Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Wikivoyage:Pub)
Latest comment: 37 minutes ago by WhatamIdoing in topic When should the "Huge city" template be used?
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the pub

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread


Apologies to bring this unpleasantness here, however user SHB2000 has a vendetta against me and is harassing me on my talk page (protected for time being). I will be clear - I want no further contact with them, and I would ask the other Admins to counsel them on their behavior. Obviously, I won't contribute to this thread further because I really want no more to do with them Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

To the community, please comment on Wikivoyage:User rights nominations#User:Andrewssi2 (removal) for their abuse of admin privileges and UCoC violations. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
And TIL that leaving talk page messages about misuse of rollback was "harassment". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [comment hidden by LPfi at 11:25, 14 March 2024, comment unhidden on 11:30, 14 March 2024]Reply
Let's keep the discussion on the nomination page. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi: Why did you hide my comment? At least you could have given me a courtesy notice on my talk page. I will unhide it as there are no policy-based grounds for hiding that comment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't think about a courtesy notice having been appropriate. I assume most regulars watch this page and the threads on it they find interesting. I thought making the hiding obvious was enough. Sorry for misinterpreting best practices.
My reason to hide the comment in the first place was that it was making an accusation, which could prompt a response and a thread partly doubling the one linked above. Referrals to discussions elsewhere should generally (and especially if the topic is sensitive or heated) be made as neutrally as possible.
LPfi (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for explaining it through (censoring isn't the best practice for that, though). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm really disturbed to hear about this. Both of you have been valued admins. I will comment on the linked thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a side note: could someone else possibly not mind editing Andrewssi's comment from "SMB2000" to "SHB2000" – I understand that this was a typo made in good faith but "SMB" is a very inappropriate text slur. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well I hope this doesn't preclude everyone from calling you SMB2000. Brycehughes (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your wiki will be in read-only soon[edit]

Trizek (WMF), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Trizek (WMF), is this hoped to be one minute or so? Or is this expected to be longer than the previous ones even if everything goes perfectly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
We can't know in advance. This time, some scripts took longer than expected to execute, and the read-only happen a donen of minutes after 14:00 UTC. It lasted 3 minutes though. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Early access to the night mode (mobile web, logged-in)[edit]

Hi everyone, as announced in November, the Web team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on night mode. A very early version of this feature is now available on a small set of wikis. Because there are active technical editors in your community, we have decided to roll it out here. But don't worry, the new feature is not disruptive! (See the "known limitations" section below.) It's important for us to work together with you before we release this feature to a wider audience. Our goals for the early rollout are to:

  • Show what we've built very early. The earlier you are involved, the more your voices will be reflected in the final version
  • Get your help with flagging bugs, issues, and requests
  • Work with technical editors to adjust various templates and gadgets to the night mode

Go to the project page and the FAQ page to see more information about the basics of this project.

Known limitations of the initial release

  • Currently, night mode is only available on mobile, for logged-in users who have opted into advanced mode, as an opt-in feature.
  • Gadgets may initially not work well with night mode and may have to be updated.
  • Our first goal is making night mode work on articles. Special pages, talk pages, and other namespaces have not been updated to work in night mode yet. We have temporarily disabled night mode on these pages.

What we would like you to do (the broad community)

Consider linking to the Recommendations for night mode compatibility on Wikimedia wikis on pages explaining how to format templates and similar pages. Soon, this page will be marked for translation. We would like to emphasize that the recommendations may evolve. For this reason, we are not suggesting to create your local wiki copies of recommendations. At some point, the copy could become different from the original version.

What we would like you to do (template editors, interface admins, technical editors)

When most bugs are solved, we'll be able to make the night mode available for readers on both desktop and mobile. To make this happen, we need to work together with you on reporting and solving the problems.

  1. To turn it on, use the mobile website (for example, this is what the main page looks like on mobile) and go to the settings part of your menu and opt into advanced mode, if you haven't already.  Then, set the color to night. (Later, we will be allowing the device preferences to set night mode automatically).  
  2. Next, go to different articles and look for issues:

Thank you. We're looking forward to your opinions and comments! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SGrabarczuk (WMF), I'm having a problem with When I click one of the names to uncollapse the list of errors, it uncollapses it, and then opens the page on top of the list. Should that be opening the article in a new tab? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey @WhatamIdoing! Are you asking if the page could be opened in a new tab instead of the same tab? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's one way to solve my problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see. Well, I was asking because I wasn't sure I understood what the problem was. Could you rephrase the question? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a contributor who would like to resolve problems, I want to look at the list of errors on a page. However, when I go to, the list of errors is collapsed. When I click on (for example) "Main_Page - Total Errors: 12", the Cloud Services tool is immediately overwritten by the Main Page. I don't want to see the Main Page itself in this tab; I want to see the list of errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
it's just a bad UI :). You can expand by clicking outside of the links or right click and open in new tab.
The list of errors is not too useful out of context to be honest. I would recommend using the browser extension on the pages with a high amount of errors.
Szymon - you can talk to Kim about improving the UI while I am out!
I think it would be useful to finish up my video too. Jdlrobson (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is there a way to turn on dark mode on desktop? Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering doesn't have anything for me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @SHB2000, great question. It's too early to enable it on desktop. We'll roll it out on more wikis on mobile, and then on desktop, as a beta feature. You may read more about this in our FAQ. There's a table there with all the details. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's all good. I do like the look of it on mobile, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
If people can opt in on mobile and let me know via my talk page if you see any articles that look broken I will be happy to get those fixed. The top 100 most read are looking good so hopefully this will be on desktop soon. Jdlrobson (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jdlrobson: I notice Template:Infobox is broken, not displaying content, e.g. see the one under United States of America#Holidays. Was it this edit? Brycehughes (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Seems it was. I rolled it back but now the HTML table styling is off. Brycehughes (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At the German Wikivoyage, we are using the solution of the English Wikipedia for desktop computers. It is working well (now only for logged-in readers). --RolandUnger (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Multilingual static maps[edit]

I did a little experiment with File:Norðoyar regions map.png, where I tried to minimise the amount of English I used and always use the local dialect if possible to make the map as multilingual as possible. This would prevent having to translate static maps across different-language Wikivoyages, but it would also mean that the map contains some non-English phrases. There isn't any policy surrounding this, so what does everyone else think of minimising the amount of English used to ensure the same map can be used on different-language Wikivoyages. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a great use case for translatable SVG. Is there some incentive for what is clearly a non-representational map to be PNG? See e.g. File:ABO blood group diagram.svg and the many pages using c:Template:Translate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, using a translatable SVG isn't on the table here since the quality of the SVGs that come from Inkscape is beyond hopeless. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
0___o? There are a lot of good maps on c: made in SVG, whether Inkscape or something else. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
They work fine if you use a text editor or Illustrator, but not Inkscape. It is the only reason why policy requires uploading both a PNG and an SVG file. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is the code needed for translation difficult? Otherwise, as you edit the map as SVG anyway, why wouldn't you include the translations in the SVG code? Or is it that the base map is horrendous Inkscape code and Inkscape lacks the functionality?
I like having the map mostly in the local language (I don't think anybody regards Faroese a dialect), but there will be issues when the English name is very different (cf Jorvik for York), or there are different scripts (I cannot use maps in Chinese or Hebrew).
The key in the local language and English makes it usable to most people, but even for Swedish or French, the English looks a bit imperialistic. For projects in English the bilingualism is nice – I'd like having Swedish maps e.g. for Euskadi to be trilingual (Swedish/Basque/Spanish).
LPfi (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The issue is the latter – the base map is horrendous Inkscape code and Inkscape lacks functionaliity.
Thanks for the input on local language (yes, I meant language, not dialect – thanks for picking up on that). Maybe should we limit this practice only where the local language uses a Latin script? (unlike OSM's current approach) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Although the base SVG maps are in English, you can see that there are both English and Bengali (my native language) labels in different layers. I disable the Bengali layer when I upload or update the maps. I use Inkscape to create SVG maps and export PNG maps for use in respective Wikivoyages. However, I have decided to replace those monolingual PNG maps with multilingual (bilingual or trilingual, depending on region) ones soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 07:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi: File:NLR diagram.svg is another example of a horrendous base map compared to the PNG map – it's bad enough where many text elements are hidden beneath the pictograms (namely the light rail and the wheelchair pictograms). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

AI-"generated" edits[edit]

In a discussion at User talk: @Ibaman: wrote:

"AI-generated edits are unneeded and unwanted in this travel guide. Shut down. Turn off."

I agree completely.

Other opinions? Does this need to be added to a policy page? Which one? Pashley (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/December 2023#Car rental in Tashkent. While I haven't used AI to write anything, I have experimented by asking ChatGPT with this prompt: "Write a Wikivoyage article about [insert destination]" to see what would happen. I do appreciate AI in creating a draft by summarizing the destination (which then I could verify and adapt into my own words before creating the page if I had gone through with this). It appears to be quite accurate and I suspect that the LLM used Wikipedia page entries to learn the text for these destinations. I'm not sure where we should draw the line on AI usage in this project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Using AI responsibly like you describe it, including changing wordings and checking facts, should be no problem. If you do it like that, probably nobody notices that you used AI. It doesn't differ that much from using encyclopaedias, competing travel guides and other external resources to gather information. In the cases where using AI has been apparent, the text obviously hasn't been checked and rewritten, and not knowing how the used AI has been trained, copyrighted expressions main remain and some of the statements may be hallucinations.
I don't know how to word a guideline so that it does allow responsible use, without encouraging use that is highly problematic. Those who use AI without accounting for the issues, probably aren't prone to follow the spirit nor the wording of such a guideline, but may argue (stubbornly) that it allows their usage of such tools.
LPfi (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've used ChatGPT for translating content, but that's about it (since the copyright remains with the original WM authors). It's fine to be used in discussions, but again, only for translations. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I see it, these programs are basically plagiarism machines & we already have more than enough problems with plagiarism -- mostly uncredited copying from WP or lumps of text from someone's marketing material. We've also sometimes had problems with machine-generated text, in particular some pretty awful translations.
I conclude that we should ban use of AI-generated text entirely, at least in main space. Pashley (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with a complete ban. If that is too far, we could add "an individual editor may be allowed to use AI for a specific purpose if there is consensus on that use in the pub". Longer term I would like to see AI running on a WMF server to offer features like an improved InternetArchiveBot which could replace "dead link" with "suspect business closed - see this newspaper report of it closing". AlasdairW (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given that you know you've used AI effectively when nobody can tell that you've used AI, I can't see how banning AI would hurt, as it basically implies no obvious AI, which no one wants anyway. Brycehughes (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
For exactly that reason, I can't see how banning AI would help. The options are:
  • You use AI, but the content was good, so nobody objects – no harm, no foul (except perhaps in the opinion of people who believe that scrupulous compliance with rules is a morally good action, rather than a means to an end).
  • You use AI, but the content was bad, so it gets reverted – the "ban" was pointless (we revert bad content no matter how it's generated).
  • You don't use AI to create good content, somebody incorrectly claims you did, so good content gets reverted – we lose good content (and probably good will and time in unpleasant discussions, too).
  • You don't use AI to create bad content, somebody incorrectly claims you did, so bad content gets reverted – the ban was pointless (it would have been reverted for being bad anyway)
  • You want to use AI to create good content , but you're afraid of breaking the rules, so you don't contribute at all – we lose a new contributor.
BTW, I am leery of people who claim that they can tell the difference between a poor writer, an English language learner, and an AI tool. I put some of my Wikipedia articles through an AI detection program, and it had pretty much 50–50 results. I'm told that the accuracy is much worse for shorter content, which is most of what we do here.
If you want rules that can be effectively enforced, I suggest:
  • No high-volume editing by newcomers.
  • Regular patrollers are encouraged to check some of the facts independently.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with most of that reasoning. I am one of those who do believe that one shouldn't ignore rules even when they seem counterproductive – the "ignore all rules" rule is about cases where breaking the letter of a rule indeed follows the intended spirit of the rules as a whole.
Rule of Law is an important principle, which I believe is an important factor in the success of the Nordic countries, and being pragmatic about rules can have unforeseen consequences. (Still, the Finnish judicial system has what essentially is an ignore-all-rules rule: the main book of laws quotes Olaus Petri saying that what is not right cannot be law, and judges are allowed to ignore laws they deem unconstitutional – such as violating Human Rights.)
I would certainly not recommend using AI if we forbid it – but unenforceable rules are bad exactly because they undermine the respect for rules in general.
LPfi (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Don't we need to make remarks about the use of AI in Wikivoyage:Copyleft, at least? "Good" and "bad" is not the only issue; copyright violation is also relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Copyvio content is always bad content. However, AI generation is not synonymous with copyright violation. Training an AI system on CC-SA content, for example, does not violate anyone's copyrights. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm concerned that inaccurate AI-generated content (which includes most ChatGPT-generated content about reasonably obscure topics, in my experience) may be harder to detect than other bad content. ChatGPT is good at writing things that sound plausible but are actually bogus. In other words, I'm skeptical of the reasoning in User:WhatamIdoing's bullet point that reads "You use AI, but the content was bad, so it gets reverted" – I think AI-generated content may slip through the cracks more easily than other misinformation.
I also think it may be useful to have some kind of warning for good-faith editors who may not realize how unreliable language models are in terms of accuracy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could have a warning in some guideline giving advice on good and bad sources, without explicitly banning or accepting AI-derived content. A warning can hardly be seen as sanctioning it. –LPfi (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Although I have never used AI in any Wikimedia project, l do use AI to get the solution of a given problem since 2023 (when the CHATGPT revolution took place). However, I always use my own words when I write the solution myself. If I were going to use AI to contribute in English Wikivoyage, I would ask for transport options, list of attractions and activities with details, list of notable hotels and restaurants etc. individually, and then use my own words to describe these. However, I would never ask to write an entire WV article for me. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 06:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
For reliability, the things found by AI should always be checked. If you don't find the POI or connection in other sources, confirming the location and other details, then don't list it. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to even read the discussion and make sense out of what the user wants to say. "It's important to" is a dead giveaway of ChatGPT. You don't want to spend your time writing your own thoughts down, but expect others to read it? -> you earned a Ban, easy as that. -- andree 09:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that phrase is a "dead giveaway". For one thing, that exact phrase appears on 363 pages here, and many of those pre-date ChatGPT's existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
YMMV, but 1/2 of answers I get (if I ask non-technical stuff in v3.5) have this condescending tone. I'm allergic to that, so it may be the case that it just triggers me  :-) -- andree 18:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not surprised; ChatGPT, after all, needed to learn its content from somewhere. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The sanctimonious tone sounded more like Gemini to me. But that one unhinged comment sounded like the infamous Sydney. Brycehughes (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

So if I'm first using AI to create a draft of a new page and then subsequently modify it, should I create an initial version with just the AI and then change it in subsequent revisions (to show what the original AI version was)? Or my initial version should be already-revised from AI? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the best way is to indeed save also the AI-generated one, for transparency. In similar cases, I usually prepare the second version in a separate tab, to be able to save it quickly, before anybody uses the other one (to avoid an edit conflict, one can click edit on the first version and paste in the revised one).
If you don't use any wording or structure from the AI, just want tips on sights and services, then I'd recommend just including a note on the AI part in the edit summary ("with checked POIs suggested by [name of tool]" or similar). LPfi (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Save it where? We don't want people to save AI-generated text here, for several reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps I'll use an actual example rather than using hypothetical scenarios. In Wikipedia, the entry on artwork title was first created via ChatGPT and saved. For transparency, the edit summary clearly marked the edit was done using ChatGPT. It is then heavily modified and substantially re-written using own words. Is this an acceptable practice in Wikivoyage page creation (to show what the initial ChatGPT answer was)? Or do we want to work offline to adapt the ChatGPT contents into our own words before saving the final version to publish the initial edit? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
We don't have to ban AI (as others have stated, it's not really feasible), but I think discouraging its use in favor of original edits is fair and aligned with our goals, as well as our promise that the site is built by REAL travelers. I have experimented with AI travel questions about places I know well and the AI answers are riddled with mistakes and completely made-up information, but it can present it in an authoritative-sounding way that could trick editors and readers who are not familiar with the places to not recognize it as bad content and misinformation. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Frankly I don't see the benefit of this stuff. It strikes me as the worst possible combination: it sounds knowledgeable but is in fact completely unreliable. Why would we want to put something like that on Wikivoyage? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
To OhanaUnited: I don't support saving raw AI content to Wikivoyage on any page, because it may contain copyright violation, and the user who saves the content has no way of knowing whether it does or not, nor what page(s) it may have come from. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's still beneficial for translations, which is why I don't support completely banning AI. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is a good step to discourage AI in favour of manual editing of travel articles. I won't support a complete ban on it as it might be used to translate articles written in other languages, especially Italian. Of course, the AI has to be more reliable than Google Translate for this. Otherwise, as said before, "I would ask for transport options, list of attractions and activities with details, list of notable hotels and restaurants etc. individually, and then use my own words to describe these" if I were use an AI tool. I will clearly mark my edits as "based on Foo AI" if I write something based on what AI says. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 04:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would support rather asking for transport etc. rather than complete articles, and then writing the article text oneself, based on official pages (or trustworthy reviews). @Ikan Kekek: But if one uses AI to create actual text to be used (even in rewritten form), then I think the transparency aspect is much more important than the problems with saving AI text.
For copyright, I don't think we care too much about copyright violations remaining in the history – the text is already distributed on the internet, much more easily available than through the history, otherwise the editor or AI wouldn't have found it. I also don't think anybody is going to restore dubious statements from the AI text.
LPfi (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
AI works are also automatically assumed to be in the public domain since no one can own its work (as it lacks human authorship). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
AI tools are trained with works authored by people. There have been claims that enough of copyrightable matter is left in their output, at least in some cases. I don't know to what extent this has been researched, and I assume we don't have high court decisions yet on whether the tools cause actual copyright violations. –LPfi (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, the courts in different countries may reach different decisions, or for different types of tools, so it's complicated.
The "claims that enough of copyrightable matter is left in their output" (i.e., the ones that I've heard about) are concerns about the tool generating allegedly "new" content, part of which happens to match existing content. That it happens on occasion is not particularly surprising, since humans occasionally do the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If the same wordings are there by chance, just because they are common or natural ways to express things, then there should be no copyright problem. But some tools may have used some sources too heavily, and it becomes like a student using their teacher's favourite phrases, which could pass the line, and some may (like some students) learn how to express things on a less abstract level, with a much higher probability of ending up with identical phrases. It is hard to teach pupils to describe phenomena with their own words, and it may also be hard to teach AIs to do it.
Regardless, if we reword things to match our style, like we should do with content from any source, then the risk of copyright violations remaining on a page is small. Whether there were some in the former versions, available through the history – which spider bots are told not to crawl – is not a problem in my view.
LPfi (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Change of Mobile View Watchlist[edit]

Since a few hours I noticed a change in the mobile view of the watchlist. The left side of the list has a grey background and is covering part of the text. FredTC (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jdlrobson, do you know which team is working on the watchlist? I assume this problem was on the current deployment train. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like a side effect of phab:T358904. I'm currently traveling so would you be able to raise the alarm? Seems like this should be fixed immediately and possibly block train from rolling out further. Jdlrobson (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is back to normal now. FredTC (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gender-neutral language[edit]

@SHB2000 recently changed some text in Go, replacing "he or she" (which I'd written) with "they". This is fine, though I do not think necessary; certainly either is better than just using "he". In general, we should avoid making any assumption about anyone's gender (traveller, editor, or in this case go player). Should we make such changes elsewhere? Is there other usage we should correct?

The notion that "singular they" is somehow ungrammatical is utterly bogus; using it with an indefinite antecedent ("Has everyone got their passport?") is entirely normal English that has been in the language longer than singular you. One reference. It can also be used in cases where the gender is unknown (most people you interact with on the net), or undefined (some angels & demons, perhaps God?). Recent attempts to extend the usage are more debatable. In general I'd say anyone who announces "My pronouns are ..." should be laughed at, not humoured, but on the net it may be a legitimate way to avoid being labelled.

There are other cases of arguably sexist language. e.g. Great Rift Valley has "Mankind seems to have evolved largely in this valley" and search shows that "mankind" is used in many other places. These could all be replaced with "humanity", but in my opinion that would be silly. Probably there are other phrases that might be changed, but that I have not noticed.

Do we need a policy on this, or some advice in a style guide? Pashley (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think "mankind" has evolved to be gender-neutral. I disagree with "In general I'd say anyone who announces "My pronouns are ..." should be laughed at, not humoured, but on the net it may be a legitimate way to avoid being labelled.", but won't delve into it to avoid a rather off-topic discussion on this page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
MANkind, huMANity, perSON... I'd say if someone wants to search for sexist verbs in a language, they will find it. I'm for equality as the next person, but constantly pushing annoys even the biggest supporters, IMO. Definitely don't make it a policy. If someone wants to spend time thinking about it and fixing it, let them - but don't bother people that don't care. TBH, I wonder more why we have an article, with half of it describing the rules of Go :-))) -- andree 09:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also disagree creating a policy on gender neutrality. You can simply recommend the users to use gender-neutral language in WV:MOS. You can also link to the relevant WP policy if necessary. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 10:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also don't think we need a policy on this. Mankind is not sexist, just like saying "Hey, guys" isn't sexist. People who make those types of arguments are the types with solutions in search of problems. Most of the time we refer to the type of person ("travelers", "backpackers", "hikers", "divers", etc.), so I don't think we generally need to get involved with playing pronoun games. I don't think "his or her" is a problem, because it does cover all humans, despite what the narcissistic fake LGBT "personal pronoun"-types claim (I resent what the "self-identity" movement is doing to real LGBT people, but that's beyond scope), but "their" is also not a problem. In short, I don't think this is an issue. It's fine as it is but was also fine as it was. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"because it does cover all humans" – no it doesn't. Neopronouns are used because it reflects the gender identity of non-binary individuals better than conventional pronouns. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Non-binary is as legitimate as saying you're a turtle or a douvet cover. It makes a mockery out of real LGBT people and their issues. The non-binary mantra of "I say therefore I am" is a false claim, but this discussion is beyond scope and a consensus has been reached, so we can just leave this where it is. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's stick with the question of whether we should have a policy, and avoiding bringing a culture war to the Travellers' Pub. Wikivoyage is written by a collection of people. The language Wikivoyage uses will evolve as the language of its writers evolves. I don't think we need a policy. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ablist language has no place in Wikivoyage. Inclusive language is always preferable in an project aiming to appeal to a broad audience. If someone wants to replace non-inclusive language with inclusive language, they should go ahead and do it. Writing a policy, however, is going to lead to a whole bunch of dyspeptic rants and unproductive debates. Let's not spend our energy on that. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. My main issue was with ChubbyWimbus' denialism of non-binary people which has no place on Wikimedia. I don't like closing discussions but can we just close this? I don't think we're going anywhere by continuing it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said, everyone agrees, so unless someone opposes, consensus has been reached. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that ChubbyWimbus' denialism of non-binary people has no place on Wikimedia. Ground Zero (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
He said he despises that stuff (not that he denies existence of such people), and even gave a valid reason, IMO. The non-binary people can call themselves whatever they please. They can't force anyone to like it, though. -- andree 11:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you are misreading CW's comment. See the one at 11:27, 12 April 2024. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, he is right. I didn't say that nobody identifies as non-binary. I said I don't agree with the logic or lack thereof surrounding "non-binary" and that I think it does harm to LGBT people. The referenced policy is specifically about dealing with others users and states that we should identify users how they wish to be identified. Nowhere did I identify anyone in a way that they asked not to be identified nor did I state anywhere that I would refuse to do so. It does not state that users must all have the same religious or ideological beliefs or that they all must state that they believe in all religious or ideological beliefs. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is never constructive to bring a w:Straw man argument into a discussion. No-one argued that users must all have the same religious or ideological beliefs or that they all must state that they believe in all religious or ideological beliefs. No-one claimed that you kick puppies or beat your spouse, either.
It is clear that you are looking to have a fight about this. There are other of places you can fight about this on the internet; you don't have to do it in the Travellers' Pub. This is a forum about building a travel guide.
The comments that "despite what the narcissistic fake LGBT "personal pronoun"-types claim" and "Non-binary is as legitimate as saying you're a turtle or a douvet cover. It makes a mockery out of real LGBT people and their issues. The non-binary mantra of "I say therefore I am" is a false claim" were completely unnecessary, gratuitous, and not germane to the discussion. It makes it clear that you want to have an argument. This is not the place for that.
These comments are insulting and do not meet the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct (2.1) "We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others." They do meet the definition Unacceptable Behaviour (3.1) "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like... sexual orientation, gender, sex, ... or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not."
One of the reasons that this behaviour is unacceptable is that it can drive contributors away. The condescending and sarcastic tone taken by CW (and others) in this discussion caused me to take several days off to consider whether I want to spend my time online in a hostile environment. Let's not let this sort of behaviour be tolerated. Ground Zero (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not only that, but Chubby's comments are insanely disrespectful, inconsiderate and insensitive to those experiencing gender dysphoria. The WMF knew what they were doing when they created the Universal Code of Conduct, and part of that is to avoid comments like CW's to ensure that communities, including the English Wikivoyage, are "positive, safe and healthy environments". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has gone way off the rails. Just stop. Already. Please. Nurg (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

+1. Brycehughes (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Pashley (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is sad that the Wikivoyage community has no interest in following Wikimedia's Universal Code of Conduct. It was adopted hy Wikimedia for just this sort of situation. Ground Zero (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pashley your framing of a legitimate question was unnecessarily combative, sparked this, to wash your hands now is a bit rich. Whatever. Everyone take a step back. This is a travel guide. Ground Zero you of all people know that this is not Wikipedia and we tend to have a a more cowboy/cowgirl/cowwho approach here. Users want to know where to eat, how to get from A to B. Arguments like these are peripheral to our mission. Brycehughes (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikivoyage is part of Wikimedia. Pashley was out of line; ChubbyWimbus was insulting and looking for a fight. Calling out this toxic behaviour is how we stop Wikivoyage becoming like so many other parts of the Internet. And it is Wikimedia policy. Ground Zero (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
They're opinions that you'd find in any pub around the world including this one. This is a travel website. Brycehughes (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikimedia has a Code of Conduct that requires treating other contributors with respect, and to create a positive, safe environment. ChubbyWimbus is violating that Code of Conduct.
I've created 162 travel articles on the website, so I know it's a travel website. And I think you know you're being condescending in telling me that repeatedly. Being a travel website does not give anyone licence to be insulting, or to use it as a soapbox for their views as Pashley and ChubbyWimbus have done. Ground Zero (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok but I also refuse to believe that you travel around the world asking others abide by the wm code of conduct. So how do you get by? Brycehughes (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
First of all, you're being deliberately insulting and belittling, which is an obvious violation of any code of conduct on a site not known as, like, 4-Chan or Reddit. Second, this is Wikimedia, so you need to either respect the rules, be silent about them, or try to fight them at a much higher level than the Wikivoyage Travellers' pub. What you are doing constitutes harassment, and the high quality of your edits does not give you license to continue such behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm being insulting and belittling... what? Brycehughes (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you didn't mean to be insulting or belittling by asking "How do you get by," I don't know what you meant by it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was asking about the techniques one uses in real life for coping with these types of situations. Apologies if it came across as insulting or belittling. Brycehughes (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Brycehughes: At the bottom of every page you should see the text "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy." That's because Wikivoyage is governed by the WMF, and these are policies that we can never change through our own means. foundation:ToU#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, which states that "We ask that all users review and follow the Universal Code of Conduct ("UCoC"), which lays out requirements for collegial, civil collaboration across all Projects that we host." If two users violate that code of conduct (thus the terms of service), it isn't an issue we can drop nor let go of. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I sort of disagree but I'm also kicking myself for getting involved here and so I'm just going to pay my tab and exit the pub. Brycehughes (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nurg: No – I would have agreed with you yesterday, but I am not letting ChubbyWimbus' derogatory comments against non-binary people go under the radar and am willing to fight tooth and nail until they retract their comments. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not believe I was at all "out of line", but nor do I think this should be argued here. If you think my rebuttal would be important (I don't), then take the discussion elsewhere — my talk page, a separate thread on this page, a policy talk page, or wherever you like — & I'll give you both barrels. But for heaven's sake either keep this thread for the original question or kill it off since the question is resolved. Pashley (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was this comment that was out of line: "I'd say anyone who announces "My pronouns are ..." should be laughed at, not humoured, but on the net it may be a legitimate way to avoid being labelled." Why did you go there? Why introduce this hostility? People who use pronouns that are not the obvious one do this commonly, and some people do this to be allies of non-bibary and trans people. Laughing at people who experience gender dysphoria or who are being supportive of other people is not respectful, and us insulting.
Picking a fight in the Pub and then telling those who call you out for it "this isn't the place; take it elsewhere" is hypocritical. Ground Zero (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Since it was conjectured that I "wanted to fight", I had originally thought it best to not respond to show that I am not interested in "fighting". Doing so however, could be misconstrued in other ways, so I have decided to respond not to "fight", but in hopes of concluding this discussion to reasonable satisfaction so that we can all get back to travel content.
I take responsibility for and appologize for the flippant language used. The topic hit a nerve as I am firmly against going back to the days of "being gay is a choice" and have seen this attitude resurge in my personal life due to the choice-based/self-identifying ideology (this includes "being trans is a choice", which to me denies gender dysphoria and the real struggles people have with gender dysphoria to clarify the misunderstanding that I was saying anything against sufferers) and I find it troubling, but I admit that the better option would have been to refrain, so I appologize for the unnecessarily charged language that I used. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad I saw this before making a further reply. It's good of you to apologize, and your explanation is also a good thought that shows your good faith. But for others, I want to state clearly that we have editors on this site who publicly identify as trans on this site, doubtless other trans editors and/or readers who don't state their gender identity publicly, and we cannot make this site hostile to them but should keep it welcoming to everyone who wants to use it constructively. That's what the Wikimedia rules are for, and while everyone has the right to privately respect or disrespect such rules, Wikivoyage is a place to observe and not debate them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I concur with Ikan and thank ChubbyWimbus for making the first step which is to apologise. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
ChubbyWimbus: thank you for this reply. I disagree with you, but accept that understand the impact on others of the words you used. Ground Zero (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Responding to the original post, I believe that we do have an article titled Use of pronouns that addresses this. In many cases we can avoid he/she/they altogether and write directly to the traveler. The exact reason Go is a problem is because much of the article's content is encyclopedic and therefore can't be addressed directly to the reader.
I disagree with the level of concern attached to the specific pronoun used in the article. Spanish, for example, uses the male-gendered pronoun to refer to groups of people ("ellos" for mixed or male groups, or "ellas" when all female) with the understanding that the masculine pronoun can be all-inclusive. If we are going to change a pronoun to "they," I suggest we make the entire sentence plural; for example we could change the sentence in that article to "Players may pass their turn if..." --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's fine for you to do that, but you should accept that singular "they" goes back further than Shakespeare (see w:Singular they: "This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they"), and that English is not a gendered language the way Romance languages are. In Spanish, "they" is gendered, as you state; in English, it is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at WV:Use of pronouns, I see that it has sections for 1st & 2nd person pronouns, but not 3rd. Should that be added? Pashley (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


We have {{unsigned}}, but no template for undated comments so I created one on User:SHB2000/Undated. I really don't think there is any drawback to using this template and is quite a no-brainer to use, so here it is... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support. I'm not sure there is a frequent need to use this template, but I see no reason to not have it in case someone uses the wrong number of tildes to sign a comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why not just paste in the date? Under what circumstances is it better to go to history page, copy the timestamp, and put it into the template, instead of just putting it straight into wikitext?
The "– unsigned comment by" formatting feels like a badge of shame instead of a helpful contribution. Why do the worse thing a more complicated way? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because why make things needlessly complicated instead of standardising it across the site? Other wikis also use this template just fine, so not having this template is more complicated for people who are familiar with this template elsewhere. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This template is only on a tiny fraction of the wikis (about 2%). It's not at the French, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Italian, or German-language Wikipedias. It's not at any of the Wikivoyages. Anyone who does much cross-wiki work will not expect to find this minor template here, and will be accustomed to fixing these problems manually, because fixing an undated comment manually is actually the standard way across the wikis. It is important to remember that "the English Wikipedia's way" is not "the standard way". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I never claimed that this was the enwiki way. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did. This template is only used with any significant frequency at the English and Russian Wikipedias. Enwiki has used it the most total, and ruwiki uses it the most on a per-active-editor calculation. The template exists at some other wikis, but barely gets used (often 10 to 100 uses total) at any wiki except for those two Wikipedias.
Given how popular the Reply tool is, there are also many fewer unsigned or undated comments than there were in years past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, hopefully this template won't have to be used, but it can still happen and that's why we have {{unsigned}} (also, I'd rather not edit another user's comment, even if it were just adding a timestamp, which I see as bad practice in general). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As for whether to use it at all, I have seen editors feel embarrassed by the public notice that they had a typo in their signature (three tildes produces the name links without the date). I have never seen an editor who was unhappy that someone unobtrusively fixed it. This is what I meant above about the "badge of shame". Why should we risk embarrassing people over a typo? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As somebody who has occasionally typed the wrong number of tildes, I would much rather that it was just fixed. This is particularly the case if it is a few days before I next have time to do minor edits. AlasdairW (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because some people including myself feel very uncomfortable fixing someone else's messages. If a user does not like it, they can always mend it themselves. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the important thing is what the person who did the typo feels. I have a hard time imaging somebody feeling bad about the timestamp being added in the standard form without the "badge of shame". In other kinds of editing messages there is nearly always the risk that what you write isn't what them meant to say – here that risk is absent. –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
At least why not give users a choice between using the template and fixing it entirely? That almost entirely negates the "concern". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because it does not. If somebody gets upset by either, having the choice means they will sometimes get upset. Not having the choice will mean that people get accustomed to the only available option and thus don't get upset. –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Except that doesn't exactly address my concern of it being commonplace on many other larger wikis; we'll never get to determine what is the only available option. If you are so opposed, you may as well have a case for deleting {{unsigned}}. However, acting as if a subjective issue was objective is unhelpful to say the least. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
SHB, it is not commonplace at "many" other larger wikis. AFAICT it is commonplace at "exactly two" other larger wikis: Russian and English Wikipedias. If there is another wiki where you think it is in common use, please tell me the name of that wiki. For example, it exists at Commons, where it has been used just 42 times ever. I wouldn't count that as "being commonplace", but maybe you think 42 uses at a site with 100 million files and 12 million users should count as commonplace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is still used on Meta-Wiki, Wikidata, Wiktionary, Wikinews and the like, and the reason why you do not see this template being used much is because, surprise, surprise, forgetting to sign your posts (entirely) is rare. Who knew?! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Forgetting to sign posts isn't rare; I've probably corrected ~200 myself.
Meta-Wiki has used that template 104 times. Wikidata has used it once. The English Wikitionary has used it four times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


Admins please take a look. Cheers. Gizza (roam) 04:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Filter 52[edit]

Admins, please take a look at Special:AbuseFilter/52. TIA, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFC: Tokara Islands[edit]

There's a slow-motion edit war on Tokara Islands over this edit. Please chip in. Jpatokal (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will say to both you [Jpatokal] and Mrkstvns – do not revert others' edits without an explanation. It's counterproductive to say the least. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the record, I did notify the user first removing the content at their talk page, and there's apparently been some further discussion there. Jpatokal (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to your rollback on Mrkstvns' edit. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I explained my edit on Jpatokal's talk page.
I'd welcome a wider discussion as to what kinds of content additions should be avoided due to their being irrelevant, boring, and/or off-topic for a travel guide topic. I'm sure we've all seen things going into articles that leave us scratching our heads wondering, "Why the heck didn't they put this in Wikipedia instead of here?" Hopefully we can all learn to focus better on putting the traveler first and removing distracting factoids. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What's interesting and what's boring or not relevant enough is mostly a judgement call and should in those cases be discussed on the article talk page. I think this is such a case. Please start a discussion there. The discussion on the user pages can be linked, but is not very relevant: "the most exciting thing that has ever happened" answered with "utterly boring [with] no relevance whatsoever to travel." Listening to one another's arguments is fundamental, just dismissing them doesn't help. Instead concentrate on telling why you think or don't think the event is exciting/interesting/irrelevant/boring. Yes, there are some attempts, but the tone is not constructive and thus not inviting. –LPfi (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

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

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A great day for Wikimedia! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can't save edits on listings[edit]

I was shown the following message repeatedly: "Error: An unknown error has been encountered while attempting to save the listing, please try again: spamblacklist". I guess it's a case of false positive by an automatic filter. Delist me please.--Hnishy63 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, now it's okay. Can't figure out how it works.--Hnishy63 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Third party overlays[edit]

Map of Travellers' pub

Hey All, we at Wiki Project Med, built a gadget that pulls in Our World in Data similar to how maps here pull in topography after users agree to a consent popup.

Appears some within the WMF have issues with this functionality. The link for anyone who wants to weight in. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Doc James: This is specifically referring to the Mapnik layer, right? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Basically if you go under layers, we see 6 external options (mapnik is one) which will appear after consent for sharing your IP is given. The ability to do this is under discussion. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've commented on the discussion in question. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
So did I. However, the underlying problem, whether we should trust the external site, is complicated and the discussion seems to be about whether the gadget is important enough, and consenting by clicking OK enough, that privacy issues should be ignored. I think the only defendable way forward is to evaluate the privacy issues themselves, which is complicated. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area[edit]

Please, I would like to know if there is anything wrong, any kind of mistake according to the rules of Wikivoyage, in this version of the article about the Grande Rio region.

I have read several pages about Wikivoyage's policies, but have not found in this text anything that violates them. If there are any inappropriate parts in it, please, show them to me, and I will correct each one of them as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance! 03:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Further discussion is at Talk:Rio de Janeiro, FWIW. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In any case, there's no way for any of us to know which part of that version of the article you want our feedback on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm aware of the situation. Basically, the anonymous IP has the extremely encyclopaedic approach, adding long paragraphs of description and comparison, full with long lists, "located" 's and other Words to avoid, not really getting the spirit of WV:Goals and non-goals or WV:Tone#Be concise. I trimmed some, but the whole region, with all the sub-articles under it, needs heavy copyedit. Furthermore, some of the ares described are hotbeds of drug trafficking gang activity and shootings, and I'm not really confortable with the thought of them being encyclopaedically described in Wikivoyage as to invite visitation. I tried to dialog but the answers I got from them smelled to me somewhat like "respect me, I'm a local, you're not" sarcasm. I'm Brazilian. For the record, I lived in Rio for one year, SP City for two, I love going back to SP but Rio I don't miss at all, I admit some prejudice, and would label this sarcasm "carioquice", local cockiness, so I think I'd better stay out of this discussion to avoid any hint of "going personal" or bairrismo, that is, local bias. Ibaman (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Ikan Kekek!
I just want to know if there is any part of the whole text of that version of the article that should be changed and in what way. I am willing to make the necessary changes to that article in any way I can.
As for the comment above, I have never been arrogant with anyone here. I only expect logical argumentation and rationality (as well as a respectful dialogue) when changes (especially drastic changes) to an edition of an article are made, be this article about Rio de Janeiro, be it about Tokyo. 12:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have time to read that entire version of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S.: The risks concerning the crime in Rio are well explained in the article about Grande Rio, as well as advices to stay safe. On the other hand, the article about the city of Rio de Janeiro (which I did not write) makes several invitations to the so-called "favela tours", what I definitely do not recommend. 13:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
To anyone with some free time: A quick read of the articles about Los Angeles, Mexico City, and Metro Manila is enough to see that there is not a big difference between the texts of these articles and the text of that version of the Grande Rio article. 22:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you are missing the point that Wikivoyage is a travel guide. The existing Understand section makes the point that in one way: Grande Rio has a large population. Your edit makes that point again in a different way, but doesn't make a new point. Then it goes into a long Urban Studies/academic explanation of the socio-economic structure of the region that would be suitable for Wikipedia, not here. If there are other articles that are similarly off-mission, they should be edited, rather than held up as a justification for making this article worse. Ground Zero (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is what I was waiting for: A rational and objective explanation of what was wrong with that article. Since there are no clear criteria (or at least I do not know of them) defining what is appropriate for a travel guide and what would be better suited for Wikipedia, I generally guide my work in two ways: Taking other articles of Wikivoyage as models, or following accurate advice on specific mistakes I may have made here from more experienced Wikivoyage members. Thank you, your explanation really helped. 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
And a subtle reminder to anyone else: don't bite the newbies. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry but I will not stay, Wikivoyage is not for me. There are no criteria for distinguishing what is appropriate for a travel guide from what is too "academic", and there can not be, since this distinction is subjective. With the exception of extreme cases, what some see as encyclopedic content, with excessive detail, I consider as useful information for a trip, just as what some consider appropriate for a travel guide, I might see as lacking several interesting information. I still consider the information in the articles about, for instance, Grande Rio, Mexico City, and Metro Manila as valuable for some travelers. I, for example, have never been to Metro Manila. If I were about to visit that metropolis, I would want a guide about the region with all that "encyclopedic" information, it would be useful for me. Given that there can not be clear, objective criteria established in Wikivoyage policies for a subjective distinction, the majority opinion, in this case, defines what is appropriate and what is not.
I would not feel comfortable on Wikivoyage, and Wikivoyage also will be fine without my work.
So I wish you all good work, I'm leaving. 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, goodbye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ditto. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yep. Encyclopedic information can be found on Wikipedia. No need to duplicate it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

having been thus reminded, and making apologies for my harsh manners, I suggest better study examples for good Wikivoyage style on formatting a big city: Chicago, Washington, DC, Singapore, Downstate New York for a Grande Rio-sized thing, and especially Buffalo, crucially the trimmings made from 25 April. They reflect the writing style Wikivoyage is striving for. Ibaman (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I, too, hope I wasn't rude. It's simply true that I didn't have the time to read that entire version of the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think either of you were rude, but for a newbie, it might have been a little bit intimidating (since some users learn slower than others). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage and WikiForHumanRights[edit]

Today, there was a presentation by the Wikimedia Foundation discussing the potential integration of Wikivoyage into this year's WikiForHumanRights campaign. While I may have some reservations about how Wikivoyage can be effectively integrated, there appears to be a strong interest from various individuals and groups in developing associated initiatives. Perhaps we could offer our ideas to help make the initiative more successful for the community, or we could simply monitor Wikivoyage to see if any campaign activities unfold. The presentation slides are also accessible here for further reference. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 17:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that new editors that come here because of the campaign will have difficulties adding any content in a way that truly integrates with how we do things. If there are seasons wikivoyagers who want to add that aspect to articles, I suppose they can do that in a way that doesn't cause problems, and they could educate newcomers that cooperate with them. However, people who are interesting in adding certain content rather than first learning about the site do cause problems.
The slide show tells about NPOV, citing sources and using quote marks for quotations. They suggest "weekend getaway" as a theme for an itinerary. They give advice on the "Get out" section. Did they at all check with some seasoned wikivoyager? (The presentation might be good otherwise, but such details make one wonder.)
Regarding the sustainability and Human Rights, the slide show gives tips on what issues could be described, but doesn't tell where at Wikivoyage it can be put. Sustainability certified businesses can of course be added to Eat, Do etc. (which they present), but for more complicated issues, good models are needed. If the project is to be launched, somebody should find or write articles (parts of) which can be linked as good examples.
LPfi (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
From that presentation I can't tell if WMF has too much money or not enough money. Brycehughes (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In fact, none of the presentation was consulted with any seasoned wikivoyager, hence the “community consultation” here. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 19:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If the session wants to "empower organizers and participants on how they can contribute sustainability topics to Wikivoyage", then having wikivoyagers involved should be an obviously good idea. I hope they realise that, but they should have included that in the preparations and in the "Immediate Next Steps?" It seems there is even no recommendation on notifying us, just the campaign in a format where it isn't clear whether somebody intends to target us. If the individual projects start contributing without discussing their ideas with us first, it will probably be a frustrating experience for all parties (except, perhaps, those just adding relevant listings). –LPfi (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey all: thanks for starting this conversation! This was a pilot training that we coorganized with some of the volunteer African community organizers, after they asked for a practical introduction to how WikiVoyage works. Local event organizers are responsible for coordinating and responding to the work happening on wiki. We will make sure that local organizers do, if they work on WikiVoyage. If you have specific feedback on the slide deck, this is the first time I have supported a WikiVoyage training, and we were focused on coordination for the volunteer communities and trainers. We still have time to disseminate more accurate or more specific "first activities" for local communities if that is helpful. I am looking forward to learning more about the specifics of feedback or critiques, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Phrasing issues:
  • NPOV: our policy is Be fair, which isn't the same.
  • Citing sources: we usually don't cite sources in mainspace. We don't require reliable sources, personal experience counts as just as good for most info. Where a statement risks being disputed, a source can be cited in the edit summary, on the talk page or as a HTML comment, or some discussion provided. On the other hand, we use external links for further reading, see Wikivoyage:External links.
  • We don't use multimedia, just images (and audio for pronunciation in certain contexts).
  • We use direct quotes very sparingly, I think only in travel topic articles and then using {{quote}}.
  • The style: I think the phrasing in the slide show did not very well convey Wikivoyage:Tone.
  • Get out: we use Go next, I think Get out is what was (is) used on WT.
I think any plans on contributing en masse need to be discussed with us. The Nigeria Expedition had a lot of issues, which probably will be repeated if people clump in adding content without understanding our expectations. Despite some mentoring, there were copyright issues, duplicated content (hard to maintain and apparently often misleading), articles created to get competition points rather than to share information, and so on.
The last part of the slide show presents "how to contribute climate change and sustainability topics". However, it says nothing about how these topics can be treated on Wikivoyage. I think most of that needs to be worked out together with us. We have Sustainable travel and Responsible travel, which could be developed further. For individual destinations and listings, these issues might easily get undue weight; a good sense of style is needed. Examples would help, but those need to be found or created, and pointed out to the project participants.
LPfi (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, I don't understand why the "Go next" section would be particularly focused on. That section is about where to travel to next after the subject of the article (so, for example, where to travel to after you visit Lagos, Conakry or what have you), so it's weird for that to be the main focus of a project that seeks new editors for this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
To add, re sections: "Events" is an optional subsection which falls under "Do". "Buy" isn't limited to souvenirs. Museums usually go under "See", not "Learn". Very rarely "Itineraries" is a subsection under "See", but it's not typical. "Cope" is mostly entirely wrong: Local customs generally go under "Respect"; safety considerations under "Stay safe"; and communication tips under "Talk". And the sections used vary depending on the article template. Brycehughes (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Articles on events are also very rare. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have similar concerns as LPfi. Although I have hope that this expedition will be much better than the ill-intentioned Africa Expedition (which just sucked in every way possible for every party involved), it would be nice if at least a seasoned editor explains what needs to happen and the like. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the Africa Expedition was very well-intentioned. They ran into some problems, but they intended only good things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure, all that copyright violation and posting the same general information in dozens of articles with no specifics about the towns in question was "well-intentioned," if what you mean by that is that the intention of getting points for edits was a good goal to have. Sorry, but I think a lot of the users didn't have very constructive motivations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still, the expedition was well-intended. The problematic point system attracting people who gamed it, was a pure mistake, I believe. –LPfi (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we're all in agreement here that the last expedition by them did not have ideal outcomes except for the wordings here, which is fine. At least that's how I am interpreting this thread. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I read the slides in detail and have these comments (I avoid comments that are already said above).
Good: Increasing our coverage of national parks, wildlife, phrasebooks, climate chart, listing reliable online sources to obtain info, adding prices, improving "buy" and "cope" (local etiquette) sections
Bad: Why is page 8 of the slide still using old Wikivoyage logo? It is missing the mentioning of the crucial "the traveller comes first" rule, which guides decision making on what content to include and exclude. And please do consultation with the community before you make a presentation, not doing it afterwards as a checkbox exercise.
Ugly(?): Itinerary is a touchy topic and new editors should avoid writing suggested itinerary on "budget travel, weekend getaway, family vacation". Likewise, what constitutes to be "sustainable" or "low impact" in one region/country may be deemed to be destructive in other places (e.g. seal hunting is sustainable, supports local economy and a constitutional right for Indigenous hunters in northern Canada, yet European Union places an import ban on seal products). Is this human rights debate suitable in Wikivoyage? Probably not. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up, I didn't create the presentation, but I did participate in it. After noticing some key details that indicated there wasn't much experience with Wikivoyage, I took it upon myself to provide some feedback. I wanted the campaign organizers to understand the potential pros and cons of incorporating Wikivoyage, as decided by the community. Honestly, I couldn't see how Wikivoyage could fit into a human rights campaign. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't have even thought of the idea that you could have somehow been at fault. I hope some of the organizers read the feedback we've given them, because this project is likely to create a big headache here and result in a lot of person hours devoted to reverting edits and posting remarks about Wikivoyage policies, guidelines and goals to user talk pages that I daresay will probably be ignored most of the time, resulting in blocks. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wonder if we could mitigate this by writing a special customized welcome message purely for this expedition? (in contrast to our standard {{welcome}} or {{wikipedian}}) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
If needed, create a letter from the community requesting more attention to non-Wikipedia communities. Ask for help from experienced volunteers before making any decisions. These things may seem like common sense, but they are often overlooked. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 04:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's unfortunate that a lot of Wikipedia user groups don't care about anything other than Wikipedia. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the campaign to be successful, it needs participation from Wikivoyagers, like in the Nigeria expedition. If we don't find people willing to put time in that, then the campaign should stay away. –LPfi (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
At the very least, it needs extensive consultation, similar to what the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group have been doing for the past few years. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, WikiSP also had community consultations before rolling out Wikivoyage 10 and, even though it didn't happen, Wikivoyage 11. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 17:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all for the discussions and insightful comments. I see a great opportunity to tap into the knowledge from experts from Wiki Voyage. I am the #Wikiforhumanrights regional coordinator for Anglophone Africa, and would love to have someone show us high quality direct edits about these topics on WikiVoyage. Wikimedians are hungry to do something new this year and WikiVoyage presented a great opportunity for other ways of contribution. We will be hosting office hours this month for the community and we will be glad to host any of the experts from Wiki Voyage. Please kindly reach out to me and we can schedule a time together. Your support is greatly appreciated. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ruby D-Brown, thanks for your note, and thanks for starting Somanya earlier this week. It looks like you still have some work to do there, but I'm going to start by pinging @PPelberg (WMF) to say that you seem to have uncoverred a software bug in the visual editor. You ended up with an interwiki link in the second sentence ('''[[wikipedia:Somanya|Somanya]]''' is...), and I don't think that should be easy to do in the visual editor. It should have given you a proper link ('''[[:wikipedia:Somanya|Somanya]]''' is...) and also not screwed up the character formatting for the rest of the paragraph.
I'll have a go at cleaning up the article in a few minutes. That might give you some ideas about what we're looking for. (Please correct any errors I introduce; I've never been to Ghana before.)
Additionally, I wonder if other folks would be willing to show off a favorite edit or two. Ruby's uploaded hundreds of photos to Commons and made a couple thousand edits, so I think that if we all posted a few diffs that we're proud of, she'd get an idea of what we value. I'll start:
  • add a listing – This is a pretty simple task, but I'm proud of this edit because it's a little inn that bans smoking and pets and avoids scented cleaning products, so people with allergies might benefit from this. It's good for us to find and point out special circumstances like this.
  • removed a listing – This is a very simple task, if you know the business has closed. It's important to remove bad information.
  • added context – This is a travel topic article about a US holiday, and I added information that one group of travelers from outside the US would want to know (in this case, that business trips are probably a bad idea during that week).
Check back in about an hour to see what I've done with Somanya. I'll try to leave clear edit summaries in the article history so you can follow along with my thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much @WhatamIdoing for the useful feedback. This is very much appreciated. As a new editor on Wiki Voyage this feedback is definitely what I need to get it going. I see the changes you made and truly appreciate you taking your time to help improve it. I get a better see of what is expected now. Would you mind joining us on online to offer us some practical training? Let me kindly know what you think.Ruby D-Brown (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks like your office hours are all at 15:00 UTC, which is not a good match for my schedule. (If someone else is interested, 15:00 UTC is 5:00 p.m. in Paris, 11:00 a.m. in New York, and 8:00 a.m. in California.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
We can adjust if we have to. What time durations usually works on a Friday. We are hoping to start the office hour next week. Alternatively we can host this session separately as part 2 of the first training we had. Let me kindly know if this sounds good and what your thoughts are.
thank you. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The next month is busy for me, so I can't commit to doing any of these. In general, though, starting an hour or two later on Fridays would probably work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Summer of Wikivoyage in Albania & Kosovo, 2024[edit]

Hi folks!

The Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group is organizing the Summer of Wikivoyage Editathon 2024 to improve content of Kosovo and Albania on Wikivoyage in English. These are the Albania and Kosovo expedition pages. This year, we will focus on the area of Kruja, central north area in Albania, but feel free to write about any destination. The edit-a-thon will be held online/offline on the weekend of May 5th, 2024 at 09:00 - 17:00 CEST/ 07:00 UTC - 03:00 UTC, here on Jitsi. You can also edit without joining the call. Please register for tracking the contributions on the campaign page on Outreach Dashboard. Vyolltsa (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great! You guys are very helpful. Welcome, once again! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wonderful! Roovinn (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Religious Movements[edit]

Should no references to new religious movements be allowed, either under any circumstances or except in extraordinary circumstances? -- Apisite (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How could any new religious movements be mentioned, if they are to be at all mentioned? --Apisite (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyone who wants to read the background behind this question should look at User talk:Apisite, and the simple answer is the traveller comes first. This is a travel guide, not a place for any religious movement or members of it to try to promote (tout) that sect or religion. All the rest is self-interested posturing, and I suggest you stop that and do what you suggested: start your own website. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek, AlasdairW, SHB2000: Could and would the Wikivoyage for and about new religious movements be better off at Gan Jing World rather than anywhere else online? --Apisite (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That isn't a question for me to answer. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have no advice to give you about where or how to launch a site to promote your religion (or similar religions and sects), Apisite. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Population statistics[edit]

It is common in articles for cities and towns to indicate the size of the settlement so that readers have an idea of what to expect in terms of services and activity. I cannot find any policy or style guidance on how to present this information. There is a dispute at Talk:Dalkey about whether to say that the city "had a population of 4608 in 2022", or "had a population of about 4600 in 2022". This is not a huge issue for that article, but it raises a broader question of whether we want to write that New York City had a population of 8,335,897 in 2022, or 8.3 million?

A census does not provide an exact count in a year, but an estimate of the population on a particular day. In the case of the most recent census of Ireland, on the night of 3 April 2022. It takes the actual count, and adds in an estimate of the number of non-respondents, because there are always some people who don't respond. The next day, someone will likely leave the city or arrive in it. By the time the the estimate is made and published, the population has already changed. The exact number conveys a false sense of precision. Why is it of interest to travellers? I think that our our aim to have an informal tone and non-encyclopedic style should take precedence over this false precision. What do others think? Ground Zero (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage can never truly be up-to-date nor "complete", but it can try and mitigate this. Exact stats for any town larger than ~1000 inhabitants will almost certainly go out of date sooner than later. I would support a guideline that recommends favouring population figures be rounded to 2–3 significant figures. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I even strongly think that 1–2 significant figures is enough. For Finland I cannot really say 5 million any more, as it passed 5.6, but I will continue to say 200.000 for Turku until the population is 230.000 or so. The third digit is never important for the feel of a city, which is what we are trying to tell with population figures. A forth digit is always just noise, unless you state the date and the method of counting – do you even know whether they are about people living in the city or people registered there? –LPfi (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am trying to figure out where in the style guides this could be spelled out. The best place I've found so far is Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Understand. Is there a better place? Ground Zero (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think 2 significant figures with a year (ex. population of 8,400 in 2024) or 1 significant figure without a year (ex. about 8,000 people) would be a good guideline. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, 1 or 2 significant figures is fine. An occasional exception could be made for very small populations (<500) if an exact figure is available - can you name all 101 residents? From a visitor viewpoint, less than 1 significant figure is required - almost the number of digits will do. AlasdairW (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually argued initially against stating population figures, mainly because of poor match between the enumeration district and the place you actually visit. However I bought into the argument that it's better just to state the plain figure, if it is available, than use vague terms like "large". The road mileage from Wilmington NC to Washington is 374 miles, the elevation of Pune is 571 m / 1837 ft, and the population of Dalkey in 2022 was 4608 - just say so and have done, and don't prolong the tedium. Any reader with a grain of sense can recognise the inherent variation, measurement imprecision and transient nature of all those figures. It is tendentious to make out they upset the "informal tone and non-encyclopedic style" of WV. Grahamsands (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You see: even you seem to think that a census figure of 4608 means that "the population of Dalkey in 2022 was 4608". But it wasn't. It was estimated to be 4608 on one night -- April 3 -- and before and after that in 2022, it wasn't 4608. People move in and out. Ground Zero (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Distance and elevation are generally pretty accurately measurable and don't change quickly, so there's rarely any issue in stating them when they're of interest (which often isn't the case, as when a city's average elevation is 26 or 104 metres above sea level). But are there travel guides that as a matter of general style pretend to count the populations of cities to the last person? I think that's unusual and not a good style for a non-encyclopedic non-census publication that doesn't have a single year of copyright printed on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Recall that this started with a protest that my style was encyclopaedic and out of line with WV. Just look at the intro and Understand for Dalkey, can that really be said? Yet now the inoffensive little datum “4608 in 2022” is being pilloried for that, and its limited accuracy feels like a rationalisation for doing so.
Most readers do not give a hoot about the flex of such a figure, and those who understand the sources are well aware of its limitations. Its evolving value is a red herring, as “in 2022” indicates its currency. It’s more precise than a road distance - are we going to Dublin via Castlerock, and do we mean to Temple Bar or Great Aunt Bridget on Railway St - and shall we get started on hotel prices?
It was entirely reasonable to write that the population of Turku city was 195,000 in 2021. But if someone chose to update it as “201,863 in 2023”, is that now to be castigated as bad style, given the context? That seems out of proportion. Grahamsands (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, we wouldn't ban the latter, but we'd have a style guide that significantly favours the population statistics rounded to ~2 significant figures. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't anyone should be castigated for not following style, but if the community decides on a style, one would expect that, out of respect for the community, long-time contributors would not intentionally flout that style. It comes across as rude for someone to intentionally disregard Wikivoyage style because they disagree with it. There are several parts of the style guides that I don't like, but I comply with because this isn't my personal travel blog, but a collaborative project.

The advantage of having the style guide pronounce on this question is that it resolves future disputes like this one, without having the arguments repeated on the talk pages of a bunch of articles. Ground Zero (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed a change to the style guide reflecting this discussion here. Ground Zero (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

When should the "Huge city" template be used?[edit]

I was under the impression it was self-evident that the Huge city template should be used only for, y'know, huge cities (in population/attractions, not land area), but based on the discussion at Talk:Miyoshi (Tokushima), a slab of rural Japan that became a "city" in 2005 and is now districtified, this is not the case. Please help set policy for this at Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy#"Huge cities" that are actually rural areas. Jpatokal (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whether something should be a region with city articles or a city with district articles is a judgement call, which isn't too much about whether the destination is a city administratively (neither London nor Paris is, to make that point clear). If there are a number of cities and towns with countryside in-between, calling it a city is a stretch, but I suppose that's what e.g. L.A. is like. I think it boils down to whether locals or the traveller would be surprised by us calling the place a city, or rather, whether a visitor would feel betrayed by us doing so. –LPfi (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Where is the countryside in L.A.? In some of the hills? It's mostly (sub)urban sprawl. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are you referring to the endless suburbia in LA? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Los Angeles includes Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita Valley. I haven't been there, but the articles give the feel that there is quite some countryside and even non-developed country amidst the sprawl. —The preceding comment was added by LPfi (talkcontribs) 05:51, May 16, 2024
I've been to LA quite a few times (my cousin lives there) and almost all of the endless suburbs of both Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys are continuous with the main core of LA. I guess that's the byproduct of a city bulldozed for the car. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I had the same qualms about Buffalo. From what I picked up it seems to be determined by the amount of information editors (past or present) have bothered to add, rather than any intrinsic quality. (I'm not subtly being negative here this is just what I gathered.) Brycehughes (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • If the "huge city" template cannot be used when districts are warranted simply because of the name, which it seems some number of editors believe deeply to be true, then the template name should be changed to eliminate this problem and the protective attitude towards the template. Districtification should not be such a deeply personal thing. If a city/town/village has enough content to warrant districts, it should not be controversial to divide it into those districts. We should not be having discussions about how to avoid districtifying due to a template name. It's so wild to me to read entire article creation philosophies based solely around the name of this template when no one minds non-cities being called "cities". Perhaps there's a name that would be better suited, maybe something like "districted city" which is more literal and more about the state of the article ("it's districted") rather than a statement that some are interpreting to be about the city itself ("huge city")? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I couldn't agree more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Except what could we name it to? The genie is out of the bottle; I can't think of a better name for such instances. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I proposed "Districted City" as a first thought. The reason being that it describes the state of the article rather than the city. You and others would need to state if you think "districted city" would change how people think about it. Or someone can propose another name, but I do think something that describes the state of the article rather than the city itself is probably important in neutralizing attitudes about districts. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That could work, but it seems a bit too technical for me. It's the same argument why we call tiny tucked-away villages as "cities" on Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't really see how this proposal has anything to do with Miyoshi (Tokushima), the article that started this discussion. The concern there, as far as I can tell, is that the place is a rural region and possibly shouldn't be a city article at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has suggested turning Miyoshi into a non-districted city article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. The real question is whether the article should be huge city, region or extraregion. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The entire discussion began on the talk page of Miyoshi (Tokushima) with the statement that it's "not a huge city in any sense of the word". The proposals to create regions/extraregions all stem from the desire to avoid calling it a "huge city" when it is not viewed to be one. The "rural region" argument was made to say it's not a huge city. The template name is lending itself to these arguments. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
So it may do, but either whether to call it a region or a huge city is about what that tells about its place in our region structure or the wish to call or not to call the place a city. Jpatokal claims that the area isn't a city but several with countryside in-between. I don't know whether the area is one, but it seems that the disagreement indeed is about that. If you think the huge city structure suites better for other reasons, please spell out those arguments. –LPfi (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could solve all these problems by removing the names and just numbering them. "Region" could become the article type "3", and "Big region" could become "3.2". Then we'd never have another discussion about whether this is "really" a city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
But we'd argue "you cannot use type 2, that's for cities" :-) –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
We'd have to define "Type 4 is for a destination with places to sleep and eat and something to do. Most commonly, this is a city, town, or similar populated place, but this list of suggested sections can also be used for rural areas and parks."
And maybe put "Use the template whose sections matches what you want to put in the article, no matter what it's called" at the top of the page.
(And on the talk page, we can tell editors that every time experienced editor starts a dispute over something like "Type 4 is for cities, so you can't use that for that subject", we'll add intensifying formatting – repeated copies, bold text, colored highlighting, exclamation marks, the name of the editor(s) who needs to stop saying these things, a Javascript gadget that requires anyone reading the page to agree that they won't say that, etc. – until people get the message. It's good to ask whether ____ matches the subject matter; it's bad if our shorthand labels get in the way of people who are trying to do the right thing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be satisfied with something like "District city", but some of the concerns about the "inaccurate" name might go away if we called it a "____ article" instead of a "_____ city". We use this template when our content is huge, not when the destination is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think "districted city" is OK. That phrase would appear only in template and guideline names. The question about the naming is about the phrase in {{PrintDistricts}}:
"X is a huge city with several district articles that contain information about specific sights, restaurants, and accommodation."
There is really no need to use the technical term in that sentence. We could as well say:
The information about X is split over several "district" articles. This page contains a summary and common information."
LPfi (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The latter (your wording) could also work, and that avoids technical jargon for the most part. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC[edit]

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__) and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is Language Engineering, so anyone interested in tech problems related to language should try to attend.
It looks like one of the organizers speaks Spanish. The offer for interpretation is real – they'll hire someone to translate to/from your language if they can – but please e-mail Srishti right away. It sometimes takes two weeks to get a translator scheduled, and the event is about two weeks away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply