Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Wikivoyage:Pub)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the Pub

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

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

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


Flags and coat of arms[edit]

Is it okay if we can add flags and coat of arms to articles? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say 'no'. This isn't Wikipedia. Flags and coats of arms may be interesting, but are not important to travellers. In most countries, the observant traveller will figure out what the flag is pretty quickly. The coat of arms is just trivia. Ground Zero (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Depending on the individual situation, it could be a matter for 'Respect'. We all know examples, and don't need to go there now, but there are certainly some cases when a traveller knowing the meaning and use of a particular flag can help grease the wheels in certain places.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
By the way, French Wikivoyage has the practice of using flags/COAs alongside the article's name, as part of the pagebanner. I quite like the look, though wouldn't advocate us copying.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Could this be a travel topic? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"There are also some cases when a traveller knowing the meaning and use of a particular flag can help grease the wheels in certain places" -- I don't know know what those cases would be. There would also be cases where knowing a country's national anthem/flower/sport/head of state would be useful, but if we include everything that may be possibly of use or interest, we end up with too much information, and not enough focus on travel information. We don't even include the national language(s) in the infobox, which is far, far, far more useful information than the flag. Why are we talking about adding flags before talking about adding languages? Because a small group of people love flags, that's why. I'm one of them, but I don't want to inflict my geeky hobby on Wikivoyage. Let's focus on what travellers need instead of adding cruft to our country-level articles which are often long and unwieldy. Ground Zero (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to get into examples, but since you've asked (well not really, but...): when and where is the Confederate flag "appropriate"? How may a traveller behave around people waving the neutral Catalan flag or the pro-independence one? What do the uses of the Union Flag, the Tricolour, or the Red Hand mean in Ulster? (I do not want answers to these questions or a discussion of the issues raised here - they are just examples). As I wrote, they could be a matter for 'Respect' in certain cases, i.e. where a traveller could put their foot in it by being ignorant. In those few cases, it would be useful to have an image or description of the flag in question.
Please re-read the thread. Nobody has proposed adding flags to every country article's infobox at the expense of flowers or languages, nobody has even specifically asked to focus on country articles over region / city pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I read that into the discussion because the original question provided no specifics. I can see there being a reason to include a flag where it is an issue of staying safe,, such as your examples, but not as a general practice for countries, regions, cities. The matter should be handled on a case-by-case basis, not as a general discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I can agree with that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
When you arrive in a country you may start to see the flag on signs, sometimes starting with the signs directing people to different immigration queues. Technically it is only the traveller's own home country flag that he needs to recognise, but I see no harm in introducing the flag in country articles. However as flags are used for political purposes, we should only do this on country articles, and only where the official recognition of the flag is clear. Flags for cities and other regions have more chance of being controversial, and so I don't think we should show these. AlasdairW (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Flags that are culturally significant should be mentioned. A US history article should explain the Flag; otherwise, waste of time, unless it is a respect issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Ground Zero. In the vast majority of cases a traveler doesn't need to recognize flags (except one's home country flag or maybe the flag of a protecting power), and I foresee this starting unnecessary debates about countries with limited recognition and subnational regions that we treat as countries. When there is a specific issue that travelers should be aware of, it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis, as is already done at United States of America#Respect. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with Ground Zero. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
We actually used to have flags and coats of arms in the pagebanners, just like French Wikivoyage still does. I don't remember where the discussion was to remove them but I'd would rather have kept them and would certainly not object to reinstating coats of arms or at least flags for countries. The flag is the first thing you see when arriving into a foreign country (or for an island or entity with a strong local identity, the local flag), so I can't understand why they need to be censored from our articles. Ypsilon (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we have debates about which flag to use for Kashmir? Do we use the flag for Transnistria? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to have a flag for all articles, though, for example there is no flag that could represent Central Europe. So if there is a flag that could represent the whole Kashmir region (flown both in India and Pakistan as of the present day), it could be used in the Kashmir article, otherwise not. Our articles for the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir would of course have their own flags if such flags exist (e.g. this one for Azad Kashmir, just as in its Wikipedia article).
The Transnistrian government has defacto control of the area called Transnistria, regardless that no UN member has recognized it as a country. We correctly state that in the article, which is breadcrumbed directly under the Balkans instead Moldova. So I find it logical to use their flag in the Transnistria article. Ypsilon (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should go on a case-by-case basis if we want to add flags. Not every article has to have all the same features. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you ask me, I don't mind having flags in the country articles, but it should not be in the sub-national articles, with a few exceptions such as Hong Kong and Puerto Rico. However, the question this raises is what do we do with disputed areas? That is a hole we probably do not want to go down into since it will probably result in heated and travel-irrelevant political debates. The dog2 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I oppose including flags in any article, for this reason. It's enough to have a global policy of recognizing all reasonably stable de facto independent countries as simply countries. Including their flags provides another level of recognition totally unnecessary in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree to have flags but only in the infobox on the country level. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it is a bad idea. While country only sounds ok, the definition of country itself is unclear. Kosovo? Somaliland? Far better to leave those arguments on wikipedia where the belong. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing the climate graph with Template:Climate data[edit]

As everybody knows, a year ago the climate table was replaced with what most people here thought was the best thing since sliced bread: the current climate graph.

Myself I prefer to read the information from a table rather than the current graph setup. Not to mention that it often creates additional whitespace in the articles (or pushes down things like photos and dynamic maps below it), as mentioned in Template talk:Climate, and at that talk page some people also have found it not mobile friendly, not web browser friendly, sunlight and sea temperatures not showing up, and one commenter found it overall strange displaying temperatures and precipitation on the same chart. The concerns have gone unadressed.

Now I don't actually have a problem with the graph... as I've simply moved over to using the data in Wikipedia articles for climate information whenever I've needed it for working on climate sections in articles, looking for which months a destination would be suitable to feature on the Main Page and otherwise. In Wikipedia, as you probably know (example), the data is in a tidy table instead of along a set of rectangles going up and down. The colors, which according to some are not too aesthetic, actually show the information in a larger context (shades of red, orange, beige for temperature, different shades of blue for precipitation days etc.) so you can visually compare climate charts from different cities and regions. In the current version you can really only compare months in the same chart (same city) "at a glance". User-friendliness, information at a glance and such were the reasons to move over to the current table.

I've at a few occasions thought about opening a discussion to import the Wikipedia climate template, but never found time (also I know nothing about coding and the technical side of templates). But now, RogueScholar has started such a discussion and also implemented the WP climate table in a test article (Venice), plus it has previously existed in at least one other article (Las Palmas).

Granted, the whole thing is bigger but it can be collapsed (talking about collapsable templates, one thing that could be worth bringing over from Russian Wikivoyage is the collapsable dynamic map). Perhaps not all sections in the Wikipedia table are necessary to use here but I guess not all of them need to be used (also in the current climate table we have the options of adding sea water temperature and whatnot). But again, there are a lot of options in that template that a traveler could find useful like UV radiation (sunny locations), rainy days in each month (tropics and other rainy places), and sunshine hours (frequently overcast/foggy locations, far northern and southern places).

Thoughts? Ypsilon (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The chart version also came from WP, from w:Template:Climate chart, which is used on over 1000 pages (although w:Template:Weather box is used on 16000).
Personally, after living with it for almost exactly a year, I still hate the chart. I strongly prefer the climate table that it used to be: it's much easier to read and interpret, and doesn't suffer from weird problems of not fitting properly on mobile devices, overlapping bars for temperature and precipitation, difficult problems scaling the Y-axis, etc. It even has horrible display problems on its own documentation page, FFS!
I would be very happy to return to any table-based format rather than the chart. Whether that's the old table, or a new one with colored backgrounds in each cell like Template:Climate data, I don't have a strong preference. I do think it's better as a sidebar item than a huge inline chart. The new one takes up a lot of space, even with text size reduced, so it should be trimmed down. Most places only have avg high and low temps (no mean) and rainfall height (not days), with some adding snowfall height, and I think the sets of data the old table supported are generally enough for a travel guide; anything else like UV index or days of rain can and should be conveyed in prose. Displaying converted temperatures in parentheses probably contributes significantly to the width; it would be better to use the abbr mouseover from the old incarnation, or use a "show conversion" link that either drops down to reveal the converted table like the current chart does, or simply a toggle for °C/°F that replaces the numbers in the table with the one you click. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In the end, the graph template can be fixed/extended too - just saying... Or you can even copy-paste the html code and adjust the few broken graphs. Or overlay them manually with additional 'facts'. -- 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Graph for me, in the spirit of 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Whatever you guys decide, just don't argue with "it often creates additional whitespace". The table pushes the whole article and visually completely splits the "article flow" (like the embassy table, that is now hidden in most articles)... I'm not sure what's to hate about the graph, but I may be skewed, because I look at such a graph every day in a weather forecast app. -- 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Like, I prefer the graph. While I really like those tables you mean, Ypsilon, I don't think all the information is necessary for the traveler — in most cases. If a place has an exceptional weather statistic not revealed in the graph, then I think it would be OK to use the table. The graph wasn't perfect originally but nowadays I think it looks quite good, and modern, in our articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I much prefer the graph status quo, though certainly concede that they have issues that should be resolved. Going back to tables just because a relatively new template has some bugs seems a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I think the graphs are connecting and will connect better with travellers than big, complex tables will. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Don’t tout red linking[edit]

Why is it doing that? This is showing up as a red link on my iPhone 6S. Does it red link for you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason it's a pain in the neck to italicize or bold-ify text when editing on my phone: because iPhones default to curly quotes, but the apostrophe in Wikivoyage:Don't tout (and those used to denote bold and italic text in MediaWiki markup) are straight. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's terrible, isn't it? Couldn't we create a redirect to fix that problem? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s terrible for iPhones to edit “defectively” by default. And since we can’t expect people to all somehow change what their iPhones do, it’s imperative to fix the problem in MediaWiki markup. Or should I simply stop editing every time I am without my laptop and/or without Wi-Fi? That’s not a solution, but at present, others not on iPhones will have to do followup edits after me... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you - you inspired me to finally seek out a solution to this problem. On your iPhone, go to Settings > General > Keyboard and then turn Smart Punctuation off. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Now, if I could only find an easy way to place my cursor in the middle of any word on my iPhone... Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That issue with the cursor is literally one of the most annoying features of Apple products. Fortunately, 'my' iPad -belonging to my former employer - 'had to' be returned last week (oh, the pain!) as part of moving on to a new job.
I've made the redirect, as we should do our best to make Wikivoyage compatible with all operating systems. Off the top of your heads, can anyone remember any other policy page titles with an apostrophe, that may default to the fancy curly type on iOS? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
What about Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub? How does that work with the other kind of apostrophe? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Travellers’ pub. It was redlinking, but not anymore.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Thundering! Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The "wrong" versions of "Don't tout" and "don't tout" should also be redirected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to do this comprehensively, then there are about 325 titles in the mainspace (including redirects) and 39 in the project space (including four redirects). I'm not sure that every single one of these needs a redirect from curly quotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that anything in articlespace can be redirected as and when it's needed. It would make sense to do the policy pages, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

page creation error with visual editor[edit]

Not sure of the cause of the problem but there is an error with creating pages in visual edit (not wiki source) mode. Change to visual editor, if you are not using it, create a new park article then change back to wiki source mode and look at the page in edit. It is not adding template for pagebanner but some code of page banner. Anyone know where the error is? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is it an issue a user can fix after s/he has created a page? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This problem still exists. Difficult for a new contributor to understand how to edit in wiki source mode. At the moment I am editing new articles to fix the problem. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
True. Let us know how things are as the issue progresses. If this is still a problem in a few days, we definitely need to take some action. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Honiton a good example of the kind of issue you're facing? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes and Zakouma National Park would be another example. Try yourself, create a page with test name (you have the right to delete a test page later) while in visual editor mode, then switch to wiki source editor mode and look at the page in edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Don't visit" list...[edit]

Do we have a summarised one , based on Warning boxes?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't support such a list. As a travel guide, we among other things present safety information - and then leave it to our readers to choose whether to go to Country or Region X,Y or Z or not. To put it another way, this is a travel guide, not a "don't travel" guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan's concerns, but for maintenance purposes see: Category:Has_warning_box and Category:Has warning box with out of date warning. A warning box may only be on an article for a few days to warn of an industrial dispute, or for several years as a result of war, and I don't see any value for the reader in a manual list. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Warningboxes are good, but they do not mean that a tourist must not visit a place. We don't want to get too negative about warnings. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I sometimes wonder whether we go too far with some warnings. We should not forget that, while most editors here are Westerners, we are writing for a global audience of people who can read English. For example, few Westerners (but not none) might be planning trips to Iraq at present, but for people from culturally similar neighbouring countries, visits to parts of Iraq are likely much less daunting, and it is not our place to discourage them from going. Nurg (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, though it's better to be on the careful side than not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Wikivoyage should ever be warning people not to visit a place, but we should absolutely let readers know if a major government advises against visiting a place. If the UK Foreign Office says "don't go there", that is important information for readers to consider making their own decisions. But we don't need a separate list. Warning boxes are sufficient. Ground Zero (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely, and you said it better than I did. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To reference the previous discussion about the USA article, I would say that government warnings not to go to a place in and of themselves are not grounds for us to put up warning boxes. Whether you like it or not, even Western governments sometimes issue such warnings for political reasons, so the determining factor should be what the situation on the ground actually is. If it is a war zone, we should have a warning box saying that it's a war zone. If gay people are likely to be lynched by the locals, we likewise should have a warning box saying that. But the mere fact that the British government issued a warning not to go there is not sufficient grounds for a warning box. And so, to the point of this thread, no, there should not be a "Don't visit" list. Warning boxes in the destination articles are sufficient. For instance, I put a warning box in the Uganda article stating that extreme homophobia is rampant, but if a gay person wants to visit Uganda despite that, it is not up to us to stop him from visiting; he still has every right to make that decision for himself. The dog2 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems a consensus has been reached. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


I added the following to the top of the Japan article to warn of a coming cyclone:

{{warningbox|According to [ Wunderground's hurricane forecasting] and their [ Wundermap], a tropical cyclone is headed for southern Japan and will strike within the next several days. Be cautious if you plan to visit southern Japan.}}

It is displaying as just WARNING: {{{1}}}. Why is it not working? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the syntax problem is, but I think you should add a date to the text. What does "in the next few days mean" to the reader? I'm finding text that was added in 2005 that tells readers what has happened "in recent years". It's not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll do that — but first, my goal is to get the warningbox working. I will add a date to the Florida cautionbox. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If you go to the Florida article, you will see that I have upgraded it to a warningbox. That is because I do not think the cautionbox allows you to add a "lastedit" paramater. (At least, I didn't see any mention of one at Template:Cautionbox.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately, Template:Cautionbox gave me the answer to the original question. I needed to add a "1" for the second parameter, like this:
{{warningbox|1=According to [ Wunderground's hurricane forecasting] and their [ Wundermap], a tropical cyclone is headed for southern Japan and will strike within the next several days. Be cautious if you plan to visit southern Japan.}}
I have also added the day the warningbox was updated to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time, if you want to record some information in a MediaWiki template (MediaWiki is the software we use), but you don't need it to show up in the article, you can use any old made-up parameter. Templates normally ignore unknown parameters, but any editor who looks at the wikitext will see it. This is useful for adding dates, explanations, etc. that will only matter to another editor. It's good that these boxes support |lastedit= but if they didn't, you could write something like |date= or |note-from-me= or whatever you liked for the convenience of other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Or use a parameter name you would like to have supported. If lastedit isn't recognized and you use it, editors will see it (it not showing up may of course cause some confusion), and when the template is edited to support it, the date shows up as intended. The ignoring unknown parameters also causes the need for "1=", explicitly stating a parameter should be treated as a positional one, as otherwise everything up to the "=" that happens to be in the parameter text is treated as a parameter name. --LPfi (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried date= because I thought it did what lastedit= actually does. Could we make date= a valid parameter, with the same effect as lastedit, so it is easier to remember what is the name of the parameter when using it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to do this; we would create the other name as an "alias" for the parameter. Then you could use either name, with the same result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the best thing we can do. However, I don't know all that code, so could you please do it if it's not too hard? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mapframe problems[edit]

What's wrong with the maps at Bicol and Calabarzon? They just show up as white for me, in both Firefox and Safari. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: They are empty: just {{mapframe}} with no geocoordinates. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Calabrazon is empty too but does display for me. Maybe lacking info at Wikidata? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't think the lack of geocoordinates is the problem—many articles, such as Negros, have mapframes with no geocoordinates but still display the map just fine.
Oddly enough, Calabarzon now displays for me too, though I'm sure it didn't 15 minutes ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of the dynamic maps seem to be broken currently, probably some wikimedia server outage... -- 05:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is because of broken mapshapes. The shapes are added by a JavaScript script which had to load external data. If one of these data is broken the script stops working. That's why the map is empty. The script stop is a known problem. I tried to get the mapshape data manually, and I got the response: "password authentication failed for user \"kartotherian\"". This should not happen. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The mapshapes in those articles showed white for me as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the problem is now solved. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Guide for new editors[edit]

I had an idea today that we could create a page with project page links organized for new users. This wouldn't be the same as the standard welcome message on talk pages, as it would take several different Wikivoyage project pages and arrange them from least advanced to most advanced. A new editor can go through each project page one by one, like a tutorial. I have created a start at User:SelfieCity/Tutorial that can be expanded and improved.

The idea is that we could link new users to this to aid them in learning how to contribute, and more importantly, become an informed member of our community. It's along the lines of ThunderingTyphoons! idea of having mentors, which never really got underway but did result in the creation of the Arrivals lounge. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems like just one more page to confuse people with an unclear hierarchy. The front page already has a bunch of links to WV:Plunge forward, WV:Arrivals lounge, WV:How to edit a page, etc. WV:Welcome and WV:About also point to quite a few pages.
I doubt too many people on any wiki read much of anything before they start trying to contribute. However, the problem here is that there are quite a few pages that are all cross-linked without much hierarchy. Maybe that just means we need to add a navigation sidebar to WV:Welcome and several other pages, so that alongside the wall of text there's a nice blue box to show that there are other pages worth looking at, and organize them into a sensible order. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that quite a few of our new editors start editing articles, hardly ever participate in any discussions, and often just fade away. We need some kind of route to making these people active in the community so they can hopefully become patrollers and administrators. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Have you heard about the Growth team work? They've created some small tools that help newcomers to make their first steps.
So far, 3 features are available:
  • Help panel: allow newcomers to find help and ask questions while they edit.
  • Welcome survey: learn what topics and types of edits newcomers are interested in.
  • EditorJourney: learn what workflows newcomers go through on their first day.
A fourth feature will be available when those 3 are deployed: Newcomer homepage.
Those features have been developed for Wikipedias, but could work on your wiki. They would be a good addition to your tutorials. I let you browse those links and if you think it would work, please ping me back.
Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela mapshape[edit]

Not all of Venezuela is showing up on the dynamic mapshape. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I have checked, and it is still not working. Should a Phabricator entry be created? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Just checked one of the missing mapshapes with help of the OSM Relation Analyzer. At least this one is a closed contour in OSM. So the problem seems to be related to the Kartographer extension.--Renek78 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Most incidents don’t kill you or cripple you"[edit] (koavf)TCM 00:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to this article, which at first I would have dismissed; however, it gives insight to an aspect of world travel I normally wouldn't give a second thought. I wouldn't take the whole article as Gospel, but I would certainly consider much of it, as it is written well by someone who obviously has vast travel experience. I'm not sure we can apply this information to Wikivoyage articles, but I think we can apply it to our attitudes when we edit here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but continuing the earlier "Don't visit" discussion: those government advisories have an immediate practical effect, because your travel insurance will have a standard clause excluding any cover for travel against such advice. So a turned ankle or cardiac collapse would be all at your expense, ruinous if it came to a medevac. Grahamsands (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that only applies to the most stringent warnings, and even then the results may not be total cancellation. I looked at one policy which said that it would not pay for "political evacuations" if there were warnings of political unrest, or medical conditions caused by some travel-warning-related things (e.g., injuries from acts of terrorism, Ebola if your home country said not to go there because of Ebola). I got the impression that they were concerned about the "Avoid unnecessary travel" and "Do not travel" levels, rather than the "Exercise caution" level. I didn't see anything that suggested that they'd deny coverage if you sprained your ankle in a museum; the limits seemed to be focused on warning-related reasons. They seemed more concerned about Pakistan and Afghanistan than in places with milder warnings, like France, Germany, and Mexico. But they were willing to give me a quote for Afghanistan anyway, so there must be something they're willing to cover there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I'll reply a bit on a tangent, but our experience with medical insurance in the U.S. would cause us to be a bit cautious in assuming that a company that claims to insure something absolutely wouldn't try to weasel out of paying anything if needed. In other words, the fact that someone gives you a quote for Afghanistan in no way proves they'd pay out if you needed that. But I'll take your inference that they are at least suggesting they would. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
True. In fact, I'd expect them to try to weasel out of as much as possible. It could be that, in practice, the Afghanistan quote would cover only "lost luggage" or something similarly trivial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Back-tracking to Justin's article, another consideration is that upgrades to warnings get shouted from the rooftops, but downgrades pass quietly by. At some point in recent weeks the UK has put almost all of Lebanon into green, including Baalbek and Byblos which were long red. The world won't notice until the country's tourist agency launches a charm offensive to win back its lost trade. Grahamsands (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a very interesting thought. On that note, could we include a dynamic map, somewhere on Wikivoyage, showing which areas of the world are "green" and which are "red"? Perhaps it could be included in Stay safe or a similar article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
That is a massive job, and a huge oversimplification of a complex issue. For example, at the moment I would happily travel to Hong Kong if I arrived on Monday and left on Thursday, but I would want to avoid being there at the weekend, as protests generally occur at then. Unless you can create a bot to read 5 or more government travel pages daily and update the map accordingly, we should leave this to others. AlasdairW (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Dubrovnik banner[edit]

Hi all, I made a mistake in Commons by overwriting a picture with a cropped version, which was then used as the page banner for Dubrovnik. Later I reverted my mistake, created a whole new copy and linked to this one in the article. But somehow the original version of the picture is still shown in the article. Anybody knows why? --Renek78 (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sorted it. There was a syntax error in the pagebanner on Dubrovnik ("File:" was included), so it was fetching the banner from Wikidata, which still had the old entry. I have updated both the page and the WD entry. AlasdairW (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, stupid mistake! Thanks, AlasdairW!--Renek78 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
When I (originally) added the new pagebanner, I simply copied in the filename from the earlier image and did the Commons/Wikidata work. It probably would have been wiser to let Renek78 do the work, but 1) I didn't want to seem lazy and 2) I'm impatient some of the time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You did nothing wrong at all, Selfie City. 100 percently my mistake when I created this page banner in Commons and then making a syntax error in Wikivoyage. Thanks for plunging forward regarding the banner. --Renek78 (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality ratings on mobile[edit]

I've been browsing WV on mobile a bunch recently, and one thing I've been missing is the quality ratings (star, guide, outline, etc.) at the bottom — they're a really useful piece of context that helps me discern whether to treat what I'm reading as authoritative collective wisdom or the musings of the one editor who's ever been to the place. Would it be possible to add these to the mobile edition? Sdkb (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

They're not missing on my mobile browser (Chrome). The template only displays in a basic text format, but it's still enough to know what level an article is. Which browser are you using? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I see the text when you expand the Go next section. As you say just text, we need to look at having some form of box boarder around the text in mobile mode. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm now in mobile mode on a desktop computer, and I am using the Firefox browser. The status information is showing up with a border as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, silly me, I just didn't think to expand that last section. I guess ideally the box should appear outside that section, as it's not part of "Go next", but that's a more minor issue. Sdkb (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hacks for keeping clean clothes on the road[edit] (koavf)TCM 16:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Tea urn (or sterile rubbish bin) + water + detergent. Leave your clothes suspended from a taught rope in there while driving. It worked for Steinbeck, though he did have an enormous custom van and so plenty of space.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Any useful information should be added in hygiene and body care or laundry. Gizza (roam) 00:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Maps instability[edit]

There are ongoing issues with the sliding maps at the moment. Site administrators are working on it. Until they are resolved, those maps may take more time to load or fail to load completely. Thank you for your understanding and sorry for the disruption. More info available on the linked ticket. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, JCrespo (WMF). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that takes quite long, JCrespo (WMF). Any news?--Renek78 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I noticed that the maps work well if the zoom is set to 14. Anything else and they don't render properly. For now, I'm setting zoom to 14 even where it is not totally appropriate. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Chenies Manor House[edit]

w:Chenies_Manor_House - Grade I, Ocassional opening, so worth mentioning as a See item, I'm not sure if it belongs with Amersham/Chesham or given repsective distances with Rickmansworth/ Chorleywood.

I'd like some thoughts on this.

Also does anyone else on Wikivoyage, have a list of Grade I buildings in the UK with public opening? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The posttown is listed as Rickmansworth, so if all other things are equal (distance, ease of access from the population centre - the website mentions no bus service so it's presumably only accessible by car), put it there.
Wikipedia has lists of Grade-I listed buildings by county, though does not mention whether they are open to the public.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
There's (is/was) a Bus (, that runs along the Amersham/Chalfont/Rickmansworth main road, It used to stop outside the Garden Centre. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Rickmansworth looks the closest, and the 103 bus from there goes nearby (15 mins walk) hourly. AlasdairW (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Added a listing. If someone wants to add the bus details, feel free. Should probably add a paragraph concerning the village more generally, It's too small for it's own article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Related:- Where to put a Garden Centre? It's not linked with the Manor House in any way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure Wikivoyage is the place to list garden centres. If for some reason it's relevant to travellers, then the Buy section.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I did add the one at Wendover, previously, but might remove it if the policy is aginst adding them generally, given it's nothing special, apart from the specialist food outlet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Policy on "chain-pubs"...[edit]

In my local area, I've had some good meals out in some local pubs, However, a few of them are chain-pubs, and so I'm reticent about adding them as listings, preferring to add independents. Do we have a policy about semi-chain outlets?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for WV:Boring. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I find chain pubs are less "chained" than chain shops or restaurants. They usually have some local character in the decor and some beer from a nearby brewery, even if much of the menu is the same as the other end of the country. They also tend to serve food later than most independents. As a result I often list them as places to drink or eat. AlasdairW (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I think if it's just a local chain, we might consider things differently - say there are 5 good pubs in a local chain. Or, for example, there are several Rischart bakeries, a few with cafes, all in the Munich area, and they're great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that. Sometimes, a restaurant will have three or more locations within a region, and they do not feel like McDonald's or Burger King at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe we've always allowed localized chains to be listed however, it's best to only list 1 per article so it doesn't look spammy. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to redirect the conversation back to the question, "chain pub", even with local character, doesn't necessarily mean local chain. Wetherspoons is by far the largest national pub chain in the UK. 98% of the food and drinks menu, including prices, is the same, whether you're in Inverness or Islington. But the buildings themselves are often characterful local landmarks, and there are usually 3-5 local beers or ciders available on tap. These are probably worth listing. Some other chains, like Greene King or Marston's are owned by a brewery, so the drinks range is the same in every pub. They may be worth listing if the building is notable, or the local competition is limited, but not worth it otherwise. Others still are pretty much glorified family restaurants - e.g. Hungry Horse and Beefeater, but the food is always terrible and you'll always find a better boozer elsewhere. Not worth listing unless it's the only pub for miles around.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Another "chain-pub" in the UK would be : Brewers Fayre (Whitbread), not sure how much variation you get in what's served.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

On a tangentially related subject...[edit]

...I think we need to make it clear on that policy page that WV:Boring does not apply to "Sleep" listings. Every city and town of wiaa-compliant size can be expected to have at least a few locally-owned mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, and bars - but independently-owned hotels are an entirely different story, a miniscule segment of the market by comparison to chains. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I think your suggestion should be implemented as soon as consensus is established here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree, otherwise we'd had to delete pretty much all big hotels (those are almost invariably part of national or global chains), accounting for a huge number of beds in each city. Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not true everywhere: I was amazed by the lack of chain hotels in New Zealand outside of Auckland and Wellington -- not even local chains. By I expect that it is very true in the U.S., and agree with the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal to exclude sleep. I would also say that WV:Boring should not apply to anywhere that there is only a few places to choose from. If a burger chain is one of only four places to eat in town then we can list them all. AlasdairW (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said previously, I would prefer venues with a local/independent character were what's added rather than 'adverts' for major chains the traveller would generally recognise anyway. Also per a comment in Cuisine of Britain and Ireland there are a few local mixed take-away outlets worth avoiding even if they are nominally independents. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(Aside): The focus on Wikivoyage is the traveller, Would there be any scope on Wikivoyage (or a different wiki) for a shopping guide scoped more at within region vistors/locals as opposed to tourists/travellers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
A different wiki, sure. Not Wikivoyage, though. See Goals and non-goals. You could reuse Wikivoyage content on such a hypothetical wiki, of course.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If anyone else would be interested in prototyping/developing such a wiki, leave a note on my talk page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: You can try looking at Localwiki. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Although it may be obvious, maybe would say that WV:Boring does not apply to public transport. I see no reason for preferring the small bus operator over the main city or national network, and there is no problem in having loads of listings for Amtrak, National Express or Intercity. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I note that WV:Boring i.e. Boring places talks about stores, restaurants and bars, not about transport or hotels. Hotels are still places, so they might need to be explicitly mentioned. I'm plunging forward and adding a paragraph. Revert if discussion is still needed or the wording is bad. --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss massive changes on sites?[edit]

Unfortunately, I have experienced that some of our contributors here massively change the (new) pages of other authors and thereby prevent further development of a page (current example Anastasiopolis). If the person making the changes knows the area well and can contribute important knowledge, that's ok. But in my (old fashioned?) opinion such a thing should be discussed before the change are made in the respective discussion side. I find that a matter of polite interaction with each other. What do you think, what is common behavior here? DocWoKav 15. Sept. 2019

Are these edits what you mean? Those edits are not destructive; there's nothing "massive," as you say in the title of this discussion, about moving content from one article to another, if that change is sensible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if you've placed a "See" listing in a city article for a nearby location and then someone moves it to "Go next" because that nearby location already has its own article, that's pretty much an open-and-shut case per our policy on geographical hierarchy and there's really not much to discuss about it. My suggestion is rather than getting defensive about the content you've contributed being altered or demanding that every little change be litigated on talk pages - which would grind the development of our content to a halt - you should instead get comfortable with the fact that this is a wiki, and people's contributions are subject to redaction or deletion at any time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "exotic", and making assumptions about our readership[edit]

I just saw two recent edits that included this word: "exotic wildlife" in Bangladesh and "exotic restaurants" in Yongin, Korea. I don't like that word, because it means "strange and foreign to you", with the implication that "you" are a white person from somewhere in what's called the "West". But in 1975 Tokyo, where white people were scarce, unlike today, and white 10-year-olds were so rare that when my parents took me to the zoo, all the Japanese families seemed to be asking to take a picture with me such that I felt I was the animal on display, I was the "exotic" - not to mention when I then went to the rural Malaysia of those days, where people stared, pointed and said "Orang putih!" ("White person!") But that's not the default meaning of the word. Korean food is not "exotic" to me and neither are tropical flora and fauna, because of my own experiences and travels, and to some people, the word is likely to be insulting. I don't think it's useful on a travel site with a worldwide readership, and I think the word should be on "words to avoid", as long as we choose to maintain that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although it is more "use with care" rather "avoid completely". I think that it is acceptable to use it to describe how locals view something. "The inhabitants of <remote fishing village> regard hamburgers as exotic, but scallops are everyday food." AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
And what about stuff that is out of place for where it is? So Tresco Abbey Garden in the Scilly Isles has a frost-free microclimate right by the gulf stream, allowing the mass cultivation of plants (such as bananas, cycads, birds of paradise etc) which are exotic - to Cornwall. The word is meaningful in that sense (indeed, I think exotic is a botanical term, albeit a Eurocentric one).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm with AlasdairW and ThunderingTyphoons!. The word is culturally insensitive in some contexts, but too useful in other contexts to be proscribed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with all of you, but I think virtually all the words on words to avoid are really "think carefully before you use". Perhaps we could discuss a clearer name for that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it was André who made the point a while ago that "Words to avoid" doesn't actually mean "words which must never ever be used", even if sometimes we treat the page that way. Whether it was him or not, we would do well to remember it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've put that in the relevant paragraph of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek because our audience is not, and does not need to be, concentrated completely in the supposedly "non-exotic" countries. For example, certain kinds of birds are considered exotic, and that opinion can be shared universally by identifying those birds' various colors; therefore, I would say that exotic birds are an exception to Words to Avoid. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I made a brief entry in wta, also discouraging usage of "exotic" as a euphemism for striptease and such. /Yvwv (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I support the idea of renaming the page. Maybe Wikivoyage:Words to watch, which is close to what Wikipedia calls their equivalent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I reverted Yvwv's advice to avoid "exotic" with reference to striptease, as that particular aspect was never put up for discussion. Please don't alter the wording of policy documents in ways that have not been vetted by consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the page should be moved to a title that better describes what it's about. The problem is, some of the phrases on that list, like "look no further," qualify as touting and therefore should never be used — we don't want people thinking those phrases are allowed in certain circumstances. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Granger, despite the "Words to watch" title, the English Wikipedia has regular problems with editors claiming that it's a list of banned words. This problem probably can't be solved in the title, unless we try calling it something like "Words that might be okay sometimes, but are probably not a good choice in most cases, so you're going to have to be thoughtful and use your judgment every single time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] We could probably find an exception, but this can always be addressed in specific entries in the article. By the way, I think it's much clearer to call a bird colorful than exotic; I wouldn't know an "exotic" bird was colorful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Hong_Kong_to_Kunming_overland#Understand (which I wrote) and the intro to Southwest China (not me) are exceptions; even most Chinese find these areas exotic, and foreigners certainly do. Pashley (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that for the same reason - in this case, that most Chinese people are Han and that many border areas such as this are populated by many non-Han people, who thereby feel strange and foreign to the Han who dominate them? I think it's fine to say that Han Chinese or Chinese people from other parts of the country find the area exotic, but a context should be given (it probably is - no time for me to check right now). Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think flora/fauna is not that controversial. Who would be offended by pointing out that Madagascar has exotic wildlife? In Pashley's example, the metric is given that it is exotic compared to the rest of the nation. Seems like Hawaii; from a continental American perspective it's "exotic" with its completely different culture, climate, flora/fauna, and landscapes. Without context or parameters, I would agree that the perspective is typically Western (rather than "white"), although I don't think just because some people are well-traveled and want to flaunt it by saying nothing is exotic to them that the word is not meaningful. I'm not sure how prolific the word's usage is, and I would agree that there are times it's not appropriate, but the reverse of the "It's offensive because it singles something out as different" argument is that "exotic" denotes that something is different in an appealing and enticing way. It's a positive word, certainly in the travel context. More than being "offensive", I think it can be a bit fluffy in some contexts, but I agree with others that the term is not altogether bad or unworthy of use. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I've argued in the past, and continue to feel, that an even better option than renaming Wikivoyage:Words to avoid would be getting rid of it entirely. In general, I think we should not be in the business of language-policing our editors. By that I mean that if anyone comes across a passage that could do with better wording, they should absolutely edit as they see fit, but it should be on a purely case-by-case basis rather than systematic or enshrined in policy. Most of the exceptions to that rule, i.e. words or phrases that are never appropriate under any circumstances whatsoever, either fall under Captain Obvious (racial slurs, for example) or Don't Tout (the examples SelfieCity mentioned upthread, for example). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
User:ChubbyWimbus: I obviously disagree with you and have explained why. It has nothing to do with my "flaunting" anything. But that said, if you described Hawaii's flora and fauna as "unique, and appealingly exotic to visitors from the Continental United States and other mainly temperate countries", or some similar phrasing, that would be fine with me, keeping in mind that there are loads of Japanese people who visit Hawaii. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It does appear that most of the complaints about the words on our list are covered in the "Don't Tout" article. It doesn't list the words, but it certainly lists the sentiments that you could still use to justify changing/deleting the same words/phrases. Maybe our words to avoid list isn't really very useful. I have seen edits that seem to be referencing that list (or maybe just the idea of being succinct) that I have felt were made at the detriment of "lively writing". I doubt we'd be losing much by deleting the list altogether. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think CW has it pretty much exactly right, and re: Ikan's comment above, why would someone say "unique, and appealingly exotic to visitors from the Continental United States and other mainly temperate countries" when they could just say "exotic" and treat the other words as redundant? In point of fact, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about re: wta doing more harm than good. When systematically proscribing a word means you have to expand a one-word phrase to sixteen just to get your point across, we need to rethink whether it's a good idea to systematically proscribe words. (And IMO that's equally true whether they're banned outright or merely considered "words to watch".) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] Since Hawaii is a group of islands, its native flora and fauna are unique, a more meaningful word than exotic. That said, if you really insist on using "exotic" about Hawaiian plants or, like, birds, that's not as bad as using the word for tropical Asian flora and fauna that are familiar to a very large number of people. Whether we have an official "words to watch" list or not is not going to change the views I have expressed above, and I'm a bit annoyed at the tone of your last reply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Andre, you've made your case for scrapping WTA on many, many occasions. Other than ChubbyWimbus I have yet to see anyone won over to your way of thinking. There are still many editors involving in refining the list, so I don't think we need to discuss it again now, but if you want to start another thread on its talk page, you can, of course. Ground Zero (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a note on the semantics of "exotic", FWIW. When applied to flora and fauna it often has a somewhat technical meaning of non-native, non-indigenous or non-naturalised. The Auckland Zoo, for example, invites visitors to see "Both New Zealand and exotic birds". In this sense, a species can be drab and nondescript, not necessarily colourful or especially foreign looking. Nurg (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

True. The word can be equivalent to "foreign" when applied to wildlife. The problem is, with a travel guide like Wikivoyage, if "foreign" and "exotic" are synonyms, something can be "exotic" to me, but is it exotic to you, or any of the other contributors taking part in this discussion? Many of us are from different parts of the world. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the discussion I started a while ago, Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid#Requests for removing from this list, demonstrates how I did not fully understand the meaning of the list. I was probably thinking, "these words should be avoided at all costs" when I brought up that discussion, which led to a misunderstanding, which in turn led to a less productive discussion on that front. We can at least start by changing the name of the page to "Words to Watch," so the meaning of the list is clear. Then, we can decide whether or not we want to keep the list. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both of SelfieCity's posts above. Nurg, thanks for that contribution to the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have much to add to the above discussion, but I'm sold by the argument that "exotic" should generally be avoided. Hopefully it shouldn't be impossible to create a wta page that communicates that idea while also noting the possibility of exceptions. Sdkb (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
So how should we describe food ingredients then? While I understand that ingredients like alligator meat or turtle will be exotic to many visitors but not to the locals in Louisiana, how else can we describe those ingredients that are not common outside the region? Another example would be when you describe authentic Cantonese food, since it uses many ingredients that foreigners or even Chinese people from elsewhere would not be comfortable eating. The dog2 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are writing and want to use the word "exotic", you can still use it, but I understand that having words added to this list does make you feel like you can't use them, and another user could also delete or change your writing on the basis that you used a word on "the list". The language policing aspect of the list is of course a downside, as mentioned previously. I do worry that the more we talk about the list and add to the list, the more seriously people will take the list. I feel like that's the wrong direction. We shouldn't be having conversations about "how to replace the word exotic" if exotic fits, and you shouldn't have to worry about your edit being altered and made boring solely on the basis that you used a "forbidden word". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The dog2: It can be fine to use "exotic" if the word is given a context. In the example you give, the best way to explain things is that locals eat ingredients such as x, y and z that outsiders/many visitors (and even some locals, if that's true) find exotic. Anyone who wants to keep all articles as short as possible may object, but that's really the clearest phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Here in Finland we love visitors thinking our winter, archipelagos and forests are exotic. On the other hand the Sámi want to be treated as people, not as exotic creatures to take photos of. Sámi with tourist businesses seldom dress up as Sámi for visitors, while many Finnish competitors do. The Finnish are playing a role for their guests, while the Sámi are showing (some aspects of) their own life. I suppose calling everyday food exotic may contribute to making the locals exotic creatures instead of people. "Exotic to many visitors" is not very cumbersome, and where it has an advantage it should be used over plain "exotic". And if we want to point out something as exotic, we should afford also an explication. --LPfi (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Very well argued. Excellent example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That also works for me. I certainly agree that Wikivoyage should be written from a global perspective and not a Eurocentric or Western-centric perspective. Unfortunately, at least in the U.S., there has been a history of non-white and disabled people being dehumanised and put on display in freak shows as "exotic creatures" just like animals in a zoo, so we need to treat this issue with utmost sensitivity. On the other hand, we need to be able to convey information to potential travellers that some local ingredients may not be what they are comfortable eating (eg. dog meat in China and Korea). I guess "exotic to many visitors" does the trick. The dog2 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


i want to jump into the action. please help me edit some stuff. thnx. Cactusflies22 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Tips for new contributors -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook has gone bust.[edit]

Thomas Cook (a leading UK package travel operator) has ceased trading.

I'll run a quick check for in wiki references, but if other contributors want to make appropriate changes.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook: warning somewhere?[edit]

I think Thomas Cook are Britain's largest travel company. Certainly they arrange lots of package holidays. Back in the 70s & 80s we found that their travellers' cheques were accepted more readily in much of Asia than the less-known brand American Express.

However, now Roughly 600,000 travelers are stranded around the world after the British travel provider Thomas Cook declares bankruptcy and some travellers are being asked for extra fees Thomas Cook customers say they were 'held hostage' at Tunisian hotel.

Is this something we need a warning about? Where?

Is there some form of travel insurance that will protect travellers if their tour company goes belly up? In a quick scan, I do not find that in the article. Pashley (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Common_scams#Guests_asked_for_additional_payment,_due_to_dispute_with_another_party_(like_a_package_operator)?_..... Pashley (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
More information? - Thomas Cook has ceased trading - Information for customers and travel businesses (on the UK CAA website). Looks to be official. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The ATOL scheme may cover some packages sold in the UK - see [[1]] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Do we have an article on what to do when the travel operator can't operate? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Were Thomas Cook still issuing Traveller's Cheques? because that's not something the media coverage I've been reading mentions anything about. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It also affects the subsidaries of Thomas Cook, for example Tjäreborg here in Finland. Hundreds of their customers did learn this morning that their planes aren't going to be taking off, and thousands more are stuck in different Mediterranean countries.
Maybe a warning could be approporiate, but I don't know what article to place it in. On the other hand, I somehow believe few package tour readers have discovered/use our travel guide, due to our comparatively weak coverage of places like the Caribbean or the Canary Islands that draw millions of visitors every year.
Also, it's sort of sad that the company that once enabled people that weren't millionares or royalty to travel for pleasure for the first time is gone. Ypsilon (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The Main Page? That's where they put travel warnings on Wikitravel. I wouldn't suggest it for our normal geographical travel warnings, but something like this affects more than half a million travellers around the world.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
When thinking about it, it could actually be appropriate to put a warning on the Main Page. Ypsilon (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have had travel insurance which (as an extra cost option) offered cover for failure of transport operators. In the specific case of Thomas Cook, I expect that most UK travellers booked with them will be get home (or get money back if they have yet to start) from ATOL protection - the UK CAA is arranging flights. Those who have booked flights alone (no hotel etc) don't qualify for ATOL, but were included in flights home when Monarch failed, and may be able to claim from their credit card company. As Thomas Cook won't be taking new bookings, I don't see a need for a warning - those already booked will hear directly. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Should we get a new banner for Travel agencies as it uses a 1910 Thomas Cook poster? AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree—it's hard for me to see who the warning would be useful for. I don't think the Travel agencies banner needs to be changed—it's obvious that it's a historical image, and the "Thomas Cook" name is not visible in the image. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Double check your travel insurance. Many policies actually don't cover any incurred additional expenses if the airline/transportation provider declares bankruptcy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There may be other impacts.[edit] concerning impact on prices from other operators/agencies. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC) and ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not a news agency, and the travellers will all be brought home by CAA / ATOL scheme in the next few days. The Med season is ending so predatory pricing has natural limits. But if, as stated, our coverage of TCX destinations is weak, that's an editing priority right there. There's an awful lot of those: I've made a start on Dalmatia coast in Croatia. Can we identify any where TCX was such a dominant operator that "Get in" and viability of resort facilities are compromised? I recall operator bankruptcies that scuppered North Cyprus and Montenegro for a couple of years till others took over. Grahamsands (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Dracut, Mass, USA[edit]

im interested in contributing to this. any sugguestions? Cactusflies22 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, go to this region article: Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts). Click the (currently red) link for Dracut, which will then prompt you to create a new page. Read this sentence: "To start, please click on one of the following links to pre-fill this article with the standard sections:" then click on the word "City"; this will automatically create an empty template for a city article. You can then start writing. This page will help you to know what kind of things to write about in each section.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Content campaigns[edit]

If you're interested in content campaigns (like Wiki Loves Earth to encourage photo uploads, or like our fifth anniversary project), then you might want to watch the project described in They're working on a sort of guidebook for people who want to start new campaigns to encourage content creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

for some types of content, consider making a nomination at Collaboration of the month. For larger projects consider creating a Wikivoyage:Expeditions.Pashley (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


A re-title to meet a well defined scope, If someone wants to add some additional info about Russia, China and so on, this is almost at a 'usable' status . I didn't feel confident in moving it to main-space, without a second opinion though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

How would you feel about first getting it up to usable status, and then adding it? Otherwise, we are simply expanding the number of outlines we have. Thank you, however, for doing this work! I'm sure, with a little more time, it will be good! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd reached the limit of my working knowledge. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
At the English Wikipedia, they started a Draft: namespace a few years ago. The WMF staff who were behind the proposal originally now regret it. One of them described the draftspace as "the place where articles go to die", because nobody except the original author contributes to pages in the Draft: namespace. As a space for collaboration outside the normal range of readers' view, it's a failure. I suspect that userspace drafts work the same way. Once you reach the limit of your working knowledge, you should move it into the mainspace, which will encourage others to join in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage educational assignment[edit]

Hey guys, two years ago I had my students do some edits to Korean Wikivoyage (improved pages on Ansan, Debudo and others). Now the class is back, so expect some newbie edits in Korean topics. As usual, they'll get better in few weeks and we should end up with a bunch of new and improved pages. Feel free to help out, just note that it takes some time for students (new editors...) to figure out they even have a talk page etc. :) Class syllabi is here: [2] and class wiki dashboard entry is here: [3]. The dashboard is not sadly designed to show contribs for anything outside English Wikipedia :/ If you want to get in touch we me quickly please ping me under my main account (Piotrus). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I assumed something like that was going on. Thank you for doing this again! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about this great project. We'll do cleanup as needed, but appreciate the additional content from local experts. Ground Zero (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Sage (Wiki Ed), what would it take to get the dashboard working here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
대박!! Ypsilon (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, Piotrus: you can set the dashboard to show Wikivoyage mainspace contributions; you must add en.wikivoyage as one of the tracked wikis, and then it should start pulling in Wikivoyage edits.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sage (Wiki Ed): How can I do this? I don't know where the option to add more wikis to tracked edits is. I'd love to do it for all my classes since I use multiple wikis. --Piotrus (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus: Click 'Edit Details' and there is a field for 'tracked wikis' where you can add new ones.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. --Piotrus (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a great idea for a university class. I agree, knowing the basics of wikis is (or will probably become) something that many technology-related jobs will require in the near future.
"It takes some time for students (new editors...) to figure out they even have a talk page etc. :)" ... Well, maybe you should be sure to teach them that! :-) Looking at the syllabus, I don't see where you would cover topics like no one "owns" an article on a wiki, wv:consensus, or how wiki editors collaborate such as by using talk pages.
In terms of content (both looking at the older articles students have worked on, and based on my own experience trying to write about places I know nothing about), I have some thoughts on how they can have the biggest impact on WV. Just like I would have an easy time looking up things in American cities by asking people I know who live there or have been there, or knowing which American websites and apps I can easily search for recommendations, your students have a lot of knowledge and resources about Korea that I don't. (For example, since I don't read Korean I can't use NAVER very easily.)
  • It's pretty easy for anyone to look up directions for the "Get in" section, or search on a map for "hotels" to find someplace to sleep. The hardest sections to fill out are the middle ones: "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink". Are there annual events or festivals? Is there a local product or food I should look for? Are there any famous restaurants, or ones that aren't famous but locals like it because it's good? Where would I go drinking if I wanted to dance at a club, or talk to locals over some beer or soju, or have a quiet drink by myself? Just look at a bunch of Seoul's districts... surely there's somewhere to eat in Seodaemun, but there isn't a single "Eat" listing!
  • After a name, the most important thing we need for a listing is a description. The rest of the details (website, latitude/longitude, address, phone, prices) can be looked up by someone else, but the description is usually the hardest thing to write, and it's a lot easier for someone from that country to write one than for a foreigner. If it just says something basic like "This restaurant serves bibimbap", that's a start, but it's better if it can include at least a little bit more detail that would be harder to learn. (Is it famous, or do locals like it, or what? Is it formal or casual, noisy or quiet, brightly-lit or dim, old or new? Tell me something to make it sound interesting, more than just "the food is good".)
Good luck to your students! If you can, maybe let us know what pages they end up working on; I'd be happy to keep an eye open for their work. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Teaching and learning is not the same. I do show them how to leave a talk page message and even require they leave one for me, but that doesn't mean I can force all of them to complete this and remember how to do it, nor can I make sure they'll all check their talk page, etc. As for where I cover OWN and such, the syllabus links to a few presentations, but I often just simply show them various policies (last class we talked about WV:ABOUT and such) and we just discuss stuff. I think I will copy your suggestions of what to do into the next class's screen to give students some idea on what to do. PS. I haven't mentioned this this time, but all the students are ESL so their prose will likely need some copyediting for grammar mistakes and such. --Piotrus (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course. ESL is no problem; I think most of us here would rather have some basic content that needs to be improved (grammar, details, etc.) rather than no content at all.
I wonder... perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone (the internet tells me you'd call this 일석이조, with the same meaning) by encouraging students to use a Talk page or Project page to request that someone copyedit or give feedback on their writing. The obvious place to do that would be on that article's Talk page, although unless several people are watching it, they may not get much of a response. Maybe someone else can suggest a better place for that; wv:Welcome, copyeditors doesn't have a place for requests, and the Pub is probably too broad as well (or maybe it's fine). --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Requests for comment is exactly the right place for this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, just a heads-up that RFCs are different here compared to what you're used to. You start a discussion somewhere (anywhere that seems reasonable), and then add a link to the discussion and a short note to the RFC page. The note could say something as simple as "How can we improve this page?" or "I need some help". RFCs stay "open" for at least two months and/or until the person who started it is satisfied (which could be within minutes for an easy question). If you encourage students to use the RFC process, then please remind them to check back in a few days and end the RFC (by removing the note from the RFC page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok! I will ask every group to submit an RfC about their chosen topic over the next ~2 weeks, this will result in 5-10 RfC requests. Even if you end up copy-pasting the same few generic pieces of advice into each it will be appreciated, as it is great for students to see 'someone out there' really cares about what they are doing here :) --Piotrus (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, would you please talk to your class about the importance of not reverting or overwriting edits to their work without comment and not ignoring edit summaries? It comes off as rude and irritating, but it's undoubtedly just because they are unaware of edit summaries and probably think the edits to their work were just something that went technically wrong, not intentional changes. At least three of your students have been doing these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure - can you give me diffs? --Piotrus (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's easiest for you to look at these article histories, look at my edit summaries and click the relevant diffs: History of Suwon, history of Ansan. There was also the district article for Incheon which we had the Vfd thread on, and I am pretty sure some other long-time users have been involved in edit wars in other articles about Korea, but I'll leave it to them to post relevant histories if they like, rather than spending my time searching through a bunch of articles. I've posted to a few students' user talk pages, but if you could explain edit summaries and avoiding edit warring to your whole class, it could save everyone a lot of time and help make the process of improving articles about Korea unfold more smoothly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I will try my best, but keep in mind those are ESL students. Setting aside that a portion of the class has trouble understanding most of what I say because they are not used to listing to English, I did notice some of your and other edit summaries where pointing out various errors in English (capitalize Korean, etc.). This is a common error that speakers of Asian languages repeat, because, among other things, Korean (or Japanese, etc.) has no concept of capital letters... And, in all honestly, my class is not a language class, and I can't focus on language issues. I will certainly ask students to pay attention to edit summaries; last class had a big segment on how to leave messages, read messages, etc., but I simply can't make them not make grammar mistakes or such. Contributions from ESL editors will have grammar errors, and at your average Asian tertiary education level, expect quite a lot. I am sorry I don't have a great solution, but this is the language fluency level of my students (from one of the Top 10 universities in South Korea, FYI). I can teach those who listen to read messages, reply, read edit summaries, etc. (but not all of them will, of course). But to teach them to not make grammar errors etc. is neither in the scope of my class, nor is it simply possible in its timeframe. --Piotrus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Would it help if we wrote our messages to them in more basic English? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to teach them English. We're happy to correct their errors and explain why we're doing it. All they have to do is not restore the errors after we fix them! And if they don't understand what we're writing, they should feel free to post to our user talk pages and ask for more of an explanation than we can give in an edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Hi everyone, I started a discussion to merge World War II in Africa into World War II in Europe on that article's talk page. Please comment there and let me know what you think. The dog2 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

GPX export useless with the Wikidata approach[edit]

Now that we are converting city listings to only using the Wikidata reference, and also support Wikidata-only listing for sights, due to the on the fly addition of Wikipedia and GPS, the GPX export does not function properly anymore. This is because it does not derive GPS for these simple Wikidata-only listings.

Should we tackle this issue? Could we maybe use the approach from German Wikivoyage, which can properly handle such simple listings?

If this topic was discussed before, please refer. But it seems still to be open, considering the GPX export issue.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. Furthermore it would be a huge addition, if GeoJSON paths for itineraries (e.g. E11 hiking trail) are also exported.--Renek78 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"Discussed" several times, actually... see Mapframe and Marker discussions... -- 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Three "sister infoboxes" at AMS IST and FRA[edit]

I made infoboxes at our articles on AMS, IST and FRA informing readers of their rivalry (mostly exhibited by their home carriers) as to which airport is the "best connected". Not only is this an interesting tidbit, but I think it is of obvious value to travelers to know that those airports have direct flights nearly everywhere... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'm surprised Dubai and/or Doha don't have the same number of destinations. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. It's nice to find something interesting to say about airports beyond the essentials. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage's YouTube channel requires more language administrators to join[edit]

I want to add Wikivoyage friends from English and other languages ​​to manage and upload YouTube instructional videos so that wikivoyage can fully advertise in all languages. We already have a lot of videos and live broadcasts in Chinese, and we hope that more English and other languages ​​will be added to the channel!

If you are an administrator of any language in a Wikivoyage, I look forward to provide your personal G-Mail to me, so that I can add you become a YouTube administrator, you will can upload videos on the YouTube channel! and everyone can click subscribe it, Thank you!(see Wikivoyage Channel)--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you also plan on doing 'travel' content in English Language on the chnanel? Like for example a London resident talking about the obscure museum that exists in Hampstead for example, or a Melbourne Resident talking about the trams. (There are other independent You Tubers that make travel related content.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: We have English List, but I only using Chinese. Your Idea is good, I hope you can help us with YouTube Channel. After all, my English is very poor and really bad.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the ability or skill level to help with that sadly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want travel content for the YouTube channel, I wonder whether m:VideoWiki would be useful to you. User:Ian Furst could probably explain it better than I can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a video script [4] The video is than auto generated from the script. And here is the video up on youtube[5] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, Doc_James: Good idea, but m:VideoWiki no videos about travel...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll think about doing that, as the more we can use the YouTube account, the better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Thanks.✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The only thing is that I have multiple G-Mail accounts (one is specifically for Wiki). I guess I'd use that one, then; I just don't want to get the accounts confused. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: OK.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I imagine you would want to keep the scripts on Wikivoyage? Build one in a sandbox on WP. Than move over to Wikivoyage and I can see about getting this tool working here. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc_James: After all, I don't know how to move to a Wikivoyage... as like this?--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Have started building some of the background tools at Template:Videowiki
Basically you want to create something like this[6] on a travel topic correct? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc_James: Yes!--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 17:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay you can create one on Wikipedia to start with. I will try to figure out how to get this working on Wikivoyage. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears we do not have the template for infoboxes here. This does not format well Template:Videowiki Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless the VideoWiki project is meant to only work at a couple of wikis, then its dependence upon any templates, especially the English Wikipedia's complicated Infobox module system, needs to be removed. Until Global Templates are a reality (that's a large, multi-year technical project), then projects like this have to choose between "works everywhere" or "uses local templates". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks complicated; I just hoped that everyone could help promote Wikivoyage by providing YouTube videos.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What app do you use? iMovie? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I have reply mail to you, and I use Wondershare Filmora, thanks.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll take a look at that app when I have the time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started[edit]

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your wiki will be on read only for a few minutes on 15th October[edit]


On Tuesday 15th October from 05:00 to 05:30 AM UTC, your wiki will be on read-only mode for a few minutes. This is due to a change on the database server. For more information about the operation, please see the corresponding task on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed just before the read-only time. Please share this information with others.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: it is happening soon. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Understand section of Frankfurt Airport[edit]

If you look at recent edits, it should be clear why I wish for a third voice to try and make the language succinct and well-flowing without introducing awkward wordings or errors. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a go.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, TT, that looks much better. I was trying sort out the long and rambling sentence on my phone, but didn't make things better. I have no idea why Hobbitschuster feels he has to raise everything as A Big Issue in the pub instead of dealing with it on the talk page like everybody else does, but I will repeat what I have told him dozens of times: I am always prepared to work with other editors to improve articles and resolve disagreements amicably. Ground Zero (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I have proposed an edit of the infobox for Schiphol Airport at Talk:Schiphol_Airport#New_infobox, and welcome comments. Ground Zero (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

How people talk on wiki[edit]

I'd like you all to go to and introduce the PM to how we communicate over here at Wikivoyage. It'd be great if at least one person could to take him through the whole lifecycle of a significant conversation here (where it started, who contributed, what got changed in the article, how it was resolved, where the discussion was swept to, etc.), but he's also going to benefit from lots of people giving him a quick link and a sentence or two that explains why you remembered that conversation. Examples of both good and bad communication will be useful.

Please feel free to share this request with other languages/other projects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Broken filter to be fixed[edit]

Hello all! Lately, we've been switching all wikis to use a new, faster parser for the AbuseFilter. Unfortunately, this wiki cannot be switched because one of the filters contains unsupported syntax. Specifically, it is filter 36. In order to fix it, you should remove the trailing &! at line 5. Could anyone please take a look? Should you have any questions, please feel free to ping me back! Thanks, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've simply removed the text you mention. If that removal harms the filter in any way, it will be necessary for someone with more knowledge to make those fixes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Thanks! Technically, that part was equivalent to & !null, i.e. & true, so removing it has no effect at all. Thanks again, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Good — thanks for explaining that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Hi, I've just realized that filter 34 has the same problem, at line 7. Could you please fix it as well? Also, FTR, the new parser is now enabled here on enwikivoyage as well :) Thanks, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

More prominent linking from Wikipedia?[edit]

I have a sense that many people looking for travel information about a place go to the Wikipedia page for it, often not noticing the link to the Wikivoyage article at the bottom in the sister projects portal, mixed in amongst less relevant links like the Wiktionary definition and the Wikiquote collection. I think it might better serve readers there and drive more traffic to WV if we were able to make the link more prominent, perhaps by moving it from the bottom to the top. Given WP's separate purpose, I could see some objections to something like that, but I do think there's an argument to be made that, for a geographic destination, understanding the travel information pertinent to it (i.e. WV's aim) is a large part of understanding it as a whole (i.e. WP's aim). Thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What you can do today, but is on a page for page manual edit basis, is to use w:Template:Wikivoyage or w:Template:Sister project links at the bottom of city pages. See for example w:Berlin and w:Aberdeen. Also if on Wikivoyage there is a good amount of tourist information in a listing for a point of interest it can be used on the Wikipedia article about the site. For example look at w:Eiffel Tower and w:Tower of London. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Making Wikivoyage more prominent on Wikipedia is a good idea. I think the best method to do this would be to update w:Template:Infobox settlement to also display a link to the Wikivoyage page when exits. This would be a one off edit to the template and would add to almost all major settlement pages. For example w:Washington, D.C. look at the infobox on the right-hand-side. Take a look at for example at commons:Category:York, England on showing other project links. Suggest adding Wikivoyage link at bottom of settlement template after the link to the city's internet website. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone at Wikivoyage would oppose making links to our articles more prominent in Wikipedia. You are likely to encounter resistance in Wikipedia. But I agree that many readers of Wikipedia geography and tourist sight articles are reading them with a purpose of possibly travelling there, and many of them will not end up at Wikivoyage where there is more relevant information. Gizza (roam) 06:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I agree that it should be easier to get to Wikivoyage from Wikipedia in this manner. The question is, how do we get that kind of discussion going (and successfully) on Wikipedia? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
How to get it going is that you start a discussion at w:en:WP:VPIL to develop some specific proposals, and then you take it to w:en:WP:VPPR for a more thorough discussion of each specific proposal.
How to do it successfully... That's not something that can be guaranteed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be framed as adding a "Travel information" or "Tourist information" section with a Wikivoyage link immediately above the "In other projects" section. A Wikivoyage link in the inbox is a good idea but, I suspect, there will be a lot of pushback because linking to wikiprojects in content area is very strongly discouraged. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkmenbashi Banner[edit]

The current Turkmenbashi city banner looks rather gross and inappropriate. I tried to change it back to the default, but even after clearing the cache it is still visible. Is there a way to make it the default again? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The default is changed if a banner is defined at Wikidata. I have changed it for another image. If you can find a better one, either let me know or update yourself. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I stumbled upon the article, so I don't have any pictures for banners myself. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at current OtBP Letchworth State Park which requires immediate attention[edit]

In as few words as possible: there's a currently ongoing edit war at the above-linked page involving myself and Powers, who many of you know is a user whose advocacy against dynamic maps and for static ones has grown from strong, to strident, and now it seems to fanatical and disruptive.

A few days ago, I replaced Letchworth's static map - which, as you can see, includes no listed POIs and is basically useless to travellers - with a dynamic one in which all POIs are labeled. My edit was reverted, on the basis that the park entrances were not marked on the dynamic map. I then reverted the reversion, stating that the simplest solution to that problem would be to mark the entrances on the dynamic map (which I did), rather than 1) restoring a static map that is, again, basically useless to travellers and 2) sabotaging the dynamic map by downsizing it to a point where it's no more useful than the static one, which was also a part of the earlier edit. For my troubles, my revert of the reversion was then itself reverted. Needless to say, this is not the sort of conduct that is acceptable, especially from a user of Powers' standing.

Zooming out, our community has recently been able to come to a resolution of a protracted dispute about when dynamic maps should be used and when static maps are appropriate - respectively, in bottom-level destinations like Letchworth and in the case of region articles whose specifics (national boundaries, location of cities, etc.) change very infrequently or not at all (important when the number of active Wikivoyagers who know how to edit static maps is very small). And to be perfectly honest and frank about it, a big part of the reason why we succeeded in forging this consensus despite being unable to do so before was because Powers' edit history has become increasingly sporadic, and we've thus been able to enjoy breaks from his one-man anti-dynamic map crusade that were long enough to push policy through while he was away. Furthermore, we've also recently come to the consensus that with the exception of a few special cases, articles should generally only contain one map, and should never contain multiple maps with redundant information, as indeed is the case with the two Letchworth maps. Now I'll be damned if we're going to re-litigate these issues for the benefit of a barely-active user who can't handle the idea of consensus disagreeing with him, and I'll be double-damned if a currently-active Main Page feature, one of the most-viewed articles on Wikivoyage for this month, is going to be the place where this conflict plays itself out.

Ordinarily under these circumstances, the easiest solution would be to semiprotect the article for the duration of its term on the Main Page. However, since Powers is an admin/bureaucrat, there's no level of article lockdown that would affect him. Given that, the solution I propose is to revert the article back to its status at the time of its placement on the Main Page - i.e. prominent and usable dynamic map, no static map - and that further disruption on Powers' part will result in a partial ban covering the Letchworth State Park article only, to take immediate effect (waiting fourteen days for a userban discussion to resolve would be fairly pointless) and to last the duration of the article's tenure as OtBP. However, because partial bans are a relatively new software feature that have never been used on this site, I would rather not enact that solution unilaterally. Your feedback is appreciated, the more expeditiously the better.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how a ban of a bureaucrat/admin could be effective without their assent, because they have the power to revert the ban. My feeling is this: Static maps are, all things being equal, just plain better. However, in this instance, it's patently obvious that the better map is the one that shows points of interest, which is the dynamic map. My feeling is that if a user ban has to be proposed, it would be necessary to also desysop Powers, and that would require a vote, normally at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations, but in this case, I suppose at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, concurrent with the topic ban proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Ikan - I'm pretty sure userbans enacted on sysops also block use of the sysop tools, making it impossible for them to unban themselves. Otherwise my accidental blocks of Ibaman and Traveler100 last year (sorry again, guys) wouldn't have caused the problems they did. I'm not sure if it works differently for bureaucrats, but I doubt it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, if so, no problem, then. Let's hope the edit warring will cease and we won't have to do anything more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Restore the status quo until it's off the OTBP. Then we can decide whether we want to "de-bureaucrat" Powers. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
SelfieCity - This isn't about desysopping Powers, which would have to be a separate discussion (nor for that matter would this be a topic ban, a phrase I heard floated above). This is about how to prevent edits to an article by an editor whose level of user rights renders them unaffected by page protection, either semi- or full. If we're treating this as an emergency case that's handled outside the usual userban channels, then I think it's important that we keep the scope as narrow as possible; in the case of a partial ban for Powers, he would remain fully able to both edit and use the sysop tools on all pages except Letchworth State Park. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. I was busy at the time and I didn't read much of what you wrote. I think we could do with a rule that says changes to a featured article are not allowed unless they are an important correction, update, or revert of a problematic edit. If there is a clear rule and punishment, I don't think this will happen again. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(Also, reading your post: I did use a partial block once on a user.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree the dynamic map is better in this case but talking about blocking a long standing user, even temporary I think a bit excessive for what I see is two reverts and no discussion of differences in views between editors on the article talk page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the above. I see no attempt from either André or Powers to discuss this disagreement respectfully on any talk page, which would be by far the best and simplest option. Any ban in these circumstances is absurd and sets a bad precedent. I would encourage you both to talk about it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think a ban is warranted. If we did ban anyone. I'd say block both users for edit warring & failing to discuss it on the talk page. Pashley (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If someone gives a reason for an edit that's not obviously against policy (or demonstrably poor grammar, factually incorrect or whatever), and you've edited the page once and they've restored it with a reason, your job is to take it upon yourself to start a talk page thread. The standard of edit warring, as I understand it, is to revert something twice. I will do that only when someone is touting, vandalizing or restoring text I find impossible to really understand because it's in such bad English, or demonstrably incorrect spelling or grammar - and in that latter case, I also start a talk page thread on the page or their user talk page, explaining why their edit was in my view clearly incorrect, and may hold off on reverting a second time for a day or so.
What that means to me is that Powers is more at fault here, especially as we seem to all agree so far that his argument isn't logical in this instance. Yes, Andre could have started a thread on that talk page, but I don't see where he was incorrect to start the thread here, since that page is being featured and he wanted to make sure more people paid attention to his position. This thread can be swept to that page's talk page any time we like.
The other thing is that no-one, I think, is suggesting any kind of ban now. The proposal is about what to do if Powers persists in edit warring. And those of you who are objecting to the lack of a thread at Talk:Letchworth State Park would in my opinion do better to focus on what we should do if the edit warring persists than only on your preferred procedure. So what do you think? Would it be OK for these reversions to go on and on, or not? And if not, what do you propose to do about it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well since no discussion has been had, we have no idea whether Powers intends to continue edit warring over this, or what his thoughts are beyond a single edit summary. I would say it's pretty self evident that were he to continue an edit war, a block would be justified in line with existing policy. But we're not at that stage yet, because a grand total of four edits doesn't equal a serious edit war.
But let's just ask him: @LtPowers: Will you please either join in a discussion about the map on Letchworth, or back off on the edit warring? Thank you.
For the record, while I agree that "Powers is more at fault here", since André's role in the 'edit war' was defending what consensus says, I also feel the way this discussion was opened (not pinging the other person involved, and describing them as a "fanatic" while discussing banning them in front of the whole community when they're not here to defend themselves, and all before any attempt to *speak* directly) was below the belt. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The edit war has stopped, so I don't think it's fair to continue a "What if he..." discussion about a particular user. Making it a gossip/slam thread I'd say is worse than edit warring. If he has something he wants to say or discuss, we should wait and allow him to do that. The edit warring has stopped, so there's nothing else to talk about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons! - I thought I made it clear in my original comment that this is not an isolated incident, but rather part of an issue we've had with Powers going back to when dynamic maps were first introduced to Wikivoyage, and that we have, in fact, tried on many occasions in the past to have discussions with him about maps and have pretty consistently been vexed by his unreasonable approach. (His comments at Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition/Archive 2014-2015 in particular contain many, many examples of this, and just look at how many perfectly worthy Starnoms were either scuttled or left in limbo for extended periods solely because of his objections to dynamic maps.) If I'd had reason to believe that a talk page discussion would resolve the issue, I would never have suggested what I suggested above, but I can tell you right now how such a discussion would have gone: I would have been raked over the coals for daring to suggest the map that he worked so hard on be removed, told that dynamic maps are a "cop-out" for those too lazy to learn how to edit static maps, had to hear about how the icons on dynamic maps are too close together as if the solution to that problem weren't as simple as zooming in, and all the other petty nitpicks he's used over and over again to obstruct resolution of this issue as if his points hadn't already been addressed numerous times in the past. At some point, enough becomes enough, and it's no longer our responsibility to try to reason with him for the 5,000th time but rather his responsibility to let the issue go. And if a current featured article, again one of the most visible on the site, is what's at stake, then the time for this issue to come to a head and be decisively resolved is now.
As for Powers not being "here to defend [him]sel[f]": if he wants to do that, there's nothing stopping him. We're not all huddled in some smoke-filled room where no one can see what's happening. This is the Travellers' Pub. I can scarcely think of a more visible and accessible page on which to undertake this discussion. If Powers is an admin and a bureaucrat, he should already have the Pub on his watchlist, and if he cares enough about this issue to repeatedly revert my edits, he shouldn't need to be pinged.
Pashley - your comment about "block both users for edit warring & failing to discuss it on the talk page" is unhelpful and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of edit wars and the policy regarding them. The fact of the matter is that the "discussion" has been over for a long time. We've already come to a consensus about whether and in what cases dynamic maps should be used. Again, this has become a case where one user's refusal to accept a consensus that hasn't gone his way has crossed the line into disruptive behavior. (I would actually argue that line was crossed several incidents ago, but at any rate the disruptive nature of the conduct should no longer be in question for anyone.) The blame for any edit war that may result from a scenario like that is certainly not shared equally by the person whose edits restore an article to the consensus-based status quo.
ChubbyWimbus - there's no reason to believe that "the edit war has stopped". It's simply proceeding at an unusually slow pace. It took Powers 30 and 19 hours, respectively, to respond to my edits at the Letchworth article, and it's only been 16 hours since the most recent volley. "What if" is still very much an apropos question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Andre, I think your critics are correct about this thread, in an overall-general-approximate way. This little edit war didn't need to be an edit war, and even if it happened, we didn't need 600 words telling us that the only way to get anything done is to wait for a long-time contributor to be absent.
I really think it would have been sufficient for you to post something like "Hey, Powers and I can't seem to agree about which map is better. Could some of y'all make the decision? I promise to be cool with whatever you decide." This is really too minor for anyone to get this bothered about it.
A while ago, one of my co-workers, who lives in one of those places with lots of travel warnings, sent me a chat message in the middle of his night, asking me if I had time to talk about something serious. My first thought was that one of his children had been hurt. But, no: he was just losing sleep because he was afraid there would be a big dispute on wiki over which of two slightly different options was better. Let's not have that here. Let's not actually lose sleep over which map gets used. If two editors can't sort it out amicably, then dump the dispute on the rest of us, take the page off your watchlist, secretly resolve not to participate in further discussions, and let us handle it for you. Nobody's dying. Let's not kill our friendly environment over this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing - We can get carried away putting "our friendly environment" on a pedestal. I've been an active Wikivoyager for going on eight years, and for most of that time, Wikivoyage was a place where debates lingered unresolved and fundamental problems festered for years because people were too "friendly" to step on each other's toes. It made me want to tear what little is left of my hair out. Thankfully that's finally beginning to change, though we've got a ways to go yet before we can truly say we've learned how to handle situations where the gears are gummed up by small but vocal minorities. We don't have to become a toxic cesspool of antisocial behavior like Wikipedia, but personally, I think taking it on the chin every once in a while and losing the occasional argument is a fair price to pay for a community where things run smoothly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we get carried away with a friendly environment. I don't mind a debate: That's my day job, and then I go over to the English Wikipedia and argue about how to write policies. However, I do mind seeing minor disputes personalized like this. Which map belongs on that article is not a fundamental problem that festered for years. IMO it would have been resolved much faster and with much less hair-pulling if you had decided to bow out instead of leading the attack.
One of the things that I do at the English Wikipedia is deal with questions and complaints about RFCs. One of the things that I've learned over the years is that when someone turns up with complaints about certain subjective matters ("The question is misleading!"), then it usually means "I'm losing! Help me win on a technicality!" From that POV, if you were actually confident that consensus and policy is on your side, then you could have immediately handed this whole thing over to the rest of us, without bothering to run down the other guy and without trying to explain why you're right. If you're really right, we'd come to the same conclusion, and it's easier to stop a dispute when lots of people are saying the same thing, instead of just one contributor repeating the same claim. You can still take that approach. You can still leave this to the community. I recommend doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I wish you would stop minimizing this issue and pretending it's just about one map on one article and inferring that I'm blowing things out of proportion. This is, in fact, merely the latest chapter in a years-long pattern of unreasonable behavior on Powers' part and unreasonable accommodation of said behavior on the community's part. I've given many examples above of past occasions on which this same pattern of behavior has caused problems for the community, and there's no reason to expect that it wouldn't continue to happen going forward. So as I see it, in responding decisively here, we have the opportunity to prevent any number of future recurrences of this pattern of behavior that we might otherwise have to slog through. That last part bears repeating: I don't want to waste my time with this dispute any more than anyone else here, but if doing so now prevents us having to continue to do so over and over again into the indefinite future, then I'm willing.
Also, given that several things are happening or being proposed here that have never occurred before on Wikivoyage, this discussion is also necessary to establish precedent in those areas: namely, what to do in a situation where someone with sysop tools is making disruptive edits and file protection would be useless to stop them, and when it's appropriate to use partial bans. Those are the kind of questions that can't be answered unilaterally by one user. If I could have avoided "leading the attack" and instead resolved this quietly using established procedures, I would have, but this is a special case.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the dynamic map, but I don't see it as such an important issue. I am not opposed to having two maps, particularly when they complement each other, and having both maps on the page whilst having a discussion on the talk page might have been a better approach (just putting the two maps on the talk page doesn't work as there would be no markers). I have recently been using the Kwix offline reader, and note that it (and other offline readers) don't display dynamic maps - if the park has large areas with no signal, then that is an argument for including a static map (maybe in addition to the dynamic one). Calling the static map "rather useless" in the first edit summary was not a diplomatic start to things. AlasdairW (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Andre, I'm not minimizing the current problem or the history. I'm telling you that you (you personally) are not able to solve this problem. I'm also telling you that the more you are involved in this discussion, and especially the more you tell anyone who might disagree with you that they're wrong or bad or don't understand, the less likely this problem is to be solved this week. If you actually want this problem solved, then you have to step back and let all the people-who-are-not-Andre handle the rest of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) First, Ikan Kekek and WhatamIdoing are both saying some sensible things here that do a good job of weighing up the big picture. I don't think they're either defending Powers or attacking Andre. I've looked at the static map by going to the revision by Powers and it's really not as bad as is being implied. While I believe Powers acted wrongly, and this was to some extent an edit war, it wasn't an emergency.
However, Powers' actions need to be addressed, possibly by a removal of bureaucrat rights (which is not the same as a block or a ban). Hopefully that could be done in a positive way if Powers is not willing to submit to consensus on this issue. If he can apologize and make clear he will no longer do what he did to the article, he should absolutely keep his bureaucrat rights if he desires to do so.
I've prepared a list of statements through which I hope we can come to a consensus. Are we agreed on the following?
  1. Powers' actions on the Letchworth State Park article were improper and were made urgent by the fact that the article is featured. Powers should have known not to take such action on an important page, especially being a bureaucrat; such action created an unnecessary sense of division and urgency within the Wikivoyage community.
  2. As the dynamic map followed consensus approval and was already established as the map for that article, it should have remained until the end of the feature. Then, its potential replacement, the static map, could have been discussed. However, acting against the standard on a featured article was improper, as stated above. We must uphold consensus, especially on our featured articles.
  3. Powers needs to be told that his action is wrong, and he needs to make clear that he will not do this again.
Do we agree on any of these? If not, we need to seriously re-consider whether we can form a consensus on what to do about this issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
SelfieCity, that sounds like a reasonable course of action and I'm in agreement with all of those points. I'd prefer, though, if for the moment we did not deviate into talking about desysopping Powers. That would be a logical next step if indeed he does revert my edits at Letchworth again, but it's far from clear that such a thing is imminent, and I'd rather not sow any more discord than necessary by speculating about a desysopping that may be moot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That sounds fine with me, especially if that's how you feel about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Like AlasdairW, I'm a fan of having both a static and dynamic map on an article when both maps offer something unique to the reader and potential traveller. They are no more redundant to each other than two photos of a famous landmark, which is quite common on Wikivoyage articles (often where one of them is a banner and the other a non-banner but sometimes when both photos are non-banners shot at different angles or in different way). Gizza (roam) 21:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The dispute that required immediate attention has successfully been brought to the attention of the community. Perhaps next time that can be done with a little less drama. Discussions of user bans or de-sysopping can take place at the pages Ikan Kekek linked above.
With respect to the content issue, I think the dynamic map is better in this case, though including both maps would be fine too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what would be accomplished by including both maps other than rewarding Powers' bad behavior and perhaps, as a result, encouraging future incidents like this. The static map does not include any information that's not also included in the dynamic one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Including both maps helps people who can't see the dynamic map. This includes anyone who's reading offline or on a device that doesn't support Javascript. The existence of this benefit is completely independent from anyone's behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfie, I'm sorry, but I can't fully agree.
  1. I agree that Powers' actions were less than ideal, but I don't think Powers created any sense of division and urgency within the Wikivoyage community. I think the sense of division and urgency has come from the way Andre has chosen to respond to it, i.e., by insulting Powers and continuing to pound on the table instead of reporting the problem neutrally and trusting other people to take care of it.
  2. I cannot agree that pages should not be edited while they're featured. Whether Powers' changes constitute improvements is IMO doubtful, but discussion should be an option at any time, and plunging forward (but not edit-warring) should normally be encouraged, even when an article is featured on the Main Page.
  3. I agree that Powers needs to be told that there's a consensus to include the dynamic map (because we have generally agreed upon that, right?), and of course nobody should be edit warring. On the other half of that statement, determining whether a specific dynamic map is better than a specific static map requires people to use their best judgment. I would therefore regard any undertakings to never replace the one kind with the other kind as inappropriate and only barely credible. I do not want us to push contributors to make "piecrust promises" – as easy to make as a pie crust, and very likely to get broken when it comes time to serve the pie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(indent) I now see that I didn't fully understand the issue at the beginning. For me, even though you did try to explain that it was an ongoing and common occurrence, this all appeared out of nowhere (and it seems like a similar thing happened to others). I think I agree with SelfieCity's points. On AndreCarrotflower's point about "rewarding bad behaviors" I will add that users should refrain from "I'm okay with both maps"/"I don't care either way"/"This article isn't important so who cares"/etc type of arguments. These are not legitimate arguments. It may feel like it softens the tension, but these statements only muddy the waters and stand in the face of consensus, as well as ignore the specific concerns brought up here. Those who are ambivalent should support the status quo. Arguments in favor of the static map being reinstated need to explicitly state what benefit this map provides beyond the dynamic map and/or what benefits are lost with its deletion. In other words; the inclusion/reinstation of the static map must have a reason that is consistent with policy and consensus. Saying both are okay out of apathy towards the city/article/issue are not helpful and not fair to Andre who is acting according to consensus. And indeed if we made concessions on such a weak basis, it would be an invitation for anyone who wants to disregard a policy in the future to do so with a citation of this discussion for which we wouldn't have any defense. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think that all of those are legitimate arguments. If there are reasons to have both maps, or at least not harm, then we should say so ("I'm okay with both"). If the two maps have an equal balance of advantages/disadvantages, then that's important to call that out ("I don't care either way"). And if the cost to the community to see a pile of insults, to deal with people's emotional reactions, and the hours of people's time spent looking into this is much higher than the cost to the article of having one less-than-perfect map or the other also less-than-perfect map, then we should say that, too ("isn't important"). It's perfectly reasonable of me and others to point out that the immediate "urgent" problem could be trivially solved by Andre washing his hands of the whole thing and the rest of us camping out on RecentChanges for a few days, instead of someone actively involved in the edit war coming here to complain at very great length about an "unreasonable", "fanatical and disruptive" contributor on a "one-man anti-dynamic map crusade" "who can't handle the idea of consensus disagreeing with him" over "petty nitpicks" about which single map is better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing on all the numbered points, & the post just above as well. Pashley (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing and Pashley - No. What ChubbyWimbus said about the illigitimacy of arguments in favor of duplicate maps is exactly right. We have a consensus that dynamic maps are preferred in all articles that aren't regions, that articles should in most cases contain only one map each, and that multiple maps should never be used in the same article to display the same information. That consensus took a lot of time and a lot of hard work to forge. And it is binding. It doesn't just magically disappear whenever its existence is inconvenient vis-à-vis the resolution of an unconnected issue, or for the sake of not making waves and the maintenance of a "friendly environment", or because you personally disagree with and/or weren't involved in building that consensus, or because you personally don't think enforcing policy is important in this particular case, or because you personally think the person on the opposite side of the debate from you is a jerk, or for any other reason. If you're going to argue in favor of duplicate maps on Letchworth, you had better thoroughly read the thread I linked to above, and you had better come up with arguments in favor of duplicate maps that both 1) were not previously advanced and 2) are convincing enough to get all those who argued the opposing side to change their minds, or 3) you had better come up with a pretty convincing reason why Letchworth is the exception that proves the rule and is different from all the other articles on this site that do just fine with one or the other kind of map. Otherwise, sorry, but status quo bias applies, and the pro-duplicate maps arguments at issue in this discussion should be dismissed as non-policy-based. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Andre, though I do continue to maintain that, all things being equal, static maps are better, and I continue to argue for exceptions to the general consensus for static maps that are complete, up-to-date and clearer than dynamic maps in any article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, WhatamIdoing, regarding the tone of my original post: consider that out of all of us in this discussion, I'm the only one who came into it remembering offhand all the previous map-related incidents with Powers. A huge proportion of my original post was dedicated to rehashing the history of the conflict for the benefit of those who needed to be reminded or weren't here at the time, in hopes that people would respond to this not as an isolated incident but as the further escalation of a problematic pattern of behavior going back years. Which people did anyway, thus causing me further frustration. If because of that I came off as excessively vindictive toward Powers and/or a drama queen in general, that's unfortunate and was not intentional, but better that than failing to put the Letchworth incident in its proper context. And yes, Powers' overall behavior pattern remains an important consideration even if a lot of editors don't personally remember the past incidents. That's exactly the reason we archive old talk page discussions rather than simply deleting them.
Also, if I used some incendiary language in my original post, I apologize, but also consider that I'm a human being with emotions, and I just got done having my consensus-based edit reverted for the second time in a row, and that ever since I first changed the static map to dynamic during the final preparations before Letchworth's stint as OtBP, I kind of had it in the back of my mind that he might show up and make trouble. So yeah, I was a little miffed, as anyone would be, and maybe I let it show a little too much in the tone of what I wrote. Regardless of that, it remains incumbent on anyone responding to this thread to look past my choice of vocabulary and focus instead on the actual issues I'm conveying. And, most importantly, to not fail to see the forest for the trees.
- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that it may be time to review our draft policy at Wikivoyage:Map, which has been a draft for two years. The "Should I replace a static map with a dynamic map?" section seems to be relevant here. However it may be better to do this next month so that we are not too focussed on one particular article. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The maps aren't duplicates if they are not the same. I agree with WhatamIdoing and Pashley. Saying that having both maps improves the article is very much a legitimate argument. Being forced to pick one when neither are adequate on their own if anything is an argument that's detrimental to the traveller. I also agree with AlasdairW that it's time to review the draft policy on maps. Gizza (roam) 00:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused by this reply. How are the maps not the same? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
We could easily have 5 different kinds of maps, but in what way does that serve the traveler? This is not an atlas focusing on different ways to map a given city. The only uses for different maps, really, are when they're necessary to show different things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ikan Kekek that the static maps are overall better when all things are in fact equal, but that is quite often not the case, and in this article, the static map doesn't have any listings, so I don't think it could be argued to be better. I definitely don't think the static map should always be the one to go either (I'd still like to delete the hideous dynamic maps in the Japanese region articles). WhatamIdoing, Having an established consensus or policy means you don't have to address the emotional reaction of users to the issue. You only need to refer to the consensus. I think telling users that consensus "isn't important" because their issue is not your issue is unfair. If an issue is brought up and consensus is suddenly invalid because a group of users decides they just don't want to hear you whining/they don't like you/they don't like the consensus/etc then when is it valid? Because it's going to sound like your argument is "Consensus matters when I care about the issue and the consensus is with me, but it doesn't matter when YOU care regardless." I don't foresee that being superior to or leaving users feeling better than referencing policy or consensus. As I said, users who truly don't care should be fine upholding the status quo. If you are not okay with that then there must be something that you DO care about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this post completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Chubby, the question of whether all of us are being asked to do w:en:emotional labor because someone was upset over an edit is completely separate from whether there's a consensus about which map is best for the article. There are things that I DO care about: I don't want to read insults here. That matters to me. I don't want to read a note that makes me think, "Oh dear, he must think none of us remember that long slog" or "he's losing his temper" or "it doesn't sound like he respects the community's ability to take care of even trivial problems like this". I care about how people treat each other. Our track record in this conversation is getting better, but it started off pretty poorly.
For those who remember the previous discussions around maps, you'll remember that I'm pretty solidly pro-dynamic map. I'm able to hold that position while acknowledging that they have some limitations (e.g., not being available to offline readers, which is kind of a big limitation in a community that lists printed copies as an official goal). My concerns here are less about the map (I trust the community to handle it, and we have), and more about the "meta" question of how we handle disputes. I hope that in the future, it will be with fewer insults, less badgering, and more trust that "there's a consensus" means that you don't need to do it all yourself, because the people who formed that consensus can and will take care of any disputes for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project[edit]

07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Offline maps[edit]

I think that User:RexxS has a flexible system that could help us deal with the dynamic-vs-static maps dispute in terms of offline (Kiwix) readers. This was tried for a different purpose over at the English Wikipedia a little while ago, but I think it might be even more useful here.

The basic idea is that when you have content that can't be displayed offline (such as a dynamic map), you can add a replacement that is only displayed offline. Think of putting something like {{show-me-only-in-kiwix|File:Static replacement map.jpg}} in an article – the linked map wouldn't show in the article if you're reading online, but it would show if you were using an offline reader that doesn't support dynamic maps (or whatever kind of content is wanted for the offline user).

I think we could set this up here. Is this something that you all are interested in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great. But there is already a key for that, which could be used: "staticmap". Example:
{{Mapframe|37.75|-122.43|height=420|width=480|zoom=12|staticmap=San Francisco districts map.png}}
--Renek78 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Airport information[edit]

I'm sorry to bring this to the pub, but the disagreement that I have with User:Hobbitschuster about background information about airports has flared up again in the Berlin city article. The issue in dispute this time is about how much information should be included about an airport that is not open for travellers yet. Other views would be helpful here. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


i would like to start a new guide but i need to get info first. Can you set me up with a draft page or use my userpage? thanks

Baozon90 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here you go. Enjoy. You may wish to read Wikivoyage:What is an article? to make sure that what you have in mind is suitable for this wiki. Let us know if you have any further questions.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)