User talk:Texugo/Archives 2013-2014

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi! Please delete your nomination for admin rights. Just leave the bureaucrats a message and then you get the rights after it is confirmed that you are the same user as on WT. Help is needed... jan (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once the identity of this account is confirmed your admin rights will be restored. See Wikivoyage:User account migration for some guidance. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I had no idea you didn't have the buttons yet! --Peter Talk 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping one of you can help me to get buttons on pt: and es: as soon as possible. Did you get my email, Peter? Texugo (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook links[edit]


I was unaware (until now) that Facebook links were verboten in the Willits article. Now I shall go and sin no more. 2 Burblestein (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental deletion by you[edit]


In your eagerness to exterminate the dreaded Facebook link, you also deleted the Buy, Eat, Drink, Safety, and What next sections of the article. I have been unable to restore and edit them due to WV's spam filter. Will you be restoring my loving labors on behalf of my home town?

Burblestein (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it. There was a double http tag that the spam filter was getting caught up on.Texugo (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kind sir. I spent some days walking from shop to shop gathering info from my neighbors and entering it here. If you hadn't put this back, I was definitely going to hear about it....

Burblestein (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little help needed.[edit]

Hello, again,

I can't seem to master the template at the bottom to upgrade Willits status to "useable city". Could you please change it for me?

Burblestein (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Done. You just have to change it to {{usablecity}}. Texugo (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. I'll keep this little WV quirk in mind when I edit in the future.

I did have the downtown shops listed in an order that took the strolling pedestrian in an easily walked loop. I note that you have scrambled that order. Is there a reason, rule, or policy concerning this re-ordering that I should be aware of for future listings?

Burblestein (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we list shops in alphabetical order unless there is some special reason for listing them in some other order (such as grouping them by type, or by neighborhood for larger cities). See Shopping listings. I changed it because I thought it was just random.. Anyway though, unless you really really believe that most people are going to take a walking tour of every place on the list in the order you had it, I think it´s much better to have alphabetical order. Texugo (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Texugo,

Anyone who wants to shop in downtown Willits has to park and walk, as none of these shops are drive through, nor do they have parking lots. Shoppers just pull to the side of the road into a parking space along Main Street/Highway 101. And every thing is within less than a half mile of walking if the curious should investigate it all. I believe the listing is much handier in address order, so as to avoid backtracking and confusion for the traveller.

As your linked reference seems to say that alpha order can be superceded by a more fitting scheme, I am shuffling the addresses back into address order from south to north as fitting this particular situation, as most outbound travelers enter Willits from the south. (Returnees from the north tend to run back through deep into the night, when the shops are closed.)

Another query for you: I have two attractions outside town in Mendocino County, though they can be reached only by transiting Willits. How would you recommend this be handled?

Many thanks for help to date. Much appreciated.

Burblestein (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think that kind of oddly assumes that tourists will want to make a circuit of all the shops on the list, but go ahead with that and we'll see what other people think of it later on. Just be sure to: 1) explain the order they are in at the top of the section in the article, and 2) put a section to explain why on the talk page.
As for the things outside of town, I think it kind of depends on the distance and nature of the attractions, but they probably should go in See or possibly in the region article.Texugo (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be hesitant to put individual listings into a region article, as this does attract spam listings of businesses in country/region pages which should have been purely local (hôteliers listing their own hotels, in particular). Suburbs of a city are normally listed as part of a city; other options (if a small town is surrounded by farmland with a few rural villages) are to create a subsection like Cobourg#Nearby for the out-of-town points or create a guide page for a large rural area like Anticosti, Thousand Islands or Rural Montgomery County as if it were a town. K7L (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, what K7L said is correct, though it may be acceptable to have a one-liner in the region article pointing to the city, if such attractions are among the top things to recommend in the area.Texugo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'll skip the Indian casino and the dude ranch, in that case, and leave them for the Mendocino County article editors. I'll also add a note on the shopping tour on the article's Talk page.

Burblestein (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predefinição no Wikipédia[edit]

I've nominated w:pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Predefinição:Wikitravel for deletion; could you please take a look to see if I've done this correctly? I've also raised the question of whether w:pt:Predefinição:Correlatos should be linking to articles directly (instead of pointlessly going via Special:Search on the destination wiki, as it does now) on that template's talk page. K7L (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright to me, yeah. Texugo (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo,
Our legal counsel tells me that we're only required to post it on the english language version, currently. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsap Peninsula[edit]

Hi Texugo, you flagged Kitsap Peninsula for manual of style errors. Is that because State Parks have embedded links? Or that you think that they should only be listed under city entries? Most of them are not near cities and a few don't even have addresses and I really think they should be listed separately from city listings. Can you give me an example of a region that has handled this better and I will try to comply. I've been working on another area that I did the same thing so you can fix two errors at once! Lumpytrout (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did you see my explanation inside the style tag itself? I mostly tagged it because of the front-linked listings, but generally these kinds of listing should be listed in the See section of the nearest city, with the region page only highlighting them with one-liner listings which point to the city articles with the actual details. If necessary, you can make a "Further afield" subsection of the See section in the appropriate article.Texugo (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks, I saw your explanation but wanted to make sure I understood before I proceeded. The area is very rural and most State Parks are not really near any cities, some don't even have addresses that I could find. I will clean that up, thanks again. Lumpytrout (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I was creating a page and u deleted it???? I was just taking help from Wikipedia material.


Sir I was getting help from that material. Meanwhile I was editing the page u deleted it.

Hello Texugo[edit]

Hey there Texugo, thanks for your welcome! I will ask you if I have any doubts, and feel free to ask back! Wrote a couple of startup articles in wikitravel a few years back. Por sinal, o teu português é muito bom, abraço! FernãoMendesPinto (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo, could you copy User:Ruud Koot/Listing editor/Template:Listing to the real Template:Listing? Cheers, —Ruud 02:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruud. I've done it. But could you explain what we've just done? Texugo (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an invisible "tag" that allows the listing editor to locate the individual fields (specifically lat and long) in the HTML generated by the listing template. —Ruud 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning about scripts and bots[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Can anyone point me to some resources for how to write scripts and run bots on wikis? Texugo (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The method I have found the easiest is AutoWikiBrowser, start by semi-automatic, then once you get the hang of it can start running as a bot. Beta version works with Wikivoyage. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bots. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to develop them, or just use existing ones? w:Wikipedia:Tools is probably a good place to start for both. If you want to develop them, assuming you know some JavaScript and/or Python, looking at existing scripts and bots (especially pywikipediabot) is a good start. And of course the MediaWiki API. —Ruud 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. I'm not too up on Javascript, so I'll be fine to start with existing ones. There is just hardly anyone else to do these things on pt: so I´d like to at least be able to do some find and replace work and other simple things.Texugo (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two main ready-to-run tools: Autowikibrowser and Pywikipediabot that include a most common functions or (especially pwb) are expandable. There are a lot of other frameworks, of varying status of developments, reliability and up-to-date-ness (I know that's not a word :P). If you have a particular language you're interested in, I can give you some links or point you to somebody that I know is working in that language. I should note that pt: has a really good bot developer in Alchimista and it might be worth dropping a line to him :) A not-so-up-to-date list of frameworks that I compiled a while ago is at botwiki:Template:Script#Framework. If you have any particular task in mind, it might be worth looking on the various frameworks and existing bots with public source code so you don't have to build it all from scratch. Javascript is not used for any bot but for client-side scripts, tho that can be useful to you of course, generally I've seen the main frameworks as being in python, php & C#, but in general, if you know python, using pywikipediabot and expanding if needed is the best option by faaaar. Snowolf How can I help? 09:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bem-Vindo[edit]

Cool, I've added my name on the list. Victão Lopes I hear you... 18:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It took me some time and now it looks quite good. Victão Lopes I hear you... 18:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh categories[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there a way to force the categories to refresh? I'm over on pt: creating all the hidden categories to mirror the breadcrumb structure and it's been more than 24 hours since I started and most of the things I´ve done are still showing up in the "pages without IsPartOf category" category here. It would be really nice to have it clear out the hundreds of articles that no longer apply. Any way to do that? Texugo (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the template and change one byte in some trivial manner, so that every page with the template must be refreshed? K7L (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to make a dummy edit, just clicking edit and save is sufficient. Using AutoWikiBrowser also might make this easier. sumone10154(talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had to do this numerous times, because it kept stopping after reorganizing only a couple of hundred, but it eventually worked. Texugo (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki keeps a job queue of pages and categories that need to be updated after a template edit and runs them a few at a time in the background so as not to slow the site. The number of these jobs waiting is reported by api.php somewhere... K7L (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I learn something new every day... Thanks. Texugo (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions[edit]


I noticed that you were so kind to help me delete some files. I noticed that you skipped some of the files and I guess it is because they are tricky to find because of the redirects on Commons.

If you check Special:Contributions/MGA73bot and click for example this diff you can see the file. Then it should be easy to delete those tricky files.

--MGA73 (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some of the pages linked from Category:Speedy deletion candidates didn´t have "Delete" as an option under the tab, so I skipped them. Thanks for the heads up. Texugo (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America question[edit]

Can you help with my questions here Talk:Retiring_abroad#Contributions_wanted? Pashley (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look over the next day or so and see if I can't fill some gaps... Texugo (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Videos[edit]

Thanks for the update and links to helpful information! I hope to get some well written articles up. --Bubblecuffer (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"travelling" to Texas?[edit]

I was wondering if you wanted to contribute to Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#.22traveller.22_vs._.22traveler.22 if you're a native American English speaker? I'm from Maryland myself but James is in Australia (British English). Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi Tex, guess what, I was surfing a little to chill out about the whole pt: image shenanigans, opened the Shanghai page, and to my surprise, the first pic is a collage!! How come?!?! Should any removing action be taken? What do you say? 20:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Funny coincidence! Yes, sometimes those things slip through the cracks here, but it should be changed to a single picture. The image policy states: "Wikivoyage does not use montages, or really any type of image other than maps or simple photography. Montages are problematic in particular for a travel guide, because their aesthetic reminds of a travel brochure, or some other promotional, rather than informational, material." Texugo (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Grant County" articles[edit]

Fair enough, the "Grant County" articles aren't (currently) notable. But I just thought that maybe you could restore those pages and redirect them to other pages with the #REDIRECT [[''Page name'']] tag (if there are other names for those counties)? Can that happen? Curtaintoad (user · talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo[edit]

Hey, I just noticed you're living in SP. Have you ever been to a meetup? The Wikimedia/Wikipedia meetup in the city is the largest in Brazil, and I got a chance to visit last year. Lots of super nice folks, though obviously most of them contribute to Portuguese-language Wikimedia projects. Steven (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't but I'd be interested to go next time! Where can I find the info? After coming from WT, I'm still a little new to the wmf. Texugo (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipédia:Encontros/WikiSampa, plus the Wikimedia Brasil wiki and mailing list are all good places to check out for more infor. :) Steven (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag converter[edit]

Hi Texugo!

I'm not sure if you also need some automated text recognition for unformatted lists in Portuguese. If so, then I could need some help in translation for the first part of this file: . It contains lists of words, that are mainly found for certain types of interest, sleep/restaurant/... and words, that are more often seen with subcategories, e.g. which indicate a cheap guesthouse, but not a hotel, or a certain type of cuisine. Most words probably just need direct translation, but I guess there will be a lot of special words, which would be a good extension for the list, synonyms, typical phrases, other kinds of food and so on. ML31415 Mail Talk 14:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. I´ll get right on it. Thanks! Texugo (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's done. If you give me fully translated buzzwords, the text recognition will be much better for Portuguese text. ML31415 Mail Talk 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo. You already know me from WT (I am the Japanese-Brazilian from São Paulo who lives in the Netherlands), I have opted for a more anonymous nickname this time. Good to talk to you again.

Surely I will check the Brazil Expedition page!

Best regards, Krauser levyl (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texugo. Just wanted to make sure you saw my reply to you on my talk page. Regards, JamesA >talk 11:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New division and district articles in Pakistan and India[edit]

Hi, Texugo. Please weigh in on the contributions of our prolific new IP poster in Talk:Pakistan. Thanks a lot! Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese listing conversion[edit]

Hi Texugo - you had asked about running User:Wrh2Bot to convert XML listings to templates on pt:. With en: nearly done, could you let me know what the Portuguese equivalents for the following are? My code is expecting that these will be the same in the XML listing and the template, so if they differ between the two please also let me know:

XML tag & template names:


XML attribute & template attributes:


Also, what is the "content" attribute for the template called in pt? The bot also tries to correct common misspellings (example: "adress"), so if there are any commonly misspelled attributes on pt please let me know and I can add them to the code.

I'll need to do some testing to ensure that the conversions don't break with the language changes implemented, but once that's done I'll let you know, and then please let me know what else (if anything) is needed before the bot should be run. I probably won't get to this for a few days (at least), so there isn't any hurry to provide translations. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition Poland[edit]

Hey Texugo, any interest in restarting the Poland Expedition? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since moving to São Paulo a year ago, I´ve been more into the Brazil Expedition I started. Texugo (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for replying, have lotsa fun with your Expedition then! PrinceGloria (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo. Was there any reason for this revert? The template could probably be speedy deleted anyhow, but it's still tagged as up for deletion without a discussion. James Atalk 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was the first thing that came up in my Watchlist when I logged on this morning and I didn't see your fix 2 minutes later! :P James Atalk 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot for the help! Since our Wikivoyage is newborn we are now electing administrators, so there's none who can edit locked pages like the one you mentioned. Within some days we 'll try it. Thanks again.--Smiley green alien wink.svg Alien ? 21:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It works! Thanks a lot for the help!--Smiley green alien wink.svg Alien ? 08:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

São Paulo cities[edit]

Hi Texugo,

Thanks for the suggestion, I will see what I can do to reduce the list of cities to 9.

Krauser levyl (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaico de Unidades de Conservação do Jacupiranga[edit]

Let's see... the "Mosaico de Unidades de Conservação do Jacupiranga" was created when the original park, Parque Estadual de Jacupiranga, was dismembered in three parks: Parque Estadual da Caverna do Diabo, Parque Estadual do Rio Turvo, Parque Estadual do Lagamar de Cananéia.

We can of course consider the three parks separately instead of the "Mosaico". It is probably better if the pt version is organized like that.

Krauser levyl (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the word "Mosaico" is really weird, but I guess it would also be inappropriate to use the deprecated name "Parque Estadual do Jacupiranga". I think that we can either split the section into the three new park names, or to use something simpler like "Jacupiranga Conservation Units".
Krauser levyl (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo, I saw in the your profile that you work as translator. By any chance, do you give private English lessons? My girlfriend (that lives in Saúde) is in need of some, as we may move to Singapore in a few months. Krauser levyl (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to do a postdoctorate there, beginning from september. I am also looking for a job in São Paulo, but it does not seem likely that I will find something good. In Brazil there are unfortunately not many opportunities for people studying certain topics. Krauser levyl (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my main areas of expertise are (radar) target tracking, estimation and statistical signal processing. I did an interview last weekend, so there is still some chance that I will stay in São José dos Campos, where I lived before. Krauser levyl (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo. I noticed you had quite a bit of input in that discussion in regard to changing our external link format. A few weeks have passed, and everyone who has commented there is in support. I just wanted to confirm you do not hold any more reservations and are happy to see the new format implemented. All the best, James Atalk 14:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

São Luiz do Paraitinga[edit]

Hi, I edited the page and put the times of the trails round-trip to avoid confusion. Thanks for your trip suggestion. I never took the road between Taubaté and Ubatuba, I only went to Ubatuba from São José do Campos and Caraguatatuba. However, I hope to visit São Luiz do Paraitinga during the winter festival. Krauser levyl (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I think I should also say sorry, since I forgot to put the banner in the Wikivoyage banner category... hehe. Now that I have a relatively decent camera, I am trying to make some photos of Paulista cities, as many don't have good pictures in Commons. Too bad I just have one month and a bit here... (talk) Krauser levyl (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need template tip[edit]

Any idea how a disable linefeed in this template Template:Poisym ? Will work on symbols but first step is to simply the current inline text. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you place the template in a line it will start the next piece of text on a new line. Need to stop carriage return. Seem to remember seeing some no space syntax somewhere. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
test test test
Worked it out. needed span --Traveler100 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook links[edit]

I had thought that if Facebook was the primary site for a business that a Facebook link was OK? I don't know if there is a policy against such links, but Wikivoyage talk:External links#Facebook seems to indicate that people are using Facebook for the "url" field when it is a business's primary online presence. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Needs banner image[edit]

Don't forget to do a what links here on a page that has been delete and change the pages referencing it. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank! I did it... Texugo (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to block this user - he/she is wreaking havoc and I can only revert their changes to existing pages; not delete the new ones they're creating. Thanks! --Nick talk 22:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judaean Mountains[edit]

Hi. the Judaean Mountains is not the Shefela !. the Shefela is much lower place. please fixed that, thank you. פארוק (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The geographic hierarchy of Israel is currently divided in such a way that the Shefela article covers these mountains, including Jerusalem, with a bit of a disclaimer in that article that Jerusalem etc. is not technically part of the Shefela. If you think we should revisit the way the country has been divided into regions, you might start a discussion at Talk:Israel. Texugo (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mistake. the Judaean Mountains starting in the end of the Shefela in the Jerusalem Mountains. פארוק (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but generally when we divide a country into regions, we try to divide it holistically, with no gaps and no overlap, and those regions are shown on the country map in the country article. (see WV:Geographical hierarchy for more info). If you think the current division and map of Israel needs to be changed to include an article on the Judaean Mountains, you should bring that up at Talk:Israel and see what others think. Texugo (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk pages[edit]

Aha, now I see what you were missing in the UserMerge: your old talk pages. I have now moved those back over—I assume you'll probably want to add an archive link on this page. --Peter Talk 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italy Province[edit]

I'm setting the new provinces of 2014

Copyleft violation[edit]

Hi Texugo - thanks for letting me know, that is my picture. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll have time to do anything about it right now. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers. -Shaundd (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cities in Emilia Romagna[edit]

Hi Texugo, I noticed you added a few cities in the Emilia Romagna page. I wonder if we should set some kind of criteria to decide whether or not to consider a village a city. In my opinion, Bardi, Pennabilli and Novafeltria are far too small to deserve this status. The latter two can be found by exploring the "Montefeltro" page. Would you agree in not considering among the main cities those places with less than 20000 inhabitants?

By the way, I am from Pennabilli ;) —The preceding comment was added by Danilo Pianini (talkcontribs)

Hi Danilo. It might seem strange, but here on en:, the term "City" is used to include all cities, towns, municipalities, vilas, townships, etc. for which we have an article, so if we have an article for it, it should probably be in that list unless it is a park or something. To tell you the truth, the list at Emilia-Romagne should actually be only 9 "cities", with the more complete lists at the province-level articles, but since not all of those provinces have been created yet, we have a situation where the list is longer. Most of the list on the Montefeltro page, on the other hand, are very small towns of 500-2000 people, and we probably won't ever have a separate article for most of them, so that list doesn't necessarily need to be saved (see the deletion discussion here). Texugo (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Banner[edit]

Good to know about the repeated banner rule. So it is better to leave the São Paulo state banner. Unfortunately I don't have any other banner from either the state or Socorro. Krauser levyl (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But now that I remember, I have a friend who has made some quite good pictures of Socorro, maybe I can borrow from him and make a banner.Krauser levyl (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delft survival[edit]

Hey Texugo

I'm with the user lfloreza and we would like to create a page that would help the students who arrive in Delft. It would be a food guide for them to know where the cheapest places are (restaurants, shops, ...) so it would help them to not miss food from home.

So, we ask you to not delete the page "Delft survival", or give us some guidance on what we can do.

Regards Rjfs28

Question about Montevideo website[edit]

Hi Texugo, I just came in from Wikipedia. One of my focus topics there is Uruguay and in particular Montevideo. I also contribute tons of Uruguay/Montevideo photos in Commons. I have done extensive work in an almost encyclopedic, non-commercial website of mine called Exploring Montevideo, , hoping to share my discoveries with visitors. I thought this might be a very useful addition to the article Montevideo here. However I see that you do not have external links here, and I see it stated they should only be on primary sources. Can you please give me an idea of whether/how this website can be of any use here? Thank you. Hoverfish (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese phrasebook[edit]

Texugo, this box has appeared since early 2012 on the Brazilian Portuguese phrasebook page.

MMKK2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! I just had a quick look at the notability policy and found nothing that would unwarrant biribol having its own article. I'm interested to know what your rationale is. Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo. When I've used AWB I don't think it was adding Wikipedia links, so if you've got any tips for changing defaults to make the tool more useful on Wikivoyage could you add them to Wikivoyage talk:AWB? It would be nice to get everyone's suggestions for using that tool here, and perhaps eventually come up with a standardized preferences file that people could then just import and use. Thanks! -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you also manually check that you have set an appropriate map centre (and almost always, set a zoom level, too) when using AWB so that these sort of whoopsies do not result. Thanks! --W. Frankemailtalk 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I created that category, so I'm doing not checking the map center on every single thing added from Wikidata yet - having coordinates is better than nothing - but as I am going through the stuff that ends up in that category, I am correcting the center/zoom where necessary... Texugo (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Keep up the good work. My suggestion would be to not do this on any article at region or above level, then; certainly not countries without manually correcting within a few minutes. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see the need for that restriction - it's still better to have an unzoomed coordinate in there than none at all - but I am prioritizing countries and prominent states/etc. when going through the category. In many region cases, someone who knows the area will have to come along a fix the zoom because the map does not always show the proper borders. But in any case, it's best to go ahead and put the coordinates in there anyway so everything will show up on the dynamic map. Texugo (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Six days hiking on Moskenesøy Vfd[edit]

Hi Texugo, I think we should refrain ourselves from either deleting or redirecting until Vfd is not properly closed and archived. --Saqib (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib. I don't mind that you undid it - there are only a couple of days left on that one anyway, but in theory I will stick to what I said on the vfd discussion: things which have uncontroversially been tagged with {{merge}} for months don't actually even need to be brought up in on the vfd page before being redirected, especially if the content has already been already merged, so I don't think my redirecting it was out of line. Texugo (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eilat revert[edit]

Can you please explain [1] ? Thanks, טבעת-זרם (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I am sorry about that - I undid my reversion. I don't know what happened - I don't even remember looking at that page yesterday... Texugo (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) טבעת-זרם (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russia (Asia)[edit]

I notice you changed pages from Russia (Asia) to Russia. Could you point me in the discussion on this. Not saying it is wrong but if this change is correct then some other pages and categories need to be fixed.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because the page that the IsPartOf tag was using, Russia (Asia), is only a redirect to Russia, and as such, it makes that part of the breadcrumb show in italics. Since using redirect pages "fake" the breadcrumb is unusual, looks weird, and is not something there is any precedence for (that I know of), I would have thought that is what should have had a discussion before implementation, but I didn't find any. Texugo (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you're the one who broke Russia (Asia)! There was already a fair amount of discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Breadcrumb navigation#Dual breadcrumb trails, Talk:Asia#Proposed Eurasia breadcrumb, Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2013#Russia. and Wikivoyage:Script nominations#OK.2C_I.27ve got another couple. The inability of mw:extension:GeoCrumbs to properly handle something being in (isPartOf) more than one region is a bug which has been extant for years. There is a bugzilla item, no idea if anything will be done, but certainly to claim that the issue "should have had a discussion" is to ignore much of Wikivoyage talk:Breadcrumb navigation where this is long-known and already discussed. K7L (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't mind being reverted if I missed something. I imagine I checked Talk:Russia (Asia) and Talk:Russia and found nothing and assumed there was no discussion. I'd have expected to find an explanation of this unusual situation on at least one of the two most relevant pages involved... Texugo (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the discussion was on Wikivoyage talk:Breadcrumb navigation instead of Talk:Russia because we have at least sixty entities which fall awkwardly across regional boundaries, everything from the Thousand Islands (ON/NY) to Glenrio (TX/NM) to Turkey (Europe/Asia) to Yellowstone National Park (three US states) to the Quad Cities (IL/IA). Russia is just the geographically largest problem entity. K7L (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiling an experiment[edit]

Obviously there are advantages to always featuring well below Wikitravel on search engine results pages - far fewer readers means far less time is wasted dealing with spammers, for example.

However, some editors here would much prefer that their work receives a wider audience.

Please would you carefully read what has been written at Wikivoyage_talk:Search Expedition#Action points to boost our readership, take a wee while to think about the consequences for the experiment of this move of your today, and revert your moves.

Surely you can allow the experiment to run for 20 more days?

(I do appreciate that you were doing a bunch of moves and probably did not read either the notice or the new article's discussion page: Talk:Somerset,_Tasmania#SEO_Test.)

Thanks for your anticipated co-operation... --W. Frankemailtalk 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had checked the move log, you would have noticed that I realized my mistake immediately and attempted to move it back a few seconds later, but somehow only managed to move the talk page back to the original name. Don't know how that happened, but it has been fixed now. Texugo (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's much appreciated. If the experiment is successful (it has been so far) we'll need to start thinking about how not to go crazy with all those spam bots arriving... --W. Frankemailtalk 23:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image alignment[edit]

Hey, Texugo. I was a little surprised to see you moving images from left-alignment to right, without even explaining in the edit summary what you were doing and why. Did you have a particular reason for the shift? LtPowers (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because left-alignment has always been controversial and heavily discouraged, which is why I would bet you could probably hit the Random page button literally a thousand times and still not come across a left-aligned image. There was no special reason to make an exception in these cases, so I set them back like all our other articles are - right-aligned. Texugo (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's controversial, I think it would have been at least polite to express that opinion in your edit summary, especially considering what a good contributor Andre has been. Even better, though, would have been to open a discussion on this matter rather than imposing personal formatting preferences that aren't written down as policy anywhere that I can find. Wikivoyage:How to add an image even explicitly instructs how to add a left- or center-aligned image. I myself have used both in writing articles, like Southern Tier and Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom. LtPowers (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's left-aligning that has been controversial, so I thought nothing of right-aligning them per convention, but I probably should have put an edit comment. It didn't even occur to me that it was Andre's doing. Anyway, I think you are already aware that I have already started a conversation about putting the long-standing practice into policy, which has been very unfairly stalled by people who would like to have left-aligned images, thus trying to effect a change in the way things are done without a consensus to start allowing left-aligned images any ol' time they feel like it. It's not how things have been done. Over the years we have done an extraordinarily thorough job of keeping things off the left margin, and what I said about clicking the random button a thousand times would undoubtedly prove it, yours and Andre's unwillingness to cooperate with it notwithstanding. That is undeniably the state of things, so it needs to be written in policy. If people want to start allowing them, they can discuss it and try to get consensus for that afterward. As was the case with montages until that policy was finally added in 2009, the tradition shouldn't be allowed to change by default just because it wasn't written down. Texugo (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition on left-aligned images. They are useful on pages where the right column is already occupied by a {{quickbar}}, template or another image. We use them less than Wikipedia because our articles tend to use fewer graphics and templates, but they are valid. K7L (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In long-established practice going back to at least 2005, they have always been heavily discouraged and routinely corrected to the right when found, which is why we have so very few. The fraction of a percent of our articles which do contain left alignment are still that way simply because there has been no easy way to track them down and correct them without using a bot. Texugo (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper lynching[edit]

Hi, Texugo. You reverted an edit that put a mention of the notorious Jasper lynching in the "Stay safe" section of the Jasper (Texas) article, saying that you didn't think an isolated incident involving 1 death 15 years ago warrants a warning to the traveller. Perhaps it doesn't, but it was a really notorious, shocking lynching, so would you agree that it belongs in an "Understand" section as part of the town's history?

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps, if you really think so. I was living in Texas at the time and don't recall the story personally, but if it's important then go ahead. I just thought it rather silly to put in the stay safe section as if to warn people of a danger of that. Texugo (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that there was pretty wall-to-wall coverage nationwide, such as on network nightly news shows (I was living in New York at the time and heard plenty about it). I agree that if there isn't any great risk to black visitors now, it doesn't need to be mentioned in "Stay safe." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constant edit conflicts[edit]

Hi Texugo, great thanks for working with me all the time fixing coordinates and so. However, I'm constantly encountering edit conflicts as you jump in just a minute after I save a first version :-) I'm also getting "lost session data" notices all the time, requiring me to log out and log in again all the time. I only have that when creating new articles and you editing simultaneously, so I'm getting the idea it's connected. Would you consider waiting an hour or so after creation, so I get a chance to fix a few things and expand a bit without constantly having to adapt my changes to exclude the things you already fixed? Would be nice, thanks! JuliasTravels (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, haha! I just try to make sure nothing new slips in without geo/wp/ispartof/data item... Sorry about that, I'll try to give you a little more time. Texugo (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Np, thanks. I must admit I never even bothered to find out how to add geo or data items, as you're always so super fast haha :-) You'll have a few to go, as I'm trying to undertake a recreation of some 450 almost-empty outlines over the next months... No, I'm kidding, I'll try to find out soon ;-) Good night for now! JuliasTravels (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding geo is easy. I usually just go to the wikipedia article, click on the coordinates, and then copy them from the geohack page, put them in the geo template on the WV page, and trim the excessive decimal places. Texugo (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nilo Peçanha[edit]

You are right [2], thanks for that. However, now I'm starting to doubt if the town really is on that "Green Line"? Do you know? Information in English is limited - if we're not sure, I'd rather just cut it all out. Different sites seem to have slightly different ideas on what and where that Green line is, exactly :-) Btw, about the geo data: is 4 digits okay? Or what is excessive? JuliasTravels (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I left it in there because that's what Wikipedia in Portuguese says, but since you mentioned it I did a little research and found that the Green Line refers to the northernmost stretch of BA-099, which is nowhere near Nilo Peçanha (see w:BA-099), so I'm going to remove it. Thanks for pointing it out.
As for coordinates, well, I don't know exactly. I usually put it to 2 decimal places (xx.xx), or three ( if the place is really small. I don't know that we have a recommended length, but a lot of the ones from wikipedia's geohack pages are ridiculously specific. Texugo (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be because the coords on Wikipedia are in DMS format and GeoHack converts them into an odd decimal. LtPowers (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Cola Canyon[edit]

Hi Texugo, I was wondering why you made this redirect? Is Colca Canyon sometime called that? Because it appeared to me Coca Cola Canyon page was created as a mild form of vandalism :) Danapit (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search, and while there doesn't appear to be any place with this name officially, more than one of the first few results that came up suggested that some people call Colca Canyon by this name, even if jokingly. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you don't think it is appropriate. Texugo (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, perhaps we should redirect Pepsi-Cola to Pensacola so as not to play favourites? K7L (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or VfD? --Danapit (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to it being speedy deleted. Texugo (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redlinks on talk pages[edit]

Texugo, isn't there a better way to solve this problem than changing old talk page comments? Redlinks on talk pages shouldn't be a problem anyway; can't we just ignore them? LtPowers (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer being able to keep the maintenance category clean and free of extraneous things like that, and in this case, that one talk page is apparently the only exception left. The only other option I know of it to just leave it in there, which would mean that once we clean up all the real article pages' red links, we would be left with just that one talk page in the maintenance category, to be preserved forever in its non-functioning state - for what purpose? Does fixing it bother you that much? Or maybe you know of a behind-the-scenes way to make talk pages immune to this particular category? Most other maintenance categories can be taken care of with a namespace switch in the template, but there is no template for this category. Texugo (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know a lot of other talk pages were changed similarly in the last month or so; I didn't realize this was the last one. I'm sorry it was cluttering up the maintenance category, but I have an aversion to changing old comments on talk pages. I had a couple cases where it made one of my posts nonsensical; this is particularly a problem with galleries. Your specific edit was okay, I guess; I was just asking as a general question whether we really need to go changing old talk page posts just to avoid a few talk pages being listed in a maintenance category. LtPowers (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I will be careful not to change the meaning of any such posts. It's just that letting talk pages accumulate in maintenance categories can clog them up and gradually diminish the utility of having the maintenance categories in the first place. If you've ever tried to use Special:WantedTemplates or Special:WantedPages to do anything useful, maybe you know what I mean. Texugo (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have seen that you have moved Iseo, Lombardy to Iseo. I suggest to create also a page of disambiguation because there is also an Iseo in switzerland (w:Iseo,_Switzerland). I'm new on the English version of wikivoyage, so before create it I'd like to have a suggestion. Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only some 100 people lives in Swiss Iseo. --Saqib (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain me why did you delet some wiki-links on Iseo page? ([3]) Thanks --Lkcl it (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

Hi there! I have two questions about the editing for Wikivoyage.


  1. 私は地理座標 (GEO) の値を、役所の位置にしています。しかし地図の表示を考えると、座標は地形の中心にした方が良さそうにも思えます。どちらが良いでしょうか?
  2. 同じバナー用画像を複数の記事に使うことはできますか? 例えばIburiで使用したバナー画像を、Toyako, Shikotsu-Toya National Parkで使っても良いでしょうか?--OskNe (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo. Following on from our earlier discussion about when a UNESCO site deserves an article, I wanted your thoughts on Djémila in Algeria. Currently, we describe the site in our Setif guide, which is an hour and a half away. However, according to Lonely Planet, Djémila is a town and has a small little hotel for tourists to stay the night. Google Maps also says there is another hostel. However, LP recommends against sleeping the night in Djemila, and opting for a day trip from Setif or Constatine. So where should we put it? I think it may benefit if we have a larger discussion about this in the Pub and get some clear-cut rules on these sort of cases. James A]] ▪ talk 04:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thought you might want to know I created Wikivoyage:Roadmap/Generated user maps, seeing as it was your great idea originally! James Atalk 12:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. After studying up a little, I think Djémila should probably get its own article. It has places to stay, which satisfies our traditional rule of thumb for these things, and there seems to be plenty to say about the various ruins there, which include multiple sites (bathhouses, market and shops, arena, forum, capitol building, church and temple, amphitheater, houses, Christian quarter, and museum, according to WP in Arabic), plus we already acknowledge that a map or guide is needed since there are no signs.
Re:map, cool, thanks for doing that! I'd almost forgotten about that proposal! Texugo (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the input. Sounds like it could be a great article if someone had the time and effort. On that note, I've also left a message here for Ryan Kaldari who developed the WikiLove extension and does a lot of other dev work. Maybe he'd be interested in helping us? James Atalk 13:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Thanks for the initiative! Texugo (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do next at El Camino Real?[edit]

I just finished all 21 missions at El Camino Real (4 received entries for the first time, and all 21 entries were improved in some manner). What do I do now to make it a proper itinerary? I have the beginnings of a seven-day itinerary (three missions a day) on the talk page...are there other things I should do? Purplebackpack89 19:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

El Camino Real[edit]

Was I too harsh responding to the "context for outsiders" comments? I just feel that ECR is so different from European hikers and the Camino Santiago, that it really doesn't bear mentioning Purplebackpack89 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pbp. I don't really know. I was pretty surprised at the user's initial reaction to the article as well, and would be surprised if those assumptions were common, but I don't know. I think it would be very weird if we had to specify "this is not considered to be a walking pilgrimage route", especially now that you've added the distance in there. Texugo (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image field in listings[edit]

Hi, could you please explain why you deleted the map images placed here?

I've been placing many images in the dynamic maps since the end of August, when Joachim kindly demonstrated how it works here. I've found many other articles not edited by myself which also use map images, have not found any bugs, nor encountered any discussions about it on the pub.

Best, –StellarD (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Since the templates don't actually do anything with the image field, and since it has not been explained in any documentation, I was not aware that this field did anything. Please feel free to revert. We should see about documenting this somewhere... Texugo (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed / Autoconfirmed / Autopatroller user[edit]

Hi Texugo, Thanks for changing rights to User:Cormac Bracken. What I wanted to do was actually change to Confirmed (as opposed to autoconfirmed after 4 days). Would this help? And also because User:Cormac Bracken hasn't contributed in the past, is he trusted enough to be an Autopatroller? What do you think? Or did I get it mixed somehow? Danapit (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of past sporting event articles[edit]

I've added some more page links to Wikivoyage:Archive of past sporting event articles. Do they need moving in properly as the Rugby World Cup 2007 page was? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose they do. Thanks! Texugo (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damme: Parkette[edit]

In the Damme article, Texugo changed the word "parkette" to "parking lot". I changed it back as I meant a "tiny park" rather than a "parking lot". I later checked the dictionary [4] and found that "parkette" is a Canadianism. Google Streetview has a picture of the "parkette" at Spreystraat in Damme. [5]


I realise I havent been editing recently, and see some of your edits on some of the bare bones that I am starting, but damned if I can see what you do in some edits, trust I am not getting something blatantly wrong that you are not telling me about sats (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... not sure what's unclear. For Norseman and Caiguna, I added the geo, IsPartOf, WP, Commons, and WD item. for Goldfields-Esperance, I added your two new town articles to the city list and moved the other town articles from Other destinations to where they belong and moved the climate section up to the Understand section where it belongs. For Canberra I moved a bunch of listing descriptions from after their respective listing template to inside it, where they belong. Not sure what else... Texugo (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that appreciate it - now I understand, I had lost the nack of the geo, IsPartOf, WP, Commons, and WD. Not unnecessarily paranoid or anything, just rusty on the bits that you have added. Thank you for that. As for Canberra, location of the bureaucrats that destroy the country with little care for anything outsid etheir immediate little world views, I wouldnt touch it or watch it anyways. Have a good christmas if I dont speak much before then... sats (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Is this really an extra region? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As continents are the highest level in WV's article hierarchy and Eurasia in the real world comprises both Europe and Asia, well, it is an extra hierarchical region. But currently the Eurasia article is just a disambiguation page and not a real article. I'd say let's put the disambig tag on it instead unless someone really wants to develop it into a proper article. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hmm. User:Eco84 has been changing a number of disambig pages to extra-hierarchical region pages lately, and I am not yet sure what I think of it. I assume the rationale is that a disambig serves to disambiguate places which merely share the same name while an extra-hierarchical region brings together a geographically contiguous area which our regular geographical hierarchy has divided into separate regions for one reason or another. There is some sense in that, I think, but although the purpose of "extra-hierarchical region articles" has been only loosely defined so far, it does imply that the article will be expanded to explain at least some things that are common to the region as a whole. I don't know that this always makes sense for some of the recently changed pages like Eurasia, Latin America, and Mediterranean Sea. Some of these are also kind of screwing up our accounting by having the extra-region template, which marks it as a destination, but presenting the impossibility of assigning an IsPartOf in cases where the extra region spans more than one continent. I am inclined to say that we should, as User:Ypsilon suggests, change it back to a disambig, and discourage changing other similar disambig pages to extra-regions, at least until such time as someone starts adding pertitent travel information that would not more usefully belong somewhere else. It would be nice to get User:Eco84's opinion on this too. Texugo (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently started to develop Kashmir into a proper destination article which was previously just a disambiguate page with extra-hierarchical template. --Saqib (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like using disambiguation templates for things that don't share the same name. The semantics are all wrong. LtPowers (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I read the template as allowing anything from a basic list to a full-fledged article (This article can be expanded if the information is specific to the page, otherwise it is encouraged to add text to the appropriate region or city article). There's also the issue that we should avoid linking directly to disambiguation pages, except for the disambiguation notes at the top of articles (or so I thought). However, linking to a page like Latin America doesn't necessarily seem "wrong" to me (there's nothing ambiguous about Latin America), so de-linking it would be a little odd. Eco84 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; a good rule of thumb is that something that might reasonably be linked to (like Niagara Falls or Great Lakes) is probably not really a disambiguation page. Powers (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you![edit]

Barncompass.png The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thanks for editing my Ketep Pass article. It looks more professional now. Ronaldoowen (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! As far as I know, Texugo actually don't like barn-compasses but anyway, he deserve one for his great contributions. --Saqib (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Ronaldoowen! Actually, Saqib, I like the barncompass just fine and participated positively in feedback when it was designed from the barnstar. It's the Wikilove pink heart thing that I find unnecessary... Texugo (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it's praise time for you, let me add something. I've been meaning to commend you for your work on the maintenance panel. I think it's a really great tool and use it all the time. So thanks! I'm glad I didn't use the pink heart for that then ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Julia! I'm glad some people are using it! I notice there is even a Chinese version of it now. Texugo (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Just wondering if User:(WT-en) 0r9x281qi could be deleted. Their only contribution was to create that page, no no need to keep for attribution. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also User talk:(WT-en) Abulehleh and User:(WT-en) Abulehleh as they have no contributions at all. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I killed the first one as it appeared to be spam. I'd be in favor of speedy deleting any user imports where there were no contributions, but it might be worthwhile bringing that up for discussion just to make sure no one sees a reason to keep them around (update: Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy#Speedy delete imported user pages with no contributions). -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of spam is now created by random IPs finding user (talk) pages that aren't created, and creating them by spamming. :( --Rschen7754 00:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume this has been taken care of. Texugo (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Maggiore[edit]

Hi, what are the plans for Lake Maggiore after you deleted the redirect? I still think there should be an article on the region, because it is a main tourist attraction and important to have an overview for the lake. Lake Como and Lake Garda already exist...

Hi User:Uhkabu! I deleted the redirect exactly so that an article could be created if necessary. The redirect wasn't doing any good because it was only linked from the Italian Lake District article, and it redirected itself to that same article, redundantly. I thought that if I deleted it, it would then appear as a red link there, better signifying the need for article creation... Texugo (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there i am new to wiki voyage (couple of hours) We provide activities in many locations over a large distance, i thought the idea was to let people know what is available in different locations , Would it be appropriate to write a more detailed write up for the different location instead of a generic one.

many thanks

Hi Texugo[edit]

Thanks for getting back to me. We operate over a few county's in some remote regions which are up to 4 hours apart. i was hoping to show travellers what they could do when they get to these places most of the time they see a layby or car park unless they call us to meet them, to provide equipment and safety instructors they could enjoy a walk and miss out on the real adventure the area has to offer. We like to keep the areas as beautiful as can be so we use no signage at locations.

Would it be acceptable to write a specific write up for individual locations

thanks for your time

Hi Texugo[edit]

Thanks for getting back so quick,

Will ask the local wiki coach who introduced me to this at a workshop. (one of our competitors) and hopefully get some constructive information about the topic.

kind regards


If you think that there isn't any need for a separate article that's one thing, but the page was NOT started as a joke. It was started as a stub.

If it makes any difference, Clifton itself has a population of 282, but it's suburbs cover a humongous ares and have a fer larger population. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What suburbs? At only two miles from Centreville city limits, it looks more like Clifton is itself a suburb. Texugo (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You have new messages on my talk page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special page reports[edit]

Hey there! I noticed you've nominated a lot of templates for deletion at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. To be quite honest, I wanted to do so myself but I wasn't very sure on Wikivoyage's culture as regards to deletion, and I would be afraid of offending any inclusionists (people who tend to err on the side of 'keep'; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" etc). As far as I know, the only policy on any of this is at Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates which requires templates to be proposed before being used, but I don't know of practices discouraging creation of said templates. Anyway, have you considered looking at the database reports for Special:UnusedTemplates and Special:UnusedCategories? I could try to help you clean those out if you really wanted to. Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Since Template:SharedUploadNotice is only used within MediaWiki:Uploadtext, just wondering if it should be substituted into MediaWiki:Uploadtext and then deleted? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, but maybe you should run it by Ryan first too. Texugo (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that & he's fine with it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles linked to disambiguation items[edit]

You can now check if d:Property:P31 = d:Q4167410, see p.disambig and p.istanceof in it:Modulo:Wikibase. --Ricordisamoa 18:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some to delete[edit]

There are a few module pages that could be deleted. I would have tagged them with {{delete}} but that doesn't work on those type of pages (well apart from the /doc page). -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks WOSlinker! You and I make a pretty good team for all this template/module cleanup we've been doing! Cheers! Texugo (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark WP template as minor editor[edit]

For the addition of the Wikipedia template links, any chance you could enable the AWB "mark edit as minor" option? Special:RecentChanges is filling up fast, and it's only at "B" :) -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! And sorry. Thanks for catching that. Texugo (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted Templates & js pages[edit]

You'll notice on Special:WantedTemplates that there is Template:Drink\n‏‎ and a number of other *\n templates listed. If you changed the {{ to \{\{ in MediaWiki:Common.js as per this example edit then that would remove them from Special:WantedTemplates. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I'm aware of those but wasn't sure if nowiki-ing them would screw up the JavaScript. Yesterday or the day before I left a message with User:Torty3 about those, since he made the tools originally but no answer yet. There is also a second set of those erroneously summoned by User:Koavf/monobook.js, which I asked him about, but he doesn't know how to mess with the code. Does nowiki-ing them out really not affect the functionality? Texugo (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually it's the code you added for the edit toolbar :) User:WOSlinker's solution should work though, and I made the change. -- torty3 (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! You're right! Though it was someone else who added the pre/post things... Thanks for fixing it! Texugo (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be fine to change {{ to \{\{ in User:Koavf/monobook.js as well (without any nowiki bits). -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note[edit]

My comment at votes for deletion, if you need feel further explanation - please feel free to ask - none of them are equivalents of interstates by any means, and they are all itineraries for a start, also Western Australia is not USA. There is a very very different context. cheers./ sats (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very embarassing , I hadnt realise I had left skeleton stubs after creating them - all that ranting at Vfd was quite unnecessary - I have merged Albany and Great Southern, and started improving others - I can see the point - started and not developed. Sorry about that. sats (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you dont speak with other editors you dont choose to? It is a pity, the lingering vfd, with its rather slow and untouched form and really odd questions about interstates in the us (which dont related), seems to be somewhat becoming tedious. sats (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sats. Sorry for not replying here. Of course I speak with any other editors, I had just forgotten about this thread here. I did respond on the vfd page again, though. And I promise you the questions about interstates are not odd or unrelated - I just want to make sure we aren't changing the precedent. There must be some special reason why major Australian highways would qualify for an article while major highways elsewhere do not, and if there is none, then of course that is relevant to the question of whether the Australian ones are valid in the first place. Just vouching that an article could be filled about a road is not necessarily the sole criteria for whether it should be made into an itinerary article. I'm sorry if the issue is a little probing. Please be patient with me. Texugo (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point - it is an important one to deal with - I ask your leniency with me - my time is messy over next 4 days - I will get back - please be patient with me now :) - cheers sats (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the opportunity to try to get the articles up to standard, will try in the short term - I have a hell of shift job starting in about 10 days, will try to get up to standard by then.

  • Precedent issues always bother me here and in wp en - the short cutting of principles on wp en has left me distrusting a whole range of admins who have great delight in deleting items without adequate discussion there - but the processes to either query or check them are onerous and time wasting, here as a smaller wiki - I would like to help with quality improvement - but some australian regions are very uner-edited, one view I had had was to try to understand parts of the landscape in terms of itineraries - however, maybe in the end it would be easier to expand locality articles rather than itineraries - that is one possible way to consider the issue.
  • distance within the one jurisdiction is probably not comparable except for canada and siberia... 1,000 + km within a single jurisdiction, but wide variety of stopping/destinations/places to look at - is my interest as to why the Perth to Adelaide trip is a definite itinerary - and why Perth to Port Hedland on the north west coastal is a valid itinerary if sufficiently expanded and explained.
  • wide variety of features and the potential to take time over the distance is of contra indicated in my personal experience of doing sydney to perth in less than 48 hours in my wild miss-spent youth (with no additivies apart from low level caffiene)...and perth to port hedland when i was very young in a very quick time hitch hiking...
  • I would have no problem about seeing the component parts of highway one absorb parts of the articles created... if it was to be adequately filled with reasons to be seen as a proper itinerary.
  • I will be having limited editing time between now and next week, will cogitate the issues as to whether there is possible way around some of the issues raised, so as to not spoil the sense of an itinerary on voyage sats (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


What was the edit to my userpage? Leoberacai (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning my userpage[edit]

Thanks for cleaning a deprecated template from my userpage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Texugo (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you! 2[edit]

Barncompass.png The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Nice cleanup work on the personal itinerary front. Pashley (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. Enjoy Texugo. --Saqib (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs Up for good ol' Tex!! Way to go, bro! Ibaman (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! Texugo (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add my praise, too. Even if I want to keep some of the articles you're nominating for deletion, scouring the site for clutter is an excellent thing to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1. However you aren't gonna nominate all personal itineraries for deletion, I hope. For example Three days in Singapore is so good I've nominated it for something better. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ypsilon. That wasn't really the point of my rampage. It is all part of my effort to clean out Category:Not an article, which is full of forgotten stuff. I am going through and doing the merging when it makes sense to, removing the tag if that makes more sense, and in general trying to get rid of the things that have been listed there forever and ever. All the itineraries I nominated were nominated first on the basis that they had become permanent features of Category:Not an article, all having long been tagged with {{merge}} as something we didn't want but not actually containing anything worthy of merging, and in general having long passed the 1-year period for developing into something actually useful. You'll notice a number of itineraries still there on the list that I've left there for now because they still contain stuff that does need merging. But no, I haven't thought to go through the itinerary list and nominate all the personal ones. Some of them, like your example, we may just consider to be "grandfathered" in, having reaching high status before we tightened our concepts of what makes a good itinerary topic. Texugo (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I believe there are a couple of nice and usable personal itineraries that'd be really a pity to throw in the shredder (despite 90% of personal itineraries being obviously pretty useless). It would be practical to have a place like WT Extra to put personal itineraries and other stuff that's travel related and interesting but doesn't fit in here. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Texugo. I think you'll know what I'm talking about when I suggest that we not feed the troll.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikan. Yes, of course I know. I went ahead and merged the histories anyway, so they'll have to find something else to complain about if they want to keep trolling. Texugo (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this move. My change is no longer needed. WT is watching :-) Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


As requested I've posted the translation on Talk:Emilia-Romagna. Let me know if you think that something else would be needed to plunge forward. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Go next" sections in District articles[edit]

Hi, Texugo. I didn't realize until now that "Go next" isn't a standard section in the District Article Template. I hope you don't have a problem with annotated "Go next" sections in some district articles like Manhattan/East Village, though. I think that when the section adds value for the reader/traveler and isn't just a list, it's good to leave it there. Additionally, for a place like New York that has so many neighborhoods, any time "Go next" provides additional information about the relative positions of neighborhoods, it can be helpful to the sometimes overwhelmed, disoriented visitors to my home town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikan Kekek! Well, I don't have a problem with cases when there is a special reason for it, just that it usually ends up, as it did in that case, with each district article having a simple list of all the other district articles in the city, which is completely unnecessary. Texugo (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It doesn't sound like we disagree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo on left[edit]

I reverted this edit of yours because, while it makes sense generally in our articles to keep photos on the right, especially given the many bulleted lists, I think we ought to make an exception for long blocks of text such as that particular "Understand" sections. Alternating sides of the page in that situation has been experimentally demonstrated to be more conducive to reading, since it mimics the sweep of our eyes across the page, and actually encourages people to read more of such long blocks of text (something that I think is even more important in writing a travel guide than an encyclopedia). Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was exaggerating a bit. But I do think that section could use one or two more pics. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Buena Vista[edit]

Hi, Texugo... can you explain this edit to me? Your summary says "remove county from hierarchy" but what you actually did is remove Lake Buena Vista from the hierarchy. And even if you typed the wrong word in the edit summary, I'm not clear on why you did remove Lake Buena Vista. WDW is partially within and usually considered to be part of LBV. (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Powers. Sorry, my edit summary may have been a little off. At any rate, regardless of the technicality of what town it's in, it's a destination in its own right, and having it display as if it were a district of the town does not actually serve any purpose, given that the town is otherwise undistricted. I don't see a convincing reason to make an exception to the rule of not partially districting and/or making categories/breadcrumbs for non-metropoles. Texugo (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the purpose is to assist people who expect Walt Disney World to be a location within LBV, and to assist those looking for listings exterior to WDW. I realize it's non-standard, but WDW as a whole is pretty non-standard, and the traveler comes first. Powers (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the traveller-comes-first "trump card" is appropriate here. The situation where a separately covered place A is technically in an otherwise undistricted city B but is physically separated and/or more famous than B - those situations are actually fairly common, and the way we usually handle them is to treat them separately in the hierarchy too, ignoring the technicality. I'm not seeing the huge advantage of putting it in the hierarchy here when visitors are equally likely to be staying in any number of other Orlando-area communities. The breadcrumb trail for the lowest level of WDW articles is already an unusual 8 destinations long and runs onto a second line on my screen, even without including the technicality. Texugo (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's always difficult to intuit what a reader might be expecting. I agree the breadcrumb trail is pretty long. It's just that if we're truly going to treat them separately, then the articles need to be adjusted to match the new hierarchy. Powers (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess I'm not seeing what needs to be adjusted. Is there somewhere where we made an unusually big deal out of the fact parts of the park are in LBV? Texugo (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WDW is currently listed as an attraction in Lake Buena Vista, and that is called out in its One-liner Listings in region articles as well as in its own lede. Powers (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cn Babel template[edit]

Re: this edit: cn is a standard abbreviation for China, so I would assume Chinese is what's meant by that template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a standard abbreviation for any particular language — Mandarin? Cantonese? Shanghaiese? Another Chinese language? I checked it against the list of available templates at WP and they don't have one with that abbreviation. It also didn't exist at WT where they originally created their user page. Texugo (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess Mandarin, by default, but you're right not to be sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user lives/lived in China (don't know where) and I did think about just changing it to zh, but then I thought maybe they were trying for the CaNtonese code, so not sure. The user has never edited here at WV anyway. Texugo (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanabe / Hongu merge (Japan)[edit]

Hi Texugo. I was about to add informations in the Tanabe article and I just found out that you've been recently merging Hongu article with Tanabe one. It looks like you have much more experience in contributing than me, but I think this merge isn't a good idea. Hongu (map) is part of Tanabe city but it's lost in the mountains, almost 60km away from the city center, a completely different place than Tanabe "beach side" (map). What do you think about it? I'm waiting for your reply before contributing to Tanabe article. Thanks. Freayd (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freayd. I merged it on the basis that it was a neighborhood of a city which isn't big enough for us to divide into district articles, but if it's 60 km away, as you said, we can treat it as a separate destination, so you can undo my merge. In cases like this though, we should put Hongu's {{IsPartOf}} template to Wakayama (prefecture) instead of Tanabe, since we are treating it as its own destination rather than just a part of another small town. Texugo (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Freayd. I have undone the merge and fixed the breadcrumb. Texugo (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, perfect :) Thanks for your help! Freayd (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pad van Ad[edit]

Hi Texugo,

The links for PT of De Lijn update themselves. It's real time information directly from the transport company itself. People with 3G enabled tablets or cell phones can even see the bus is running late this way (and know whether to still hurry or not...). That's why I had included those links. Of course the information is different for the stops on either side of the street. Hence the many links. The hard part is to know that 6 digit number. It's on the stops themselves, but it's interesting to be able to look them up/click through while still some distance away. The link to the WP page about Ad Wouters doesn't seem off topic to me, as he created all the artwork, which is the central theme of the route. Although I'm trying to highlight all the interesting spots in those woods too, of course. I don't think it makes much sense to repeat his biography and such here though. I guess his 'philosophy' of being socially engaged and caring about the environment speaks from the artwork itself, so no real need to mention that either. In the Neanderthal statue he included a few 'jokes' or 'messages', does it make sense to mention that? It's a Neanderthal with boots, a backpack, a teddybear and a cell phone... The inquisitive user will probably be able to find their way to the WP page passing through commons, I guess. About the odd use of the listings, I'm not sure I got that right on the Dutch version either, so sorry about those. About the slippy map. Since I added the route and its variations to Openstreetmap itself. The hiking map shows them as PA and PAB directly. Is there a way to mention this somehow? Does it make sense to mention the hiking node network of Zuid-Dijleland is shown in orange on that map? Or that it's possible to see the bus lines on the traffic line network on the full screen version of the map by switching layers. Those were in pink on the map I had created myself, but which is now gone. Thanks for all your help--Polyglot (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add POIs on that slippy map? I also had the positions of the statues on the map I created. --Polyglot (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Polyglot. Thanks for creating and working on this article. I'll try to answer point-by-point:
  • Bus links - I've never seen quite that situation before, so I don't know what others would think, but we usually try to avoid giving detailed bus line/stop info, and hence we usually only put one link to the bus system, period. Maybe a single link to the bus system, and then the stop numbers in parenthesis after each one? I'm not sure what the best way is, but in general we usually avoid linking to any site more than once per page, so it seems a bit much to have all those links like that (and the superscripted way you'd put them was also pretty unconventional).
  • WP links - When I said "off-topic" in this case, it meant "not the same as the title of the article". Under current policy, we do not currently allow any links to wikipedia from the main namespace, except for the interwiki one which appears in the sidebar. At any rate, I do think a short biography/explanation of the artist would be quite appropriate in the Understand section. It shouldn't be long and encyclopedic in detail like the WP article might be, but an explanation would be most important to understanding the character of this route, so it should be there.
  • Listings - I don't know that I fixed all of these either, but you might also want to be aware of {{marker}}, which can be used in-line just to give a map number and corresponding icon on the map. If you only need bold, just use the standard markup: '''text'''. If you are only giving the website and nothing else, you can just front-link the name. If, however, you are going to give the address, phone number, and other info, I think it's best not to try to use it in-line. Just use the proper listing template, but put it on a new line by itself and don't try to make it part of a sentence.
  • Maps - I'm probably not the best person to ask about how to do the maps. I just know we ultimately don't want to have to use two. I do know you can add POIs to the slippy map by filling in the coordinates of {{marker}} and regular listing templates (see, do, eat, etc.). I also know you can generate a GPX file to draw any route directly on a slippy map (see El Camino Real or Bertha Benz Memorial Route for example).
Texugo (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what is wrong with the banner image? I know graphic design isn't my strongest point. --Polyglot (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Polyglot. I'm sorry we had to remove your image. Our image policy does not allow montage images, i.e. images made up of an arrangement of other images. We need a pretty banner cropped from a single image, not many joined together. I hope we can come up with something! Thanks again for your enthusiasm in contributing. Let me know if I can be of any further help. Texugo (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, at least I know what was the problem now. I don't make panoramic pictures very often, but I managed to find one taken in the area. (They mostly don't make sense in wooded areas). Since the camera created this panorama, it's impossible to actually see this sight, without revolving around your own axis. I guess that shadow is 2 times of the same tree. But that probably doesn't matter. I don't have a telelense and I would probably not be able to move out/up far enough anyway.

In fact this picture was taken near Ignatius, but I had to cut it out, as it's between the trees, that part of the picture was too dark to see anything useful. I don't see this constraint/rule in the other language versions of Wikivoyage, so I didn't see this one coming. Given the weird aspect ratio, composing an image from several pictures was the most obvious thing that came to mind, initially. Especially since it gives a taste of what to expect. As far as I'm concerned it's a step backward, but it'll make do. --Polyglot (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzhou (prefecture)[edit]

You just redirected an article that I recently created. There are arguments both ways, but I'm inclined to revert your redirect.

The discussion that led to the article's creation is at Talk:Fuzhou. Please have a read, perhaps comment there. Pashley (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pashley. I was thinking that issue seemed familiar, and now i realize we were discussing it last month, and I simply missed the last couple of days of that conversation. I am fully unconvinced we could ever have enough non-duplicated info to fill both a prefecture article and a city article. Let's go back to Talk:Fuzhou and discuss further. Texugo (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! Thank You for fast edited Budapest/Óbuda site. My 'Q': Why deleted the fast food chapter? - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Globetrotter19. I removed them because there are already plenty of unique options in the article. Unless there are almost no good local options at all, we generally avoid listing big chains (especially fast food chains) — remember that we are building a list of recommendations, not a directory. If your friend was going to Budapest and asked you for a restaurant recommendation, would you really recommend McDonald's or Burger King? Texugo (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Texugo. I understood, we are building not a directory, but why do you think it will be with these two units (one-one!) that (Budapest has almost a hundred units). And...
The (appropriate) question should be the next "If your friend was going to Budapest and asked you for a fast food restaurant recommendation, would you really recommend McDonald's or Burger King?"
And then the answer will be: Yes.! - - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Globetrotter19. Raise it in the pub if you like, but I don't think our practice of not listing that kind of stuff should be changed. We don't list chain fast food because it's just low quality stuff that's the same everywhere in the world. Otherwise almost every city article we have would have a McDonalds or a Subway or a KFC listed, and we just don't want or need that. Texugo (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eight days in the Heart of Russia[edit]

Hi Texugo, Is there a way to still mail me the contents of that article? I'm learning Russian with the idea of traveling to Russia some day.--Polyglot (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. I read it. Many thanks. My own plans involve travelling outside of the cities, but it was still an interesting read to get some background. --Polyglot (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template[edit]

Regarding your question on Template talk:Europe reference table, what is the deletion policy for an unused template? I'm just curious because I think we should clean up obsolete templates and links after the changes we made to European Union. Edge3 (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edge3. Well, we generally delete unused templates. You can nominate it for deletion by adding {{vfd}} to it and putting it at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. Texugo (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just realized that deletion might not be the best option. It was previously in Europe, but was recently removed. Perhaps it needs to go back in, but with a few formatting changes to make it consistent with Template:European Union reference table. Edge3 (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! You might have seen that i currently work with some others to improve Munich. As i will never turn into a native Englisch speaker it would be great if you could pay some attention to the writing of this article. Especially the Understand section is copy & paisted from a very long text. As you do great proof reading, it would be kind if you could spent some time and correct my wording. Thank you in advance and regards, jan (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jan. Sure, I'll have a look! Texugo (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lessaintes-booking dot com[edit]

Hi, Texugo. We've had problems with this site being inserted in the Les Saintes guide. Have a look at the latest edit. I'm thinking of putting it on the blacklist but wanted a second opinion on whether we should wait longer.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikan. Yeah, I think it could go on the blacklist. They have more than once tried to pass the link off as something it is not. Texugo (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a place to go to request the Autopatroller right? --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Texugo (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I flipped the switch, and you now have amazing bureaucratic powers. So far as I can tell from my own experiences, it means that it is now possible to accidentally break things in even more terrifying ways. Congrats! -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. I'll try not to burn down the house. Texugo (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that almost nothing is irreversible. Except for granting someone bureaucrat powers. So don't do that and you're fine. Powers (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Texugo hand-out me bureaucratic powers. LOL! --Saqib (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Special:UserMerge is another irreversible one, and be sure to double check for global conflicts and follow the other instructions on Wikivoyage:Changing username when doing a rename. That said, if I can do the job then clearly it doesn't take much grey matter, so I think you can light a few candles without having to worry about calling the fire department ;-) -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo, I see you are quite active and was wondering if you would have the time to browse the Lisbon and Lisbon Region articles. I have been editing and adding content to both, particularly the former quite heavily. I love Portuguese to bits, but don't know it at all, especially the spelling, and I am quite sure I made multiple spelling blunders in the process. It would be great if you could lend your knowledge of Portuguese and your precious time to the ingrate yet invaluable task of spellchecking the article. And, of course, any other value you may add to the article would be a boon to it, as it is still mostly a work of only two users and suffers from subjectivity and limited knowledge perhaps. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sure, I'll be glad to have a look through it when I can, soon hopefully. Thanks for you contributions there. I wish I knew the city personally but I haven't made it there yet... Texugo (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You created a loop by saying Trentino is a part of itself. I reverted this; but probably you wanted to do smth else actually? AntonBryl (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AntonBryl. Thanks for catching that. I meant to move Trent under Trentino. Texugo (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure for renaming pages?[edit]

Is there a page for proposed moves or something? Cannot find one unfortunately. The problem is, part of the districts of Budapest are named like Budapest/Óbuda, and others just like Belbuda or Hegyvidék (without 'Budapest/'). Also there are Moscow_Outskirts (should not it be Moscow/Outskirts?), etc. AntonBryl (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian state maps[edit]

Just a reminder to be sure that you haven't miss the following two discussions:

--Andyrom75 (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Eurasia extraregion edit[edit]

Thanks for the explanation about the Eurasia extraregion reversion - didn't realize there was some trickery going on there :)

I have to wonder though, would it be sensible to create a new template for these types of super regions? Maybe {{superregion}}? Pardon my naivety if this has already been discussed.

Cheers, Jverkoey (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jverkoey! No problem. I don't think it's really necessary to create a new template for these, as there are only three cases in existence (Eurasia, Latin America, and Mediterranean Sea). Since this situation only crops up when an extra-hierarchical region spans two continents, it's not something we're likely to have to deal with repeatedly in the future. Texugo (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. For my understanding, is creating a new template generally not encouraged? If it's not discouraged, would you be against me creating this template for the three regions specified just for consistency's sake? I'll update the articles in question as well. Jverkoey (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Jverkoey. Creation of a new template is generally subject to consensus from the community that such a template fulfills a real need. I wouldn't rally too hard against it, but with only 3 possible pages where this proposed template would be used, I wouldn't recommend it, as I don't see any need at all. Texugo (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deal! Droppin' it :) Thanks for the speedy responses! /me shuffles along Jverkoey (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, any reason you insist on having separate articles for TM and CS counties rather than merging them into the Banat article? I don't see much reason, as they are just political subdivisions and don't add much value. For example Hungary regions also list all region information in one page rather than link to individual counties (and they have MUCH more information). Hierarchy just for the sake of it adds no value IMO. IonutBizau (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and no, not all Romanian regions are split into counties - only Transylvania and Muntenia. And given how little information there is, I'd say that's not necessary either. IonutBizau (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IonutBizau. I didn't even realize you were proposing to do away with them. At any rate, I imagine they were done that way because we have traditionally subdivided regions once they start to get far beyond 5-9 cities, and since there are 17 and the other regions are divided by counties, it made sense to do that. While the county articles may not be ideal, if we get rid of them entirely without introducing another method to break them down, the Transylvania article would have to have a giant list of 57 cities. Anyway, whether they have articles or not, counties are currently the basis on which the border of all the Romanian regions have been drawn. They provide a clear basis for anyone to know exactly which region to put a city in by simply checking which county it's in. If we say, for example, that part of Mehedinti county is in one region and part in another, then if someone adds a town in the region, they can only guess where we have drawn the line (unless we have a good map).
Anyway, I guess my point is that if you want to propose changing the way things are organized for Romania, you probably need to come up with a well-thought out proposal that leaves things clear for later contributors, and you need to present that idea on the talk page and get some consensus behind it. Texugo (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to me that Romania is organized by counties, except Transylvania and Muntenia and - well - Banat. Have a look at Crișana, Moldavia, etc - other big regions, but no counties there. I didn't propose dropping the counties for Transylvania, as the page would become huge indeed, but I simply dropped the two counties for the Banat region, since they don't seem to add value. Also, what you are saying is that region borders are drawn by county - you are wrong. Look at the region map of Romania, Banat clearly includes the western part of MH (with Orșova). Also, there aren't really 17 "cities" in Banat. They is just one "real" city, some small towns and villages. IonutBizau (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IonutBizauMaybe you are right about the map, I don't know. But the descriptions do list the counties - I moved Orșova to Oltenia exactly because the description at Oltenia says that it includes Mehenti County. At any rate, I'm not really trying to argue with you - I usually hate county articles and have removed/merged many of them myself. I just want to make sure we've thought about how it may affect the neighboring region articles, and I'm not entirely sure this change isn't something that should be discussed on the talk page first. Texugo (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a note - on WV, "city" is very often used in the broad sense, to mean any kind of community/village/settlement/town/city/metropolis of any size. That is the sense in which I was using it. Texugo (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to argue either. Just going for consistency here. I'm fine with having Orsova in Oltenia, I didn't mind that you moved it, now that I see your reason. But my reason was to be consistent with the map on Romania's home page. I'm totally fine if wv decides to split regions differently than historical regions, but given the way the map is drawn, it seems to me that Orsova is in Banat according to wv and the description is wrong. We could of course also decide that the description is correct and the map is wrong, but then we would have to redraw the map, which sounds worse than fixing the description. :) IonutBizau (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IonutBizau - No, I agree. Now that you've pointed out that the map shows it that way, I'm leaning toward supporting your change for now anyway. I'm only cautious because I hate the situation when I find a city article which needs to be placed in a region and I can't figure out which one. Texugo (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hate that situation too. I would have been fine with your side, which would have made things more simple, but it seems that somebody has really put the effort in drawing that map. Thanks! IonutBizau (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use inline word icons[edit]

Hi! Here is one (more)... And this isn't mine. Hostel Mondpalast Globetrotter19 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that icon appears to be in use on 20 or so pages there on de:, but as I don't edit there and have no idea about their policies or practices, I'll leave it to them... Texugo (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For fun, have a look at the articles our French colleagues have created, e.g. the Star article fr:Mombasa (which I'm translating to English right now). Ps. for even more fun have a look at the world record in template use wiki code of that page. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! My 'Q' is the next: Have 'We' any site about 'our' policies or practices in this theme (such usable icons)? And where? —The preceding comment was added by Globetrotter (talkcontribs)
Wow, ϒpsilon! fr:Mombasa is superb, congratulations to that! Globetrotter19 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there isn't any policy or guidelines concerning icons here on the English WV as of now. Maybe we should develop one?
At least at fr the policy seems to be "add an icon wherever you can", and the result of that is frankly talking uglier articles that are uncomfortable to read. I wanted to show the above example as a warning and hope these kinds of "salads" don't become the rule here on en WV. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also assumed you were giving fr:Mombasa as an example of what we don't want, and I fully agree. It's cluttery, spattered with little pictograms that draw the reader's eye to myriad points that do not necessarily deserve any extra attention. Turning a word into an icon adds no special value; it only makes that word stand out on the page. What in the world would be the rationale for making every mention of "Wi-Fi" stand out on the page? And while using route icons in the routebox looks sharp, I am not very convinced that replacing A110 with A110 does anything but clutter the code and give an eye-popping highlight to something that doesn't really deserve it. It makes A110 look like the most important thing in this whole paragraph or section, when it clearly is not. I think we are better off not using icons to replace words in prose. Texugo (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Thanks to all. Globetrotter19 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent signature[edit]

Thanks for picking up my accidental signature in Morro de Sao Paolo just now. Can only think it happened as I was scrolling on the tablet. Roundtheworld (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Roundtheworld! No worries! Texugo (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large-sized maps[edit]

Hi, Texugo. I reverted one of your edits, which turned the already under-detailed Muscat map into an even much more useless regional map. Are you carefully considering each individual case before reducing maps to the default size? If not, please do.

P.S.: I will be shutting this computer down, packing it, and shipping it for hard disk replacement shortly, so I probably won't be able to respond to any reply by you for an extended period. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ikan. No problem, I actually tweaked it even more now, and it looks better. I agree that should be an exception, and was unsure what to do with it exactly when i came across it. At any rate, I have been considering each case and adjusting the resulting zoom levels and all accordingly. I do not recall any other very rectangular-shaped ones like the three remaining exceptions. Texugo (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Texugo. When you redirected Darien, you orphaned Darien (disambiguation). If Darien isn't going to be an article, then I think we should move the disambiguation page to the base name. Do you agree? Powers (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Powers. Fine with me if the base name is made a disambiguation. Strangely, I can't find where either page ever contained the proper content of a disambig, but that's neither here not there. Texugo (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that. If you look on WT, you can see I created the dab page in 2010, then moved it after the Panama Darien article was removed in favor of Eastern Panama -- a change Burmesedays made in 2011, very similar to what you did a few days ago. I can't find anywhere where the content of the dab page was imported to Wikivoyage -- it appears we reverted back to the old Darien while also keeping Eastern Panama. I'll recreate my old dab page; it's mine so there shouldn't be any copyright issues. Powers (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Texugo (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Any idea what happened to the banner image? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I couldn't even find it in the deletion log at Commons, for some reason. I set it back to the default for now. Texugo (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need ur help[edit]

As m new user m not getting all abt wikivoyage. I had added some pics in Buldhana page. I request u to plz see them and if their are some mistakes so plz correct them. —The preceding comment was added by Akshay Deokar (talkcontribs)

Akshay Deokar, there's nothing really wrong with the photos, although I moved one of them higher up in the article where there's more space. The See section could use some tidying, though. --ϒpsilon (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Akshay Deokar. Thanks for your contributions. Yeah, the photos look good, no problems there. What the article needs is clean-up in the See section, and some listings in the Eat and Sleep sections. Texugo (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help[edit]

The pic are not in front of their related topic. plz fix them. Hi Akshay Deokar. Generally, it is not necessary, and often not even possible, to keep pictures next to their descriptions. The way Ypsilon had it was just fine. Otherwise the layout starts to get crowded and the pics run off the bottom of the page. Texugo (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Ya its right, it not look good. What if I added all pic link in previous topic. Then it will come on right place where it should be.can I Try it. —The preceding comment was added by Akshay Deokar (talkcontribs)

Go ahead and try, Akshay Deokar. But as of now there isn't enough place for putting each pic next to the corresponding sight, therefore they have to be put somewhere else. If they are arranged like you put them the first time, the last picture will be so far down that it both looks weird and isn't next to the listing for the sight either. If we put it someplace in the article where there is more space for it, the article will at least look tidier. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plz once visit page Buldhana[edit]

I have edited Buldhana page it looks great.plz visit page once....

Need help[edit]

Can u add "(add listings )" options in Akola page

Hi User:Akshay Deokar. It's already there, as far as I can tell. Note that you have to be looking at the most recent version of the page, not an edit preview or changes comparison version. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I'm sure you had a good reason for this change, but I can't figure out what it is. The town article still exists and still lists Amityville. Powers (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Powers - I find it generally unhelpful to treat those cases as if the "parent" city were a "huge city" article with districts under it. Is there a sense in which it is useful for the traveller to know that this village is administered by neighboring Babylon for which we have an empty article? Maybe it's something we need to hammer out, but it seems to me that including that information in the breadcrumb in places like this amount to us educating readers on the local administrative difference between what is considered a town, a village, a settlement, a township, etc., and what their administrative hierarchical relationship is, things that are unique to the region and irrelevant when looking at the map. If the place is a destination in its own right and the administrative "parent" is not written like a parent article, I don't think we should "include" it. Do you think Babylon needs to be written that way, with general information about the region within its bounds as a whole, and specifics down in its various "district" articles? I seriously doubt it (and probably most of those redlinks that are there need to go away too.)
All in all, instances in the breadcrumb tree of places where we have a hierarchical category for a plain old town to contain an outside "village" or two are very few and far between, in general. If we want to decide on doing it that way, we ought to be consistent at least - there are a hundred or two places in Brazil that could be set up that way if that's how we do it. But in general it hasn't been. Teaching the reader about what village over here technically belongs to what town over there is pointless and encyclopedic if it doesn't enhance the travel experience, so I operate under the assumption that if the parent city functions only administratively as a parent and its article is not set up to be a backdrop, then it's better to treat it as its own destination. Texugo (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo, I've just read your message. I don't think it's possible to do what you wanna do, because this kind of information are not strictly regulated in wikidata, so most likely you'll get a partial answer when you'll query the system.

Let me give you three random examples that I've just opened, where I've found three different kind of information :-) .... so I suppose that will be easy to find a fourth different result and so on... :-)

  1. Garda istance of "comune italiano"
  2. Roma istance of "città", "comune italiano", "capitale"
  3. New York istance of "metropoli", "città globale", + other two unnamed subclasses

(sorry for italian labels)

Città = City, so looking for City, you would miss two of the above three cities. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can put several if, but nothing will assure you that you are considering them all. A good way to use that function is with parameters always present in the wikidata instance, for example, a disambiguation page, will always have the disambiguation instance. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at disambig in it:Modulo:Wikibase. Let me say sorry in advance if I wouldn't reply in the following days, but I'm preparing & leaving for vacation. However I'll try to stay tuned ;-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per your example, you are trying to check a specific page, but currently this is not possible due to a bug/limitation on the wiki/Lua-core module. You can test only the properties in the current page. --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for your questions, and sorry my late answer, but as I told I'm quite busy. As previously advised, you should have taken a look to disambig to see the right syntax. However, let me write you a simple example that you can test over it:Cagliari and it:Cagliari to see the different results: false - false - false --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An important message about renaming users[edit]

Dear Texugo,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!


Dear Texugo,

Let me begin by thanking you for swift, fruitful and intensive cooperation on the number of topics recently, especially those regarding regional splitting. I would like to touch upon extraregions however.

I understand your quite fond of the idea of extraregions. I do not think, however, we need as many of them as you recently created. While perhaps in some cases they may be the only solution to get out of a truly difficult situation, I believe that, for the most part, we don't need them. We do have itineraries and travel topics to cover for, well, just that - itineraries and travel topics that pertain to more than one geographic region.

For example, the Baltic Sea is a truly extraregional entity, which spans not only many regions, but even countries. But as the link shows, there is no "extraregion" for it (we just redirect to Europe). As the most important topic for this body of water is actually going across it - by ferry or cruise liner - we have articles on Baltic Sea ferries and Cruising the Baltic Sea. Similarly, we don't have articles for the Black Sea or the Caspian Sea - each of the countries with the coastline has their own region dealing with their part of their coast.

I mentioned this because you made an "extrahierarchical region" out of Lake Constance, and then created Lake Constance Region separately. I do not believe we need both. If you believe Lake Constance Region (the name) is ambigious and can misleadingly indicate that the whole of Lake Constance is covered there, let us find a different name for it. As for common Lake Constance region topics that should be discussed for all of the countries involved together, I do not think there are any. Ferries are merely connection between locations - we usually don't create regions just to cover them. As regards getting in, we often mention an airport in a different country as closest for a destination or region. We should also mention in every Bodensee-adjacent region in all three countries that there is a certain cultural continuum, but I truly cannot find anything that would merit a separate article.

I hope you would consider my thoughts.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PrinceGloria. I believe you are mistaken actually — I may be rigorous in tagging the existing extra-hierarchical regions I do come across, to distinguish them from those which do get used in the breadcrumb, but I have created very few if any of them. Both the Lake Constance Region and the Lake Constance article already existed. I simply moved the extraregion tag from the former to the latter, because I was under the impression from the discussion there that Lake Constance Region was to be the region of the state, while the Lake Constance article itself is obviously set up as extrahierarchical, covering both sides of the lake. But I didn't create either of them. Texugo (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Can we then merge them, and perhaps call Bodensee or something? The name is much more prevalent when applied to German destinations - i.e. for the Swiss and Austrians particular locales, like Bregenz, are obviously over the Bodensee, but they are in well-defined regions named differently, e.g. for Bregenz this is Vorarlberg. In Switzerland the regions, cantons etc. also use different names (well, sometimes St. Gallen appears in tourist promos as St.Gallen-Bodensee, even if it actually isn't over the Bodensee). In Germany, however, even Upper Swabia is referred to as Oberschwabien-Bodensee for touristic purposes. We can explain in the lead that this is a region of BW and not the entirety of the lake. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PrinceGloria - Fine by me, though I'm no expert on the region. If we´re going to redirect the extraregion, I think Northeastern Switzerland could use some love too though. Ideally, we´d have the country-specific lake-related coverage split between this German region in question and Northeastern Switzerland. I don't go around creating body of water extraregion pages, but now that the address of Lake Constance already exists, I don't actually think redirecting it to only one side would make that much sense. However, if we split the coverage appropriately between the two regions, the extraregion page could at least be reduced to a simple fork page indicating we have coverage in two places, the type of "extraregion" that we used to lump in with disambig pages (e.g. Andean Highlands. Texugo (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Constance as redirect with some relevant blurb and three links:
Bodensee in Germany
Northeastern Switzerland in Switzerland
Vorarlberg in Austria
How about that? PrinceGloria (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, if by "redirect" you mean super stripped-down fork page (which still carries the extraregion tag), then that sounds just perfect. Texugo (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No "extraregion tag" please. I'd like to do away with "extraregions", as they are a way of having "my own littlee favourite region" that does not agree with officially adopted hierarchy. This is to be a disambiguation page (pardon me for using the wrong expression) - with a few words of explanation. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know "disambiguation" is used when two or more unrelated places happen to have the same name, and "extraregion" is being used anytime our coverage of a single place just happens to be split between more than one article. That is how I was seeing it done before, so that is how I've been doing it. If we want to go back to oddly describing the contiguous regions as "ambiguous", we should perhaps have another more explicit discussion to decide. Personally, I think it makes more sense to describe contiguous regions as "regions we don't happen to accommodate in our hierarchy" than it does to call them instances of ambiguity. Texugo (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we agree on Lake Constance, so let's move this to the talk page there up until we started discussing Extraregions. We can tag it as a porcupine for the time being, I just want to decrease confusion and focus on creating actually useful articles rather than empty duplicates.
As for extraregions - this whole thing looks like it was created by Traveller100 in 2013, so this was probably during my tenure here. Where was the discussion to establish those, so that I could revive it to voice my concerns? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PrinceGloria - Relevant discussions were had at Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy#Extra-hierarchical regions and especially at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?#Proposal for a Meta-region article template. Probably the best place to start a new discussion will be Wikivoyage talk:Extraregion. I'm not sure where discussion was had about using it for contiguous regions, but I do seem to recall it being discussed somewhere. You can find quite a number of them done this way at Category:Extra regions (Alsace-Lorraine, Punjab, Cascade Mountains, Contiguous United States, Northeastern United States, Western New York, etc. etc.). Judging from those existing ones, at least Traveler100, Pashley, and Eco84 and I have all been doing it this way. Texugo (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some cases similar to the one at hand are Dead Sea (minimal), Lake Ontario (succinct) and Lake Maggiore (listing overkill). Texugo (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WV:Extraregion, the wording Pashley and Traveler100 set up there also seems to indicate that this is the way it should be done. Texugo (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York City borough guides[edit]

Hi, Texugo. I see you changed the status of Manhattan from guidecity to guidedistrict. I don't think that's correct, because the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are all treated as huge cities, with separate linked district articles. Please clarify.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you were thinking of them as huge cities because they are parents to districts while I was thinking of them as districts because they are children to huge cities. It's a bit of a special case that only applies to a handful of cities. I just thought it was more literally accurate to say Manhattan is a district of NYC than to say "Manhattan is a huge city". But since they all carry the PrintDistricts tag that put them in the huge city category, I suppose maybe you're right. Texugo (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't know if it matters much, but the status quo has been to treat them as huge cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really think of a strong reason to push the case one way or the other. Feel free to revert. Texugo (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was my doing originally (I think I also wrote the text under New York City#Boroughs: "Each borough has a unique culture and could be a large city in its own right."). Peter F. and I decided some time ago that the best way to handle New York City was as a kind of super-city, using a Region-like structure with the boroughs as Cities (three Huge and two Big). Would it be less confusing or more, if we tagged NYC as a Region instead of as a Huge City? =) Powers (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's just fine the way you've got it. Tagging it as a region would just complicate the categorization, marking them simultaneous as regions and huge cities. Texugo (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on not tagging NYC as a region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upload files, Upload Wizard?[edit]

Wikimedia Commons logo

Hello! Sorry for writing in English. As you're an administrator here, please check the message I left on MediaWiki talk:Licenses and the village pump. Thanks, Nemo 19:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Message in eswikivoyage user talk[edit]


You have a new message in eswikivoyage user talk. Greetings, White Master King (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

misalignment in article count[edit]

I changed some status templates and it is showing a misalignment of articles- I think I fixed it but the numbers have not updated yet. Maybe just a delay. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is a Outline Topic with a IsPartOf and not a PartOfTopic tag, but I cannot get CatScan2 to work at the moment to look for it. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Traveler100, I have actually found that every time I thought there was just a delay, it later turns out to be something different I'd missed, but I don't know. Anyway, yeah, catscan has had lots of problems for a week or so now, so I haven't been able to find any other problem either. I notice that new problems can usually be found by going through the new pages and seeing if essential templates were left out, but having just now fixed one I found that way, now the count is off by two instead of just one. What the numbers on the panel now indicate to me is that there are two article out there which have the IsPartOf template, but with a null attribute. Hopefully Catscan will be back online soon. Texugo (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Texugo, I am not sure which is the problem with the climate table in the Esino Lario article. I saw you removed it for copy viol but not sure to understand. It appears to me that the source is cited, and the data are reedited in the table. Data do not have copyright (they are not a creative work), they are accessible and we did not use a structured dataset (which might require an authorization if used it as it is). So I am not aware of any copy viol. Actually the work is thanks to Remulazz. thank you. --Iopensa (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iopensa. Ah, regarding copyright, you may be correct, but in any case, we don't want these things to take up too much space or look too statistic-y, and we don't create custom climate tables for each article. Could you maybe try dropping the Fahrenheit figures and using Template:Climate instead? Texugo (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets, chased from EN wikipedia to here[edit]

Hi, I saw the battle you were involved in at Shahbazpur Town, after I chased a blocked sock-master from wikipedia. (Please note that there is an entirely innocent legitimate editor who is being spoofed here.) My question for you is whether you can remember what the page called Shahbazpur contained, since on 25 February 2014‎ you redirected the newly created Shahbazpur Town there. The page histories are now so messed up that if there was good content at Shahbazpur at one time, I can't find it. As some background, I've converted the wikipedia page created by the sock-master and puppets to a completely unsourced page about a union, and constructed a disambiguation page. Best wishes to you, in editing solidarity, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I honestly can't remember much about this situation, but it seems the battle we had was mostly regarding the name that should be given to the article. Texugo (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, perhaps both pages were created at the same time, and it was a battle to merge the two. The page histories here might not have suffered the same degree of confusion as the later ones in wikipedia, which were sometimes initially created by page moves from unrelated titles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]