tag.

It is also difficult to collaborate on the rules since the rules (by design) are hidden. Where would be the best place to progress thus? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good initiative. I would recommend Wikivoyage talk:Administrators' handbook for general discussion, where one can point to individual filters by number, hoping that no one will be careless with keeping private information private. The ones with many false positives should be pointed out (by number) without delay and discussion on them continued in their comment field, which is our practice. –LPfi (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I share your worry that the abuse log isn't patrolled enough. However, I now checked most disallowed edits from this month and found none that would have been useful. A few were just promotional and should perhaps been reverted instead of disallowed, but still not that problematic. Please elaborate. –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection request[edit]

Would any of the admins please semi-protect/template-editor-protect Template:Infobox/styles.css, a style page used in the similarly protected {{Infobox}} template? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just protected on the basis that general users shouldn't change this (even not by Admins without discussion) and vandalism is being observed. Is everyone else OK with this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for dealing with this so quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential Discord server[edit]

Hey guys! I'm wondering if there would be interest in a Discord server for Wikivoyage. I would like to create one but if there is no interest I won't worry about it.

Leave a reply to say if you're interest or not :)

Thanks! JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be open to having a Discord server for Wikivoyage (anything is better than the old-school IRC shit), but my instincts suggest that it will be a dead server. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was my immediate thought. I might create one and post it here, we'll see how it goes. Currently the IRC channel has 9 people so the bar is set very low for dead. JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do wait for the community to decide whether it wants a Discord server or not, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Discord for other purpose and don't use IRC at all so would be interested in a WV Discord server. Gizza (roam) 12:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might also be your memory and not just your instincts? There's been a discussion about this almost exactly four years ago: WV:Travellers' pub/2020.
I've personally been involved with setting up that server, but I can't recall what happened to it in the long run. It wound up being a server that catered to all language varieties of Wikivoyage, which I think is why it never ended up being successful. No more than two dozen people ever joined, but none of them used the server. The server might be deleted now, or I left it at some point - Can't recall. I personally still remain in favour of setting up a Discord server for EN-Voyage though.
Wauteurz (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a note, Spanish Wikivoyage has a channel on the Spanish server. Instead of creating a new server, it might be good to request a channel on the English server or I'll be happy to set up a general Wikivoyage category on the Spanish server, whatever you want. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might just stick to making a new one as the En Wikipedia server is just soooo noisy. Plus then if we need extra channels then we're just cluttering up their server. I'll whip something up and share it here :) JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be no problem for me to create an exclusive category for Wikivoyage in the spanish server. In any case, you should first consult with the entire Wikivoyage community if they are interested before creating a server of such caliber. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 03:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's start with en. If necessary, we can add more channels or a new server for Spanish or any other dominant language. JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-creation of Template:w[edit]

We have had the template {{w}} to easily create links to Wikipedia a couple of times. This was deleted many years ago before this was a WMF sister project and again with virtually no discussion. Users seem confused by how this is a very simple and direct typing aid that just reduces MediaWiki overhead and typing: it's a standard template on many, many sister projects, so I don't think there's any reason for deletion. I recreated it as it was already being used on one page and I was surprised that it had been deleted here when I was expanding an article. Even tho I think it's pretty uncontroversial to have this simple aid for linking, it seems wise to at least call attention to it being recreated. Is there some reason why this simple and standard template can't be here for our fellow WMF editors who are accustomed to easily making Wikipedia links? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd support such a template. It is very off-putting that most wikis have it but we don't. Thanks for recreating, Koavf. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the important use for it, and when would we use it instead of the Wikidata link? Though since we're talking about sister site links, it really annoys the Hell out of me that Commons galleries instead of categories are linked. For example, the Commons gallery for Midway Islands is linked instead of the category, and the gallery sucks! But even an experienced Commons user like me took a while to realize that the problem was that I had clicked a link to the gallery, not the category - but I am unable to change that link on the Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikidata link? For what? I'm confused by what your question even is. If you have text like, "The ''Mission: Impossible'' films feature [[:w:Tom Cruise|Tom Cruise]]", it is easier to type "The ''Mission: Impossible'' films feature {{w|Tom Cruise}}". That's the purpose: to make editing easier. It's also why most other sister projects have an identical template (tho many have a second parameter for a little modification of the target, etc.--I just went with a quick fix to convert a redlink to blue). As for why Midway Islands links to c:Midway Islands and not c:Category:Midway Islands, that is because d:Q47863 represents "Midway Islands" and whatever equivalent there is on a Wikimedia project, such as a travel guide here or an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia or a gallery on Commons (i.e. whatever is the main namespace), whereas d:Q8628456 represents "Category:Midway Islands", an item that links Wikimedia projects that are categories about the Midway Islands. They're just two different things. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Linking text like that to Wikipedia is a violation of Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, so why do we want to give official imprimatur to it by approving a template that makes it even easier to do? As for my point about linking to a Commons category rather than a lame gallery, you missed it. Ttcf means that we should link to helpful Commons categories, not lame Commons galleries that have some tiny and not necessarily even good subset of images. Do you understand now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links to Wikipedia are not disallowed entirely and it's perfectly appropriate to include them, e.g. with a link to your user page User:Ikan Kekek on the Pub. I understand your point, but it seems like you missed mine which is that in your proposal, you want to connect to different concepts on Wikidata whereas the point of Wikidata is to connect the same concept to the same concept. That is the entire function of Wikidata interwiki linking. If you think that we should link to a relevant Commons category in the sidebar, that could easily be done with modifying local code as I recall, but it may take a ticket on phab:. Are you proposing that we try to add Commons category links in addition to gallery links? Another option is to make the galleries good. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest simply substituting a link to any Commons gallery with a link to the category in question. The concept of interwiki linking is faulty in this instance, because the results are terrible, as in the example I outlined. It's very rare for a Commons gallery to be close to as useful as the category. In terms of the template, yes, it's fine to use on talk pages or in some exceptions to Wikivoyage guidelines on inline linking in articles. It's just that your example troubles me as a likely usage case, and I have to wonder whether we are facilitating even more violations of Wikivoyage guidelines that will have to be policed. Can we add some language on the template page that addresses how to use and not to use it on this site? Also, I really do have to wonder how {{w|Tourism}} is really easier to type than [[w:Tourism]]. One fewer keystroke, I guess, and we're including it for the convenience of people familiar with the template from sister sites, so I guess. <Shrug>. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because no one on Earth wants text to read "I sure do love w:Tourism", but someone could plausibly want it to read "I sure do love Tourism" without the extraneous "w:" at the beginning. Interwiki linking is not faulty here as they are semantically the same: the main namespace of Wikivoyage is linking to the main namespace of Wikipedia and Commons (and other projects). You are correct that a lot of galleries at Commons are lo-quality, so if you think that we shouldn't link them, I'm not sure if there is a solution. See, e.g. France, where the sister projects links go to c:France, q:en:France, and w:en:France and Category:France, where it links to a bunch of things at d:Q8249 which are called "Category:France" or some local equivalent. Alternately, the solution is to make galleries better at Commons. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do I keep seeing "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted or moved." every time I edit this topic? —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talkcontribs)
That's my stupid fault for including a template within an H2 header, which I should not have done. I have fixed it now. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's OK. I understand the reason for the template. On the other topic, I don't think anyone is going to spend time improving Commons galleries; instead, I understand that many have been deleted, and I think Commons is deprecating most of them slowly or plans to do so. If adding the Commons category in addition to the Commons gallery makes it easy to click a link to it, at least we should make the inclusion of the category a default. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: But why wouldn't we want to make our lives easier by saving a few keystrokes? I'd argue it would be far more easier since this template is used on almost every single wiki I routinely and sporadically edit and thus make the lives of frequent cross-wiki editors a bit easier. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I have modified the appearance with a span of class="extiw", so it looks like an external interwiki link (a la w:en:Tom Cruise and Tom Cruise) and not a local, internal link (a la Western Sahara). So at the very least the problem of "this looks like we have an internal travel guide about Tom Cruise" has been fixed and there is some indication that you are going to a sister project. That may not overcome all objections, but I hope it's at least a reasonable fix for that problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We wouldn't want to make it easier if it leads to larger-scale deviation from Wikivoyage guidelines, but that's the only reason, and I already conceded the point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Commons problem is worth its own discussion and has little to do with this one.

For the template.

  1. It helps people from sister projects, who are used to using it. They will not check the documentation page for usage guidelines, so I assume IK is correct in fearing more guideline-violating links. Making it easy to remain ignorant of differences between projects is not a good thing.
  2. For typing, where the link is appropriate, [[:w:Tom Cruise|]] has one more character than {{W|Tom Cruise}} (noted by IK). I don't see that as important. The visible "w:" is actually good in many contexts where such links are appropriate; "see w:Tom Cruise". The syntax should be familiar to seasoned Wikimedia editors, and I don't see how creating a link by a template would reduce server load ("MediaWiki overhead").
  3. Our policy is to minimise user-visible template use. As this template should get used mostly on talk and user pages, in text that doesn't need to be edited by others, that's a minor issue, but still means that there should be a good reason to introduce it.

LPfi (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidance on fiction tourism[edit]

As mentioned in the above thread, I was doing some work on Mission: Impossible tourism. The films generally have a lot of on location shots from around the world, but inevitably, some of these scenes are in sound stages or are otherwise kayfabe. Should these fiction tourism guides only include legit shooting sites or should they also lead travelers to the in-universe settings as well? If both, should there be separate markers for the two? I'm inclined to say "yes" and "no" respectively.

Additionally, for fiction as extensive as James Bond or Tintin, should we try to include all locations in one guide or split them up more-or-less arbitrarily. I'm inclined to have them all be in one, but (e.g.) with over two dozen Bond films going virtually everywhere, this could be a pretty complex guide and extensive map. I think that's a good thing, but there may be something I'm missing. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are different types of fiction media and the answer to the above questions may vary depending on the type it is. For some movies, the shooting locations are important whereas in others the in-universe settings take precedence. Also for books and video games, there are no shooting locations but there is an in-universe potentially, although fans may be interested in the biography of the writer/creator of the book/game and want to travel to locations related to them. As long as the number of markers doesn't exceed 100, and the article itself is divided and structured well so it isn't confusing to a reader, I don't see any harm in including as many locations as possible. Gizza (roam) 05:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of James Bond, either approach (shooting locations, in-universe) could definitely pass 100. Do you have a recommendation on how to split it up? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my understanding, errors start to appear once the marker number hits 99. However, Roman Empire has around 250 listings and restarts the numbering for many countries. But it doesn't do it for all countries which is weird. The numbers for Austria are from 1 to 5 for example but 13 to 35 for Turkey, which doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, something like that could be adopted for James Bond. I can't think of any good way to split James Bond listings. Gizza (roam) 08:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I there a limit of 99 listings in all (because of server load) or is it about listings of the same type (probably because of a two-digit limit hardcoded somewhere)? If the latter, it is easy to split them up, for the Bond case e.g. by film. –LPfi (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, when I said "I can't think of any good way to split James Bond listings", I meant into different articles. Splitting them into different sections, with the marker numbers restarting would work well for different films or by the actor who played Bond. I don't know for sure I suspect there is a two-digit limit hardcoded somewhere. Gizza (roam) 23:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Discord Server![edit]

So you may or may not have seen the chat Potential Discord server, but in a nutshell, there was enough interest to where I have created a Discord server for the Wikivoyage community!

You MUST be authenticated with WikiAuthBot to be able to talk in the server. I believe I've set everything up right but if a few permissions are weird or you can't talk let me know. If there's enough interest I might see if I can get WikiBot invited (the one that provides links when you type [[article name]]).

Please note this is very primitive, really it is more of a trial. I have no emojis rn but feel free to DM me with suggestions.

Linking the IRC channel to the server is something I want to do but I just don't have the skill level. If anyone can assist please DM me :)

You can join at https:// (I could have a hyperlink because of the spam filter).

If you are a Wikivoyage Admin, please request to have that role added. All Wikivoyage Admins will be automatically considered moderators. If you so desperately wish not to be a mod, please DM me and I will remove that role. If you believe you can be a moderator, and aren't an admin already, that's alright! You can DM me to apply, but please attach some proof you are fit for the job (i.e. proof of moderating other servers & references (preferably Wikivoyage Admins) so I can make sure you won't vandalise the server).

Thanks! JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't be frequenting this server, so if my input is desired, post a link to the relevant discussion somewhere. I'm not sure what the purpose of the server is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's ok :)
I made the server to chat about anything we would do so in here or on IRC, because I know some people (myself included) prefer talking on Discord. People can also ask editing/tourist questions or talk off-topic.
You shouldn't miss too much!
Thanks! JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too won't be joining the server as it currently stands, but I may consider joining if a few other established users also join. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm tired of reverting. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave him or her a warning. User_talk: Pashley (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usable article gets a recommended article badge[edit]

Anyone know why Morelia gets a recommended article badge in Wikidata when it's only a Usablecity? Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it – guide articles should have the good article batch and star articles should have the featured article batch; Morelia is neither. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just curious – what did you do? Is there some external list? Brycehughes (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you click "edit", you'll see a bunch of ribbons to the right of each article. Click the ribbon and you can set and unset whatever badges you want. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, interesting. Must be an admin thing – I don't have them (I don't think). Anyway, cheers, thanks! Brycehughes (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. It isn't an admin-only thing, though (or I don't think it is), as I don't have admin perms on Wikidata (only rollbacker). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ohhhh Wikidata... got it. I'm an idiot. I see it now. Brycehughes (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
dw – we all have those moments. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion of setting ribbons/badges is interesting, but I think the more relevant question is why nobody set Morelia to guide yet. It's a good article with a lot of complete info in just about every section. If it were cleaned up and updated, I think it would make a good candidate for DotM or OtBP. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you believe a Wikivoyage article satisfies the criteria that would make it a guide, just change its status to "guide." No need to complain that no-one else has done the work you want to do. The only status decisions that can't be changed without a prior consensus are to make an article a star or remove the star from it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I plan to set it to guide (when I get around to it), but I'd first like to review it more closely and see if any entries are embarassingly outdated or if we can maybe add some infoboxes or other material that would make it beyond the minimal standards. I'm just saying that *I* thought it was a pretty good article. Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weighing passengers[edit]

I see that Finnair is starting to weigh their passengers (and baggage). Does this seem invasive to you? Can "by the pound" fares be far behind?

See article from BBC. Mrkstvns (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They need the figures (and they are not the only ones doing this). Either estimates provided by authorities or their own. I suppose the figures differ between flights (and classes), so using real-world sample-based estimates is better than having to guess what carry-on luggage weights and whether the passengers differ from the population averages. The better the estimates, the less margins they need, which means more cargo or less fuel per flight, which probably is better for the climate.
If people get used to scales, then they could of course be used also for discrimination (whether you count by-pound fares as such or not), but I hope laws are strict enough to hinder that.
LPfi (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not at all invasive. It is a voluntary anonymous survey of the weight of passengers with their carry on baggage. They need to do this to update the estimated weight of 100 passengers on a plane. Although there are other sources of people's weight, they don't include the clothes and bags that they take on the flight. This is not about people's weight, the average weight might have increased because more people are taking a full water bottle onto the plane.
There are a few flights in very small aircraft where all the passengers are routinely weighed, and this may to be used to decide seating positions. AlasdairW (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I encountered the small aircraft situation about 15 years ago on a small turboprop flying out of Bocas del Toro, Panama. Since the plane only seated about 10 passengers, presumably a couple chunky passengers sitting together could seriously affect the plane's balance. I wouldn't think that would matter with the large aircraft flown by an airline like Finnair. I have not heard of other large airlines weighing passengers... Mrkstvns (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are reports of Air New Zealand doing this in 2023 and 2003. More controversially, Samoa Air was reported in 2013 to be introducing weight based fares. AlasdairW (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a really uncomfortable 2-hour flight recently where my neighbor's bulk pushed into my middle seat, and I was aching for a while afterwards (his family for some reason booked seats away from him). This is literally the first time I have experienced this, and it was a shortish flight on a small aircraft, but I feel weighing in passengers and providing larger seats for those who need it is the way to go Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would make sense in an egalitarian society, but in the world of capitalism, the larger seats go to those willing to pay the most, not those whose girth requires it. Mrkstvns (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But not country is capitalist. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't care about the commercials so much. Already some airlines allow you to book an empty seat next to you. I recently flew Asiana long haul, and they have extra space seats in economy that you can pay a couple hundred dollar extra and don't allow anyone else to take them if empty - great value for me. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't find this invasive at all. In some cases, some plus-sized passengers might need larger seats given how tiny airplane economy seats can be (more than enough for me to put my feet up but not for most people). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Vacation Ruined: Grandma Just Dissipated Into Trillions Of Atoms Inside The Airport’s Full Body Scan Machine[edit]

Stay safe out there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Souinds like Scotty beamed her aboard the Enterprise. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed editing priority: Poland (specifically Katowice) for Wikimania[edit]

Wikimania 2024 will be in Katowice and Diff just published this post: which made me think that if anyone here is just looking for stuff to do, it may be wise to prioritize this region for travel, as our fellow Wikimedians will be descending there in August. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is a good idea. @Tar Lócesilion, are there any plans by the Wikimania committee to support this (e.g., by suggesting that editors who live in that area have a look)? The volunteers for the Wikimania in Esino Lario did an amazing job with the article for their destination, and I'd like it to become a tradition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ListingEditor impacted by latest deploy - fix in works[edit]

Just a heads up that the ListingEditor gadget broke with the latest deployment due to some changes with how headings are rendered (mw:Heading_HTML_changes).

I hope to have this working by the end of the day.

Sorry for the disruption to service! Jdlrobson (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be working now. Let me know here via a ping if you are experiencing issues. Also I'd like to advertise the beta version of the tool now has support for the mobile site if you are willing to try it out go to Special:Preferences and give it a test! Jdlrobson (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(beta version on mobile phone) In Lakewood_(Colorado), for some reason it doesn't popup on the See+Do listings, but does on the "Get around" ones... -- andree 06:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jdlrobson, in all the articles are missing the "[ add listing ]" link in the section titles. While it's present only the sub-section titles. Andyrom75 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be fixed now Jdlrobson (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Itineraries or travel topics[edit]

There are articles that have an itinerary status template but are otherwise classified as travel topics:

Since they should not be classified as both, which article type should they be assigned? Should there be something on a project page about how to choose between these two classifications? JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]