Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


GPX track download?[edit]

Special:Upload currently lists permitted file types: tiff, tif, png, gif, jpg, jpeg, webp, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga, flac, opus, wav, webm. Would it be worth asking that Wikimedia add .gpx as one of the valid file types?

I could see it being useful for providing downloadable tracks for itinerary (the {{GPX indicator}} link on every page downloads just the article's POI's); that data could then be loaded into GPS units and taken on the road.

We seem to be accumulating novelty itinerary for roads which don't actually exist cross-country (such as Oregon Trail and Route 66, which are popular as fiction). The missing chunks are bridged by sending the voyager onto a long list of real highways (so "US66" in the Texas Panhandle ends up mostly on I-40, for instance). Those quickly become hard to follow; "it's not on my GPS" is a running joke in Cars (2006 film) for a reason. K7L (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, silence. I'd wanted to upload GPX for Oregon Trail before it becomes the featured travel topic on the 21st, but I guess I can't? K7L (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@K7L: Hi, I apologize for the late response to your question. This type of feature was brought up a few years ago in Phabricator and there are links in that ticket that explain how a GPX file can be uploaded. However, the GPX file would need to be converted to GeoJSON before being able to be displayed on a map in Wikivoyage, as I think you're trying to do in your question above. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There already is a GeoJSON track on the map in Oregon Trail#Prepare. That track was created by taking a National Park Service itinerary, tracing the turn-by-turn road directions on GPX Creator, then converting to GeoJSON for inclusion in the article. The documentation at Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps is rather limited (and was merely updated from GPX to "...and then convert to GeoJSON" as an afterthought to accommodate mw:Extension:Kartographer) but the map was added to the page in time for the article to be featured.
My question was how to make the original GPX available for download, for instance to allow the voyager to load the points into a handheld GPS unit. This was what Garmin originally intended as GPX's role when they first promoted the format. Attempting to use modern roads to re-create an 1843 ox-cart trail is a convoluted mess, where the voyager needs the information in a form which they can bring with them. A map which only works on the desktop while still online isn't very portable. I did try upload to,_Independence_MO_to_Oregon_City_OR.gpx but the only way to link to that file from here appears to be a full external link; the media: or file: prefixes just generate a redlink.
Admittedly, I'd prefer to avoid depending on items hosted across multiple wikis (commons, wikidata, now this...) as that makes articles more difficult for new users to maintain or update and risks breaking content if the pieces hosted on other WMF wikis are deleted (which has happened with both wikicomons and wikidata in the past, and will happen again). We need to be able to store both GPX and GeoJSON here, locally. K7L (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the track, when inserted into the article as GeoJSON, just simply be part of the GPX which is already available for each article containing all the mentioned geo-tagged POIs? We should maybe just extend this functionality. But who can implement such a change? Ceever (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly Ceever! GeoJSON and GPX only have minor differences. It shouldn't be too hard to add it to the gpx for each article. That would improve Wikivoyage by leaps and bounds! Imagine a suggested city walking tour is just a download button away and another 5sec later you have it in OsmAnd or any other navigation app on your phone and can follow the track. Nobody would ever use a paper travel guide again. --Renek78 (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The only real solution I found so far[edit]

Thanks for all the tips given above. Unfortunately, none of the above tips are relevant for this (I actually don't know about AWB since I don't got access/permission to use it)... as I need to be able to easily only "clean" the content of six parameters - Hours, Price, Content, Checkin, Checkout, Directions (while any sort of global "search and replace" would replace everything in the code (so, for example, while it is easy to change the parameter "hours=" to "hours= <!--", it is almost impossible to change the "|" to "--> |" only at the end of those six parameters.

After searching for a solution on Google I came across the following recommendation for anyone using Notepad++ to accomplish this. While this solution is a bit more complicated than one click and done (it involved probably around 10-15 clicks AND paying A LOT of attention to see that nothing of value was erased, YET, this actually helps cut down the time involved in importing articles that contain a lot of listings). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In emacs I'd use a keyboard macro that would search for the first of the keywords, move beyond the "=", mark that point, search for the "|" and delete back to the mark, then search for the next keyword etc. (in practise, I'd put the first search last, so that I can see what is going to get deleted before pushing Go). Where there are several listings after each other, so that I can see that nothing goes wrong, I'd give a repeat number (^Shours^U5^X^E would run the macro on five listings starting at an "hours"; ^S=ctrl-S etc.). With regular expressions you can avoid having to check every match, but you have to think hard instead. For your job thinking hard and using sed (or awb or perl or whatever) would probably be the most efficient solution. --LPfi (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Removed comment as issue was found -- Matroc (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to use an offline editor to use regexes. Use the 2010 WikiEditor, click "Advanced", find the find-and-replace icon (right edge of toolbar in LTR languages) and tick the box to "Treat search string as a regular expression". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Userpage script[edit]

You could try the script at User:WOSlinker/comment listings.js. I've set it to only work on userpages. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Thank you so much!. בזכותך חודשים רבים (ואולי אפילו שנים!) מהחיים שלי לא יוקדשו יותר להעתקה + הדבקה בלבד (translate sentence with Google Translate to see funny comment). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The first article on the Hebrew Wikivoyage which was significantly expanded with listings that were automatically fixed and imported thanks to WOSlinker's new script ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Merging "stay safe" and "stay healthy"?[edit]

Given this, which is apparently correct based on the big city article template (but still weird, given that other articles put information about hospitals under "stay healthy"), should we find some new category in which to put both with a name indicative of both being present? After all, stay safe and stay healthy sections tend to accumulate WV:Obvious material and be rather short besides. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We may put hospitals in "Cope" (a catch-all section for everything from laundrettes to diplomatic high commissions) if the article lacks a "Stay healthy" section. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it should mention this expressly. K7L (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Stay safe and Stay healthy usually overlap a lot, and a merger would make sense. The standard format has far too many headlines, compared to the 7±2 format. As a bonus effect, the merger would increase divergence from The Other Site; improving SEO as well as impression of originality. /Yvwv (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Which new heading should we chose? I don't really like "cope" tbh. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Put me down in support of maintaining a separation between "Stay safe" and "Stay healthy" when that's logical. Concerns about crime are quite different from information about clinics or locally endemic diseases.
As for "Cope", is it better than "Miscellaneous"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Well in the linked example, a hospital is listed under "stay safe", so the current layout already partially goes against your concerns, Ikan. Or am I mistaken? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You are not mistaken in your observation. I am in favor of using "Stay healthy" whenever it's relevant, regardless of what level of hierarchy the article is at, whereas current guidelines are to conflate "Stay healthy" with "Stay safe" at lower levels of the hierarchy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Stay safe" would be a good name for a health & safety category. The travel topic Stay healthy could be a sub-topic to stay safe. /Yvwv (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think health is a sub-aspect of safety. I think both are sub-aspects of "stay in one piece". But I have yet to find an elegant verbal phrase for that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
A bit late to the party I'll try to breathe some life into this discussion as I think this is a rather good proposal. As I think about the "Cope" section it should contain information which is not part of the reason why the destination is interesting, but which is nevertheless relevant to any traveler going there. You don't visit a destination because they have a nice public wifi, embassy or laundromat. (If the laundromat is spectacular enough to attract visitors in should be listed under "See" or "Do" rather than "Cope".) Nevertheless you might want information about such things when travelling. "Cope" could just as well have been labeled "Get by", but is not a "Miscellaneous" section. Understood this way it seems rather natural to include "Stay safe" and "Stay healthy" (and "Talk"?) as subsections of "Cope"/"Get by". MartinJacobson (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm also late to this discussion, but I think 'Cope' should remain as a heading. Other less-obvious things that can be included here are semi- or non-functional postal systems, banking issues, etc. –StellarD (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't our non-functional third world postal system be listed in 'Connect', much like banking and our toy currency are described in 'Buy'? The 'Cope' section is for miscellanea which fit nowhere else. K7L (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

File Spam[edit]

Can we please do something about the people spam-uploading files here? Maybe some minimum number of edits before you can locally upload a file? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the spam an actual upload, or is this someone merely editing the image description page and writing gibberish on it? K7L (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
K7L, I assume Hobbitschuster is talking about the persistent problem we've had of users uploading pirated movies and music files to Wikivoyage. This is a problem that's apparently been cropping up all over the WMF. There's a simple solution to this problem - disabling uploads of all but static image files, which are already disallowed per policy - and it boggles my mind why it hasn't been instituted yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that User:CKoerner (WMF) knows who can do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all! There'a few things at play here. I hope to give a few links to explain what is being done in general with regards to illicit file uploads and what I need from you all to stem the tide here at English Wikivoyage. First, this is a known issue and is being worked on elsewhere in the movement. Here is the most useful task I can point interested folks to. There's work going on to address related concerns like files not being purged after deletion. If you see issues like this, please leave a note here or in Phabiricator so folks are aware.
Two questions I have for you all. What are the file formats we wish to prevent? Do we have community consensus to block these uploads? (I think we would, but I need ya'll to say so!) I created a task to track this work. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikivoyage:Image policy#Image formats and #Other media, the only file formats that should ever be hosted locally are JPEG, PNG, and SVG. All other files should be blocked, and I would think that the fact that we have a preexisting policy already in place that says files of other formats don't belong here is functionally equivalent to consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Andre here; all formats except those we use for images should be blocked.
Beyond that, I'm inclined to think we should restrict uploads even in those formats somewhat. No anon uploads, only logged in users? Only autopatrolled users? Only admins? Even just disable file upload completely, force everything to Commons? Either of the first two would be fine with me, with a mild preference for the second unless it is hard to do. I suspect the last two would cause problems. Pashley (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Files should always be uploaded to commons unless you have a very good reason for uploading it here instead. In some case photos need to be uploaded locally for copyright reasons, also if we discuss problems and upload screenshots, it is better to upload them locally. But I can't understand why we should let people upload audio and video as this kind of media isn't allowed in our guides in the first place? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikivoyage_talk:Vandalism_in_progress#Prevent_video_uploads.2C_maybe_images_under_certain_conditions --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah ha! It looks like there is an abuse filter for media file uploads. I can't see the contents of the filter. Andrewssi2 could you please let us know if this address the concerns folks have mentioned here? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Evidently the filter is not effective, as just a few hours ago User:Ikan Kekek had to manually delete another boatload of files in one of the formats ostensibly covered by the filter. Frankly, rather than relying on an abuse filter that, even if it were effective, could be subverted easily enough by simply switching to different file formats that the filter doesn't cover, it seems a lot simpler to just limit uploads across the board to the three aforementioned approved formats. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, can we please do that? This file-upload spam is annoying. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe that I have fixed it (I tried uploading some open source offending file types, and they are not getting through.
Frankly the easiest way to fix this is just to edit Special:Upload to prevent these uploads. It is not right that we have a page that explicitly permits .ogg files to be uploaded (and actually states that clearly) and then have to prevent said .ogg file in the abuse filter. Any idea who to talk to for this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
No, a special page (like Special:Upload) cannot be "edited" as if it were content. There is a setting in mw:manual:LocalSettings.php on the servers that can specify which file types are accepted, but that's not part of the wiki content. Our users don't have access to change this; WMF might be able to do so on consensus if a phabricator ticket were opened. The actual boilerplate text displayed on the special pages sometimes is in the Mediawiki: namespace (as these "canned" strings need to be translated into multiple languages for localisation) but editing those wouldn't change the functionality. The abuse filter might be the path of least resistance? K7L (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The abuse filter is certainly the easiest way, and it is not like Special:Upload gets a lot of use anyhow. Just don't like seeing functionality broken in this way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris filed a Phab task for it, and I just leaned a little on it.  ;-)
You don't need abuse filters. The devs will happily do this for you. What they usually want is a sort of quick "All in favor of the Wikivoyage:Image policy, say 'aye', and all in favor of copyright-violating spammers, speak now, or forever hold your peace" thing. They've gotten burned a couple of times by a person asserting, "The community says X" when the local community said no such thing, so they usually want a link to a discussion, so that if there are objections later, they can say, "But it looked like there was a consensus..."
So: "All in favor of the image policy?"
You can put me down as supporting this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Aye. But maybe it would be clearest to have a separate subthread just for votes, for the sake of clarity?Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to make this easier to point to (I doubt the developers would want to read all the thread above) I have created : Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Proposal_to_change_Special:Upload_page Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing . We have our voting recorded here : Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Proposal_to_change_Special:Upload_page - can you please take this forward for implementation? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the link. (Anyone who's interested should feel free to add your name, too.)
The next step is waiting for an interested dev. I don't know how long it will take: maybe as early as next week if the right person has some time on his/her hands, but could be a couple of months, too. Any volunteer who knows how to write the necessary patch is welcome to submit it: it's not just something that paid staff are allowed to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I found an interested dev! The wonderful Matma Rex has submitted a patch and it should go live on Monday. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Matma Rex, CKoerner (WMF) & WhatamIdoing ! Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is done now. Matma Rex (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Matma Rex. That is going to save us a great deal of trouble now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Should Wrh2Bot remove "dead link" templates?[edit]

User:Wrh2 has started running Wrh2Bot again to tag new dead links, and I'm sure I speak for everyone in saying this work is much appreciated. I have a concern, though, which is that the bot removes the "dead link" templates from links if they no longer appear to be dead. Apparently this is to address the case where a website is temporarily down but later comes back online, but the problem is that often these links go to domain squatters, as in Charlotte and Barbuda. I think it would be better for the bot to leave the templates there for human review rather than removing them. What do other people think? Past discussions: 1, 2, 3. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, as that exact thing happened on one of the Buffalo district articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a 3rd option, one that might get us the best of both worlds. Add a parameter to the template, so that the bot can say "I don't know if the site's back up, or if a squatter took it". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a very useful bot for keeping this site up to date. Also agree that it should not remove the template automatically if link works on second test. I have also come across a good number of domain squatters on testing. Either do not remove or if not too much effort a separate parameter or category. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wrh2: Ryan, understand you want to take a break from WV (although you are being missed). Would it be possible to make the code available on the site (in your user area maybe) and some instructions on how it should be run? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The brainless saga of Berlin Airports, part infinity[edit]

So as you may or may not know, the long awaited political earthquake that was German elections took place on Sunday. On that same day, there also was a referendum on whether to keep open Tegel airport. Now for background: I bought a plane ticket in 2012 that already had an airport listed as the destination that does not yet exist (instead I flew to Tegel) and the mayor of Berlin was Eberhard Diepgen, the chancellor of Germany was Helmut Kohl and the guy in charge of Brandenburg was godknowswho, when all those people and a few others agreed on the following: Berlin gets a new airport. All remaining airports shut down at the latest half a year after the new airport opens. Until this new airport opens, there are to be no major investments in airports that will be shut down regardless. Now the FDP (if you're American, think Libertarians) has been struggling and together with Ryanair and car rental companies, they launched a collection of signatures to put a measure on the ballot "urging" the government of Berlin to "do whatever it takes" to keep Tegel open even way beyond its best before date. Of course Berlin cannot unilaterally go against what was agreed two decades ago by three different governments, the current mayor of Berlin thinks keeping Tegel open is a phenomenally stupid idea, and keeping Tegel open requires major state money to be spent - which should be anathema for the tax-cut party that is FDP. At any rate, roughly 55% of those voting in Berlin voted for the whatever it is that it actually says, and now the city government is officially bound to abide by the non binding text of the ballot measure that does not even propose a law of any kind. The travel related bottom line is likely to be, that Berlin will continue to have two airports for some time. Maybe even after BER (the new airport) opens. Or not. Who on earth knows? There'll likely be court cases. And in court and on the high seas, Zeus only knows what will happen. The outgoing (federal elections, remember) minister of transportation said days before the vote that "he could imagine" Tegel remaining open, but he has already taken on a job within his party caucus, which is next to never held concurrently with one in cabinet. Nobody knows what will happen next, but given the traffic figures and the somewhat unique design of Tegel, do we at long last need an airport article on it? Even in the face of it possibly shutting down anyway? Or even being forced to shut down before BER opens (which would be some glorious historic irony)? What would we do with the article were Tegel to shut down? At any rate, I tried to do the developing slow motion train wreck (or rather plane crash) justice on the Berlin page, but my obvious bias may have seeped through. If you have questions, I probably know more about the subject than I would like to... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Tegel or BER of much importance for travellers? Everyone I know (all North Americans or people employed in Asia) who wanted to visit Germany flew to either Amsterdam or Frankfurt. Is it different from within Europe? Did I just miss a possibility? Pashley (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Berlin is unique in being an important international capital city without a significant international airport (owing mostly to the division of the country during the GDR years and the gravity of Frankfurt being the gateway to Germany).
Fixing the Berlin airport situation seems both important and very problematic, but ultimately the background isn't important for travelers to Berlin. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The situation with an important capital with a comparatively insignificant airport is not that unique (think Canberra and Ottawa). We need to keep the article up to date, there's not much else we can do. If TXL shuts down and you can't fly to Berlin, we need to put in a caution box that travelers have to fly to Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich or some of the small budget airline airports in northern Germany. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
But in all the other cases of an important country with second class airports in its capital (to which South Africa might be added, where Pretoria is not exactly home to the biggest airport), the capital is actually a fairly "minor" city by comparison. Berlin is the biggest city and if we were to judge by metro areas, Ruhr does not exactly contain a major airport, either. That said, Air Berlin (which is now bankrupt and in the process of godknowswhat) did have a fairly extensive network through Tegel, which they intended to move to BER (said move not having occurred being among the cited reasons for the bankruptcy). TXL as of 2016 figures has roughly above 20 million pax per annum. A third of FRA, but certainly in the range of some airports for which WV does have articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Düsseldorf has a massive airport and is close to the Ruhr, so there's probably little motivation to build any large airport in the Ruhr region proper. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Frankfurt Airport isn't too far away, either. Overall, Germany has too many airports (especially too many small town airports that think two flights a week to Antalya are worth millions in subsidies), but I digress. At any rate, should we create an article on Berlin Tegel Airport? And if so, what should be done if and when it shuts down? I think we should create and article on the BER if (when?) it opens, though... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure Tegel needs an article. It's really quite simple to go through security there, it's a smallish airport that's easy to walk around and understand, and I'm unsure transportation to Berlin can't just be dealt with in the Berlin article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I flew to Tegal once (from Munich), and have to say an interesting airport. Not sure it merits an Airport article though. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Advanced search tools for editors[edit]

Hi! I am wondering whether there is, or whether someone could create, a multivariable search function on wikivoyage. In essence, what I want to do is to generate a list of articles by status, breadcrumbed within a certain region, listed by number of page view hits. For example I would like a list of outline articles in Sweden by number of hits. This would make it much easier to see which pages travellers actually use, and to concentrate editing to these pages which are both frequently visited and have potential for easy improvement. Thanks in advance! MartinJacobson (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

w:project:PetScan might be worth a look. K7L (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

MartinJacobson - which of these options interests you most...
1. The most popular tourist locations within Sweden according to the English Wikivoyage readers ?


2. The most popular locations within Sweden according to the Swedish Wikipedia readers ?


3. The most popular locations worldwide according to the Swedish Wikipedia readers ?

Another question... Do you plan to use this information to decide which articles on the English Wikivoyage you plan on significantly expanding/improving ... or to decide which articles on the Swedish Wikivoyage you plan on significantly expanding/improving?

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would add that if you are most interested in seeing which articles about Swedish tourist destinations are of most interest to international+domestic travelers for the purpose of expanding articles on the Swedish Wikivoyage, my best recommendation would be the second choice ("The most popular locations within Sweden according to the Swedish Wikipedia readers") since the Swedish travelers are more likely to actually know which locations are the most interesting ones. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if you need any help with that. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
First, thank you K7L! w:project:PetScan gave me article status and region (and page size), but I couldn't find any pageview statistics in PetScan. I was however able to manually cross PetScan with pageview counter. Secondly ויקיג'אנקי, I am interested in improving the English Wikivoyage. (As most Swedes read English domestic travellers are served just as well by an English guide, while few international travellers will be able to use a Swedish guide).MartinJacobson (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
MartinJacobson - Okay... just to double check - you are only interested in seeing what the most popular tourist destinations within Sweden are according to the English Wikivoyage readers, right? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי This far I have mainly edited Swedish destinations, but that not out of principle but rather out of convenience and comparative language skill (most editors can research in English while fewer can do so in Swedish). I would be just as glad to update and improve the most frequently visited (outline) articles world-wide if I could find relevant information about those destinations. MartinJacobson (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I ended up creating three different lists for Martin. Anyone interested in seeing them (You might find the outline articles list especially useful/interesting) can find them here. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much ויקיג'אנקי! This will be very helpful! MartinJacobson (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Hindi edition of Wikivoyage was launched a couple of days ago![edit]

Just wanted to mention, since it hasn't been mentioned here so far, that the Hindi edition of Wikivoyage was launched on September 25th. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hindi & Urdu are pretty much the same as spoken languages but written utterly differently, with a Sanskrit-derived alphabet for Hindi & Arabic/Persian for Urdu. Is there any reasonable, preferably automatic, way to translate between the written forms?
Really good translation software might give us an Urdu edition of WV free. Anything reasonable might be helpful to anyone wanting to start an Urdu edition, & by allowing Urdu speakers to contribute might improve the Hindi edition as well. Pashley (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on the start of the Hindi site, and Godspeed to all who are editing there! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Pashley, translating or transliterating the content across Hindi and Urdu might not be feasible. In addition to script, the technical words of Hindi and Urdu are different, coming from Sanskrit and Arabic/Persian respectively. While it shouldn't in principle affect a travel guide that much compared to say, an encyclopedia, I've noticed the technical words have started to creep in. The name of the site is "Wiki Yatra" while the word used in Urdu (or in informal spoken Hindi) for "journey" or "travel" would be Wiki Safar. To an extent, yatra sounds a bit like "voyage", not as natural to say as travel. Anyway, hope these words are kept to a minimum so moving content makes more sense (in the real word in the cities at least, English technical words are becoming increasingly common). Gizza (roam) 02:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Pagebanner syncing to Wikidata[edit]

Having uploaded several hundred pagebanners over the past month, I've come to wonder why none of my banners are getting automatically synced to the Wikidata listings for the pages. I think this is a missed opportunity, not for enWikivoyage per se, but for all other-language Wikivoyages using pagebanners. I know that the template fetches the banner from Wikidata if no image has been specified in the template (i.e.: {{pagebanner}} instead of {{pagebanner|Pagebanner default.jpg}}), but I am not sure if there is a bot or whatever dedicated to syncing the banners to Wikidata. This leaves me with the following questions:

  • Is there any means of having the pagebanners automatically synced to Wikidata? The only thing I can see this depending on is my naming of banners (-Wikivoyage Banner while -banner is advertised as the correct way to name them), but I doubt that that's the case.
  • If the answer to the question above is no, then shouldn't there be? Many other-language Wikivoyages do not use a preset banner image in the template (File:Pagebanner default.jpg is what we automatically insert into the template when using the quick copy/paste templates). They instead choose to fetch them from Wikidata if one is available. We are significantly ahead of many other-language Wikivoyages, and they can benefit from our banners. Only problem is that we don't let them yet and have their editors go through the manual task of checking the English version for a banner instead. Wouldn't it be better for all if we would sync the banners we've made and implemented to Wikidata?

-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but I found Wikidata rather problematic for banners. We go through enough drama sometimes discussing a banner change, and having 'stealth' changes through Wikidata would not go down well. I don't support forcing us to move our banners to Wikidata. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that was not what Wauteurz suggested, rather that banners would be added to Wikidata automatically (when inserted in an article or when uploaded to Commons). That would make the banner appear automatically in those projects fetching their banners from Wikidata by default. It would not affect us. A bot could easily do that (I do not know whether there is such a bot now), perhaps checking the banner has been at least a week on en-wv to guard against vandalism. Fetching the link from Commons is more difficult, as the coupling between banner and article is not always obvious, at least not for a bot, and I think fewer people monitor the categories on Common for inappropriate images (those monitoring last changes there worry about copyvios and out-of-scope files, not about the appropriateness for a certain use). --LPfi (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: I do not want our banners to be fetched from Wikidata. Instead I'd like for our banners to be synced to Wikidata, meaning that syncing only goes one way: If we have a banner image set, then the Wikidata listing will get that same image in the Wikivoyage banner parameter. We, meaning enWikivoyage, will not be affected. LPfi brings up an aspect of this that I hadn't taken into consideration yet, namely vandalism. I would agree with them that several days after the change of the banner image, it can get synced to Wikidata, as a week or so is plenty of time for the banner image to be verified as non-vandalism (I honestly think that 24 or 48 hours is plenty already, as the change will be well out of sight on Special:RecentChanges).
I see two ways of achieving syncing of banners via bots, namely one where we check edits to Template:pagebanner here, set that change aside, and check back some time later to see if it has been changed again, if not, then the image can get linked in Wikidata. The other option involves reading the file usage paragraph on Commons some time after the file's creation or checking all banners in Commons' Wikivoyage banners of~-categories for changed file usage, then checking when the banner was last edited on enWikivoyage, and if that's been longer ago than x days, then the bot can link the image to Wikidata. The latter option however, involves three Wikimedia projects (enWV, Data and Commons) instead of two (enWV and Data), making the first way of tackling this seem the more obvious way.
Again, I doubt a bot for this purpose exists at this point in time, as I have yet to have come across a banner linked in Wikidata that hasn't been added manually. Also, if anything, I want this to not have an effect on our pagebanners. Template:pagebanner might check Wikidata listings, but by adding File:Pagebanner default.jpg as the default specified image as we are doing already and blacklisting the default banners for the bot to sync, I think we can overcome any problems here from occurring.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a day is probably enough. The prime problem that I see is how the bot will find the edits to {{pagebanner}} without checking all edits. If there is no good method, then it would perhaps be better to use database dumps instead of querying the servers. That would mean quite some delay. How often are new dumps published? Another method is for the template to have a hidden category, which the bot can check. There may be still other methods. --LPfi (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't answer anything about database dumps, but I can point at Category:Has default banner and Category:Has custom banner. Using them we can make a list of pages having a default banner at one point in time, and having a custom banner the next time they're checked (say, for instance weekly or bi-weekly) is only a partial solution as you're not capturing changes such as Custom_banner_01.jpg to Custom_banner_02.jpg. Instead, we might be fine with just checking the edit notes. Checking edits alone can filter edits to paragraphs (as pagebanners are only ever used outside of page paragraphs at the top line of the article) and edits to other namespaces that are not of interest. The edit notes, furthermore, can be filtered for words such as "banner" and "pagebanner" to create an overview of "Banner-related changes". This does require all edits to banners to have an edit note attached. We can't guarantee that, but we can still resort to database dumps every time they roll around, even if that happens every three months or every year.
Either way, my knowledge of bots is quite limited, so I'll tag the only person I know on here that does - Ryan, if you'd be so kind as to give some technical insight as well as your view on this, then please be my guest :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
We have Category:Banner missing from Wikidata, but for some reason I can't post an internal link to it - see [1]. This has 1,184 members, which shows that it is a while since the bot was run. AlasdairW (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: If I understand correctly, you're saying that the bot I am looking for does exist, but hasn't been run for some time? If so, who would I need to get in touch with to have it put back into action?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know the details of the bot, but have a look at the very bottom of Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. AlasdairW (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I remember, User:Syced operated the bot. --Alexander (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Alexander and AlasdairW. I've found one reference to the banner bot on Syced's talk page, but he never replied to it. I'll get in touch with d:User:Kizar, who has ran the bot linked at the Banner Expedition before. I'll check with him whether the bot can be ran somewhat more regularly.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
One obvious disadvantage of the one-side synchronization is that English Wikivoyage does not receive any updates on page banners and often uses mediocre banners when much better options are available. This is the case for many of the Russian and Eastern European regions, where lots of high-quality banners have been uploaded in the last 3 years. Compare, for example, Ulyanovsk Oblast with ru:Ульяновская область, and Krasnoyarsk Krai with ru:Красноярский край, not to mention Crimea and ru:Крым. --Alexander (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If the bot is used just to add banners on wikidata where none is referenced from before, it will not have any such drawbacks that I can think of. Updating the entry with better banners is much more convoluted, and probably requires manual action, at least (there are other problematic cases) if the existing entry was not that which was replaced on en-wv.
For updates, that is a separate question. People with interest in some specific article might want to look at banners, illustrations and content in articles in other languages, especially the one in the native language of the region. It would be helpful with some mechanism notifying (on the articles talk page?) about banner changes on Wikivoyage and Wikidata, new articles on the subject (destination) appearing in other languages or such articles being significantly expanded. May be a general mechanism could be introduced, but a bot could handle much of this.
--LPfi (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Since Template:Pagebanner already fetches a banner from Wikidata, it wouldn't be much of a hassle to get it (the template) to add the banner to a category such as Category:Banner not equal to Wikidata. If we get that going in all other-language instances of that template, then we can compare the outcome of those categories to see which pages have other banners than specified in Wikidata, as well as see which other-language instances of the article have different banners. Ideally we'd get a recurring bot to compare these categories and produce a list of Different pagebanner articles in one of it's userpages. At that point, people could browse through that list and compare the banners, pick their favorite and edit them manually (or in someway notify the bot of their preference and have it change it universally, but that seems somewhat too tedious). I haven't got a clue as to how realistic this solution is, but it's a solution.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
We already have category:banner missing from Wikidata. Do we need another category for basically the same task? K7L (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@K7L: I am well aware of that category's existence. The category I posed above however, collects the pages that have a different banner than is listed in the Wikidata listing, whereas missing from Wikidata reports the pages that have no banner image specified in the Wikidata entry. I'll most likely make a list of what I would want from a bot should a new one be created.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a new bot?[edit]

After some digging around I found that d:User:Kizar, who controls the bot, is rather inactive [2] [3]. Seen as how the bot responsible for the banners does not seem to be open source, isn't this a good time to gather what we would want out of a bot for this purpose should we want a new one, and possibly request a new one that is open source and can be activated by multiple users to ensure that the bot stays accessible?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I contacted Kizar but indeed s/he is even more inactive than in 2015 it seems. I also tried to do it myself using HarvestTemplates but my query does not make the difference between generic banners and custom ones so it is not usable. Requesting a bot is a good idea. Syced (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello both, sorry for the late response. I run the script yesterday. The remaining articles in the category must be fixed by hand. There are 2 issues: articles without page in Wikidata (create it manually) and articles with the banner hosted in Wikivoyage (move it to Commons). The code is awful and commented in Spanish but here it's. I can run the script again in the future if you need. Regards --Kizar (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

New bot proposal[edit]

As announced, I have made a rough list of what I look for should a new bot be requested. I don't mind being the person that ends up stepping forward and actually request the bot to be created, but I do wish to have some feedback on whether or not my view on this is shared by all of us.

The bot requires several core functions, sorted below by importance:

  1. Synchronise en-Wikivoyage banners of articles to the associated Wikidata listings in the page banner-parameter (P948) where that isn't the case yet (i.e., sync the pages in Category:Banner missing from Wikidata to Wikidata).
    • We only want the banner to be synced if the addition or change of the banner has been done more than 48 hours before the check. If not, add the article to Category:Articles with recently changed banners and have the bot come back to these first as soon as it gets restarted for another go.
  2. Check the pagebanners on en-Wikivoyage articles with what is specified in the associated Wikidata's parameter (P948). Should the two differ, then update the Wikidata listing, should the banner have been changed >48 hours before the check.
    • Again, we'd like to have the opportunity to verify. Therefore, if the time between change and check is less than 48 hours, add the article to Category:Articles with different banners than Wikidata. Once again, should the bot be done and be set back to work, it will first check that category, verify that all is good, do what it must and go on as usual.
  3. Find articles that have different banners on other-language Wikivoyage articles, and add these to Category:Articles with different pagebanners elsewhere. After this, manual review can be done to determine which of the banners is better for the article on ENWikivoyage.

The points listed above should only be done when initiated by a user that has been whitelisted to do so. Note that multiple people must be able to operate the bot, though not at the same time per se. Features 1 and 2 I recon can best be done simultaneously as it is calling the same pages in both tasks. I recon the bot can have an internal whitelist of who can initiate it and I plan to use that so that the bot doesn't fall into a limbo of non-usage, leaving the categories it is responsible for unattended without anyone being able to do something about it without doing the manual tasks themselves, as is the case now (October 2017). My general line of thought here is that the bot should always be able to be controlled by at least one active user.

Debatable points:

  • Should pagebanners get added immediately if the user is an Autopatroller or above? I think the best means of measure here is to check if the edit to the banner has been marked as patrolled. I'd like to make this a feature as to not crowd the categories (they probably will see very few members either way) should traffic and participation on Wikivoyage rise in the future. See this feature as a means of future-proofing. Autopatroller and above seems a good rule of thumb as they "are less likely to need help with formatting and following policies", as stated on the description page for the user group.
  • Is adding categories for the articles that turn out to have be created less than 48 hours before the bot checks the article a good measure to take? Should we rather have the bot leave the page alone if the article qualifies as recently edited?

Once more, please verify this view on how a new bot should work according to me. I would like for all involved to support the addition of it once the bot's creation gets requested. -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree - I do not think wikidata should override code on Wikivoyage. If there is no banner on the Wikivoyage page and is one on Wikidata then yes good idea, but if there is a different one on Wikivoyager than that named on Wikidata there could be a good reason for it. Such changes should be manual and maybe after discussion in the talk page. If there is a banner on WIkivoyage and non mentioned on Wikidata then that would also be OK to automate. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Traveler100: I might be mistaken, but I can't find any point in which I mentioned that a Wikivoyage article banner will be overwritten based on Wikidata parameters, and neither do I intend to make that a feature. Can you tell me what let you to believe that that is a goal I wish to achieve with a new bot? What I did say, however, is that if Wikidata and Wikivoyage should have different banner images specified, then the bot should overwrite the image specified in Wikidata.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I programmer reading $1 will synchronize the data. It does not state "only when default is current recent Wikivoyage value. Computers do what you say not what you mean. The sentence need to be much clearer if you think I am misunderstanding what it is asking for. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly against #2, because it means that English Wikivoyage community has some super-authority over other language versions, who typically call banners from Wikidata and do not try to store everything locally. #3 is largely irrelevant for the same reason. --Alexander (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: It isn't my intent to give ENWikivoyage authority over other-language edition, and I believe my wording is somewhat lacking in that aspect. I've reworded #3 somewhat to better reflect that. I see how #2 can be a bad change. What might be the better option then, is to give the Wikidata parameter multiple statuses, one referring to ENWikivoyage, the other to the other-language version and making sure that Template:Pagebanner can deal with this, preferring one language edition over the other, should multiple entries exist for the parameter.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Wikidata is designed to store information used by several projects. It does not make sense to duplicate on Wikidata something that is used in English Wikivoyage only. I don't think it will be approved by Wikidata either.
In fact, I have to say that I do not understand this peculiarity of English Wikivoyage about page banners. Is the concept of page banners here different from other language versions? Obviously, not. Are there many discussions about page banners? Not at all. We have 5 times more such discussions in Russian Wikivoyage, which is especially striking given the smaller size of the community. Does the English community participate in page banner contests and harvest new high-quality banners? No. So why not to use page banners from Wikidata like everyone else does? --Alexander (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with #1 only. I believe we should not ask for #2 or #3 as it would lower our chances of getting the bot implemented quickly. After #1 is done, we can start asking for additional things, but in my opinion #1 is a hundred time more important. Syced (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month update Oct. 2017[edit]

Re-energising of this project is going well. August fixed all phone number errors on the site! September, 386 edits from 12 different contributors, has improved the Chennai article. This month's goal is to have no city articles at guide status with broken external links. With help from all this should be achievable. So please join the effort. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Monarch Airlines declared bankruptcy[edit]

So apparently the fourth or fifth biggest airline of the UK went belly up. Given that they are mentioned in a bunch of articles, I thought this might be of relevance Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) ː

I have removed some of these. One complication is that the US Monarch Air Group is mentioned in some articles, and is a different company. AlasdairW (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Book reference for the whole country[edit]

Since it is possible to create books from WV articles, should we maybe properly create and have one full book for each country available, listing it right at the beginning of each country, so that users do not have to go through all the relevant articles, but simply download the book?

This could be a template linking to the book, whose pages are defined by us, a link to all relevant GPX files (or even a summary GPX), and potential sites left out from the book. The latter I think is necessary, because there could still be stubs lying around which I would not necessarily add to such a book.

What do you think? Ceever (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is in principle a very useful idea but 1.) it would introduce overhead and 2.) I'm not sure how frequently it would actually be used. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WMF refuses to spend resources on Wikivoyage[edit]

Today it became known that WMF defined Wikivoyage (as well as a few other sister projects) as the "lower impact project" that "does not merit proactive investment". After some noise from our side (talk page), the "lower impact" definition was removed, but the rest did not change. This definition distinguishes Wikivoyage from so-called "emerging communities" with which WMF "should spend more attention and resources".

It remains unclear what this definition exactly means, because different WMF staff members communicate fairly different information (see the talk page) on what "proactive investment" is, and how far-reaching the consequences can be. In the worst case, no technical features dedicated to Wikivoyage will be introduced, and no financial support will be given (e.g., one won't get a scholarship, grant, or Wikimania talk if it is related to Wikivoyage). Let me emphasize that this does not mean WMF wants to get rid of Wikivoyage, but the Foundation makes a clear assessment of Wikivoyage as a project that "does not merit support". This can also be the first step of expelling Wikivoyage as a burden for the Foundation, although statements of the contrary were, of course, made by the WMF staff.

I don't know what we can do about this, other than express our strong dissent about such a decision. The strangest part is that transparent and measureable criteria have been used in the assesment of countries and languages (more than 10 active contributors, a criterion that several language versions of Wikivoyage will surely pass). In contrast, among the projects only Wikisource and Wiktionary were chosen as "effective" and "successful", and all the rest is clearly identified as useless, but no criteria were provided. --Alexander (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your advocacy with WMF Alexander. I would agree from that discussion you linked to that there is a lack of enthusiasm from the WMF team as well as indeed conflicting statements around their support for Wikivoyage.
That said it does seem to be mostly disinterest in investing in Wikivoyage, rather than any obvious desire to stop supporting and hosting us. As far as I know (and I may be wrong) there are no missing functional requirements that are impeding our mission here that require investment to fix.
Additionally Wikidata is getting investment and that benefits us as well.
It may be more productive to work on our relations with WMF. I'm not sure where to start on that? Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if there is a plan to stop hosting Wikivoyage, nobody will say it openly until this decision is finalized and implemented. I believe there is no such plan (so far), but the response of Asaf Bartov is dismaying, because it openly says "we don't care about you", which is the first step to further decisions of this kind.
Regarding the work with the WMF, there are no urgent requests from our side indeed, but we have several pending map issues, and many other things, especially the outreach, could be done together should there be interest from their side. --Alexander (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I think this is much ado about nothing, and if the WMF does indeed have plans to stop hosting us or anything of that nature, badgering and antagonizing them as was done in the thread on Meta certainly won't help our case.
I would also like to know what sort of investment we need that we're not already getting? Perhaps the WMF's stance can be taken as an acknowledgement that we as a community are fairly self-sufficient and low-maintenance. That can't be bad, can it?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If you write articles and select them for Destination of the month, you do not need any investments indeed. However, broader activity requires resources, and we have listed many of such issues during the strategy discussion. Not all of them are specific to Wikivoyage. For example, offline version is a much broader development, but it should be customized to our needs in order to be useful. --Alexander (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe we should scale down our ambitions to a more realistic level. Look, your argument might be more persuasive to me if the WMF were some huge megacorporation that raked in billions of dollars a year in profits yet refused to reinvest any in its product. But in reality, it's a not-for-profit in charge of a group of hugely popular websites that require vast amounts of resources, and that has only so much money to work with. Obviously the money it does take in has to be triaged where it's needed the most. I love Wikivoyage, but I'm not blind to the fact that we're a drop in the bucket compared to Wikipedia and some of the other Wiki-sites. It's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think there's anything unfair about it, or that we're being singled out. Our importance relative to the other WMF sites simply is what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Some further thoughts: Our importance relative to the other WMF sites is not a static thing, either. Wikivoyage may be a small community, but it's at least active, which is more than can be said for a lot of the Wiki-sites that the WMF put in the same category as us. Furthermore, as has been reported elsewhere on this site, Alexa rankings over the past year or two indicate that the slow-motion death of Wikitravel continues apace. At the present moment, Wikitravel still gets a good deal more user traffic than us, but that will gradually cease to be the case as their information becomes more and more outdated and overrun with spam and touting. It stands to reason that Wikivoyage will be the new destination of many of those disaffected former Wikitravel users, especially given the superficial similairities between our two sites (use of the same MediaWiki software, etc.) Meanwhile, pageview statistics for Wikipedia and many of the other large Wiki-sites are gradually declining (down about 50% since 2012, in fact!), so perhaps it's only a matter of time before Wikivoyage's profile is raised by comparison and we'll be in a better position for the WMF to justify proactive investment in us. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Andre, I think you argue with the points that I did not make. I don't say that Wikivoyage should receive more attention than Wikidata or Commons, but in fact Wikidata and Commons should receive more attention than they currently have, and we will benefit from this too, see our contribution to the strategy discussion.
The current discussion is about something different. We put big "developed" projects aside, and compare smaller projects to decide which of them should be prioritized. Then we see that any Wikipedia with more than 10 editors and more than 750,000 speakers gets on board ("emerging projects") and Wikivoyage does not, although we have way more than 10 active editors and a huge language community behind us. Do you think it's fair? --Alexander (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: You wrote, "e.g., one won't get a scholarship" but the FAQ on the linked page says that (emphasis added) "Also, investment in emerging communities (e.g. grants given, staff visits, mentorship, stakeholder groups) will be tracked and reported on by the Community Resources team. (this has been tracked since early 2016.)" What, in principle would be a thing that Wikivoyage needs in particular? E.g. work on maps continues in MediaWiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't understand your question. Is it about scholarships? I don't know how they are distributed exactly, but it reads quite clearly that the "emerging communities" will get most of it, and we are not treated as an "emerging community". As for the technical features, there are many, see the current discussion on my talk page, as well as our contribution to the strategy discussion. --Alexander (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: I've obviously stayed up too late. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Scholarships would be nice, but hardly vital to what we are doing here. Also we've been going on WMF since 2013, so in 'internet years' I don't feel we that qualify as an emerging community any more, and possibly WMF is saying that we are running fine as things are.
If we really want to look on the paranoid side of things, I honestly think that it would take WMF much more effort to wind us down than leave things going. It isn't any significant infrastructure and hardware to keep a DVD sized travel wiki running. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is troubling that Wikimedia seems to have adopted a "we don't care about Wikivoyage" approach. I also don't quite understand why some rinky-dink 11 contributor wiki in a made-up language should get more attention than en-WV. I know that de-WV was for quite some time carried by a Verein (an action so stereotypically German, it's almost offensive), and maybe that's something worth looking into "just in case", but I think we as Wikivoyage could benefit from - for example - being able to fetch data for listings automatically from other language editions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A clarifying point. The article Alexandar links to on Meta is not representative of the Foundation's investment as a whole. It is specifically part of defining a specific team's focus on "emerging communities". The English Wikivoyage in particular is quite healthy. This is good. Myself and other WMF staff continue to work with you all here with product features, bug reports, and updates on what's happening across the projects - things that benefit this project directly or indirectly. Asaf, the gent in charge of helping define the term "emerging communities", is merely reflecting "This reflects status quo", which if you agree or don't, is just stating the current situation for his efforts, not demoting Wikivoyage in any way. Please, I want to keep working with you all. Let's remember we're all on the same team here. Ckoerner (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ckoerner, phrases like "Include as "emerging communities" the moderately successful sister projects that have higher potential impact" clearly demote everything that is excluded from the list of "emergent communities". Wikivoyage has been classified as having lower impact and not even moderately successful. I don't think such phrases make any good, no matter how many times you and your colleagues try to soften them. But the most interesting question for me is how this assessment is done. What makes the project (not the language, not the country, but the sister project) an emerging community? --Alexander (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Alexander, you sound upset and I'm not sure there's anything I can say to make you feel better. I'm sorry for that. To your question, please take a look at the page on Meta again. Asaf, and the folks engaging in discussion on the talk page, are trying to figure out the answer to your question. There is presented rationale. Folks might not agree with it, but an attempt is being made to assess the situation - in the open with participation from whoever shows up. I would personally love to see the foundation have resources to proactively support every project, in every language, and beyond. I also know that resources are limited and we have to think about where we spend them for the largest impact across the entire movement. It sucks and I understand why you are frustrated.
If you want to argue with folks, that's not going to get us collectively very far. If you want to argue for Wikivoyage - that it should be considered an emerging community and receive proactive support from the Community Engagement department (rather than the current investment) - then let's do that together. There's a lot of smart people here on Wikivoyage. Organize and make the argument that this project should be included. It doesn't mean it will, but it's far more productive than what's happening now. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
CKoerner (WMF), it's hard for me to make an argument when the very notion of the "emerging community" for sister projects remains undefined. Therefore, I am really curious to see this definition. --Alexander (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

On a meta-level it seems very unclear what exactly the WMF is trying to communicate and it would appear that some here may misunderstand what you're saying or not saying. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It just seems that the distribution of grants and scholarships from this part of WMF for emerging communities will likely exclude Wikivoyage in future. It may seem unfair to some, and you can read into that what you will, but I don't see it as the first step on the path to removing support and jettisoning Wikivoyage from WMF. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit unclear on what this "emerging communities" project is or what it's supposed to do. That said, my concern is that a "deprioritising" of specific, individual projects may be occurring on a broader scale. If it eventually impacts things like MediaWiki extensions and WMF technical development, we're vulnerable. There are quite a few extensions, like the page banners, various sidebar links to "related" content, mw:extension:Kartographer and mw:extension:Geocrumbs, on which we are absolutely reliant – but which aren't in widespread use (or any use) in other WMF projects. Development of these features could easily, silently grind to a halt... and no, this (euphemistically: "‎Projects: rephrased for clarity") doesn't make anything more clear. The original was clear enough, while the revision is deliberately ambiguous and clarifies nothing. We're not a priority? Say so... and give us some idea of what that means in terms of technical support for new project-specific features. We do need transparency in this regard. K7L (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. See also the discussion here. First,
The Maps team has tried to support Wikivoyage throughout and continues to work with the communities on issues and requests as they are brought up
Two days later,
If and when we get the chance to expand the functionality of maps, we'll be sure to reach out to the Wikivoyage community to get their feedback, concerns and desires for improvements
Of course, all WMF staff members are keen enough to create an impression of their interest in Wikivoyage, but the message behind it emerges clearly. --Alexander (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow, this seems like a big overreaction, guys. My understanding here is that by "proactive support", the WMF is referring to work to bootstrap an "emerging community" from little activity to robust activity by investing in outreach efforts. It's "proactive" because the smaller communities don't have the volunteers available to research their needs and request help from the WMF grant process. Wikivoyage, on the other hand, is large enough and active enough that we can advocate for ourselves and don't need "proactive support"; our support is "reactive" and outside the scope of this initiative. Powers (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it though? Other than very weird - and not tailored to us - bot dropped messages on here we don't seem to be getting much attention from WMF. Certainly less than some tiny WPs in made up languages. And as for "emerging" communities - well they could try and launch es-WV into relevance. For such a large language, the community is diminutive... But if I don't misread WMF they have totally excluded even the possibility of any WV version being so assessed...Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you do misread. Where do you get the idea they've walled off that possibility? Powers (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Here one reads Exclude from "emerging communities" all Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikispecies projects, in all languages. Isn't it clear enough? --Alexander (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
"When considering a given project in a given language in a given country, all three axes matter, and it is sufficient that one axis is emerging to be eligible for 'emerging communities' support." That means that a Wikivoyage language version could be included if its language or country meets its criteria. And even if one doesn't meet the criteria now, it may in the future.
This "emerging communities" initiative is a replacement for WMF's previous "Global South" campaign. They're looking to outreach to underserved populations and put money where it's going to do the most good to grow those communities. English Wikivoyage doesn't need that. Powers (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You are the first person who reads it this way. "Wikivoyage is excluded in all languages" means it is excluded, and at least the responses of Asaf Bartov on the meta talk page leave a clear impression that Wikivoyage will not be included in any form. Moreover, the other axes do not really help us, because most Wikivoyages belong to the developed communities language-wise and country-wise, even if they are dormant as Wikivoyage communities.
Now to your statement that "English Wikivoyage does not need that". First, we don't know what "all that" means. The proactive support is vaguely defined. As you can see from the statements by Maggie Dennis (WMF) on the same meta talk page, they hardly draw a clear line between the proactive and reactive support, especially in terms of the grants. So any support will be reduced. It has to be like that in any grant system, where demands always exceed the resources available.
Finally, you say that English Wikivoyage does not need outreach in less developed countries and in countries with less developed Wikimedia communities. This implies that English Wikivoyage targets travelers from a few developed countries and is not interested in locals' input even from less-developed European countries, let alone remote places in Africa or Asia. I don't agree with that. --Alexander (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that my concept of what they're trying to do is closer to their intent than "Wikivoyage sucks, we're not going to provide them any support." I suspect much of the confusion arises due to exceedingly poor word choice on the part of the author, whom I suspect is not a native English speaker. Powers (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the 'issue' is down to lack of interaction between this community and WMF as a whole. The reason is that we haven't actually needed to talk much (and vice-versa). As I asked before, I'm willing to hear how WV members can enter discussion with the wider WMF community in a productive manner. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, if WV folks would like to talk, about this particular conversation or in general, I am happy to help foster that communication. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well apparently Hindi WV has just been launched and it might conceivably need the same kind of help that a small WP version might need. Will WMF even consider such support? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a "go listing" thingy to the standard edit box[edit]

Right now in the standard edit box there is a one-click listing maker shortcut for all existing types of listing (including the "listing" listing) except "go". Can this be changed? And I would suggest a charming little steam engine (like so) or maybe a EMU coming right at you (like so) as the symbol. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


Yamanashi is a city in Yamanashi Prefecture, but currently Yamanashi links to the prefecture. It should follow the many other cities with the same name as the prefecture (ex: Okayama/Okayama (prefecture), Yamagata/Yamagata (prefecture), Tochigi/Tochigi (prefecture), etc) and Yamanashi should be about the city while the prefecture should be moved to Yamanashi (prefecture). I realize that since Yamanashi (prefecture) is a redlink, I can easily do it myself, but since the Yamanashi article will become its own city article, I want to make sure that an admin is not required to ensure attribution is not lost. Does something need to be done before moving the page? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case no. You can do the move, which keeps the existing history in the prefecture page. Then go back to the what will then be a redirect page an simply overwrite the redirect with a city template to start work on the city article. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I just see this discussion, and it is pure coincidence that just a few hours ago I redirected the empty Yamanashi article to Yamanashi prefecture. Yamanashi City is really just a small part of the wide city of Kofu (maybe not legally but in the mind of most people). Yamanashi City/Koshu/Fuefuki should all be covered in the Kofu article, until it becomes big enough that splitting starts making sense. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is "The London Eye" located - at Lambeth or South Bank?[edit]

As of now it appears as a listing in both of those articles. As for as I understand though, it should only appear in the Lambeth article. Please correct me if I'm wrong. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say the opposite actually. It should appear in the South Bank article. It is in the borough of Lambeth, but that is not the same as our Lambeth district article. From Lambeth's Understand section: "This destination covers most of the borough of Lambeth, except for a chunk around Waterloo station that is covered under South Bank. " The South Bank article covers parts of the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark (as indeed the area known as the South Bank does in real life). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
On a related theme, the map on our Lambeth article has territory overlapped with South Bank. Over on Commons, someone had 'fixed' your original version of the map, which was correct, and replaced it with a map which showed the borough of Lambeth rather than the WV district. I reverted to your earlier version, ויקיג'אנקי, and assume it will update within a couple of hours. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed The London Eye listing from the Lambeth article. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice one ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

{{Mapframe}} vandalism[edit]

It becomes a really bad practice that some of our fellow users, more importantly the admins, are damaging layout of this wiki pages by consistently adding {{mapframe}}s without any effort to adjust the parameters and checking how the result of their activity affects the layout of these pages.

It's usually just bare {{mapframe}} is thrown into there, usually into the "Get around" section. But in the most of the cases this changes make damage to the articles structure.

One particular example is the user @Ibaman:, so I wrote once a note at the User talk:Ibaman:

Hello @Ibaman:, the way you were adding mapframes recently to a few pages, in Sicily in particular (Special:Diff/3151032) simply damages their layout. These mapframes bump into another section, "See" in in this case, so if there are any photos in this section they are get pushed into irrelevant location causing also a "domino effect". So you're essentially damaging the work done by other people. That's why I was asking you to be more creative.

Please consider: mapframes are optional. It makes sense to have one at a page if it adds a value and improves readability of a page, not the opposite. So if you're adding one to an article please format and place it accordingly.

BTW If you read more carefully the page you posted a link to at your comment to Special:Diff/3151032 then you'll learn that "Static or dynamic maps are usually displayed in this (Understand) section, if present" Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it#Understand. Also note that this passage does not use a verb must. So again this is a reference to your creativity.

Hope this makes sense. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ibaman didn't bother answering and continued meticulously throwing bare {{mapframe}} here and then.

Now @Andrewssi2: comes along:

Hi, just to say that we do require maps on destination articles. If you don't like the dynamic one, then feel free to create a static one instead. Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note there is no any reference these, so without any grounds Andrewssi2 throws another mapframe and opens a discussion at the Talk:Tempio_Pausania:

User:Vadp seems to think that adding a map to this article is vandalising his/her work. This isn't how Wikivoyage works since everyone can contribute accurate and useful information. Additionally the status of each article will depend on having a map : Wikivoyage:City_guide_status so it isn't actually optional. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, in Wikivoyage:City guide status the map is just mentioned at the Guide level: "preferably including a map", and it's only at Star level the map becomes mandatory. This article still needs a place where you can sleep before it's even Usable. Also, normal sized mapframes do in my opinion take up a disproportionately large space in short articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
But surely that is sufficient indication that maps belong on articles on Wikivoyage? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Maps in the current form do unfortunately belong in the articles, but AFAIK they haven't so far been so important that we have required them for outline status. Otherwise they should maybe be included in the article templates.
If it was up to me, though, maps should be implemented in an expandable section like they've done in the Russian (and perhaps other language versions) WV and in addition be openable in small windows next to the icons in listings. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

For me @Ypsilon: is quite right there. In many cases mapframes are too obtrusive, especially if used without considering their placement and dimensions. More over they are also ininformative, see again Special:Diff/3292776: POIs make a formless swarm there each of them is indistinguishable from each other and they cover over the poor town's location, so you don't see a thing of it.

So how would you call that? It's a {{Mapframe}} vandalism!

I'm not against a "dynamic map" per se. You just need to be sure it is adding something to an article, not damaging it --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I can only recommend to follow the recipe of Russian Wikivoyage and place dynamic maps into the collapsible environment. Then they do not take place on the page and can be extended to the full page width. Additionally, a button can be used to open the map in the full-screen mode. Such a button is in fact available in the top right corner (across the breadcrumb navigation), but for some mysterious reason this button links to the old map interface (via, which does not support full functionality of the existing map templates.
Current usage of {{mapframe}} can be turned to optional. The in-line map has one major advantage of being visible, but it only makes sense in long articles, where maps do not break the formatting. --Alexander (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think sticking the mapframe into the "get around" section simply follows Wikivoyage:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Embed_a_dynamic_map, and a consistent location helps the traveler to easily find the dynamic map on the page. Also, dynamic maps (together with the listing coordinates) are one of the best features on wikivoyage, and shouldn't be hidden away. Regarding the structure of the page: as far as I understand image positions are floating and users with different screen sizes (mobile, wide-screen, etc.) will see them at different positions in the page anyway. Xsobev (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the images float, but they should not be too far away from their text. For example, this layout looks very untidy and simply unappealing. --Alexander (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call adding maps to the articles vandalism, after all they're standard things produced by the community, but I myself refrain from adding maps to articles that have little content. It's different with articles that actually have tens of listings. And yes, I would strongly support having the dynamic map laid out like in ru-WV (also see my comments here Wikivoyage_talk:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Layout_of_maps). --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If you don't like Dynamic Maps, then by all means discuss them. You do not however own the layout of articles and Dynamic Maps are a completely valid component. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The example Alexander gives above does look less than ideal, but IMO the solution is to move the misplaced photo of a ==See== listing out of the ==Get around== section, rather than to move (or remove) the map.
(I don't like collapsed content, which produces accessibility problems.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the principle of floating images we use in Wiki's makes it impossible to create a perfect page lay-out. Yes, SOMEONE can make it look perfect, but that is on on THAT SOMEONE'S computer with THAT SOMEONE'S graphical preferences, with THAT SOMEONE'S browser, with THAT SOMEONE'S browser preferences, and with THAT SOMEONE'S Wikivoyage preferences. In any other situation it can look quite different. So, creating a perfect lay-out is a waste of time, I think. Photo's and other images like a {{mapframe|...}} are best placed near the text that is relevant to that image. A <gallery> might be the only way to control the position of images in a page. --FredTC (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the problem with the layout (such as it is a problem) is that he tried to add too many photos against too little content and then decided having the map component didn't work for him. Basically add more content or prune some photos. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrewssi2 simply is not able to admit that he's wrong. He was wrong from the start: for what ever reason he decided for himself of something and tried to force others to obey his orders. Many of the articles in this wiki looks clumsy and now I understand why: some of the admins are happy doing mechanical changes to the articles (User:Ibaman in particular, perhaps for the sake of raising their's edit ratings), but they don't care if a page looks messy.

This discussion misses one crucial point: it's not about where to put a mapframe but if a particular page needs it and if it does then how. None of the changes at the poor Temio's page is trying to play with size and the other parameters of this feature. It all looks untidy. My plea for creativity is simply missed.

By my own experience a good photo is quite important as it gives more information than many words. In many cases that's a good photo, not a map, which inspired me to go and see something. You've got an access to a map anyway -- it's just a click away --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not that mere adding a mapframe is wrong, but persistence in making a damage is vadnalism. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet another thing. As I wrote earlier Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it#Understand suggests maps to go into the "Understand" section. It seems to be quite logic: that's where a reader is to find an overview of a destination --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "where you can stick it" should be changed as "get around" is a much more logical place to put a map. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment you want to go around in a city, you would like to se a streel level map. However, in the Understand section, you want to know where the destination is located inside a larger area (country, region, province, ...). So a locator map is best placed in the Understand section. And also not documented in Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it is the location of another type of map: a region map. --FredTC (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We don't usually use locator maps. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, the example pages I looked at have them (several Sicily pages). --FredTC (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
For bottom-level articles, it would be best to place maps in "Get in"/"Get around" to leave the space in "Understand" free for photographs. For regions (or huge cities which have districts under them) the map showing the subregions should be in the "Regions"/"Cities" or "Districts" section as appropriate. I think we've always done it that way for top-level regions (the region map is next to the region list for something like Atlantic Canada or New York State which has other regions under it); WYCSI should be revised to reflect this. K7L (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record: In my opinion, any article in Wikivoyage without a map is incomplete. Maps have always been, since time immemorial, one of the most (if not THE most) useful tools for the traveler; traveling is about geography, about assessing and making decisions about options and distances and directions and possibilities: it's always best to have a map - even better to have one that can be zoomed in and out and shows POIs in different colors. I really like and stand by our beautiful feature of dynamic maps. I really don't like to see a well-edited article, full of POIs, without a dynamic map; it's INCOMPLETE. I care for the completeness and usefullness of our online travel guide; couldn't care less for my "ratings" (don't even know what are these). I don't and never did take "orders" from Andrewssi2 or any other Admin, it's just a matter of us having been Admins for a very long time, and sharing clear notions of Wikivoyage policy, consensuses achieved, visual style, page homogeneity, and so on. Ibaman (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Vadim Shlyakhov - you are the one who has been been wrong through this whole sorry discussion. You do not own any article on English Wikivoyage and you have insulted me and others throughout. You are trying to prevent the traveler from accessing useful information with maps - I recommend you cease now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
* I reject the vandalism attribute altogether. Maps are a major feature for Wikivoyage as well as images. I usually don't put in a dynamic map until there are at least 5 or more POIs - where to place a mapframe is in all actuality an open question and generalized suggestions for me are acceptable (Understand or Get Around or Regions or Cities etc.) depending upon what you wish to convey and the various concerns such as type of article, amount of text, visual presentation etc. To make things more complicated - you can place multiple mapframes in an article as well if so desired. (ie. an added mapframe in a See section containing 20+ listings. The unique mapframe showing only those particular POIs or perhaps a separate mapframe for highway/train/route or hiking trail). I would suggest that one use Common Sense in its use and review (examine) the page when used. -- Matroc (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that maps are a great feature. I will generally add a map to a city article if I am editing it and two or more listings have lat/longs. Occasionally I will move the images after adding the map. I usually add maps to "Get around", as I thought that was the preferred position. As an experienced editor I know that I can also get a map from the icon above the banner, or by clicking on the number next a listing, but I know from observing others that most readers do not realise this - adding a visible map to the article is the best way to show that we have a map. AlasdairW (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Maps are essential to any serious travel guide, in order for travellers to visualise where the individual places our guide is talking about actually are, how far they are away from each other etc... it's pretty basic stuff. Given the desperately sorry state of many of our static maps and how difficult it is to create a decent one, compared to the few clicks it takes to insert a dynamic map that updates itself over time, dynamic maps have become an invaluable tool. Frankly, trying to remove valuable information for what seem to be purely aesthetic reasons shows misplaced priorities. We are here to serve the traveller; creating a beautiful-looking article should be a consideration, but it is not the primary concern. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Look, we've come to a pretty clear-cut and overwhelming consensus on this issue; one whose result was, frankly, never in any serious doubt in the first place. Given that, I don't think it serves any real purpose for every last Wikivoyager to chime in on this thread with yet another variation of "WTF, of course I'm in favor of adding maps to articles", and neither is it probably necessary for Andrewssi2 to attempt to clarify a policy to spell out in black and white what should already be common sense. Instead, what we have here is one community member whose refusal to accept a consensus that disagrees with him has led to edit warring and borderline uncivil behavior. If that continues, it's likely a matter for Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, not the pub. But let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet: until we see such a continuation of behavior, let's just let the matter die here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is missed[edit]

So please take an effort to read the following:

This is not about mapframes are good or bad. It's about mechanical adding it without taking care of a page content.

As to vandalism

It happened that quite often my edits in this wiki are quickly followed by User talk:Ibaman is adding unadjusted mapframes.

I've fixed a few of them, but then I'd asked User talk:Ibaman to take more care with this activity and consider placement and parameters of these mapframes as this activity is damaging the article's layout(see above). User talk:Ibaman seemingly didn't care and didn't make an attempt to discuss the issue.

So wrote that I'll keep reverting these edits until User talk:Ibaman put more thinking in this activity

The curious ones could check the logs.

Now Andrewssi2 comes with the same. So I've opened this discussion.

Another issue

is that Andrewssi2 wrote at User talk:Vadp:

Hi, just to say that we do require maps on destination articles. If you don't like the dynamic one, then feel free to create a static one instead. Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've asked to give a reference to the relevant rule, but Andrewssi2 did not, but the statement is not true. I'll skip for the rest...

Any thoughts? --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion went in a completely wrong direction. It also revealed a common misunderstanding that map is created by adding the {{mapframe}} template, and articles without such a template lack a map. They don't. In fact, map is already there when you add at least one listing with geo-coordinates. The map is immediately available by clicking on the colored square in front of that listing, or on the map icon at the top right corner of the page.
Making map prominent by embedding it through the {{mapframe}} template may work in some cases, but in many cases it does not, and Vadim tries to articulate that. First, maps in articles like Dublin are a mess of markers. Such maps are not particularly helpful at this low zoom level, and they are not helpful at all when you read through the article and want to understand where my POI #15 is. A prominent map button opening a full-screen map will achieve exactly the same result without taking a lot of space on the page and shrinking the text to a narrow column.
Another example are articles like Olbia where the big and prominent map takes place of images that are much smaller in size. In my opinion, this layout sets wrong priorities. Travel guide should lure the traveler to visit a destination. One travels to a destination because of nice images, not because of the map. On the other hand, if I am not going to travel, map is of no use for me anyway.
Page layout is a further concern. Even if it's hard to create a layout that would be equally good for all font sizes and screen widths, articles should look tidy, and with big mapframes they sometimes don't.
Altogether, throwing large mapframe on every page is not a good solution. There should be some flexibility behind using mapframes. --Alexander (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"A prominent map button"? Would this be something like the links to the individual region maps in Trans-Canada Highway? I think they were {{maplink}}. As for requiring maps in articles? They're not required for "usable" city status, but should exist in "guide" articles and must exist for a "star". K7L (talk)
Yes, kind of. In Russian Wikivoyage, we have two of such "buttons", one right after the banner (opens map in the new window) and the second one after the first paragraph, before Understand (collapsible map). --Alexander (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I think many of us would appreciate it if User:Vadp would stop the blame game. It does not help your arguments when you are singling out individual users and accusing them of vandalism, and furthermore threatening to edit war with said users. Above all, none of this makes other editors (such as myself) want to try and engage constructively with you. So that's all I'll say to you for now.
Alexander, I agree to an extent that to write a travel guide is to try and entice the traveller, but we have to remember that Wikivoyage is not just used by prospective travellers who are researching a destination from the comfort of home; we also cater to people on the ground, who are already travelling. I personally often use WV destination articles when I arrive somewhere; if there's no map embedded in that article, that's a serious problem. Photos must be able to fit around practical information such as listings, infoboxes and maps; if they don't fit in with the other essential stuff that our travel guide offers, then they should be the first thing to be removed.
That the map on Dublin is a "mess of markers" signals to me that Dublin should really be split into districts. It is not a reason to remove Dublin's map.
Despite saying all that, I am interested in this idea of yours: "A prominent map button opening a full-screen map will achieve exactly the same result without taking a lot of space on the page and shrinking the text to a narrow column." Other editors, is there a reason why we don't do this? The requirement for a printable article doesn't affect this, because dynamic maps don't work when printed anyway. As far as I can see, it's the same principle as on the mobile version, where each page section is closed by default until the reader chooses to open it -- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I personally often use WV destination articles when I arrive somewhere; if there's no map embedded in that article, that's a serious problem.
Why? Can't you click on any of the colored squares in front of the listings? --Alexander (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I can do that, yes. But I, as a Wikivoyage editor with close to five years' experience on this site, am not representative of the average reader, who (we must assume) does not edit here. How is someone supposed to know, unless they discover by chance, that clicking on one of the coloured numbers takes them to that place on the map? Furthermore, looking to see the precise place where a particular listing is located is not the only use for a map, but I think you know that already. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and a prominent map button may help in this case. At least as an alternative to adding mapframes everywhere. --Alexander (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I use myself this wiki (and hence my frustration) in the field using a mobile or a tablet. For such a small screen you need a separate window with a map otherwise it's not possible to read an article.
mapframes could be useful to indicate a location of a destination. But if POI markers cover up the later one completely this feature becomes uninformative.
By the way, someone could be interested to have a look at another wiki where we do tend to have builtin map frames. They are located close to the top of a page, so they are less obstructive to rest of the page and these maps are stripped off the POI marks by default. While if a full window map is called up it does display the page's POIs. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone should have look at the Bonifacio -- this is outrageous! --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's only outrageous because someone input the wrong co-ordinates for the second 'do' listing. That's not the same as {{mapframe}} itself being in any way inherently broken. K7L (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone should check a preview before submitting a change --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but the failure to do so is not worthy of anyone's outrage. Powers (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, agree, perhaps not a correct word, but then that's done repeatedly over my edits, I felt, may I say, irritated. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, Vadim, you don't own the edits, the community does. Get over this. It will make you happier and healthier. Ibaman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


I've just had a look at this page. It doesn't appear to resolve the issue. It doesn't say that:

  • that's the one who's adding a map is responsible to make it fit to the page layout;
  • the content of such a map must represent something meaningful, i.e. the map is readable: the reader can see the destination's features and the location of each POI marker clearly.

Apparently it will remain the same: someone puts a lot of effort to develop a page, then someone else adds {{mapframe}}, makes the page look messy and thinks that's a valuable contribution.

That's quite discouraging. Frankly speaking I don't see how I could continue with this --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • If it's any comfort, some years ago I spent a lot of time (weeks) fine-tuning the St. Petersburg article visually. It looked stunning on my screen. Then I went to a friend's house, to show off my Wiki-code skills. When we opened the page, it looked like crap, totally out of tune, showing several little glitches I had worked so hard on ironing out... It taught me a lesson: what really counts in the articles is the carefully collected/processed/redacted written information, this is the real precious content. Pics are secondary. Dynamic maps are very new, a work in progress and need of much programming, fine tuning, discussion and consensus-making until it will maybe start to look as polished and professional as Wikivoyage deserves. However, speaking now just for myself, I don't propose to be rid of them "in the meantime", as they are NOW so useful for the traveller and handy, and easy to use and zoom in and out, that these qualities overcome their "ugliness" and make them INDISPENSABLE to bottom-level destinations. Ibaman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks I do appreciate you answering back. Apparently we're not sharing the same taste, although that's not a reason to kill each other. But well, after what happened to my efforts at this wiki I'd better to seek for some other options for my passion -- travelling --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to make a point here: I share Vadim's view on the un-necessity of arbitrary dynamic mapframes, and I understand his frustration.

  1. IMHO, adding a arbitrary dynamic map does not automatically make the article better. It clearly depends on the circumstances, and distribution of GPS markers.
  2. Many people use non-browser based maps/apps anyhow, so they won't probably care are about a mapframe present or not in WikiVoyage articles.
  3. Other people, I encountered, print out travel information instead of using the fancy online tools, WV has. Even more reason to have a (static) mapframe in place that shows something reasonable and understandable at first sight. Here is a quote from Wikivoyage:Map: Wikivoyage pages are designed for offline use, and therefore static maps are more useful in that regard.
  4. The map frame does not work with PDF and book export. So, what are we talking about here regarding the necessity and usefulness of maps when not even fundamental functionality is given in the first place?
  5. Maybe an arbitrary dynamic map makes an article more valuable, maybe not. But you know what makes an article definitely more valuable and even adds additional value? A readable and thoughtfully created mapframe.
  6. What is confusing to me. Why is it that hard to invest 5 minutes to create a more valuable mapframe? Isn't that what we are really here for? Instead WV is sometimes filled with such quick and unthoughtful manifestations of unnecessary bureaucracy, destroying beauty and readability in the process, just for the sake of the contribution counter and personal laziness. (Something similar happened lately when the North Estonia article in three subsection was "spammed" with an ugly remark box that listings should not be used on region level. How is such blind and wild activism helpful for the traveller?)
  7. I understand and already have often encountered at WV myself that even though one has a different point of view, it makes sense what the majority of active people think here, especially if it creates consistency. However, when it comes to something like this, which is not written in stone, I really believe, WV would do better to appreciate the effort of editors (especially newer ones) and be less punitive in its opinions. (Didn't we just lately discuss, how to less deter active and useful new editor?)

TFR, Ceever (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You're conflating at least 2 issues. The "movetocity" template is not useful to travellers per se, that's true. However, the result of having detailed listings in guides for specific localities instead of region articles, which flows from the placement of that template, is good for travellers. If I want to find things to see and do in Yonkers, I'm not going to look in the articles for Westchester County, Metro New York or New York State, and if there are specific listings in any of those articles, they should be moved. If you don't like the "movetocity" template, what is your alternative? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The obvious alternative is for the editor who finds listings that should be elsewhere to just move them to the best place, instead of issuing demands via template. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

How to use maps in articles[edit]

Now that we have established the (blindingly obvious) fact that adding maps to articles is of great benefit to travellers in destination articles, I am drafting a short policy around it here: Wikivoyage_talk:Map.

There seems to be some space to discuss exactly how maps are supposed to be used in articles, so please contribute any constructive comments. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-competent Wikivoyager requesting technical assistance.[edit]

Hi, all. Earlier on, while editing, I must have pressed some button or other, either on my keyboard or on the WV interface itself. Not a great help to you, I know. But now every time I try to type some fairly common symbols into the source editing window, for instance asterisks * to create bullet points, those square bracket things [[ to make hyperlinks, the funky wavy brackets {{ for inserting templates, equals signs === for section headings etc, some other nonsense symbols appear instead. My colons ː are also all really faint now as well, which is oddly emasculating. So without waffling on too long, does anyone know what I'm talking about? Has anyone done this before, and if so, do you know how to fix it? This is only a problem on Wikivoyage; Wikipedia etc are still working as normal. Would anyone be super-kind and help me? ː-) faint smiley --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Pub help 2017-10-09.png
ThunderingTyphoons! - This sounds similar to something that happens to me from time to time. Try this. Hover over the text editing screen and then click on it. You should see a small keyboard icon at the bottom right corner, as depicted in the screenshot at right. Click on it, and make sure "Use native keyboard" is selected. If it happens again, just press Ctrl+M and all should be well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrew, that's solved the issue. Can see how it would be easy enough to switch keyboards without realising. Thanks again, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't save listing[edit]

Trying to submit something from the listing editor, I get this message: "Error: An unknown error has been encountered while attempting to save the listing, please try again: invalidsection" Not very informative. Is there some place where I can post a screen shot to have someone look at it? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter Chastain, which article were you trying to edit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to add an Eat listing to San José (Costa Rica). Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this (well concealed) touting?[edit] I would say yes, but didn't want to revert without consulting. --Renek78 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, touting. It's always the same phone numbers and hence companies. Please plunge forward and revert. Ceever (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing editor: Autofill from Wikidata[edit]

German Wikivoyage listing editor filling fields automatically (in yellow) using Wikidata

The German Wikivoyage listing editor fills fields automatically (in yellow) using Wikidata. No need to press a button, and it does not overwrite any existing data, so it is faster and safer. Could we have this too? :-) Syced (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very wary of ceding control of our content to Wikidata to that degree. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I can only see benefits to adding an image from Wikidata to a listing that has no image. Same for the other details. Once again, it does not overwrite anything. Syced (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the fact that it doesn't overwrite existing data. That's something which I really don't like from the current method in our listing editor, which will overwrite manually added coordinates etc. Drat70 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Syced, Drat70 - the discussion below about Commons deleting dynamic district overview maps is a perfect example of what can happen when we cede too much control over our content to another project. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower: Keep that argument for when we move all of our listing details to Wikidata ;-) For the time being, it is about importing public domain data into our English Wikivoyage, and as you know public domain data present in our English Wikivoyage can only be deleted by us. Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
At the German Wikivoyage we programmed our listing template completely anew. This was necessary to support data import from Wikidata. There are now more than 20 parameters which are supported. Nevertheless, authors can keep full control of the data: they can decide if and which data should be imported and they can manually overwrite all data. Storing data at Wikidata gives authors of our smaller Wikivoyages the opportunity to use these data more easily. The easiest way to prevent data deletion is to use them. Instead of images and map data, there are usually no problems with copyright, and you can watch data change in the same way as we did it in this wiki. To have an imagination what can be stored and used already today please have a view to Dorint Charlottenhof Halle (Saale) hotel. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the automatic filling is not done by the listing editor but by the listing template. The editor only shows which data are available. So you can overwrite them if necessary. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I think filling in stuff from commons or wikidata should always be done by hand and not automatically. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Copying around listings coordinates/images/etc between Wikivoyages is not the best use of our limited manpower, I believe. Syced (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic district overview maps will be deleted[edit]

I have created plenty of dynamic district overview maps and saved them in Commons. All of them are going to get deleted soon, because the district borders were traced using OpenStreetMap as a background image. OSM based files are apparently not allowed on Commons, since OSM has no CC0 license. This work took me lots of working hours. Is there anything we can do about it? Cities with those maps include Singapore, Madrid, Dubai, Munich, Kuala Lumpur, Amsterdam, Milan, Saint Petersburg and Copenhagen. If not then I'm out. Don't wanna waste my time on something, which gets deleted later on... --Renek78 (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's such a common Commons scenario. I wrote a response there. Others should do it as well, preferrably along the same lines, and I really mean you should go and write, not sit here and wait until others do it for you. The more people voice their oppose, the less chances that the files will be deleted.
The ultimate solution is storing map boundaries outside Commons (even on Wikidata, which is 100 times more adequate than the Commons community and infinitely better organized), but I don't know how to talk WMF into making this possible. --Alexander (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Renek78, a piece of personal advice, if I may. Every time you upload something on Commons, write it is your 'own work', unless it's explicitly done by others. Any additional remarks you leave will be used against you, sooner or later. That's Commons. --Alexander (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Alexander, thanks for your support and hint. I already wrote at this location. Not sure where it's better.--Renek78 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Renek78, I advise that you create a backup version of your maps either here, in the user space on English Wikivoyage, or on your computer. If maps are eventually deleted, it will be difficult to get them back. --Alexander (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I saved all the maps now on my user page.--Renek78 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"Every time you upload something on Commons, write it is your 'own work', unless it's explicitly done by others" isn't great advice. It's important to list all of your sources for copyright purposes. Powers (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Hiding anything only makes problems appear later in a more dramatic way. Syced (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I do not encourage anyone to take someone else's work and upload it as your 'own work'. On the other hand, I think that attributions make sense only if they are verifiable.
For example, if you go for a walk with your friend, two of you have one camera and make shots together, but it perfectly makes sense to upload all photos as your 'own work', unless your friend really cares and wants to upload files himself. Otherwise, you will spend weeks on arguing, sending and re-sending OTRS permissions, all for nothing.
In the map case, it is not possible to say whether free OSM or non-free Google was used for tracing the boundary, or perhaps there is an algorithm that simply creates a boundary encompassing all POIs of a given Wikivoyage article. Therefore, I think it is better to refrain from any attribution. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The main issue here seems to be the difference between Commons and WMF in interpreting license rules for the numerical data. WMF sees all numerical data as CC-0 more or less by default (see also the compulsory CC-0 licensing on Wikidata), but not everyone agrees with this. I think there is a chance that the WMF staff will interfere in one way or another, either punching Commons idiots for their meaningless interpretations of the licenses, or enabling the CC-BY-SA licenses in the Data: namespace. However, it may also happen that the issue will be stalled. Then it will only be possible to store map boundaries locally. --Alexander (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
We won't be punching anyone. We don't do that here. I've let the product folks at the foundation know about this issue and legal folks have also been contacted to see if we can help clarify some things. Personal opinion: It's very early in the discussion, but I don't think the deletion request will succeed. I think we can deescalate this from "will be deleted" to "may be deleted, but highly improbable". I do like your suggestion for folks also active on Commons to civilly join the conversation. When I get more info I'll let you all know. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the link at the bottom of dynamic maps ( Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors) cover any of this? -- Matroc (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, because it only appears when map boundary is displaced. The boundary itself (geoJSON) says it is under CC-0, not under CC-BY-SA-2.0. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF), thank you for your response and participation. The problem here is that the Commons community chooses to start deletion requests and eventually delete useful files, instead of discussing such general issues in a proper setting before pressing the Delete button. Here we are talking about content, which is free and, clearly, can be used in WMF wikis. The whole problem is whether free license A should be used instead of free license B. Unimportant as it is, this discussion may easily end up in the free content being deleted. That's outrageous. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion over at Commons is ridiculous. Some people have too much time on their hands.
A backup plan would be to implement the GeoJSON right into the article. Result is the same. Some new users might be overwhelmed by the huge amount of "weird code" in the Districts section of the article though. Example: User:Renek78/Sandbox/KL. This was a simple copy & paste from the GeoJSON at Commons. If I remove carriage returns in between the coordinates it gets a lot more compressed. What ya think? Shall we do it like this, if the maps get deleted at Commons? I'll go on a 3-days-cycling trip to enjoy the autumn. The guys at Commons should do something similar to come down a little... --Renek78 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Renek78, I do not recommend to store huge pieces of data inside the articles. You can always put them on separate pages and transclude when needed. My original solution for Russian Wikivoyage was storing all boundaries as subpages of Template:Boundary, where map boundary for the article XXX would be stored under Template:Boundary/XXX. This makes it very easy to call such boundaries, you only need to know the article name. --Alexander (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Formerly boundaries and borders were put stored under Template:GPX, so I guess this is the place to put the data.
This discussion and the one in Commons should make it clear to everyone why critical data (boundaries, Main Page banners for featured articles etc.) should absolutely be stored here instead of at Commons. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:GPX has been used for tracks in GPX format. I would not mix it with geoJSON.
Otherwise, I agree that we should store map boundaries locally. Renek78, importing the OSM lines was by all means a bad decision, not for copyright reasons (which are vague at best), but because OSM lines typically contain too many points and will slow down everything here on Wikivoyage. At some point, I played with simplified polygons, cut parts of the OSM lines and stitched them together, but that's quite some work. I am still curious how you did it. Copied the numbers point by point?
If WMF allows CC-BY-SA licenses in the Data: namespace on Commons, the current problem will be resolved. However, it would not prevent similar issues in the future, because Commons deems anything traced from a map as inheriting this map's copyright. On the other hand, it is not possible to prove which map was used for tracing. They can always claim that you traced your boundary from Google and not from OSM, and the boundary will be deleted. Therefore, uploading map boundaries to Wikivoyage should be preferred. --Alexander (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Alexander, JOSM offers an option to download a single element/relation by entering the OSM ID of that element. That's what I used to import it into the map. The problem regarding the big number of points can be solved by selecting the "Simplify way" function in JOSM. It removes excess points without changing the geometry of the polygon too much. If this wasn't enough I often recreated the polygon manually by snapping only to certain points of the original boundary. The largest district GeoJSON has about 70kb, average is like 40kb - quite reasonable, I would say. Sorry again for creating such a mess at Commons. It was a "white lie" ;) --Renek78 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It won't be deleted just because someone claims it was traced from Google. They'd have to show evidence. Powers (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It may be deleted. As you have seen yourself, it took us two days, with at least five accusations toward Wikivoyage editors, before some evidence appeared. Nevertheless, several people voted 'Delete' well before this evidence was provided. Therefore, I would not encourage any usage of Commons data unless the rules are laid down strictly and unambiguously. I started a discussion at their Village Pump, and we can see where it goes, although I don't put any hopes on that. --Alexander (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, per your statement "I am a Wikivoyage administrator, and I am not aware of any copying going on" diff; data copied to Wikivoyage such as User:Renek78/Backup/Copenhagen are not correctly licensed. An examination of Renek78's recent contributions will provide a list of the others. I'm certain you can advise contributors here about which copyright policies apply and how to respect the legal requirement of attribution when Open Street Map data is being copied. Thanks -- (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The boundaries of a province or state aren't inherently copyrightable, much like one can't copyright a fact, only copyright the wording and imagery used to express that fact. OSM didn't create the boundaries of any political entity, governments did. Soldiers then defended those boundaries by force of arms. If OSM were "inventing" borders out of imagination and whole cloth, then OSM would be factually wrong.
I believe we should stop storing anything on Commons, including map data. Demanding that users edit on three different wikis (the local Wikivoyage language, Wikidata, Wikicommons) just to create one article here makes life more difficult for users - including new users. Add to that the not-so-minor detail that, when you folks arbitrarily delete things, articles here break and the tiny advantage of being able to reuse Commons and Wikidata items across languages is not enough to counterbalance the cost to this project of having resources spread across multiple wikis. All too often, there's no notice on-wiki here that someone is trying to delete something there until it's too late. That's hurting the project. We need to bring everything local. Please? K7L (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The data and maps can be hosted here or on Commons, all that is being required is correct sourcing and meeting the legal licensing requirements of Open Street Map. Neither of these things is especially difficult. Even if the Commons:Data namespace stays CC0 only, this does not stop SVG or PNG format map files being created and used instead. -- (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No, they need to be hosted here. I'm not OK with changing the licence of our content from CC-BY-SA to CC-0 through a sneaky back-door approach of moving our data off-wiki. That the external project (in this case, Commons) is deleting our content so that our articles break is only insult added to injury. The placement of this data on Commons should never have been done, and needs to be reversed immediately by the original contributors. Sorry. K7L (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have never advocated moving everything to Commons. Even if local, the copyright restrictions of Open Street Map apply. -- (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The question of who advocated moving the content to Commons is irrelevant, although it looks have gone wrong here: RolandUnger's comment Jan 10 2017, phab:T154908 "We should accept that all traces will be stored at Commons or OpenStreetMap. Traces cannot be copyrighted. Therefore I do not see causes to remove them with rationales as known for images. For this reason we must not store them locally."
If you're now proposing to copyright the legally-defined boundaries of provinces and nations, the reasoning which placed this data on Commons nine months ago is thereby broken and the mistake of placing this data there instead of on the local wiki now needs to be corrected. I couldn't care less who did this, it just needs to be fixed. K7L (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No one's proposing to copyright boundaries of provinces and nations. What's copyrightable is a particular map's representation of those boundaries. If we copy the data points from another map, that's a potential copyright violation. Powers (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not administrator here (I am administrator of the Russian Wikivoyage), but I do not see why the data should not be licensed as CC-BY-SA.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought facts themselves (such as coordinates) can never be copyrighted, only the way of representing them (e.g. showing borders by the means of purple lines like OSM does in the Mapnik layer). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Facts are not copyrighted, but, for example, making a database out of non-copyrightable facts creates copyright in Europe (not in the US as far as I understand). The question is then which jurisdiction applies (given that OSM is a British company) and what is the originality threshold.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
While the facts that determine a political boundary are not copyrightable, the choice of coordinates that a mapmaker might use to represent that boundary *are*. Even a non-visual representation. Powers (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
A phone number or the time of sunset are uncopyrightable facts, but when a person uses skill and judgment to add a feature to a map, that is not a fact or statistic or even independently repeatable, if it is, as in this case, captured down to a pair of unique coordinates to 7 decimals it is a representation of a legally meaningful creative work. -- (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
False precision in the seventh decimal place doesn't constitute "meaningful creative work" nor does it reflect "skill and judgement". It's just noise. K7L (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The technical detail of the way OSM works may or may not constitute false precision, but the law is clear. It makes no difference whether the creator is using a quill ink pen or a mouse and screen, if they are using their skill and judgement to draw points and lines by hand rather than publishing a an entirely computer generated scan with no possible variation introduced by human judgement, then the creator has a valid claim of copyright. -- (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
They're not using skill or judgement. They're merely tracing a line which was already drawn by governments years or even centuries earlier. This does not create a new, original creative work. K7L (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That is a different point. If the original data can be verified as public domain, then an attempt accurately to reproduce it may also be public domain. It would depend on the case as to whether the person doing the tracing added any significant creative judgements to the way it was presented. -- (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For those interested in whether Wikimedia Commons policy for the Data namespace should allow for maps like exports from Open Street Map (which are already allowed in other formats), a proposal based on previous discussions has been created at c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal to include non-CC0 licenses for the Data namespace. -- (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing editor won't let me save[edit]

A few minutes ago I tried to use the listing editor to fix the dead link for the United States embassy in Montevideo. But when I clicked "Submit", I got a pop-up message saying "Please ensure the email address is valid". As far as I can tell, the listing editor won't let me save my changes unless I do something to fix the email field. I don't know what the best way to fix the email field is, and I would guess I'm not the only one, so I think this feature may discourage people from editing listings (especially new users). If a user is trying to use the listing editor to make a change to a listing, and the listing has some problem (like a misformatted email field) that's unrelated to the change they're trying to make, I think they should be able to save the change without fixing the problem that they may well not know how best to fix. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Just fix in the page source, not the listing editor :)
Although looking t that example, we should list 3 different email addressed (which is the cause of the validation issue). I have no idea which email I should use and therefore the content is nearly useless. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I did finally switch to the page source. My concern is that new editors may just give up instead of trying to figure out if there's another way to edit the listing. I don't know, maybe most of our new editors come from Wikipedia, in which case it wouldn't really matter. But if we want to attract new editors who aren't already familiar with editing wikis, I think it would be good to adjust this feature. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem described is not only a problem of the listing editor. Both the editor and the listing template accept only one email address: please check the email addresses in the article of Montevideo carefully. All three email addresses are linked with the same. In case of the template, this cannot be easily solved. That's why we programmed a module at the German Wikivoyage to handle more than one email address. In case of the Listing editor script you have to change the VALID_EMAIL_REGEX regular expression. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Why would any listing need more than one E-Mail Address? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's the same why we need more than one phone number: maybe one for general inquiries, one for reservation, and so on. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it the problem is not the listing template being able to handle just one e-mail address, but the listing editor requiring a random user to solve this problem before being able to save his or her contribution. The editor should verify only the changed data. Alerts for bad data should be done by visually flagging them (for opt-in i.e. experienced users) and by maintenance categories. --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, that's the point I was trying to make. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Flagging bad data is necessary [unfortunately not done now] but should not be the only solution: a random user can solve the problem himself if anybody will tell him that only one email address is allowed. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if the random user somehow knows the problem is that only one email address is allowed, it's not obvious which of the email addresses should be kept, at least not without further research. Anyway, I think it's inherently discouraging if you try to make an edit and the interface tells you, "You can't save the edit unless you fix this completely unrelated problem." —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The end of an era (just for fun)[edit]

Brave passengers board last ever Flight 666 to HEL on Friday 13th. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear Bruce Dickinson is out of work. :( For anyone who doesn't get it, he's the singer in the heavy metal band Iron Maiden (which some people consider "Satanist") but also a licensed pilot who sometimes fly the band, including during one of their world tours. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Free and collaborative audio guide[edit]

Hi, I recently heard about an app for smartphone that uses phone geolocation, searches for the closest POIs and suggests an audio comments about this POI. Interested by such application, I found this app. There are maybe others that work with the same way but I di not find any. I did not find any information that let me think that is free. So I wonder wether you are aware of such free app. If it does not exist, do you think that wikivoyage could play a role? I mean we could imagine to subdivide the information given in the articles by POI in order to provide information need by this kind of apps. As a free project, the descriptions could be improved and translated in many languages. Maybe you already discussed this topic, or similar one, in the past. Pamputt (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That app seems to be free, as stated in French "Disponible gratuitement". The data to make such an app is readily available as CSV at and there is even a JSON API at that allows you to get the information of the Wikivoyage listings around a given latitude/longitude :-) App developers are encouraged to reuse Wikivoyage data as long as they comply with the license. Syced (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. It seems that a lot of work has already been done. Hope that some dev would have a look on it in the future. Pamputt (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:How_to_re-use_Wikivoyage_guides explains the rules for reusing WV content. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, here is a great app that reuses Wikivoyage information on Android. It is free, open source, based on Kiwix, and of course works offline. It has no audio though. Syced (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Time formatting[edit]

I haven't quite understood what is the proper time formatting to be used on the English WV.

Should this also reflect the local situation?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Short answer, yes: Wikivoyage:Time and date formats. Best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Page Banner Glitch[edit]

I am curious to know why some page banners appear in spite of the image link not being to that banner. Look at Miyagi and Naruko, or Yamanashi (prefecture) and Yamanashi. The cities show the same banner as the prefectures but the image links for the banners are different. It seems that the bridge image is meant for the Naruko page and the Fuji picture belongs only on the Yamanashi (prefecture) article. Is this a glitch? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that both Miyagi and Naruko have had the same banner assigned on their Wikidata pages (here and here). You can correct this by changing the linked images in the respective page banner fields. –StellarD (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I followed the link but I have no idea where I'm supposed to edit... Do I edit something within the link? Or is it from Wikivoyage? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
To change the banner for Miyagi Prefecture, for example, go to the relevant wikidata page (it's in the left sidebar of every Wikivoyage article) and scroll down under the section 'Statements' to the field with 'page banner'. Here the linked image is 'Miyagi banner.jpg'; you can change this by clicking on the edit link immediately to the right of this (with the pencil icon) and copy/pasting the name of the preferred file, and then clicking 'save'. You don't need to worry about any of the other wikidata fields. –StellarD (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Should cardinal directions be written out always, abbreviated always or some mix?[edit]

I am asking in part because of this edit to Corsica where cardinal directions are abbreviated. I think this looks inelegant. What say ye? Does the manual of style say anything on the issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Abbreviations implies that style favoring abbreviations should be limited to listings, which further implies that we should use standard English prose style outside of listings. Powers (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please blockade for Alonso menezes, Zuka 2017 and Alonso 2017 of user[edit]

Please blockade for Alonso menezes, Zuka 2017 and Alonso 2017 of user, cause them misusing Commons by sharing nonfree files. and focus as ...2017 or Alonso... new user. thanks!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

These users are all already globally blocked. There's no need to bring a dispute from Commons here if they've done nothing here. K7L (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK! --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File Spam - now pictures[edit]

We have been successful in stopping video/audio spam being uploaded to WV as per Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#File_Spam. The upload page was altered and it stopped that issue completely.

Now it seems there is picture file spam, which is harder to deal with. Given that there are relatively few use cases where a new contributor needs to upload an image file to WV (as opposed to uploading a CC compliant image to Commons), can we add further restrictions as to who can do this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a tough one. If we're going to restrict people from uploading files, our choices (and please correct me if I'm wrong about the following) are either to allow only autoconfirmed users or to allow only admins. The former is too permissive, I think - all the pirates would need to do to circumvent the restrictions is wait a few days after establishing an account before uploading - and the latter is of course too heavy-handed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Actually, that few day cool-off period will probably remove a solid 80%+. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that restricting to Admins would be too much. Observing the patterns of video spam, it does seem the spammers hoard up accounts for use later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would support restricting this to autoconfirmed users, with regret. Restricting it to admins is IMO ludicrous because there are a whole bunch of trusted users who'd be excluded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
But how effective would that really be? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Some wikis do have their own user groups for this, although of course there's the extra overhead of requesting/adding the group. --Rschen7754 02:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"a project to visualize global weather conditions."[edit]

Interesting application. Open Source with a reasonable license, though for all I know using it here might involve license complications. Hosted on Github. Pashley (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we have some tool that grabs the flight lists of WP?[edit]

So there is a bit of an inconsistency because we never made consistency a priority there, but the "by plane" sections and airport articles sometimes list which airlines do which flights and sometimes they do not. Problem is, those lists tend to get outdated rather fast and easy. Now it appears to me that the WP articles for certain airports tend to have comparatively well maintained lists of the airlines that fly to a certain airport and the destinations on offer. Copying (and maintaining) them by hand is a task worthy of Sisyphus, but having a link to WP and telling our readers "go find out yourself" is probably not ideal, either (though the WP button would be another argument in favor of listing instead of marker templates). Can we write some code that can grab the list and put it in a format that doesn't botch up everything here so we can include it? Or should we just not list any flights at all? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we should not have lists of airlines in the by plane section, but it's ok to have them in an airport article. My reasoning is the same as yours: lists get outdated fast and easy. In the By plane section, if there's an airport article it will probably be linked. I wouldn't be opposed to something automated that pulls it in from WP so long as it's easy to use. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If there is such a tool, I support using it for listing flights in airport articles. For city articles tables of flights are probably a little bulky, unless they can be put in an expandable box (those that are folded away by default that you can see in some WP articles, for example "Airports in Yunnan" and "Airports in China" in w:Kunming_Changshui_International_Airport#External_links). ϒpsilon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is better not to try and maintain a comprehensive list of flights, even in WP. We just need to describe the main destinations (i.e. City X has connections to most major cities in South East Asia). The travel industry invests a lot of money in online tools that will allow the traveler to work out their best flight options, and there is really no need for us to try and address this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If an airport is served by more than three airlines, there is no point in listing them, just say how many, and mention any that use it as a major hub. Similarly saying the number of destinations and daily flights gives the reader an idea of the scale of the airport - in many cases the airport's website will give the details. Airlines with only two planes serving remote locations are a different matter, these may not show up in online tools and are worth mentioning (e.g. Great Barrier Island). AlasdairW (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Saint_Helena_(island) has just started its one flight a day to Johannesburg, and it is fine to provide detail on that. I'd say anything larger is pointless to track here on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia does try to maintain those lists. Even for the Heathrows and LAXs of this world. And they even have stats for certain flights. And it seems that you underestimate the sheer gall some airlines have in establishing a hub in some place and then turning around with a "nevermind" attitude. Sure, Lufthansa is married to FRA, Delta similarly won't abandon ATL and the classic flag carriers seem tied to their capital hubs. But other than that? Ryanair has made and broken quite a few former dusty military airfields into airports with two, three even more million pax per annum. And now many of them have nothing. And there are still many people who seem to be unaware of a lot of travel options. The success of some businesses seems to depend on customers not knowing of any other options. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up of "Eat" section in articles[edit]

I've started my own version of WikiProjects (well, a smaller version), cleaning up the Eat section of articles, and trying to give more context to the restaurants beyond address, and trying to write them objectively, to NPOV.

Would anyone want to help me on this, perhaps if Wikivoyage had a WikiProject Food (or something similar)?

Currently I'm doing this for:

I'd appreciate the help so we can make these more informative. I've only just returned to editing after months away (my last edit was June). --Walkden861 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Please notice that in Wikivoyage we don't use the NPOV principle; rather our guideline is be fair. I'm interested on what you intend to do, and will check out the links. Ibaman (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I misunderstood. Anyway, what I am intending to try and do is to clean-up parts where there's no description beyond a name and address of restaurant, or fix grammar on the Eat parts. Thank you for the link on Be fair. --Walkden861 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, Walkden861. This is one of my favorite sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Map layers button missing in dynamic map[edit]

Hi all, when clicking on one of the listing numbers to open the dynamic map, the button for the different map layers (Wikimedia, Mapnik, Relief, Groups, ...) is missing. It is shown correctly in mapframes (both original size and full screen). Does anyone know why and how it can be fixed? Thanks very much, Xsobev (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem seems with any dynamic map that is shown with the "maplink" template. A separate, but related issue: I propose to move the "layers button" (currently on the right below the "closing button") to the left below the existing buttons there. The reason for this is that in full screen mode, the "layers button" is hidden below the map details side pane, and therefore very difficult to find. Also, the default map tiles are not very useful, but this is a bigger issue probably. Xsobev (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

is it possible to make specific photos non-clickable? if so, what is the wiki code syntax necessary to do that? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For what reason would you like this to happen? I mean, if I see a nice photo in thumbnail size, I would like to click it for getting a large size version. If that image woulde not be clickable, it would be quite difficult for an average user to view the large version. --FredTC (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Voilà: [[File:Lightmatter_chimp.jpg| link= |200px|right|Chimp, but no wimp]]
Chimp, but no wimp
Instead of (including CC link):
Chimp, but no wimp
And yes, there are cases where you would need that, namely for templates and such. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Ceever :) In this instance, this change was necessary so that all the links to all the full screen dynamic maps in the Hebrew Wikivoyage WOULD be clickable... while this image OOjs UI icon fullScreen.svg, right next to that link, WON'T be clickable (see example). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll also add that I decided this Full Screen icon + larger link text were a necessary change for us at the Hebrew Wikivoyage (even though we don't do that here on the English Wikivoyage) mainly because a large portion of the readers nowadays are mobile users, and the important link to the full screen feature (which is probably of more use to mobile users that are trying to retrieve this data on the go) is not very visible on the common sized smartphone. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
One problem with removing the link is that that link is what provides automatic attribution and licence information. If you disable it you have to provide those in some other way, or use images with a licence that does not require them. --LPfi (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not just one problem, it's a major problem and risks putting us in violation of copyright. The chimp picture above, in fact, is already problematic as it is CC-by and requires attribution. We cannot have unclickable images unless they don't require attribution. Powers (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
They also cannot be copyleft with CC-SA or similar, as you need a link to the licence. PD and CC-zero can be used without link. --LPfi (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Btw, I reckon it would be more intuitive to also have the same link for the icon as for the text. Some people will probably desperately try to click that icon. And btw, just create your own icon, shouldn't be that hard. Ceever (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a map expert take a look at Rail travel in the United States?[edit]

As someone pointed out there are apparently still some issues with the map in this article. It would appear that most of the criticisms are valid and can be addressed but unfortunately I am bad at drawing maps. Can someone please have a look? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Generating guidebooks for missing languages[edit]

I am thinking of writing some code that generate a kind of guidebook on-the-fly for languages that do not have a Wikivoyage edition (yet), such as Telugu.

It would mostly take:

  • data from the Wikivoyage listings database,
  • breadcrumb from Wikivoyage,
  • banner and maybe other facts from Wikidata,
  • a dynamic map,
  • a gallery of all images found on Wikivoyage articles

... then embed that in Telugu strings.

Compared to a real guidebook it would be very shallow (zero prose and listing names not translated), but this might be the first ever guidebook about Elmwood in Telugu. With links back to Wikivoyage, this original content might gain us some Telugu readers and incoming links, which could eventually gain us some Google love.

My question: Has someone already done this, so that I don't waste my time on it? Or has someone started something similar?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You might know the Lsjbot project at Wikipedia in Swedish, Cebuano and Waray, creating articles on lifeforms and places. I suppose Lsj could share some useful code and some insight in benefits and probable problems. There were 1M+ articles created. --LPfi (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I have seen it many times when merging items on Wikidata, and that's the kind of content I would like to create, thanks for the tip! I would not create new Wiki articles though, instead just putting the web pages somewhere (probably a Github-hosted website). Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

City articles without "Understand" sections[edit]

How does such a thing happen? I've come across quite a few of them recently. Us someone actively removing them? Does someone believe they're optional? Can we tag articles that lack them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Understand" was not originally part of the template for small city articles, so those that were created before about 2010 may not have the section. Obviously it is great to add the section if you have something to say about the city, but there is probably little value in adding an empty heading. AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I tend to split them off from the lede in some cases. I don't think I have thus far added an entirely empty "understand" section. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes create articles without Understand section and if I'm working on an article for a very small destination and it has an empty Understand section and I've nothing to add, I'd sometimes remove the heading. I don't think it makes sense to have an empty section. I was always under the impression that this section is optional, as Wikivoyage:Article_templates/Sections#Understand says it's 'Recommended' but doesn't say it's 'required'. Of course as an article develops, there is in most cases something to say here, like a bit of local history or at the very least a listing for a tourist information office. Drat70 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Small villages rarely have enough information to impart to be worth a separate "Understand" section. I tend to think our ledes are too short anyway. Powers (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
How much is "enough info"? A sentence or two as the lede, a paragraph as 'Understand'? If we don't have even that much educational content about a destination, it can't be very notable and certainly there's not enough to devote an entire page to such a place.
How small is small in this case? Relais-Gabriel, an outfitter's camp on Quebec Route 389 which we list as the last chance to buy fuel before Fermont, might qualify... but we give it a listing in the QC 389 itinerary, not an entire destination article in its own right. K7L (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think if we have a sentence or two in the lede and a paragraph in Understand we have no need for a separate Understand section. If more information is added later, then it can be sectioned out as needed. See, for example Fairport (New York) which doesn't suffer from the lack of an Understand section. Powers (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I think just having a sentence as lede and then a new heading with a paragraph in Understand looks visually less pleasing as just having two paragraphs in the lede. Drat70 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Wishlist update[edit]

If you'd like to know more about technical changes and tools, then please watch the presentation at The first presentation, starting around 2:00 minutes, talks about some of the new features in X! tools (like how to find out more about who's editing a page or which admins work in a given area). Other editors will be more interested in Beta Feature for syntax highlighting (around 17:55), and I think that a lot of us will appreciate the Global Preferences (~22:32) project.

Something I learned a while ago: You can speed up the playback for YouTube videos. The gear-shaped settings icon has a "Speed" option. Combining a faster playback speed with the left and right arrow keys (which skip 5 seconds) makes watching these recorded presentations more efficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Berlin - Munich: Four hours[edit]

December 2017 is fast approaching. When that date is reached, travel time between Germany's capital and southern Germany's largest city will be drastically reduced to just four hours. From Nuremberg, Berlin will be less than three hours away. Erfurt will have ICEs going in all directions. I know we have several articles mentioning the "soon to come" service - often with a date - when should we just say it's there now? Oh, and on a related note, should we have routeboxes for ICE Sprinter? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because it's not there now. The change should be made when the new service actually starts. Imagine if we had changed article based on the projected opening time for the new Berlin airport... Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The schedule has already been published and you can already book a ticket. And there very much is a physical rail line between those cities. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I know that you can take the ICE between Berlin and Munich: I've done it a few times. But we shouldn't pretend that the time for travel between the two cities is already 4 hours. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
But you can already book tickets for dates past December 10 when travel time is that. Of course it would theoretically be possible that every single one of those trains be delayed two hours, but the scheduled time is what it is. And Deutsche Bahn is not Ryanair who cancel flights if they fear they might be late. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
If so, I think we can say that travel time is expected to be four hours after December 10th, but we shouldn't say that travel time is four hours now if that isn't true. If a reader looks at our article today to plan a trip next week, it would be a serious disservice for us to tell them that a service is available now when it actually won't be available for a month and a half. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Mx. Granger and I are in total agreement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but we have to keep it in mind, as many, many articles mention the line and it kind of is a big deal... The line passes through Nuremberg, Leipzig, Erfurt, Halle and of course the states of Thüringen, Saxony and so on... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem mentioning it in the article now, provided the date when the faster schedule becomes available is also mentioned. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
December 10, 2017. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Costume stores[edit]

I was wondering where to mention costume stores?

Somewhere like Angels is widely known in London, but I am not going to add these to article without a second opinion given the strcit views Wikivoyage has about 'advertising' specifc entities. Is there a "iconic" status criterion I could apply? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not see an issue here if this is a specialist notable establishment that people specifically travel to visit, then it can be a Buy listing. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Buy, in the district article where the shop is located. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not one that people would say consider travelling from abroad to the UK for, but certainly people will travel from outside London (within the UK) to consult. There are some other less well known stores in London I wanted to add as well ( at District level), but their ranges (at least in the UK) are broadly generic.

My wording on what I might have added as a Buy section in the Halloween article ( seems best fitted there) was along these lines.

"Costume stores in the UK range from a couple of high end hire firms (such as Angels in London's Theatreland), to more generic party suppliers in most major cities. Costume designs available tend to shift each year, with Rubies and Smiffy's brand being highly regarded."

I will definitely consider adding Angels to Buy in the relevant District, but would like to add some others I am aware of in London that are less well known outside of their local market area.

These were some of the criterion I had in mind (guideline)

  • Does the outlet stock something that would not be an everyday purchase?
  • Would travellers be looking for an outlet like this specifically?
  • Does the outlet have an 'iconic' status, or has it become part of the heratige of the relevant city/district etc.
  • Has this outlet been mentioned or recomended in other guides?


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It is doubtful that many people will travel any great distance (at least from abroad) purely to visit a costume shop, but on the other hand some people visiting a location will want to know about the presence of such shops, especially this time of year. Ergo, this information is clearly useful to travellers so it's best included than not. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There are other specialist shops in various places that are described on WV. One example is Fry's Electronics. We also sometimes describe specialised items for sale in normal shops, e.g. Go bowls under Mount_Wuyi#Buy. This is good & more should be encouraged.
I recall finding an interesting kite store in London a few decades back & if it still exists, I'd say it is definitely worth listing. Pashley (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You mean the one on Neal Street ?( ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Usefulness of sleep/eat/drink in big articles[edit]

I am wondering, what's the point of having those sections in the likes of Chiang Mai, Havana or Prague/East bank of Vltava ? Of course, a few notable objects should be there (like some famous/old hotels or coffee places, where you can feel "genius loci"). But while I hope wikivoyage will be The source of travel info one day, for backpackers and such, I don't think it will ever replace tripadvisor or hotel booking services - because there's no references here, nor photos or prices. And in this day and age, ain't nobody is going to write emails asking for free room in a hotel.

I'm not sure what I'm proposing, removing the information completely is probably not good idea - and it should be left in cities where 3-5 hotels are available, and of course remote places where 1 room in whole village is for rental.

What if e.g. online wikivoyage had instead links to some relevant booking services (and, God-forbid, earned some money for that .-) ) instead? I reckon that would be far more useful for quick usage. Of course, for offline versions, probably providing at least some list of hotels is a good thing (perhaps such list could be received from the booker pages in exchange). (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, those kinds of suggestions are not going to be received warmly here. Internet Brands' efforts to monetize Wikitravel are a huge part of why we left there, and perhaps more importantly, would be a direct affront to WMF policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware, but that was not the main point... But I'd really like to know who is the target audience of such listings, and if we could make it more useful - because I know I would never search for a big-city-hotel via travel guide (not even the printed ones)... (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that because you personally would rather use a booking service than Wikivoyage, we should eliminate huge chunks of our own content and simply direct our readers to the competition? What's the point of Wikivoyage, then? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There might be some useful nugget of insight here. I think we can all probably agree that we shouldn't get rid of the Sleep section or start monetizing Wikivoyage, but I think has a point, in the sense that while sections like Get in, Get around, See, and Stay safe are useful to a lot of travellers (and often much better than our competition), the Sleep section often functions as a less-good version of, say, Trip Advisor (at least that's how it seems from my perspective in many city articles). Maybe there's nothing to be done about that, but I think it's worth considering whether there's some way we can adjust the Sleep section to make it more useful to more travellers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
What listings in Wikivoyage gives me that other sites do not is a good indication of what hotels are near good eating places and which sites of interest are near each other. This can only be done with booking sites and a lot of cross typing in Google Maps. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
So how do you know, with 50 listings, which are really good, and which were only added by the owner to be on the list? Often I can't even evaluate such thing via webs with ratings (e.g. because most of the good hotels are booked completely anyway)... And in the end e.g. low-cost-travellers rarely search for accommodation near the attractions... (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, it's basically why I started this thread, to have a discussion. I don't really have a solution - and don't think it should be done for me, nor that the hotel lists should be pruned to zero immediately. But if there are enough similar opinions, perhaps there is something that could be done to make the site more attractive to travellers in this regard. The do/see/understand sections often a better source of info than a list of attractions from tripadvisor-like-webs. But there are limits of what such a wiki can do....... On the other hand, of course, there's Wikivoyage:External_links. Which should IMO be (partly) reconsidered, since it's 10+ year old now, and things changed a bit since. (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it is definitely worth having some overall orientation/guidance info in high-level articles. Examples include hotel info in Metro_Cebu#Understand and Downtown_Shanghai#Sleep. I wrote both of those & am definitely of the opinion that they are worth keeping; so are lots of similar things in other articles.
As for actual listings, policy is that those go in lower level articles. A few really important ones -- perhaps Grand old hotels or ones that are landmarks -- may need links from higher-level articles, but those should be few & far between. Pashley (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there are a few things to keep in mind here. First of all, not everything is online. Not even these days. So having a phone number and directions for that hotel in San Juan del Norte may be a godsend. Second, we want to be usable offline. A link to TripAdvisor is not that. Third, we have to be consistent. If we don't allow listings in the districts of Prague but do allow them in Wuppertal, something's just not right. And lastly we want to be the first and last resource needed for as many trips as possible. That's our unique selling point Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, says "I don't think it will ever replace tripadvisor or hotel booking services - because there's no references here, nor photos or prices." Photos would be against policy & I think that is a good policy with a few exceptions for landmark hotels or places like Japanese w:capsule hotels where a reader might have no idea what to expect.
As for prices, links to the hotel website & geo co-ordinates, those are important. What should we be doing to ensure more listings have those? Start a collaboration of the month? Delete listings without them? Require those before an article can be Guide, Star or DotM? Something else? Pashley (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Another point I'm surprised hasn't been made yet: it's an open secret that Yelp, TripAdvisor, et al. will suppress bad reviews for businesses that advertise with them or otherwise pay for premium services (and, for that matter, stories of writers for big-name paper travel guides accepting bribes from business owners in exchange for a positive review also abound). On the other hand, Wikivoyage's noncommercial status as part of the WMF family, and our intolerance of touting and other such conduct from contributors who may have vested interests, means readers can expect fair coverage at all times.
Zooming out: as I see it, there's nothing wrong with our "Sleep", "Eat", "Buy", or any other section that can't be solved in the same way that we've always improved our content. If listings are dry and boring, spice up the prose. If information is incomplete, complete it. If there are too many listings in a given article, that's a sign that it may be ripe for districtification. It's really not any more complicated than that.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's that simple, because when a listing is posted by the owner or someone employed by a hotel to tout it and it's detouted, it's still a listing posted by a self-interested party. I've said before and would repeat that I don't trust hotel listings on this site for that reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly - not accepting touting is ok, but either way, you end up with 50 listings "clean room and good breakfast". There's no way to use such wall of listings reasonably... At least online you'll have hotel with 10 vs hotel with 1000 positive ratings, and no negative ones - still quite easy to pick one... And e.g. the uberused Airbnb will even show bad ratings. (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I know the target is to have WV like Hitchhikers guide to galaxy, with all knowledge needed inside. But do you really think few individual editors can keep these 3 listing sections remotely relevant compared to current online services? Note that I don't argue that they are great resource in less touristy areas. 99% the listings will stay for the time being. Would it make sense to, additionally, have something like what wikipedia has for geo coordinates - the page with links to different online maps? OFC in Cuba, is hardly useful, compared to other local services. (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There was an idea some time back to enable a feature for registered users to "recommend" listings. This seems to have gone nowhere, though I don't remember all the issues brought up in that discussion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think they are mostly-useless, and occupy an inordinate amount of housekeeping for a not very valuable list. I think we should keep the sections, but push for more prose over listings. We could say, for example, in the article for Springfield. Springfield has three motels just off the interstate, with nothing much to distinguish them, although the Motel 16 does fresh waffles. There is one hostel in town, but if you're looking for 5 star you'll have to venture to nearby Shelbyville. We then might just put in the motel listings, if we feel like it. This is how we're going to add more value than We should delete all hotel listings added on mass. These are wasting our time, and deceiving our readers. Similarly for Eat. Point out the Eat Streets, the local specialities and where to find them. A listing for the local coffee shop or Pizza restaurant in the suburbs? Waste of space and time. Inas (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
This is crazy talk. We're actually discussing changes of this magnitude to solve a problem this minor and this easily addressable using the policy tools we already have? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That the sleep section of 99% of articles is totally useless? Or that it takes so much time to curate the spam that's added there? What's your solution within existing policy? --Inas (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
First off, claiming that "the sleep section of 99% of articles is totally useless" is an exaggeration so gross that it frankly makes it difficult to take the concerns expressed in this thread seriously. Second: we're a travel guide. Part of the deal is that our audience has to be willing to actually read our content, and to make decisions based on the information we give them. In the vast majority of our articles, there's not reams and reams of information to sift through, so it's not as if this is some huge effort we're asking them to expend. In the case of people who are too lazy to read, there's not much we (or any travel guide) can do for them.
Secondly, we have enough hands on deck in Recent Changes patrol that most touting ends up getting reverted anyway, and I don't know what makes people think the "Sleep" section is any more of a spam magnet than any of our other sections. That hasn't been my experience as an editor and de-touter.
I already stated my solution within existing policy above: continue to improve the quality of our content, to revert spam and touting, and for that small minority of articles where there really is too much information, don't be afraid to districtify. Again, people who don't want to invest the minimal amount of time and effort to engage in those simple actions should really think twice about whether this project is for them. If you want to work on writing a travel guide, be prepared to work on writing a travel guide.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd say 99% is actually an under-estimate. I'd be surprised if in this day and age more than a handful of our tens of thousands of sleep listings has even been relied upon. Personally, I totally ignore the sleep section. I do use tripadvisor,, etc for hotel reviews info. I'd be surprised if anyone uses it.
And with due respect to our hardworking de-touting taskforce, they make the problem worse - by changing the text of a listing that is obviously unreliable to one that may appear to the reader to be reliable. It's misleading.
IMO working on a travel guide comment is about curating quality information for travellers. I don't think it's about taking an ad posted by the hotel owner and removing the flowery language. I don't think the wiki format can compete with those other sites. So, I think we should broaden our focus to include more overview information for a town that's missing from those other sites. Inas (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some figures on this (which I assume is impossible, but what do I know?), because currently you're making the claim that just because you don't use the Sleep section, that must mean nobody does.
The fact we include a link to a hotel's website / social media presence should be enough to demonstrate that we don't expect anyone to rely 100% on what Wikivoyage says. Travellers can read our listings, decide which one(s) appeal most to them, and then pursue the booking elsewhere, or else find out more information on the establishment's website. Wikivoyage has played its role in getting the traveller to that point where they're considering making a booking, which is all we can do.
Regarding de-touting listings, I do tend to agree with the above, however. Unless there is a serious lack of listings of the same category in a given article, I revert a tout listing on site and don't replace it with anything 'de-touted'. It doesn't matter if you de-tout, as the listing was put there in the first place as an advert, and not on the merits of the establishment in question. I agree that keeping the listing would be misleading. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have used Wikivoyage's Sleep section (in its listing format) as a starting point in deciding which hotel to book a fair few times. I guess I must be in the 1%. Gizza (roam) 11:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As a member of the 1%, I'm genuinely interested. Why did you choose WV over another site that contains far more information, detailed property facts and detailed reviews? Are you familiar with other sites that will enumerate every feature of a property? Give photos inside and out? Give a rating? Give a location? Have a number of user reviews, and up to date and comparative prices for the dates of your stay? Enforce reviews only by people who've stayed. And let you know if the place is actually still there! Were you looking for another travellers recommendation? If so, did you think you got it? Did you book? What did WV offer? Inas (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you give insultingly little credit to the work that people (self included) do on the listings of this site - not only removing flowery language and touting but also verifying the continued existence of places and the accuracy of the information. Of course not every piece of information on this site is 100% accurate, but by the same token, the same is true of websites like Yelp, Tripadvisor, (see my comments above, or Google, on how a little bit of money tends to make bad reviews on those sites disappear) or paper travel guides, which languish for years between updates (and if Lonely Planet's coverage of Buffalo is any indication, oftentimes outdated information has to wait several successive new editions before being caught and corrected). When you hold Wikivoyage to an impossible standard, sure it looks like a failure by comparison.
As for curation, there's something to be said for not blasting our readers with a firehose of information, but simply removing all hotel listings as you suggested is a ridiculous overreaction in the other direction. Our hotel listing sections may not be gripping reading, but it's information travellers need.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Guys, IMO this is going in a wrong direction, no need for insults. Perhaps there is really the 1% that will trust WV enough to use it in a big city. To me it is clear there's no substitution for this info esp. in places like Seda_(Sichuan). I created a quick&dirty copy of Havana -, just to show what we could do. It's not too pleasing, but perhaps a good discussion point. Let's say 50% people use booking services instead of WV - wouldn't be a clickable list of local booking services (e.g. in 3rd world countries, may be far from the best page) at least as useful as those listings we have currently? As I said previously, wikipedia has links to online sources, e.g. maps (like this, which obviously make some money from the traffic in the end), so... (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────, could you explain why you keep mentioning money? Your very first comment seems to indicate that you believe Wikivoyage needs money, and now you bring it up again in connection with What's your point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

First time the point was really that wv could get some additional benefits from the cooperation. This time it was only to show that having such links to commercial services probably doesn't offend the rules to much? (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
What makes you believe that Wikivoyage needs or wants any more money than it already has? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a silly question... Here's a possible motivation, and I imagine more resources is always better than less. But again, not the point, let's assume I never wrote it... (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage wouldn't see any money from such links. The money would go to the Wikimedia Foundation, which would allocate spending according to their priorities. (As you note via your link to a prior discussion, the priorities for one team in a non-technical department do not currently include Wikivoyage.)
I asked about this because it is the clearest example of why I think your proposal addresses "average website" problems rather than our specific situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to write a piece on aggregators in my userspace but have not worked on it in months... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO,that's the ultimate solution: A curated article about hotel booking services, specifying what their strengths and weaknesses are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
How would you make such article useful for e.g. Germany, Africa, Iraq and easten Cuba at the same time? And not bloated... Maybe with some filtering in place? (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I often use this site to find hotels. Names, links to official sites, and pricing are usually enough for me to decide. If the description says something notable, that's cool, but overall "clean and comfortable" is not inaccurate for many hotels. Most hotels don't have anything particularly noteworthy on the positive or negative sides. In reading this thread, aside from deleting all listings outside of "See" and "Do", the suggestion to add a paragraph at the beginning seems fine and it's not something that's ever been disallowed. We already do that in many "Eat" sections with mentioning local specialties. We could do it for other sections, particularly when there are many options to highlight the most noteworthy listings. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I am definitely against removing listings. One of our goals is to make sure that individuals can contribute knowledge that might not be readily available at commercial webpage. A reason I contribute is that I do find Wikivoyage useful when I travel. As someone mentioned before, we already do have flavor text such as "many hotels are clustered along highway I-86, there are unforunly no downtown hotels" and then adding important listings. I think this is an useful compromise. We are here to create an free alternative to commercial travel pages, that includes listings. --Jonte-- (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower. I'm not insulting anyone. But I do understand why someone who spends much time detouting listings, may find it offensive for someone to say there is negative value in the work they do. It's my observation, not an insult. And it's coming from someone who has spent many hours, and thousands of edits doing just that. And as for checking Sleep listings for currency, I'd say it's a hopeless cause. And I'd even ask the question why in 2017 is manually updating prices on listings a valuable activity when prices for intended stay dates can be so easily checked? I kinda agree with ChubbyWimbus that when you just want a bed, that a few names and links may be sufficient. But I still feel bad that the organisation that's paid for their listings to be added to our free site gets their business. Inas (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Expat section?[edit]

A recent discussion on merging the "stay safe" and "stay healthy" sections made me think that also merging "Work" and "Learn" into subsections of a "Expat" section might be a good idea. First, it would reduce the number of top sections in the articles, making them more readable and in line with the 7±2 ideal. Secondly, it would also make each top-level section more substantial. Seeing top level "Learn" and "Work" sections with only a few lines of information always gives me the feeling that I'm reading an outline, even though all relevant information is present in these few row's. Finally it would also be a natural place to include information which is relevant for long-term travelers without disturbing the rest of the article. The "Expat" section could also include information about how to find local housing, and for country level articles how to get long-term-visas. Perhaps it could also include information about local expat-communities/organizations. Do you think that there is anything to this proposal, or would it just be a slippery slope where the articles grow too far beyond travel guides? MartinJacobson (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is worth considering, could always have sub-sections of Work and Learn if they are of a reasonable size. For Expats would also information on where to buy food from other regions be useful or could that get complicated if starts to be a list of too many different cultural shops or highlighting areas of a town dominated by particular groups. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this would be extremely useful, not just for expats but even for longer-term travelers staying in a place for 3-6 months. I find the focus on travelers visiting a place for no more than two weeks excessively restrictive, as I myself often will visit a place for a month or longer. Things that would be invaluable would include how to obtain longer-stay visas (or even residency visas) and how to navigate the bureaucracy, how to find an apartment, banking issues, laundry services, where to find goods from other regions or parts of the world, where to network, etc. For some countries there are special books and guides for expats, but for many there are none, and I think that having such information readily available in one place would help draw more eyeballs to this site. –StellarD (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea a lot, but dislike the name. As StellarD says, such a section would also be useful for long-term visitors, temporary migrant workers, students on gap years and placements etc... The term 'expat' is nearly always used to describe white, wealthy types, often retired but above all with enough financial capital to live just about anywhere they want. As explained here, you'll rarely meet a poor or non-white 'expat'. I've got nothing against 'expats', by the way, but dislike the hypocrisy of the term enough that I would oppose using it for an official article section here. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "Live", to fit with our other verb heading names? The thing is, I'm having trouble seeing why we need a new section for this—it seems to me that most of the subjects mentioned here could fit into one of the existing sections (laundry goes in "Cope", visas go in "Get in", finding an apartment could go in "Sleep"...). Alternatively, if we wanted to make this a subsection of "Learn", "Work", and/or "Sleep", we could call it "Long-term", "Extended stays", or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't support this proposed heading. If you think about it, all our section headings other than list sections like "Cities", "Other destinations" and "Regions" are verbs: "Understand", "Get in", "Get around", "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", Sleep", etc. "Expat" isn't a verb. We're still talking about things being done, regardless of who's doing them or why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
How about "Staying longer"? —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have separate articles for these. If we want to list the schools that offer study abroad programs, it'd probably be more useful to compile them all into one article. They could still be divided by city/area for students who have such preferences but since course offerings/majors typically override regional preferences by necessity, it's much more useful to have all the options in one place. It would also encourage people to add listings. Making it mostly a list would be best (to keep the project within scope). As far as "Work" goes, my inclination is towards nixing it. Almost no articles even include it, and those that do, don't say much (re: Berlin, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow, Vancouver) and getting into the nitty-gritty of it is outside of our scope. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well it seems as if this discussion is about expanding Wikivoyage's scope, or that's how I've taken it. Travel is not just about people going on holiday or short business trips; it also covers more long-term ventures. If that's what we decide to do, then the best way would be to have all the info in the relevant destination article, whether as a new section (both 'stay[ing] longer' and 'live' look good), or within existing sections.
I don't see much point in "list(ing) the schools that offer study abroad programs". The vast majority of universities in Europe offer study abroad through Erasmus and other similar schemes, and I'd be surprised if a majority of serious institutions in other developed countries didn't do the same. There are certainly innumerable Continental European, American and Chinese 'study abroad' students at my university. So such a list would be far too long to be manageable, and would not contain any information (prospective) students couldn't read in a prospectus.
'Work' may well be of little value in cities, but in countries it could be useful if we allow information on visas, work permits, working culture, etc... ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "Expat" for various reasons isn't a great title (what about "Settle"/"Settle down"?). The suggestion that we create separate travel topic articles for e.g. studying abroad seems like a good complement, but perhaps not a perfect substitute. Many people move temporary or permanently for the sake of their job or to get closer to a long-distance partner. In such cases the destination is already given, and a travel topic article giving you "re-settler" information about a bunch of other cities won't be of much help. I don't really agree with the suggestion that we spread such information into already existing sleep/cope/get in sections, as it risks ruining "the flow of the article" for short-term travelers. I also think that it would be easier for the re-settler to have all information gathered in one place. Otherwise they will have to jump from section to section, and closely read the entire article to know that they didn't miss any relevant information. MartinJacobson (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The information we put in Work and Learn sections should be useful for more than just expats; it should be information of use primarily to short-term travelers. By nature, then, they are necessarily going to be fairly short. A "Settle down" section would have no place in our travel guides, as we're then talking about immigration. Travel guides, which is what we are, are generally focused on transitory travel, not travel for purposes of immigration. Powers (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well then, we'd better delete Retiring abroad... If one of our very best articles can be about one aspect of what's being discussed here, that should be proof enough that Wikivoyagers would do a good job with info related to other forms of migration. And, yes, people who retire abroad are migrants. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Definitely against adding scope creep to destination articles. Working_in_China is an example of how you can discuss living and working in China (for example) that doesn't confuse the main China article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, there are actually two separate but related issues I want to raise. 1) Should "work" & "learn" be merged into subsections of one top level section? 2) If so, should this section also include additional information such as longer term residence? It is fully possible to accept the first proposal but reject the other. In order to better illustrate the proposals (and my view on the proposed merging of "stay safe" and "stay healthy") I made this template. It cuts down the number of top level sections from 17 to 13. Examples of potential additional subsections (related to issue 2) are marked out with question marks. MartinJacobson (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Questions of scope have been extensively discussed before. See Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?/Archive_2003-2013#Scope, which Is not the nnly example but may be most complete. Pashley (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
A very interesting discussion! Powers said something very interesting which I don't think really got enough attention: "We have Retiring abroad because it's about the process of getting there, not about simply being an expatriate.". This strikes me as a natural way to determine the scope for a potential "Stay longer" section. "Work" is about getting a first job at the new destination, not a general guide about how to do your job. "Learn" is about how you register for your first course/semester, not a general guide about how you should do your studies. "Reside" would in the same way be about how to get a fist stable residence in the new location, but not really a general guide to how you maintain a home in the new location. It is about settling but not about being settled. If the scope of a Wikivoyage article is a 3 month stay, then it seems to me that the scope of a "Stay longer" section should be to help you manage the first 3 months in a location if you plan to settle there. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the suggestion to have a combined ==Stay longer== section for people who are saying longer.
However, separate "Work" and "Learn" make sense in some situations than others. Imagine a small college town: In that case, it makes more sense to have a ==Learn== section and omit the ==Work== one, with arrival-related information such as how to get from the nearest airport to the school, and whether your parents are going to be able to find a hotel room within a reasonable distance if they wait until the week before classes start to reserve a room. All of this could, of course, be part of a ==Stay longer== section, but it's fine under ==Learn==, as it is now.
But the next town over is going to have a brief-training program, and "Stay longer" doesn't make sense for a two-week training program, or a tourist-oriented "Learn to cook while vacationing in Italy" program. So I'm dubious about subsuming all ==Learn== options into a ==Stay longer== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Per MartinJacobson's comments above: Staying someplace for 3 months can be a summer vacation, and I would like to go on record as stating that we absolutely should cover such stays in this travel guide. I also completely agree with WhatamIdoing about the usefulness of finding rooms near a college, but I don't see that as requiring any section other than "Sleep". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Three months is the normal tourist visa length, and I see courses up to three months and accommodation up to that length would normally be covered in a travel guide. Previous discussions have led us to this three month level. If we cover how to move to a place to go to college, or how to move to a place to work for an extended period, we're going off the path of a travel guide. Tripadvisor ban this sort of discussion, and you won't find it in Lonely Planet. But we have plenty of space, and if someone want to write the info, that's all good. But I don't think we want our travellers to have to print out all that extra information for their trip, when it's useful for a very different purpose. Lets keep the main travel guides about travelling somewhere, not moving somewhere. Inas (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
With regards to study, we actually moved a lot of content from United States to Studying_abroad#United_States for precisely this reason. It can be useful for a small section of travellers but doesn't have to be part of the main article at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have come around to the idea of keeping the information separate, particularly due to these last two comments from Andrew and Inas. While it would be a good thing, in my opinion, to have more information about moving abroad, and for trips that last longer than three months in the various ways that we've discussed already, and more, for that stuff to be adequately covered, it would need to be a decent length; such a length would be too cumbersome for an existing destination guide (a country article, no less). ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Copy of Wikivoyage content[edit]

I know not copyrighted but should source be stated? example. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Under the terms of the CC licence, absolutely. We, as Wikivoyagers, are entitled to attribution from whoever uses our content. The used content must also be under a similar licence. Well-spotted, now what do we do about it? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a contact form on the site. The author(s) of the stolen content could drop them a line. Powers (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Which article or articles have been copied? It would probably be a good idea to write a note on each of the affected articles' talk pages, so the authors can get their heads together and discuss what to do. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Difficult to say, but a good number. I have done a many searches in Google and Yahoo over the last few weeks to fix broken links on Wikivoyage. The touristinspiration site turns up often in the top ten search results (often with closed establishments) and when I have visited the page it is a copy of a Wikivoyage listing. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I am no legal expert, but from that, it sounds like a bigger issue than can be reasonably handled by whichever editors have had their content stolen. Is there any precedence for the WMF to intervene in cases where third parties use Wikimedia content without following the terms of use? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution. Pashley (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Pashley. Will take a look at that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I have done a bit more digging and posted to Wikivoyage_talk:Non-compliant_redistribution#Tourist_Inspiration, where we should continue this. I will also leave a message on the talk pages of the articles that we currently know are affected, to solicit the input of editors who may have had their work stolen. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nitpicking department: "I know not copyrighted but should source be stated?" is technically wrong. The material is copyrighted but is distributed under a Wikivoyage:Copyleft license which requires certain things from anyone who redistributes it, notably attribution to the source. In principle anyone violating the license terms can be sued, if they are in the US their ISP can be hit with a DMCA takedown notice, and similar things in other countries.
There are complications with that. Firstly, neither WV nor WMF claims copyright; that stays with each author, photographer, etc. For a collaborative article, especially if only parts of it are taken, this makes the question of who has standing to sue fairly complex. Second, suing anyone is slow & expensive, & even if you win it may not be worth the trouble. Pashley (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Listing order of cities and destinations[edit]

Is there a reason why cities and destinations should be listed alphabetically according to Manual of style? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to list cities according to its relevance for travellers, starting with the capital? I know this is not quite objective, but at least it prevents less important cities and destination from turning up at the top, where a traveller might end up going without realising it might just be a waste of time. E.g. I would rather see the largest national park on top instead of the smallest just because it starts with an "A".

Could we adjust the manual such that cities and destinations are listed according to its size and relevance?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have several concerns with this idea.
Such a change in policy would initiate a huge number of discussions about which destinations are more important (just imagine London vs Paris vs Rome on the Europe page; how do you choose?!), and with few exceptions this is always going to be highly subjective. The lists with an upper limit of nine spread throughout the hierarchy more often than not means that cities and destinations are equally matched in terms of importance. The current alphabetical arrangement also avoids many edit-wars / slinging matches over whose hometown or pet article gets to be up top.
"...a traveller might end up going without realising it might just be a waste of time." seems to assume our readers are idiots who don't bother reading beyond the top of the page before going somewhere. If there are people like that, I say they deserve to have a crap time; "failure to plan is planning to fail" and all that. All hyperbole aside, just how likely do you think this scenario is?
Lastly, it is standard practice for all of our lists, whether they be in 'eat', 'drink', 'sleep', 'see' or 'do', to be placed alphabetically, unless there is one among them of overwhelming importance to travellers that it really must be listed first (e.g. Windsor castle on the Windsor and Eton page). Why should 'cities' / 'other destinations' be any different, aside from in the rare case where one non-capital is clearly head and shoulders above the others in terms of tourist value?
If we were dealing with lists containing dozens of elements, I would see merit in your point, but as most of our lists contain nine items or fewer, the chances of an important city / other destination being missed due to alphabetical order are slim.
Again, sorry for the negativity about your idea, but that's what I think.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
No idea what you mean by "standard practice", but I have quite the opposite impression, namely that things are generally listed by relevance and geography – see the various listing of the Old City of Jerusalem. Hence, it is questionable whether this softening of the manual would really have a large impact on many articles. But when I see the Georgia article and Akhaltsikhe, a city of not much relevance, is listed second after Tbilisi, I get the odd feeling that travellers are mislead to believe that this is an important destination.
Other opinions on that matter? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that the 1-liner listing should make it clear what kind of destination is listed, and that we should maintain the simple order we have now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I suppose a more common problem would be missing the important destination because of the items not being in alphabetical order (and the destinations being more than four or five). Here the important one for me may be a tiny place, but with a famous museum in some niche, and I may go wading through several region articles trying to find it. The problem with subjective order is not only the edit wars, but it being impossible for the reader to know whether places are listed according to size, historic importance, popularity among tourists, having the greatest sight or some other criteria. When we want some places to stand out, there is every possibility to do it in introductory prose instead. --LPfi (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In Georgia (country), maybe we could solve the problem by removing Akhaltsikhe from the list and having 8 cities listed instead of 9—after all, the requirement is to have between 5 and 9 cities listed, and there's no reason to force a list of 9 if one or two are much less important than the others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the solution is simple. No need to rewrite policy for such cases. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Group travel[edit]

Do we have any pages that describe planning group travel (family reunions, destination weddings, business meetings, etc.)? I saw mw:Team Practices Group/Planning offsites and wondered if we had anything aimed at the person stuck planning small-ish group trips. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We have an article on ̺Wedding travel and one for business travel, though it doesn't specifically mention meetings. JakeOregon (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Planning meetings in a far away location would be in scope at least for the first. In it current state it gives no advice and no hints about pitfalls in the arrangements. The issues are complicated and vary from place to place, so cannot be well covered here, but some advice should be added (if anyone feels competent to do it). --LPfi (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Listings or markers for train stations[edit]

So User:Jonte-- has written to my talk page with regards to these edits. I am still in favor of using the listing template as it allows us to point to WP articles where they exist (and those are usually much better with listing every last line and service and keeping it up to date; especially for airports). I think even for rather small stations only served by urban rail we can use the listing template as seen in Berlin/South. Should we hash out a consensus or still every editor for themself and no style guidance of any kind? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing this comes up. I see where you are coming from, and agree that having the link to WP is a good thing. However I think the way it is currently done there is a visual issue with this. For instance in the Berlin/South example you mention or also in the Romanshorn article, the problem is that after every listing there will be a "." punctuation mark, which looks really awkward in my opinion if it's in the middle of the sentence. (e.g. "The 1 railway station. Romanshorn railway station on Wikipedia Romanshorn railway station (Q508197) on Wikidata is located in the town centre right next to the harbour.") I think having the wikipedia and wikidata symbol in the middle of the sentence is fine, but that full stop really looks out of place. So at the very least, when changing markers to listings, we should restructure the sentences such that the listing is at the end of the sentence (e.g. from the Berlin article: "The center of Steglitz is the U-/S-Bahn station 2 Rathaus Steglitz. (U9, S1) Berlin Rathaus Steglitz station on Wikipedia Berlin Rathaus Steglitz station (Q555492) on Wikidata") or on its own. In cases where this is not possible, because it breaks the flow of the sentence or makes it look ugly, I still think using a marker is the better solution. Drat70 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to attention. My focus here on Wikivoyage for the last few years have been georeferencing and particularly georeferencing transport related infrastructure such as train stations. My take is that using {{marker}} for smaller listings simplifies editing and the flow of text. A large number of articles has just 1-2 lines for transport and the need for additional information is limited. I fully support using {{listing}} for larger stations where it makes sense to include information such as amenities, directions, phone numbers etc. {{marker}} blends well into text and improves the flow. An example from Mersin, Turkey which I edited recently:
"All trains are run by the national operator TCDD. The railway station, 3 Mersin Garı is situated between the city centre at the port on İstiklal Cd". For such an simple sentence, it makes no sense at all to use {{listing}}. As an compromise, I do think it would be good to rework {{marker}} so that Wikidata can be included. --Jonte-- (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I completely agree that the above example is visually very unappealing and even looks like there is some displaying error. The example in Berlin/South is even worse making it almost unreadable. Regarding the question, whether there should be some guidelines regarding this issue, I would also agree to that. I raised a related point some time ago regarding airport listings/markers (Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Marker_or_listing_for_Airports). The guidelines should take into account the different needs for small vs. medium-sized cities. Xsobev (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It gets even worse, when the lastedit field ist filled:
To get into Köpenick take the S47 to 4 Spindlersfeld. Berlin-Spindlersfeld station on Wikipedia Berlin-Spindlersfeld station (Q4892371) on Wikidata or the S3 to 5 Köpenick. Berlin-Köpenick station on Wikipedia Berlin-Köpenick station (Q800479) on Wikidata and consider taking one of the many trams to the old town and the old palace.
I like having the markers in the text, but I don't like having all of the other listing things (the Wikipedia W, the Wikidata barcode, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Then you should use the {{Marker}} template instead of {{listing}}. {{listing}} is normally used as a paragraph with more detailed information but not as an inline element. Example: To get into Köpenick take the S47 to 6 Köpenick and others. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be Jonte--'s proposed compromise of modifying the programming in some way, so that wikidata and wikipedia could be used in markers. That will take some time to get consensus for and actually implement. The current use of listings is far from ideal, but I don't think it's as catastrophically bad as some people are claiming here, with the possible exception of the updated tag, which can be avoided easily if you don't click the little box. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Though not really recommended, one can use maplink directly.
Example: To get into Köpenick take the S47 to Köpenick7 and others. -- would still use {{marker}} within paragraph text and not {{listing}} as mentioned above. -- Matroc (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not recommended, looking at all that coding! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree about the coding and not doing it by hand - {{marker}} produces much the same hidden code as a maplink done by hand (hurrah for templates) - use Marker as is -- Matroc (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Just use Marker. The absence of Wikipedia and Wikidata links is hardly a deal breaker when we're talking about transit stations. They're all sufficiently linked from the system's Wikipedia article. Powers (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
No they're not. And the Wikipedia link provides users who want background on a transit station with just that. More of them are historically or architecturally important than one might think. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
If they have historical or architectural importance, then they should have their own listings. Powers (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Definitely. I assume you mean a 'see' listing, though? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
In principle, the {{marker}} template can be extended to present Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata links. But please act with caution. {{marker}} is used by {{listing}} that means changes for marker will occur in the listing template, too. So it seems necessary to separate both templates before. If you like you can have a view to the examples of the German marker version to get some ideas to improve the marker template. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Well most people will see most Metro stops mostly as a means to get some place. A limited few might think "hm nice" at a select few particular stations, but rare is the enthusiast who will appreciate which architect or era an otherwise unremarkable station represents. And I would think it would take the truly dedicated to appreciate anything about Langwasser Süd U-Bahn station besides it being the first ever in Nuremberg and its value in transportation (in case you've gotten curious for its architecture, de-WP has more pictures) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, which is why links to Wikipedia aren't necessary for most metro stations. If a Wikipedia link is necessary, then the station probably has tourist value independent of its service as a metro stop and it should be listed in See. Powers (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Listing the same station in both "get in" (as transport) and "see" (as architecture) is a pattern we try to avoid, as we normally list an individual venue only once. Breaking this pattern risks many duplicate listings as every hotel with a restaurant claims both "eat" and "sleep". K7L (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think making an exception for stations worth seeing seems like a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
But which are? And what do you say to the likes of Berlin/Mitte#Get in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In answer to the first question, we can answer that the same way we answer any question about whether to include an attraction in the "See" section. If it seems like it's interesting enough to be worth seeing, we include it. Otherwise, we don't. As for Berlin/Mitte#Get in, it seems like a decent section, I guess. I think the listing template in the first paragraph is a bit ugly, but the parentheses help set it off from the text, so it doesn't bother me the way the nearly unreadable Berlin/South#Get in does. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In response to K7L, markers are not listings. There would be only one listing: in See. The marker in Get Around would only be for mapping purposes. Powers (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I prefer listing for stations. In many cases the WP article gives information which is mainly of interest to those using the station to get a train. For instance most UK station WP articles give the annual rail passenger usage, so I can see how busy the station is likely to be. Listings also give the full range of fields, "directions" can be used to list the best buses to get to the station, "alt" can be used for any network abbreviations for the station or local common names etc, "url" can link to the station's webpage, which can be very useful for disabled travellers. Only a very few stations are so interesting as to be a see listing, but many are interesting enough to look at while waiting for your train. AlasdairW (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can understand that there's some value to the Wikipedia link, but surely we can all agree that Berlin/South#Get in is a mess, right? Something needs to be done about that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that as per Talk:Berlin/South the district is likely to be split in the foreseeable future. I also think that city railway stations should if at all possible be one paragraph that is included in a listing. A similar thing should apply for municipal airports for which we don't have articles and never will. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there's nothing wrong with giving railway station their own paragraph and listing if and when there's enough content (for instance I think Berlin/Mitte#Get in is perfectly fine). But this discussion was started because of empty listings inserted in-line (such as in the example of Berlin/South#Get in or also Romanshorn) without any content other than the wikidata and wikipedia link and without changing the sentence to match it and I think that is an issue that you don't really address. Especially the fact that it introduces punctuation in the middle of a sentence. That is very bad for readability and makes the text much harder to understand, especially for non-native speakers. Can we as a minimum agree on not adding empty listings in-line without making sure that there's no weird punctuation in the middle of a sentence? Drat70 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course. I don't think you'll get any argument about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would second this and propose that until we figure out if we are to update {{marker}} then we do not use {{listing}} in the middle of a sentence. Either use marker in text or create a listing after the text. In my view this is the best option from a readability perspective. --Jonte-- (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I've seen many pages where listings in the "get in" section were inserted in the middle of a sentence (@Ikan Kekek: unfortunately not as obvious as it may seem), often by just converting a "marker" to a "listing", while leaving everything around it untouched. Xsobev (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Subway stations or the likes as attractions[edit]

I think this deserves its own sub-section. I don't think there is a clear cut answer whether any given subway station counts as an attraction. To a fan of w:Alfred Grenander a "perfectly unremarkable" Berlin U-Bahn station can be a site of pilgrimage, but the majority of users will just see it as a (varyingly pretty or ugly) fact of getting around or getting in. I think having some arbitrary dividing line for which stations get two listings establishes a dangerous and unhelpful precedent capable of sapping more resources than Talk:USA already does. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would this be more difficult for subway stations than for any other type of "See" attraction? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Because they are likely already listed in "get in" or "get around" and their primary value and purpose is transport, not prettiness. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Why would that make them more difficult to make decisions about than any other "See" attraction? I think we should hold them to the same standards as any other "See" listing—if they're not particularly pretty or interesting (like the vast majority of subway stations, I think), then of course they shouldn't be listed in that section. If they are of interest to sightseers (excluding subway enthusiasts), then they should be listed. I really don't understand what the objection to that would be. Anyway, I don't think this applies to very many subway stations, so I don't care all that much. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a very subjective thing, though. True, newer systems like Nuremberg U-Bahn may not hold anything interesting, but the older systems are remarkable if only for the wide range of architecture they encompass. Be they "bourgeois cathedrals", "cookie cutter" standard scheme approaches, brutalism, (post-)modernism or any other style that might have been en vogue over a century. Plus a listing is also able to better be filled with a content tab or alt tab which gives the likes of the lines stopping there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how this architectural history makes them any different from any other buildings that we might consider including in the "See" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The Boring Corp. Headquarters is only relevant for people who work or have business there unless it is of architectural interest. The Boring Corp. Subway stop is of interest for everyone who stays in the area or needs to go to the area. Irrespective of its architectural value. So there's a difference right there. And there is a wider range in architecture of subway stations than of Boring Corp. Headquarters. Compare this (Heidelberger Platz) with this. Almost a century apart and certainly more different than two random office towers. But 99% will still only care for whatever lies beyond the station. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really not as complicated as it seems.
Would you give this station a listing, even if the subway line were abandoned? If yes, then give it a listing under ==See==. If no, then give it a marker under ==Get around== and skip the listing.
So: New York's Grand Central Station gets a listing. Milano Centrale gets a listing. But most – probably 95% of them – don't, except perhaps if someone were writing an itinerary about rail infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Some stations might also be listed under #Buy or elsewhere. How should we handle something like Shanghai/French_Concession#Xujiahui Which is a subway interchange with a collection of large malls around it? Currently it is a subsection under "Neighborhoods". What about the markets described at Shanghai#Clothing? Two (People's Park & Science Museum) are appendages of metro stops, & Qipu Lu is a shopping area with a metro stop under it. Pashley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

When service gets abandoned, stations get too nine out of ten times. Especially if they are mostly underground structures. During the "ghost station" era, there was no way for normal civilians - East or West - to enter the ghost stations. Hence your hypothetical is a bit bizarre, sorry. And as I said, the question of whether a certain station is of relevance beyond its travel purpose is an extremely subjective one. There are churches that do not deserve a listing (unless we want to be in the business of attending to religious sensibilities) and there are churches of such architectural beauty that even misotheists, antitheists and iconoclasts might grudgingly acknowledge it. Yes Grand Central is beautiful. But even there, how many people care about its history? The name of the architect(s) involved? And you know the saying about women of ill repute, politicians and ugly houses all becoming respectable if only the last long enough. Well a similar thing may be said for some "just doing their job" public transit stations. And yet for any public transit station worth its salt, its purposes such as they may be need to all be subservient to and ultimately play second fiddle compared to its transport function. Even in Grand Central the great majority of people passing through on any given day would pass through even if it were bare concrete with rebar poking out at odd angles. And the same can be said for so close to every public transit station in active use that their transport function should for us as a travel guide be the reason to list them and any architectural beauty may or should be included in said listing, not be judged and then split off to another listing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Most transit stations do not need listings. The only reason they even need markers is for mapping purposes. If there is a transit station that does need a listing, that listing should be in See with the other buildings of interest. Powers (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
See Shanghai/Pudong#Get_around for an example where we do have a lot of listings for metro stations. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Huh. Are those all of the stations in the district or just a selection? Powers (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

What's with all the new Ottawa-based editors with user pages written entirely in French?[edit]

In the past two days, User:Aamdsy, User:Kledg096, and User:Fahad054 have signed up for accounts and, almost immediately, created user pages written entirely in French wherein they describe themselves as university students in Ottawa and proceed to list the different cities and countries they have visited. None of them have any other edits in their contribution histories. This is probably nothing to worry about, but it's very strange. Is there some college professor who's incorporating Wikivoyage editing into his assigned course work, like what happened a few years back with that South Korean school? Either way, someone should inform these people that English is the language of currency on this site; French-language contributions belong on fr:. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I second your estimation that they're probably completing a school assignment, but I guess as long as they don't start vandalising mainspace, it doesn't matter too much. If you want to tell them to stick to English within their own userspace, allez-y. But I don't see what harm they're causing, to be honest. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
What caught my eye is that two of those names fit the Telstra vandal's username pattern, and one of them was actually preemptively banned on that basis and had to petition (in English) to have their block reversed. I agree that this is probably nothing to worry about, but it's worth keeping tabs on just on the off chance that this represents another twist in the Telstra saga. (Stranger things have happened with that vandal.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I dropped the boilerplate welcome plus a comment on language on all three user talk pages. Pashley (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
If we suddenly get a flood of Ottawa students all making similar edits in French, we'll know there's a problem. If it is Telstra, (s)he's revealing a new talent :) ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
One of the students has actually indicated she's studying French as a Second Language, which begs the question of why not just edit on fr:. The reason why I'm so keen to encourage non-native English speakers to contribute elsewhere is that none of the other language versions of Wikivoyage see anywhere near en:'s volume of editor activity and, in general, they could use the help a whole lot more than we could. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Bunnikin and User:Tkari‎ just added accounts with user pages following the same pattern, along with User:Cchin058 from yesterday and User:Lmcke028 from the day before yesterday, which I didn't catch till just now. I did what Pashley did earlier, boilerplate text plus reminder about what language is used here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Mystery solved?[edit]

Most recently on this front, we had another new francophone user create, and then immediately blank, a page entitled Utilisateur:Abrun062. Following a hunch, I checked Recent Contributions over at fr: and sure enough, there has been an only slightly smaller wave of new accounts created by Ottawa-based university students over there - including Abrun062 himself, who recreated the same user page there that he blanked over here.

My educated guess is that this is indeed a case of some professor directing his students to edit Wikivoyage for a school project of some sort. He seems to have intended for his students to register at fr:, but it looks like many of them misunderstood him and ended up here by mistake.

(Apologies for assuming the professor's gender. It's just easier to pick one or the other.)

What should we do about this? Should we attempt to steer these new users in the right direction?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's please continue putting messages on their user talk pages like you've been doing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Excellent sleuthing, Andre! If you had used French here, then "assuming the professor's gender" wouldn't have been an issue ;-) I agree that we should carry on using these messages to redirect these students to the right place. Let's hope our francophone counterparts don't mind... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Do we actually have any prohibition against using non-English languages in one's user space? It is easy for most of us to pick up spam or vandalism in French, but other languages/scripts would be more difficult to judge. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I know of no such rule, but when the user in question is also not making any edits in articlespace... Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikivoyage:User page help, the purposes of user pages are 1) to serve as "a brief introduction about the Wikivoyager", 2) as "a personal sandbox for each Wikivoyager to work on projects or ideas outside the 'main' travel guide", and 3) "a communications medium for collaborating with other Wikivoyagers". For the first and third of those items, then, the intended audience of the material is other Wikivoyagers, and therefore common courtesy (at the very least) dictates that the language used should be English. As an example that would fall under the second case, I've seen some users use their user pages as temporary repositories for material from other language versions of Wikivoyage that they're in the process of translating for use on en:, which of course is a completely valid thing to do. In general, though, all the end content on this site should be in English, so the idea of non-English text remaining permanently on one's user page is something I can't really countenance. And if none of this is reflected in official policy, maybe it should be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, I'm speaking above in general terms, not in regards to the Ottawa users, who seem only to have made an innocent mistake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Other languages can be a way to give info to non-Anglophones likely to be interested in the user. For somebody working a lot on Korean articles, some info in Korean might be useful. And as the English version of Wikivoyage is the biggest, there are people using it, as editors, as editors on other language versions, and as readers, who may benefit from info in other languages (and I see nothing wrong in using other languages for spicing it up). Having only a short paragraph in English and the rest in an other language should be regarded OK, although that short paragraph should probably explain why. --LPfi (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not too fussed about this. Ideally, they would have created their userpages at Meta, in which case the French would be displayed everywhere, including here, and I seriously doubt that anyone would have thought it was a problem in that case. So my thinking is: If we don't care that a global userpage shows up in the 'wrong' language here (and no matter what language you write in, yours is the 'wrong' language from the POV of >99% of the wikis), then why should we really care that the 'wrong' language is showing on these pages? It seems like a waste of energy over something unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Does the current roster of active Wikivoyagers include any long-distance cyclists?[edit]

Do we have any bikers among us? Namely, I've considered nominating tour cycling for FTT for some month next (Northern Hemisphere) summer. The article is right now at usable status, but it does look pretty extensive and therefore might be eligible for guide status (at least to someone who isn't that much into cycling). Does the article contain (basically) everything you need to know to go on a longer cycle tour, or is there still something important missing? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Karakoram Highway is fairly popular as an extremely challenging cycle route. Could we perhaps feature it instead or as well? Currently rated Outline, I'd say it is at least Usable & talk page has Talk:Karakoram_Highway#Guide_status. Pashley (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure we can feature Karakoram Highway at some point when that article is improved. Most headings under Go need a description, Go next is empty, and is there something that should go into the empty "History" section? --ϒpsilon (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Americans in Cuba debit cards[edit]

On the page Americans in Cuba in the Buy sections there is reference to Duales , CaribbeanTransfers, Telecash-AIS and Monetaria. All link to dead web pages. Any of this information still actual? --Traveler100 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey 2017[edit]

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the 2017 wishlist survey page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Mobile and apps/Mobile app for sister projects seems relevant to this group. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It's Wikivoyage, but not Wikidata, Wikisource and Wiktionary. Digr (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the words "as of"[edit]

Now first off I am - as may be known - not a native speaker of any dialect of the English language. Furthermore, I lack knowledge of the finer points of some varieties of the English language. But is there every a case in which "as of" can mean " since"? I have stumbled across this several times here and will point to an example if asked (I don't want any given user to look bad if indeed it turns out to be a wrong wording). The use for "as of" I know and would myself use in this travel guide is "at [date] the situation was as follows". So "As of May 2017 the train is no loner running" means "In May 2017 the train did not run; there is no clear indication as to when it stopped running nor when it will begin running again. Or "As of December 2012 the planned opening date is 2018" - the information from 2012 points to an opening date for 2018, but it may well get later and it is also possible that it opened already as it was ahead of schedule. Am I wrong here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What the dictionary has to say about the matter I don't know, but in colloquial English at least, "as of" can be used either way and thus sometimes, for our purposes, can be a misleadingly ambiguous term. I'd be in favor of altering the wording to clarify in cases where it's necessary. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
"As of", almosts always means since. So "As of December 2012 the planned opening date was 2018", means thats the planned opening date since them, and there is a subtle implication that the opening date was set or changed at that date. So, "As of December 2012 the train line was closed", means exactly the same as "since". and "as from".
You can use "as at" to say what was in effect on a day. "As at December 2012 the train was scheduled to open in June 2017", means at that time, that was the scheduled opening date. It may have changed since. In think in a WV context, "as of" should be avoided or clarified. Inas (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Inas, "as at" may be a regionalism. American English doesn't use it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
At the very least I would never presume "as of" to mean "since" unless context (or my own background knowledge) makes that immediately clear to me that it has to mean that. "as at" just sounds weird to me, which means it's not something I have encountered much previously. It may however be that due to sheer ambiguity of the term(s) we should add them to some of our style guide pages and give hints how to word "With the information being current in [x] the situation was [y]" with the least amount of ambiguity. This is, after all, one of the most important things a travel guide has to do; say when information might be outdated and give a hint as to when the last reliable information was obtained. It also makes it easier for subsequent editors to see which information needs checking and updating the most. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker of Canadian English. To me, the Hobbit has this exactly right; "as of" is the normal way to indicate "at [date] the situation was as follows", & I cannot think of a situation where it could legitimately mean "since". To me "as at" seems plain wrong, but perhaps as Andre suggests that is a dialect question. Pashley (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
As a New Yorker, I agree with Pashley 100%. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Pashley and Ikan. Powers (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I've found a few grammar pages that concur with my interpretation, so I'm still inclined to think it's a regional thing rather than my interpretation being wrong. Perhaps the phrase is best avoided? Inas (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
What alternative wording would you suggest? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
As a native Midwestern United States English speaker, "as at" does not sound correct and "as of" means "at such-and-such time". "As of" is used to say particularly that something may not be the case now or wasn't at some further point in time but definitely was true at a certain time. "Kevin was still in the bathroom as of noon when I went on lunch break—for all I know, he's still in there an hour later." —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
WP seems to use as of fairly often to mean that a fact was true as of a particular date, but may not be current now. K7L (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I also read "as of" like "something has been true at a certain time, but not necessarily any longer". "As at" is probably the Australian way of saying this. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
So which advise (if any) should we give and if yes where should it be given? "Words to avoid"? MoS? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, have a look at this, which was the first google result, and a Canadian source. I done some more reading to show that using 'as of' to mean 'as at' is a common grammatical error, particularly common in the U.S. I'd say is is a word to avoid Inas (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Just for the record, User:Inas has edited WV:Words to avoid to add the wording you see. I am not entirely sure we've yet established a consensus that bears out this wording, but I don't want to unilaterally revert, either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus; I have reverted.
Putting "as of" on the list of words to avoid is absurd. I honestly don't see the ambiguity. Whether "As of June 2016, the trains are no longer running" means "Since June 16, the trains have no longer run" or "In June 2016, the author of this sentence found the trains to be no longer running" is a nuance of detail that doesn't really matter. The information conveyed is still the same; the trains no longer run, and haven't done so since (at least) June 2016! Is there some extra layer of potential misunderstanding that I'm missing here? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, the confusion was raised by Hobbitschuster. And the regional meaning supported by a team of our North American friends. My understanding of the ambiguity, is that in one case, a visitor found the trains to no longer be running on a date. In the other case, the trains stopped running on a date and are still no longer running. I'd say we would like to know which is the case. Did the railway line close? Or were the trains not running on the day you visited? Inas (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a world of difference whether something is closed since 1994 or something was the case in 1994. And I just want to point out, that "as at" sounds weird to so many people, I doubt it's very common in all that many varieties of English. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
After reading Inas' link, I realize that "as of" does usually carry a connotation that expects the situation to have been maintained since that point, though not a necessarily a guarantee. If the tense of the associated verb is past, then it is equivalent to Inas' "as at". If the verb is present-tense, then it is very close in meaning to "since". Compare "As of last month, the road is closed" to "As of last month, the road was closed." Powers (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I've had another hack of WV:wta. Hopefully less controversial? If we revert this one, I'll give it away, I promise.. Inas (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Travel topic categories[edit]

Should Category:Travel topics and Category:Topic articles be merged? I can't figure out what the difference between them is supposed to be. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

NO! Category:Topic articles is used to count article in the Maintenance panel , Category:Travel topics is used to navigate through the breadcrumbs and check if lists in page are complete. Most categories are not visible to the general reader (unless you set a preference), are created inside templates and should not be edited manually. Good that you brought this up though. I see there is little explanation on the category pages themselves explaining how they are used and which templates create the content and prompt the user when to add a new category. I will make that a to do task for myself, cannot expect people to work it out easily. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the explanations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

River disambiguators[edit]

So in Germany at the very least, sometimes the river upon which a place sits is used as a disambiguator in (semi-)official contexts such as rail station signs and the likes. w:Werder (Havel) is one example. When they are written in the form town (river), they present a problem. When they're written as "town on the river", they are not as much of a problem, but they might be a mouthful. What advice should we give prospective editors for the likes of this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing exists with English place names, for instance "Kingston upon Hull" is Hull while "Kingston upon Thames" is an outer London borough. K7L (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Quite common in UK, I think, & sometimes hyphenated like Stoke-on-Trent. Pashley (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and in France, and probably other places.
We should always use the most common English name for destination articles; for most smaller towns etc, this usually means using the official name. So if Werder (Havel) is the common EN name / official name (whichever best applies), then it should be used for a Wikivoyage article about that town. However, if the official / common EN name is something else, then we use that. If there is more than one place with the same official / common EN name, then there should be a disambig.
When using the name in prose on any article, then it would make most sense to use the form that is most likely to be encountered by travellers. E.g. Shuttle buses to Fairytale Rat Land operate from Werder (Havel) train station. €25 pp. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The point is that having a river disambiguator in parenthesis is problematic, as it can be mistaken for our standard disambiguators, which are countries, states provinces and the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That shouldn't be an issue. If the river is part of the official name, we use it in the article name. If it's not, we don't; the standard disambiguators should be used in this case. It's not as confusing as you think it is. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
But usually what is in the parentheses is always a territorial unit and in some cases the word "city", "province" or the likes. I think we should avoid City (River) if at all possible for that reason. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If the two places being disambiguated are in the same country, we should use whatever term the traveller is likely to hear on the ground. For example Tarbert (Loch Fyne), is less of a mouthful than using the council name: Tarbert (Argyll and Bute), avoids confusion with the similarly sounding Tarbet which is also in Argyll and Bute, and hasn't changed 3 times in the last 50 years (in 1990 it would have been Tarbert (Strathclyde Region), and in 1970 Tarbert (Argyll) ). AlasdairW (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Different dynamic maps for different sections?[edit]

Hello Wikivoyagers!

I seem to recall reading recently somewhere on here that it is possible to have a dynamic map that only has markers for listings of a particular type (e.g. only see, but no 'do', 'go', 'sleep', etc.) This would allow for a map per section of an article, which would help to ease on the "mess of markers" that hinders readability. Unfortunately, I can't find the place this was mentioned; would anybody be able to confirm whether the above is a possible function of the dynamic map, and if so, how to make it work?

Thanks in advance, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for Template:Mapframe, and more specifically the "layer" parameter. Using it is quite straightforward. I think the template documentation can do a decent job of explaining how it works.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that. It seems a clear explanation, however by the looks of it the option is either to show all POIs or not show any, as opposed to showing one type of listing only. Is that right? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In many larger cities the mapframe loses a lot of it's usefulness due to the vast numbers of markers (still worthwhile but not as effective as it should be). I read documentation about mapframe with the idea to try separate mapframes for different sections (e.g. one for See's, another mapframe for Do's, another for Eats's, etc.). It would take up more space but might make things a lot more user friendly where there are loads of listings. I could not work out how to do it so if it's allowed and there is an easy way please do point out how. PsamatheM (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that's basically what I want to know too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
One example is Roman Empire. AlasdairW (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Add mapframe for each desired section and use the show parameter in each section mapframe. Test Example of Delhi/New Delhi. Scroll down page to see different maps. -- Matroc (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm looking for, thank you Matroc! Thanks to everyone who chipped in. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of "alt" in listings[edit]

It seems that the "alt" field in listings is now being strictly enforced as an alternative name for an establishment. Previously over many many many entries, where appropriate I've used it as a sensible indication as to what the establishment is. e.g. In a "Do" section listing "Monezuma" and then use "alt" to say "Kids Adventure Playground" (i.e. not a museum, not a golf club, etc.). Seems good to have what the place is near the beginning rather than buried in the "content" section. Allows a reader to quickly skip listings that do not interest them.

Same for "Eat" section" e.g. "Roberto", traveller goes there to sit down and finds it's a take-away or even delivery only! so briefly add "Restaurant & Takeaway" or "Restaurant", maybe even adding type of food e.g. "Chapiro" and alt="Chinese Restaurant".

All seems to help the user but apparently over the last few months this is not longer allowed. Why? Very few places have two names!

Surely we should be considering the users (particularly given how difficult it is to get changes made to the listing system). PsamatheM (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point, & I can see Alt being used as you suggest in some cases. It might also be interesting to look at some sort of tagging system that let readers find e.g. all the Mexican restaurants in town, though I'm not sure how that might work.
However, there are also lots of places with two names when language is taken into account. e.g. For many establishments in China, one needs the Chinese name, including its hanzi (Chinese character) form, because taxi drivers don't speak English & may not understand any attempt a visitor might make at pronouncing the name. In places there may be more than two names; see the infobox at Tibet#Regions. I am not certain to what extent this might apply for European languages, but my guess is it would apply for several other than Chinese. Pashley (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unless there are other editors involved with this, you seem to be characterising one edit made by me as "strict enforcement", which is not the case.
So, let's go over that edit. The alt for "Theatre on the Hill" read "Performance Arts Venue (Amersham & Wycombe College)". I removed the "Performance Arts Venue" bit, because the word theatre is in the name of the listing, so it's obvious. Now if the listing had been called something like "STAGE!", there is no way the average person is going to realise that is a theatre, so the alt info would be helpful. Regarding the "(Amersham & Wycombe College)" bit, I updated and moved the college details to directions, which is a more appropriate place for that info. As for the Chiltern Heritage Trail listing, information such as "25 mile circular cycle route" always goes in content.
By the way, alt is also used to translate the actual name of a listing into English, so to give a dull example, a listing called "Jardim Botânico" will normally have an alt that reads "botanical garden". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I would (generally) agree. I'm not "taking offence" at changes you made (I've been away for a few months so have not caught up on policy changes whilst I've been away and it's not related to the addressing we're discussing elsewhere and I'd not seen (all of) the changes to ALt's you may have made. My concern, uncertainty was in the Summary of a change where you said "Alt" is supposed to be for alternative names. In the broadest context as a policy discussion I'd argue that "Alt" should be used for useful moderately brief alternate text the traveller might find useful. For non-English speaking countries that might be the establishment name translated into English (so traveller has the text as it would be written on a sign in e.g. Russia as well as the "Sunday Market". In other cases "clarification" as to what the establishment is can be useful (as exampled above).
In the past I've treated the Alt as brief clarification where the establishment name does not describe the services offered and the Content to be an often lengthier set of notes. When scanning e.g. a list of Do's and See's immediately after the establishment name is far clearer than in lengthier unstructured text at the end. Many different types of Eat's as well (Restaurant, Takeaway, Delivery, Street food, Bar snacks, etc.)
It was your summary comment that made me raise this topic rather than specific changes you made. PsamatheM (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking you had taken offence, but appreciate the explanation anyhow :-)
The summary comment does refer to policy, but that's a policy which has been the same for years, so is not something that's been brought in while you've been away.
With regard to your policy proposal (if that's what it is), it looks like a good idea for longer listings with names that don't inform the reader automatically what they're looking at. Where the listing isn't actually very long, then the info should, IMO, still go in 'content'. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I had thought that the use of Alt for brief "clarification" and/or translation and/or "used to be known as" and/or "commonly referred to as" was common accepted practice (whatever the policy - I'd generally thought common accepted practice was in many ways policy). I'm happy to start a "policy" discussion if appropriate or if the above is contrary to policy (if I could be pointed to the most appropriate section for such policy discussion) (who actually starts any policy discussion is not important).
My personal preference would be for such use to always be in the Lt rather than varying between "Alt" and "Content" depending on length of text in content - mainly because the two sections are presented differently and for consistency i.e. user gets used to e.g. type of "Eat" (restaurant, takeaway, delivery, street food, Oriental/Italian/etc.) in italics after name rather than sometimes in italics after name, sometimes in normal text at end of listing. PsamatheM (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I notice that in certain articles, there's a practice of putting the type of food a restaurant serves in the "alt" tab. If that's an article-wide practice, I leave it alone, but I think that "alt" really should be reserved only for alternate names or names in non-Roman writing, and any kind of description should be in the "content" tab. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek. A type of food or style of service is not an alternative name for a restaurant. IMO "alt" should normally be an alternative name, not a key factoid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
So what do either of you say in response to having a "key factoid" that is visible at the top of a rather long listing alongside its name? That strikes me as a good reason to widen the scope of "alt" in some cases. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I say that if a list is long, it should be subdivided into subcategories, as per Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, but the issue is long listings :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I can appreciate that technically "Alt" is for an alternate name and that in an ideal world I think there would be a strong case of a "Type" field in listings (for e.g. type of food, type of service, type of establishment e.g. traditional pub vs dance club, etc. But I remember there being a discussion about adding mobile pone field to the listings with a strong consensus that it should be added - but getting changes made to the listing system seems "difficult" even when there is consensus. And given (personal opinion) the priority should be getting information to the traveller/user, then the "Alt" seems the most appropriate alternative. PsamatheM (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Typhoons, I think that having a "key factoid" right after the name is unimportant. It can be the very first words of the content section instead.
The reason I think it's unimportant is that I can't imagine myself (and by extension, anyone else) actually using that keyword in a well-constructed list to find an entry. I'm probably going to look for restaurants by location or by price, and this helps with finding neither of the things that I care about. If I want to find a particular kind of food, I'll use ⌘F. Or, perhaps more realistically, if I'm seriously determined to find that particular kind of food in a given city, I'll probably ask my favorite web search engine, because the odds are high that the Wikivoyage article will contain only one listing (if that many) for the kind of restaurant that I'm looking for.
Similarly, to use the example in the diff given above, I don't think that anyone really needs the "key factoid" of how long the bike path is. If you're interested in biking, then you'll read the whole listing anyway. "25-mile long circular bike path" could just as effectively be the first words of the regular description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
For me I can see how your search in the "Eat" section might find a restaurant and when you travel there to find it's actually not a restaurant but a take-away/delivery operation ...
One of the advantages of the "listing" is that it is structured data. The address could be included in the Content section, the phone number, web site, etc. and the listing becomes little more than a bit of geo-located free text. My thought is that "type" (or "Alt") only becomes relevant for certain listings where the name is not indicative (or is even misleading). And I feel it is important to remember WV is not just a web site but is a data source. For city dwellers it's easy to "rely on Google Search", but us more rural dwellers appreciate that a data connection is not always available and thus the offline versions of WV have tremendous potential (e.g. Kiwix, PocketEarth, etc.) PsamatheM (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Why would you expect me to travel all the way to a restaurant, but refuse to read the couple of sentences describing it? I don't need "take-away" to be in the alt section, because I'm always going to read the content section (and I'm probably look it up on restaurant review sites, too: very few people use just one website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] ThunderingTyphoons!, why do you want to write long listings? On the other hand, if you think a restaurant is worth a long listing, adding a word like "Italian" is not going to make it appreciably longer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The advantage of putting clarifying information in the "alt" field is that it appears before all of the other data, like address and hours. See, for example, Rochester (New York)#Spectator sports. Powers (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: There's been a misunderstanding here. I don't "want to write long listings", I am saying that where there are long listings with a non-obvious name, maybe a clarifier in the alt wouldn't be a bad thing. The link that Powers has provided demonstrates exactly that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with him, either, and I'm surprised someone who's such a Wikivoyage (and before that, Wikitravel) longtimer wants to deviate from the consensus that alt means "alternate name", period. I strongly object to using that tab for any other purpose. As I said, if the sections become too long, they can be subdivided. Otherwise, if there's a concern that the style of food will be lost in a long description, either the description should be shortened or, more obviously, the style of food should be indicated at the beginning of "content". Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I would ask you to please note that I did not express a direct opinion on the use of the alt field. I was merely pointing out that particular use cases are not satisfactorily covered by placing descriptors in the content field. I admit I'm stretching the use of the "alt" field in the case I linked, but it was out of necessity, not a philosophical opinion on the meaning of the "alt" field. If we need another field to cover this use case, I'm all for it, but for the time being "alt" is all we have. Powers (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no "necessity" here. Descriptors in the content field would be perfectly valid. K7L (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
But not nearly as useful. Why force a reader to wade through phone numbers and hours of operation before discovering that the Rochester Rhinos are a soccer team? Powers (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
What makes you so sure a casual reader who's unsure how interested he is in a particular listing will "wade through phone numbers and hours of operation", etc., rather the glossing over that stuff and skipping straight ahead to the meat of the listing? That's what I do in that case, and I suspect the same is true of most others. I think the status quo works fine, but if others disagree, I'd sooner move contact information and the like to the end of each listing than abuse the "alt=" argument. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
In the case of a long list of sports teams, (a) I won't be reading any of it, because I'm not interested in spectator sports, but (b) why not change the name itself to a more complete name, i.e., "Rochester Rhinos Soccer"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Tangentially, I miss when all data except the content was formatted in italics. Then there was no need to "wade through" a large block of text; you could visually skip over all the italics (which had the address, directions, hours, and phone numbers) and see where the content started, and the description of "what is this thing" would usually be apparent within the first few words. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless whether we add a "one-word-description"-field, I believe that we should think twice before using the "alt"-field in this way. In non-anglophone destinations "alternative name"-fields are often needed. Many list-items have one name which is commonly used in English and another which is used locally. The first name is the one a reader will look for when trying to find the list-item in our article, while the latter one is more likely to be added to signposts at the location. Both are crucial to a traveler. If we adopted a policy according to which the "alt"-field could either be used for alternative names or one word descriptions, I believe that it in practice would end up being an "alternative name"-field for non-anglophone destinations and a "one-word-description"-field for anglophone destinations (since it would be impossible, or at least aesthetically unpleasing, to write both an alternative name and one-word-description in the alt-field). But using different practices for anglophone and non-anglophone destinations seems like a very bad idea, and if "one-word-description"-fields are truly usable it should surely be possible to use them in non-anglophone destinations as well. MartinJacobson (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
In the case of the Rochester sports venues, I think that it would be far better to use the alt field to give the stadium name rather than the sport. If you want to draw attention to the sport then it can be put in bold, as has been done for some of the stadium names. I don't often go to sports stadia, but all my recent visits have been to seen other events held in the stadium - in several cases athletics events and ceremonies held in football stadia. If I was wanting to see the Rochester Red Wings play at home, then I would ask for directions to Frontier Field. I think that this also is a more standard use of the field. AlasdairW (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's not ideal to overload the the "alt" field (though as I said, it's more of a stretch than a violation, as the sport itself is part of the attraction; thus WhatamIdoing's suggestion of adding it to the name field). But I'm not keen on the offered alternatives, either. It's well enough to skip the contact info but it's nice to have the information all in roughly the same place in each listing; it's easily findable right after the bold name. The question of venue versus team is fraught as well; technically the venue is the attraction, and it should only be listed once, not multiple times for each team that plays there, but that's not really how people look for information on sports. Or concert venues. Powers (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Toy Museums or Childhood topic?[edit]

It's now Mid-November, and I was wondering if there was anyone that would be able to draft an article on Toy Museums, in time for Mid-Decemeber.

Or perhaps there would need to be a Travel Topic on "Childhood" as opposed to just Toy Musuems, distinct from "Child and Family Friendly" places to see and do things?

Both of the Toy museums I can think of are in London, and I wanted a "Childhood" article to avoid promoting whatever franchise craze was currently the latest thing on the internet.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

good idea, another great destination topic would be zoos. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Indianapolis has the world's largest children's museum (and best). —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that both Toy museums and Zoos would be fairly easy to write. I'm not sure what you would include in Childhood. (My first thought was that it sounded like a candidate for April Fools', as a type of time travel.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't be, because we have (or have had) children among our editors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Travelling with children basically covers what I imagine a "childhood" topic to be. What else is there to say that can't be added to that article?
If there are enough toy museums out there to merit an article, I wouldn't argue against it. Surprised we haven't got anything on zoos. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm really surprised we don't have a dedicated zoo or aquarium article. There should be plenty of content on those topics (i.e. what to expect of zoos in different countries, whether you should expect food and drink places or to bring your own, conservation tie-ins and how some offer classes or shows). I'd start one myself, but I don't know enough about zoos and my life doesn't give me much time for wiki editing at the moment. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Zoos: (having worked as a Zoo Keeper for a bit ...) I'm uncertain. I'd expect Zoos in a locality to be included in the guide for the City/Town/Village. On a worldwide basis it could become a very long listing. For more of a discussion of zoos then it could get very difficult and a lot would come down to personal opinion - conservation, captive breeding, return to wild, genetic variation, morals of keeping animals in captivity (e.g. Costa Rica). And what do you include; some zoos are good, others not so good, do you include rescue centres? Do you start discussing things like EEP, Studbooks, species coordinators, inter zoo transfers, TAGs, etc., etc. - in which case you are into quite a lot of background detail that I suspect most visitors to zoos wont be too interested in (and the Zoos themselves are probably better sources for such info as their web sites tend to say quite a lot about there activities in these areas). And despite having worked as a Zookeeper (finished 5'ish years ago) I don't feel I have adequate knowledge to write such an article. PsamatheM (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that Zoos would include some information on world-famous zoos (Vienna as the oldest, Hamburg as the start of naturalistic displays...), but perhaps more about types of zoos (e.g., toddlers probably prefer small zoos with a playground, 10 year olds probably prefer big zoos, an ecology student might want to see an endangered species, etc.) and maybe trends, like rotating animals between exhibits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You also at least in the UK, have Zoos that are in effect entire parks, like Whipsnade.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually meant "History of Childhood" because there are things that aren't strictly toys that are related... Some overlap with Miniatures, dioramas and scale models which was still largely a stub. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That title infers an article which begins "Back in my day, it was ten miles to school, uphill both ways... but you tell the kids that these days?" :) Perhaps toys and childhood amusements would be a suitable title? Dunno. Obviously it's a redlink, but then museums redlinks. K7L (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I was actually thinking Toys, puzzles and other amusements, to cover things like where to buy Rubix cubes and so on.. Anyone want to stub?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello. On Wikidata we are debating about the creation of a new property that would allow one to mention what are the lodgings around a tourist attraction. We need your input on this one. Can you possibly check Wikidata:Property proposal/lodging? Thierry Caro (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What is meant by "around"? Some fixed distance? Some fixed travel time (by which mode?). I think there is a huge difference between an attraction in downtown Venice and one in rural Wyoming... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Liquid Nicotine[edit]

So this edit to Germany by an IP editor made me aware of an issue that I do not care the least about personally (being anon-smoker) but which might be relevant to deal with in some of our guides. Should this be handled on a by-country basis or should we rather cover this in some omnibus travel topic? And what exactly are the rules? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

For the travel topic, see Tobacco. Some things can also be mentioned in anything from a country article down to a hotel listing, if either there are rules that will be a problem for smokers or smoke will be a problem for others. Pashley (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I am specifically referring to the whole liquid whatever stuff. Apparently the rules there are different. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be an e-cigarette section on Tobacco. However, country-specific rules and laws should definitely be in the 'Get in' of the relevant country. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Ideally this would be in the Customs part of "Get in". However as Germany doesn't seem to have any information on customs I see why the author has put the vaping liquid allowances where he has (also pity he didn't link to a customs website to backup the 20ml limit). AlasdairW (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tips for improving articles[edit]

I've written some useful advice for editors who want to improve articles about places they aren't familiar with: User:Ypsilon/Tips for improving articles on unfamiliar destinations. I thought sharing this might inspire other voyagers to improve articles from parts of the world that we don't cover very well. What do you say, is this something worth moving into main space at some point (it's still work in progress ;)), or is it just captain obvious stuff? --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

On a quick scan, it looks good. One thing that seems to be missing is an explanation of setting user preferences to show dead links. Pashley (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I like it and think that it can be really useful. In the least it might be a nice way to reassure editors that there is nothing important that they don't know that they don't know. Two thoughts: Perhaps it could be emphasized that this is a way and not the way to create new pages? We don't what to deter users from editing at all because they are not comfortable with this specific format. Secondly, perhaps it could also be useful to have a section discussing each of our standardized rubrics, e.g. "Tips for improving Eat sections in unfamiliar destinations" etc? It might cause some duplication, but it would also make the article much more navigable and useful for editors who don't want to write a full article at a time. MartinJacobson (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Good points. And it's not even a way, but rather a collection of tools and the editor can pick and choose which ones of them they want and need to use. For instance, if Understand, Get in, Get around and See are in a decent shape you will probably not need to use Wikipedia. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks useful. I think it would be good to highlight that in the case of a passage you don't know how to translate, it's much better to omit a piece of information than to mistranslate it in a way that makes it inaccurate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

(Performance) Magic[edit]

Okay. Anyone want to write a stub on where to see it?

I can only think of Vegas though :(. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably Branson, Missouri and Atlantic City in the States. There are magic shows, societies, and stores in Los Angeles and New York City as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I did write a stube a while back, in my userspace, but deleted on the grounds I couldn't expand it beyond what I knew... It may be worth seeing if anything can be salavaged, but it would need a lot of re-working, before I'd consider it usable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe some conventions or schools that someone might travel to? I've heard of clown schools/camps, so presumably there are equivalent things for stage magicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Listing type "guide" (esp. See vs Do)[edit]

Guys, I'm quite sure I saw the hints page somewhere - either here, or at WT. Basically, I'd like to get consistent on what goes into "do" and "see" sections. What I especially struggle with are natural sights (if I have to hike 4 hours to it, is it still "see"?) and stuff like museums/zoos. If there's no such thing, perhaps we could add some list of common suspects e.g. here? (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there is some "Where you can stick it" page somewhere in our policies under that or a similar name. It might need updating, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Wycsi. Apparently, if the thing involves people (yourself or somebody else) doing something it should probably be a Do. If you are watching animals or inanimate objects it is a See. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I added a link to Wycsi to Wikivoyage:Listings. It should have been there somewhere all along. Powers (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Overall our policy on listings seem to have been edited only very little in the last few years (cf: the "Project" links). Maybe we should have a debate which aspects we'd want to change. I for one advocate for fleshing out WV:Boring a bit more; namely that interesting instances of otherwise boring listings should get listed. For example the very first MC Donald's should probably get a listing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we already do this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "our policy hasn't changed in a while" is in itself a rationale for a change in policy. Perhaps the reason why it hasn't changed is because it works well. Let's focus on improving our content rather than searching for policy problems to solve. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah but there is a fine difference, you see. It's not that the policy hasn't changed. It's that the article hasn't changed. A lot of stuff we've come to do around here and even to enforce to a degree are not actually policy. And on the other hand some policies are dead letter now. If that isn't the case, great, we can still fix formatting or wording and replace the "Project" words... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster - On that note, you're absolutely right. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Today I added a wish for the improving of the Kartographer tool on the meta wiki. Please take part in the discussion. Thanks. --RolandUnger (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Some editors at w:en:WP:VPT were just lamenting the complete lack of map-related wishes for this year. I think it would be a good idea to have more wishes on subjects such as maps, which are important to so many different kinds and sizes of projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


So I pointed out some time ago at Talk:Berlin/South that the district is huge and contains vastly different areas and suggested it be broken up into two or three separate districts. Per Talk:Berlin there was even some queasiness back when the district was created. A counter-argument brought forth at the time was the lack of listings in some part of the district. However, recent edits have added a lot of them. Would you please have a look and weigh in whether we should or should not subdivide the district? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge all regions of Rwanda[edit]

I raised the issue at Talk:Rwanda but would like to have more people weigh in before acting. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It has been done, this can be moved, removed, archived or whatever. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Architecturally notable embassies[edit]

How should we deal with embassies whose architecture is either particularly pretty or which are immediately apparent to the eye. We list them in cities (even districted cities) under "cope", but should we mention their architectural features and/or make them see listings in the districts or something else? And yes, this is somewhat related to the rail station quandary that I also raised over at Talk:Biel. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess this is difficult, as one of the nice diplomatic things countries often do is turn architecturally pleasing buildings over to ambassadorial use. Cities like London, Paris, and no doubt Washington, are awash with distinctive embassy buildings. So we could list these places under 'see', but it might be at the price of adding dozens of duplicate listings (albeit focusing on different elements of the same address). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
If an embassy is really particularly interesting or pretty, so much so that it's worth highlighting for sightseers that don't have embassy-related business, then I think it's appropriate to give it a "See" listing. (This is the same way I feel about train stations, as I tried to express in a discussion above.) To be clear, I definitely don't think we should add every interesting-looking embassy in London to the "See" sections—only any that are especially appealing to sightseers. Also, if there's a neighborhood or street that's particularly full of architecturally interesting embassies, that could be added as a "See" listing rather than adding individual embassies to the section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
If it helps at all, the embassies in London are mainly clustered around Westminster (obviously), Mayfair and Kensington, but that still makes more than a hundred in an area dominated by fabulous-looking properties. It seems to me a fine line between an "interesting-looking" embassy and a "particularly interesting embassy", and that is inherently subjective. I'm not arguing against you really, just pointing out there aren't any easy answers. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is the same fine line we have to deal with for all "See" listings. I don't see why embassies are any different. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Can't we just add a line to some embassy listings saying "a beautiful (architectural style) building dating to (era)"? Just like we surely can for the "get in" section listings of very close to all train stations where such might seem appropriate. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster has the right idea I think, at least for embassies. The difference from normal see listings, is normally there's just one listing, so we don't have to be picky. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) This boils down to a case of a place that's necessary to list in "Cope" but also worthwhile to list in "See". Why can't we have both? The weak link in this scenario is the policy that says we can't have duplicate listings. This, to me, is pretty clearly the exception that proves the rule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem, it would appear to me, is that we don't want every embassy to get double listed (and at any rate, the "see" listing would have to be in the district article anyway) and it is not entirely clear which objective or subjective criteria there are to be used to decide which embassy, does, as it were, get double listing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's an embassy that's notable enough to be listed in any category other than "Cope", IMO no one should worry about double-listing it. If you feel like it's more of a gray area and you're not sure whether or not an embassy is notable enough to be double-listed - and this is the part I want to emphasize, because this advice is applicable to a lot of these questions that come up sometimes - then instead of waiting for the community to come to some hard-and-fast rule, you should simply proceed according to your best judgment, and if someone else has a problem with that, let them take it up on the talk page of the article or on your user talk page. As long as you have a reasonable explanation for why you did what you did, no one is going to fault you for plunging forward, and if your edit gets reverted, so be it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
A pictogram like Architecture-1298980.svg or Arkitekturo.png could be included in the description of the embassy (or school, restaurant, hotel, theatre, ...). The pictogram should have a mouse over text with explanation. And if it is used in an article, the see section could refer to them like "Note, the ... sections have also buildings that are interesting/great to see". --FredTC (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You could propose the addition of pictograms in Wikivoyage talk:Listings, but let's not use them unless a consensus supports them. So far, we haven't used them and have indeed deleted the freelance use of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
If something already has a listing in another section of the same article, another full listing, pictograms or much of anything else other than one brief line of plain text like "Embassy Row is known for the historic architecture of the X, Y and Z missions" is probably overkill. We don't want to repeat ourselves unnecessarily. K7L (talk)
I agree with this. I think the best solution would be a full listing in "See" and then a listing in "Get in" that mentions only practical matters, except for a sentence stating something like "This station is also a notable sight: See the listing in the "See" section". Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with AndreCarrotflower and Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
For embassies, there are exceptions. The French Embassy in Rome would be listed in the section with embassies but also must be listed as a "See" listing because it's the Palazzo Farnese. See Rome/Old Rome#Historical buildings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I see no reason why we can't list an embassy in both Cope and See. Each listing serves a totally different purpose. Powers (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we include Europa Park in the "Other destinations" section of the Black Forest article or move to the "Go next" section?[edit]

Earlier I added a mapmask of the Black Forest region to the Black Forest article (I imported the mapmask from and to my surprise Europa Park as well of many other locations we have listed under the "Cities, towns and villages" section of the Black Forest article, weren't actually within the Black Forest region.

As such, I wanted to suggest that any of the locations which aren't within the Black Forest boundaries be moved to the section "Go next" in the Black Forest article (which is supposed to be about nearby prominent locations.

If you prefer that that all those locations continue to appear in the "Cities, towns and villages" and "Other destinations" sections, I suggest we change the name of the article to Black Forest region (similar to Sea of Galilee region which isn't only about the lake itself) or something similar that would suggest that article is about a bigger region than just the Black Forest.

Any thoughts? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at Baden-Württemberg, you will see that the contributors who originally defined this basically made the entire south west region of Baden-Württemberg state into Black Forest.
You are correct to say it doesn't technically equate to the official boundaries of the Black Forest itself, but it would be messy to define new regions for the small areas around it that are not officially in the Black Forest itself. It can, as you say, be considered a 'region'.
I would still personally prefer not to rename the article Black Forest Region, but just my POV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem though... which I exemplified with the Europa Park article, is that we are currently spreading false information -that the Europa Park is indeed located within the Black Forest. (look at the breadcrum at the top of the article Europa Park). This falsehood would keep on duplicating itself as other editions of Wikivoyage translate these articles to their own languages. This would be easily fixed with the minor changes I suggested. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
How about calling it Southwestern Baden Württemberg? Yes it is as generic a name as can be, but it is accurate, isn't it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
No. "Black Forest" is a far likelier search term than "Southwestern Baden-Württemberg". And Europa Park is located in the Black Forest as defined in the regions map at Baden-Württemberg, which should be the end of the debate over whether it's included in this article. It's the mapshape in the Black Forest article that needs to be changed. As for the "falsehood" of stating that Europa Park is located within the forest itself, it's not anything we need to get worked up about - it's close enough to the forest that for all intents and purposes, the difference is too trivial to bother with. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Given what we see at w:Baden, how fruitful would it be to make this region more co-extensive with Baden or some part of it? It's rather surprising to me, that none of our subregions of Baden-Württemberg contain Baden or Württemberg in their name instead of both... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep as it. Many regions on this site do not follow strictly the definition of some administrative boundary and as mentioned above is the most internationally well know term for the area. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the issue becomes clear through a topographical map. It is rather obvious that the area to the west of the Schwarzwald and towards the Rhine is quite different in altitude and character to the Schwarzwald. As for Rust (the town that's home to Europapark) that's here. What about calling the whole region Southern Baden? It might not be 100% exact but maybe we should fudge around with the boundaries anyway, given the state of Swabian Mountains. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
'Black Forest' is frankly a more charismatic name to travelers than Southern Baden, and I don't think there is any issue in including towns that are literally just outside the official geologically defined region.
Take a look at how Baden is structured and I would you would agree that the state isn't exactly set up for dividing up on WV using official boundaries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Well I think for the most part the current Landkreise are boundaries we can safely ignore. But there are some unfortunate things about the current layout. For one there is both Bodensee Region and Lake Constance as articles, for another Stuttgart Region is a region you might find in a dead trees guide but rarely in our guides. And then there is lumping the Upper Rhine Valley together with the Black Forest under the name of the latter... I do not, mind you, have the perfect solution... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A more visual pleasing look for certain prominent list articles[edit]

I just transformed our Communication page, which previously only included a list of articles with no additional information, to include a more visually pleasing look (in my opinion) and some additional information. I tend to prefer we use this type of look for certain prominent list articles which is common place on the German Wikivoyage.

In my opinion this design should also be used in our Transport page as well like this (and maybe in other prominent list articles as well).

Would you support that change to the Transport page? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Does look better. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I like this, too. Thanks for taking the initiative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A separate issue: The Communication page is tagged as a travel topic article. But it is not listed at Travel topics. And it is really an index or directory of articles, rather than a topic article, similar to the Itineraries page. I suggest that {{outlinetopic}} be replaced with {{Title-Index page}}. And I guess {{PartOfTopic|Travel topics}} should be deleted – the Itineraries page doesn't have a {{PartOfTopic|...}}. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that got missed. I have replaced the driving sub-topic with Communication. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I just transformed three more prominent 'list articles' to have the same look[edit]

Following the support I got above with the changes I did to the Communication page, I decided to do give the following three pages a similar transformation - Transportation, Boat travel and General transportation subjects. I hope you too prefer the more visual pleasing version of these articles as well.

The Transportation article had a quite a lot of text in it which in my opinion should be moved to the sub-articles. Since English isn't my main language, I would be grateful if any of the native English speakers here (or any expert editors for that matter) would help me make sure that all of the text form this version of that page is copied to the relevant sub articles. Anyone interested in helping me with that? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll be also very happy if anyone with knowledge on this subject would write the article Ride hailing services (about using services like Uber and Lyft) which I noticed was missing in the Transportation page. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Did you check that the articles in the sublists are easily found also after the change? I note for example that Sea kayaking doesn't fit well into any of the links in the current Boat travel. The closest is Boating, where it is mentioned in a subsection two pages down the article and does not fit well with the description in the lead. The kayaking articles are breadcrumbed to water sports, which may be logical, but not necessarily the place people are looking (hiking is in another branch, at Outdoor life). --LPfi (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I note sea kayaking is mentioned as See also. I hope other subarticles not clearly fitting are handled in a similar way. --LPfi (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for doing this, ויקיג'אנקי. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Are we sure we want this?[edit]

I am personally a bit taken aback by what was done at Transportation where flowing text was converted into this somewhat infantilizing stock-photo-pallooza... I am not sure the old articles are the best we ever did, but the new is also questionable... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The same. IMO, we should roll back, and then make a draft of a replacement article. /Yvwv (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And perhaps a simple but broader suggestion: Make all the text at the bottom of the front page substantially larger. Failed to mention them to several people I referred to the site, and they missed them as well. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Changing a small list to the new style is a big improvement but I'm not so sure when there is significant text in an article that has to be removed. Gizza (roam) 00:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

the thing is though... the Transportation article was never meant to be a big mish mash of texts. It is too broad of a subject and therefore it works much better in my opinion when it is not flooded with text and helps the readers to easily navigate to the right sub-articles they are seeking (and I am sure that there are a lot more subjects that might be created in the future as sub articles for this broad topic). As I mentioned above, any content the was previously in the Transportation article, in my opinion, should be moved to the sub articles where it belongs. otherwise, why not just move all content that exists in the sub articles to one big Transportation article (I am hoping you agree that it would be a bad idea since no one would be able to locate the information they need and the article would be too big). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster, Yvwv, User:DaGizza and Hennejohn - do all of you oppose moving the content which existed in the Transportation article to the sub articles? Do all of you believe that it would be better to have the same big segments of text appear in both the main Transportation article as well as the sub articles? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
If a user knows they want to read about rail transportation, they will go to the article on rail transportation. If they go to the article on transportation in general, they want different forms compared, contrasted and the upsides and downsides shown. Hence for that a plucky picture parade is not what most people will be looking for. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not a complete new concept to the English Wikivoyage - the prominent 'list article' Travel topics is also a type of "a plucky picture parade" you suggest we replace it with a text only version? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I have always thought the Travel topics picture parade is less than ideal (see the talk page), but that is not the point. Nobody comes to "travel topics" to read about travel topics, they come to find travel topic articles of interest. As Hobbitschuster writes, the Transportation article had worthwhile prose that people might actually suppose to find on that page. We could of course move that to a subarticle (Choosing transport?), but I do not see why it could't be directly there, as long as the articles on individual transport forms are easy to find. --LPfi (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI (just an observation and we don't have to follow it at all of course) Wikipedia covers both ways of displaying topics with the Portal namespace, which is pictorial, and the Outline feature which is listy. For example, see w:Portal:Europe and w:Outline of Europe. Gizza (roam) 11:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
When the options for a top/high level page are either a short, boring list or the same list with icons and brief text descriptions, then I'm in favor of the icon approach.
When the options are either a lot of text or almost no text with icons, then I think we need to carefully consider the options in the context of the specific page. I don't think that there can be a single one-size-fits-all rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
With a quick read of "Transportation", it appears primarily/wholly focused on choosing what to use...interesting and useful. The icons tend to let a reader quickly choose a type based on available articles. Thus my preference for making "Choosing a type of transportation" perhaps the first icon in the new set of icons...the contents to be the "Transportation" article. Just a suggestion from someone who's primarily a user. Hennejohn (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Smartphone apps useful for travelers[edit]

Please help expand the article with more items as well as specific prominent apps you recommend for each category of apps. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Should a noncommercial site like Wikivoyage really be in the business of promoting smartphone apps? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Only to the extent we support restaurants or hotels. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
That's apples and oranges, don't you think? There's a believable argument that "Sleep" and "Eat" listings don't constitute promotion of thoe respective businesses — if a restaurant or hotel is listed in one of our destination articles, the only thing that implies is that it's not so utterly terrible that we can't in good conscience recommend anyone patronize it. But I think a travel topic that has no other purpose than enumerating a list of commercially-developed smartphone apps sold by outside sources, many of which don't provide any information we couldn't theoretically include directly in our articles, and to then describe these apps in the title of the article as "useful", is a bridge too far. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I also think it is problematic to link a few apps, which may or may not be the most useful, such as the list of a few social media ones, or to advocate image editing on the phone instead of doing it with a computer with a decent (or good) screen and much more computing power. That said, I see no problem in noting useful uses of smartphones, mentioning some classes of apps, as is done in the article. The discussion could be more thorough than what is desirable in Mobile phones (where Smart phones currently redirect). That more thorough discussion should be written though. --LPfi (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I do think that having destination specific apps would be quite useful. Owing to the lack of curation of the Apple and Google app stores almost every destination and language has a ton of very low quality apps, and it is hard to know if it is worth downloading to see if it is any good.
For example the Australian NSW government provides a decent app for the Convict Trail, and that is quite useful for the traveler (and has no commercial aspect at all). Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Destination-specific apps should be mentioned in the destinations' guides, if they're useful. Powers (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
One omission from the page is the offline Wikivoyage App(s). Although I use an Andoid App occasionally, I don't know enough to add a paragraph about these. (see Wikivoyage:Offline Expedition) AlasdairW (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Offline WV app is great. Open Street Maps is another one of my favorite as it is offline. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

An idea I had for the upcoming 5th anniversary of the launch of Wikivoyage on the Wikimedia servers[edit]

5th anniversary coming up on January 15, 2018!

We are rapidly approaching the fifth anniversary of the launch of Wikivoyage on the Wikimedia servers (the initial launch for all the language editions on the Wikimedia servers happened on January 15, 2013).

I was thinking it would be a really good way to promote Wikivoyage as we approach this date if we would be able to convince the Wikimedia foundation to sponsor a "Wikivoyage month" which would be a promotion wikiproject aimed at getting volunteers to help expand or improve selected articles on all Wikivoyage editions during the 30 days leading to the official fifth anniversary date (December 15 2017 - January 15 2018).

The general idea is that we'll have a wikiproject for all the Wikivoyage editions, similar to Wikipedia's current "Asia month".... YET... this wikiproject would invite people to write or expand either:

  • (1) Selected articles we would choose to be our core articles (we'll need to decide which ones those are, although I'll just mention that on the Hebrew Wikivoyage we choose the following articles to be the 200 core articles of the Hebrew Wikivoyage). Doing this would ensure that this effort would mainly focus on the articles we deem to be the most important articles.
  • (2) Or any destination article they are interested in or have a lot of knowledge about (the downside of this option is that we won't have a concentrated effort on selected articles).
  • (3) Or maybe only the article about their hometown (this wouldn't be very helpful for Wikivoyage editions where most of the potential contributors whom speak that language are concentrated mostly in one or a couple of countries).

for this to work well, Wikimedia would have to support such an effort and agree to add global banners at the top of ALL the pages on all the Wikimedia websites just like they did with the "Asia month" which was featured on Wikivoyage as well. At this point massive exposure to Wikivoyage would definitely be helpful, especially for the smaller Wikivoyage editions in which usually only a few editors are active trying to keep them afloat, and they (including the Hebrew Wikivoyage) definitely need any web traffic they can get from Wikipedia.

If you like this idea, please help me bring it forward to the Wikimedia foundation. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I think on en-WV there are a bunch of articles that are without a doubt important articles but given the stuff you might see perusing Talk:USA we might not want even more editing on them... However, there are without a shred of a doubt numerous, numerous articles that need edits. But which of them should we put particular focus on? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, before we start talking about which articles are the most important articles that would have the highest priority for such a wikiproject, I suggest that we waste no time with this idea and go directly to the biggest challenge standing in the way of making this idea a reality - which is convincing the Wikimedia foundation that this is a good idea worth doing.
I'll just add that I myself have tried last week to convince the Hebrew branch of the Wikimedia foundation to launch such a wikiproject on a much smaller scale (for only the Hebrew sites of the Wikimedia foundation) but they told me that it is either going to be a global wikiproject like Wikipedia's "Asia Month" or nothing (which is because basically they don't have the authority do launch something like that).
Can anyone help me bring this idea forward as soon as possible to the Wikimedia foundation? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Whom would we have to contact for that? And how concrete would we have to be with our proposal? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
We have been through this 5 years ago right after the launch. Such a campaign will have exactly the opposite effect, especially for smaller projects. Lots of new people will come and write something that typically does not fit into the travel guide at all, or at least requires extensive copy-editing. With their limited manpower, smaller projects will not be able to cope with this influx of new editors and will simply stay with lots of unfinished, generally useless articles. All new editors will leave as soon as the banner is down. We have not got any single long-term editor from that campaign.
If anyone still wants to try this, I would recommend to opt for the banner in one or a few Wikipedias, which only needs consent of those Wikipedias where the banner is activated. --Alexander (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"We have not got any single long-term editor from that campaign." Well that's wrong for starters. I only came to Wikivoyage (on 15 January 2013) because there was a banner at the top of Wikipedia advertising it; I can't be the only one. Furthermore, there is no reasonable justification for "All new editors will leave as soon as the banner is down." - I would say it is quite likely that during that month, people will come here, decide they like it, and decide to stay. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons!, I was talking about Russian Wikivoyage, and I deem it an instructive example for most Wikivoyages, except for a few bigger ones. People may decide to stay if they find useful information, which means a significant number of well-written and properly illustrated articles should already exist. We did not have that back in 2013 (on Russian Wikivoyage), so we did not get anything out of that banner campaign. It may be better now, although I am not sure. On the other hand, I am sure that Hebrew Wikivoyage with its single "very active contributor" (meaning an editor with more than 100 edits per month per the stats definition) has neither such articles nor enough manpower to cope with new people coming. So I do expect the overall negative effect on smaller Wikivoyages, and I have solid evidence to support that statement.
In my opinion, a much better option for smaller projects is organizing contests, which draw a smaller number of more experienced people. Another advantage is that people participating in a contest tend to read the guidelines, while those coming through a banner do not read anything. By the way, Ukrainian Wikivoyage will run such a contest in December. --Alexander (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In my view, it is definitely up to each individual Wikivoyage to decide if they want to be part of this, so that decision should obviously be taken over at Викигид. I would ask you to consider that things may be somewhat different five years later, since your argument is based on inductive evidence; there is nothing about past events that means they will inevitably repeat in the present or future. You may find Викигид has an experience more similar to that of EN Wikivoyage in 2013, with new and constructive editors adding to your team. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
That's something I have mentioned above. We may be able to gain something out of it, although we will have to work hard. A Wikivoyage with one very active editor has no chance to turn this banner campaign into a useful event, and there is strong evidence behind this statement. --Alexander (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
We can have the banner point to a landing page where the most common pitfalls are explained and/or a help center where our most experienced users can answer questions and help with problems. I don't think there are many well-intentioned contributions that we could get that are so bad as to be worse than not getting any contribution at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In January 2013, two people (me included) spent about 6 hours per day on cleaning up the mess created by these well-intentioned contributors on Russian Wikivoyage. --Alexander (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It make sense such a comment would come from one of the biggest Wikivoyage editions. I myself found Wikivoyage thanks to those banners in January 2013, and mostly thanks to my help the Hebrew Wikivoyage was launched as well on March 28, 2013. I am sure that if you'll ask the admins of any of the medium sized Wikivoyage editions, or the small Wikivoyage editions they'll say the same as me - we need the help of a good promotion on Wikipedia pages to help get many more people to hear about Wikivoyage and consider contributing to it. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: what did the mess look like? And could the users who produced it not be pointed to some sort of explanation? If after being pointed out how stuff works they still carry on doing it wrong, maybe they're not all that well intentioned after all. And if they were not pointed to how to do stuff better, that seems to me like a major omission. I think it should be obvious that before such a thing is done, we should either look at our existing advice for new contributors (especially subsets coming over from WP) and/or write completely new advice. And as I said, we could put a link to a page of advice in the banner. But I can't possibly believe that a dozen well intentioned users can possibly be more work for the regulars than the dozens of touts we currently have. And stuff like our listing editor should help make a lot of stuff pretty self-explanatory... Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It looked like 10 new people coming every day and making hundreds of edits and creating 10 new pages on average. Most of these pages would not fit into the geographical hierarchy, others would be about places that do not merit their own article. I can't show you such things, because they were all deleted. What I can show is a city travel guide after the work of a well-intentioned contributor in February 2013, here. Lists of useless objects, unsystematic selection of attractions with no single description, museums are described as merely having "10000 exhibits" or "5000 exhibits" without saying what these exhibits are. You can also see how this article looks now after my editing. I did not use the previously added information, I simply removed it and wrote the article from scratch.
If we tried to talk to people, we typically got no response, or the response was "I just add some information, and you decide how to arrange it". The problem is that banners attract people who have never edited wiki before. They don't know anything about wiki-markup and they usually have no idea what a travel guide is. --Alexander (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
With 4900 articles now (and ~2000 articles back in 2013), isn't Russian Wikivoyage a medium-size Wikivoyage? --Alexander (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the size of a wiki refers to the number of active contributors, rather than number of pages. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
That statistics gives basically the same result. --Alexander (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) I think this could potentially be a good idea, if it's executed the right way. But I think taking the one-size-fits-all approach ויקיג'אנקי proposes would be a bad way of executing it. The needs of smaller Wikivoyages like he: are very different from those of larger ones like en:. For our purposes here, I agree with Hobbitschuster that the notion of defining certain articles as "more important" than others and shunting new contributors towards them would do more harm than good. Our most important articles (as defined by the metric of the OP; the question of who's to say what makes an article "important" is also a good one) generally don't need any more attention than they're already getting, and in many cases (i.e. USA) cleaning up after the excessive number of dubious-quality edits on high-traffic articles often ends up siphoning time and energy away from articles that are far more in need of attention. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, and am all for lending whatever help I can give. I also agree with The Hobbit and Andre that EN's needs are probably different to most if not all other Wikivoyages. It would be far better, for us at least, to just encourage new editors to edit whatever articles they fancy, but perhaps to suggest (on the same "explanation" page mentioned by Hobbitschuster) they start either on their hometown or a favourite holiday destination (options 2 or 3 as proposed by ויקיג'אנקי). Not getting a concerted effort on specific articles should be offset by attracting more editors, which can't ever be a bad thing, despite certain assertions to the contrary here. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The other thing that should probably take priority over even contacting Wikimedia, is getting a sense of what the other Wikivoyages think by asking them. This is a good enough idea that if need be it could just be taken forward here and on Hebvoy if the other wikis don't want to join in, but if other languages are going to be involved, they need to be informed of the idea and say whether they want in or not. In this regard, I would be happy to contact French Wikivoyage, if we develop a stronger consensus for this idea among editors here. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I support some sort of promotional or awareness campaign during the anniversary. Even we did revert and delete 90% of the new contributions and keep 10% (which may be the worst case scenario), if some of the 10% writers stay, Wikivoyage will be better in the long run. And we don't just need editors but readers too. Higher readership will be a boost to SEO and hopefully lead to a chain or viral reaction where some of the new readers spread the word and/or follow us on social media. Gizza (roam) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


Some notes on the (possible) implementation:

1. It is of course necessary to contact people from different language versions asking for their opinion and support. It is also necessary to ping Stefan and James, who have good connections in the Wikimedia world, instead of naively asking "Whom would we have to contact for that?"

2. Further discussion largely depends on the scope. One "smaller" language could negotiate this with their home Wikipedia (e.g., Hebrew Wikipedia for he.voy) without going to Meta, but anything that involves English-speaking projects around the globe is more central and thus takes more time to organize.

3. The time frame of 15.12-15.01 is likely unrealistic. First, the recommended discussion period for the central notice is "at least 7 days", but for a non-standard case it may take longer. Second, landing pages explaining what to write and how to write should be prepared. Just posting a link "Please, contribute to Wikivoyage" on top of the Wikipedia pages will make more harm than good, see our 2013 experience (described in the thread above). Third, some banner campaigns are already scheduled. I am sure WMF will be reluctant to advertise Wikivoyage during the ongoing "Big English fundraising campaign" (20.11-31.12). The overlap with the "Wikimedia Annual Report" (7.01-30.01) is also undesirable. Therefore, I would aim for the period 15.01-15.02 arguing that 1 month is better than 2 weeks (which we had back in 2013), because there is still overlap in the second half of January.

--Alexander (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Another implementation idea is to turn this into something like the ongoing Asian Month, essentially an edit-a-thon. Potential advantages would be: i) a more clear incentive and a small reward for the most prolific editors; ii) the Wikimedia community is already familiar with this kind of events; there should be no major opposition to having the central banner for such an event, whereas promoting a project because of its 5th anniversary is something that (to my knowledge) never happened before; iii) the event can be made regular. --Alexander (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This is basically what I was suggesting... an edit-a-thon type initiative like "Asian Month" (our 5th anniversary is just the "excuse" for the Wikimedia foundation to support this). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Asian month entails a competition component with jury and prizes. The prizes are minor, but someone should still arrange them. A jury is needed, and someone should draft the rules. Any volunteers? --Alexander (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
With respect to a centralnotice, the details on how to get one is here[4]. This is partly community determined rather than WMF determined. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
James, yes, it is community-determined, and I believe it has to be announced in English Wikipedia and/or in the wikimedia-l mailing list. Could we use your help with that? For example, could you post such an announcement (when the time comes)? --Alexander (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The "go" template[edit]

Apparently you can make a "go" listing in two different ways. One is to use a "listing" template and the "type=go" parameter, the other is to use "go" analogous to "see" or "do". However, this produces a listing which won't work with the listing editor. Can whatever is causing this be fixed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Voting to improve Kartographer[edit]

Yesterday the voting process to select the most important community wishes started. You can help to bring the Kartographer improvement into a good position by your own vote for Kartographer. I hope that we will have enough votes to continue the work on the Kartographer. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Roland, for taking care of this. Let me emphasize that Wikimedia Foundation stopped the development of Kartographer. This vote is our only chance to change their decision and draw attention to the technical features that are relevant to Wikivoyage. Every editor who reads this, should go to meta and vote. If you think this is something unrelated to you, maps will never improve. To compete with bigger projects pushing forward their favorite features, the full support of the whole Wikivoyage community is needed. --Alexander (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm the Product Manager for the Community Tech team. I'm really glad that you all are excited about voting for this on the Community Wishlist Survey; this is definitely the kind of thing the Wishlist Survey is for.
I want to make sure that the folks here know what the survey can do. The Community Tech team is responsible for investigating and addressing the top 10 wishes in 2018. If the Kartographer proposal is in the top 10 at the end -- and it's got a strong early lead :) -- that means it'll be one of the 10 projects that our team works on next year. We'll investigate all of the feature requests and bugs that are listed in the proposal and in the discussion, and we'll report back on which pieces we'll be able to work on this year. It won't be just a couple of bugs; we'll want to do something substantial.
But I want to make sure folks know: this vote is not going to bring back a dedicated Maps product team. Roland suggested that this work might take a year or two, and that's beyond the scope of what the Community Tech team can do. I don't want to discourage people from voting, because we'll definitely be able to help; I just want to make sure folks won't expect a full-time dev team working on Kartographer. Let me know if you've got any questions. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Kartographer improvements on the Wikimedia wishlist[edit]

The kartographer is one of our most important features. RolandUnger has proposed some urgently needed improvements. If you want to support these wishes please vote on meta wiki for the Kartographer improvements. I wish you a very merry Christmas. Thank you very much.

Sent with Global message delivery -- Nov, 28th 2017 - DerFussi

The vote for the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey will end after 24 hours. If you like please vote for the Kartographer improvements. --RolandUnger (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Glitchy mapshape in Chuncheon[edit]

The aforementioned article has a mapshape that looks interesting, certainly, but is of little help to travelers. User:ThunderingTyphoons! has tried to fix it - to no avail. I therefore call on the collective brainpower of my fellow wikivoyagers to solve this issue! Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to give it a better go than I just did. It just can't be done. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the mapmask, I saw a big jump "37.7280,127.5617 |38.0141,128.0299", and looking at the picture, I expect that there are others. There also appear to be some duplicates. AlasdairW (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I will check my old files on my PC but I think I provided a new set of coordinates for someone for Chuncheon in the Spring of 2017 (took several hours to correct). Was previously mentioned on an older Travellers' Pub page. -- Matroc (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Checked notes - not exactly sure but I believe OSM was asked to check Chuncheon coordinates or wait a bit as sometimes an OSM update might fix the issue. Can use <mapframe> directly with "type": "ExternalData", "service": "geoshape" and "ids": "Q42148" OR the mapframe template with geomask and wikidata parameters as Drat70 has already done. -- Matroc (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
New note - I retrieved the coordinates from OSM for Chuncheon and created formatted (1200+) coordinates for use with {{Mapmask}}. I placed that info on the Chuncheon Talk Page -- Matroc (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
As a temporary fix I added a new mapshape, which refers to the wikidata element of Chuncheon. On a first glance it looks identical to the one previously in the article, but we can of course go back to listing the coordinates in the article once somebody manages to fix them. Drat70 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, usage of wikidata for this is quite a great solution in my eyes! I'll definitely use it in future (unless it "violates" some rules, similar to the one disallowing inline wikipedia links), much better than trying to re-invent the geo-boundaries... Would be great if the listings would support gathering image+coords from wikidata, too. (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you seen the "update shared fields from Wikidata" button in the listing editor? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I rarely use the listing editor, so I didn't - thanks for the hint! But in any case, my idea was that it would suffice to enter something like { {listing|wikidata=XYZ} } (instead of copying the data). (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
There are actually some arguments against doing this (if you search for it, I think there has been previous suggestions along those lines) for instance that the coordinates on wikidata are not always correct and even if they are, there might be different needs here. For instance if it's a big park or something, wikidata will probably show the centre whereas for the traveler it might make more sense to know where the entrance is.Drat70 (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma City districts[edit]

As one very furtive glance at the page might tell, the districts are a mess. The map contains more gray space (not contained even in proposed districts) than districts and some districts are no more than redlinks. There are thankfully some geotagged listings, but by far not enough to draw district borders just based on that. I have now proposed the radical solution of - at least for now - getting rid of the districts and later maybe drawing new lines. What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like the best solution for now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Working on this months cotm this one has stumped me. On the 503 south of Boulemane helps but does not pin it down. Can anyone find out exactly where it is? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a tiny place, appears to be approximately here, and once had a Peace Corps water project. –StellarD (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice piece of research, thanks. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we give an appraisal of travel advisories[edit]

Given edits like this and a probably real tendency of certain travel advisories to be more alarmist, should the aforementioned article include a value judgment about any or all of the advisories (e.g. "The United States will overstate the dangers in countries it is not allied with but generally treat the same dangers less alarmistically in allied countries")? Or is this a potential point where we would spend more digital ink debating minutiae than currently at Talk:USA? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that remarks about the general nature or (in)consistency of various nations' travel advisories would be well placed in the Travel advisories article, which needs a new banner (but I'll post about that in that article's talk page). Otherwise, any needed remarks about specific travel advisories are best placed in the "Stay safe" sections of destination articles or, if the travel advisory is truly egregiously off, perhaps in "Understand" or even the lede. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we have to let readers make their own judgments about these warnings. While I agree that some travel warnings are alarmist (I did just get back from travelling in Iran with my same-sex partner), I don't think we should think that we have better info than a government. It would be awful if someone ignored a warning on our advice and got into trouble. Ground Zero (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree with that last sentence. Even if we acknowledge they're corruptible, it should be clear that countries with a large diplomatic presence across the world and fingers in lots of military and intelligence pies will have a better idea about where's safe and where isn't than we do. I'm not certain we should ever give advice that is contrary to what multiple countries' foreign offices say, other than to remind travellers that they have the right to ignore official advice, and that they are ultimately responsible for their own safety. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Right. But I think it's still possible to give a comparative analysis of different governments' tendencies in terms of travel advice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that will lead to a lot more debates of the sort to which Hobbitschuster referred. Ground Zero (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing the rollback button[edit]

As I can't find the discussion where it was decided to give some users including myself patroller (wasn't the rollback thing called patroller?) status, so I post this in the pub.

I never use the rollback button for reverting edits, and the only times I've "used" it, is when accidentally touching it when studying Recent changes, which has happened quite a few times, the last time 20 minutes ago or so. Apparently it's not possible to disable the button in the User preferences. Also, I can't remember when I "marked anything as patrolled". Therefore, would some admin or bureaucrat kindly remove my patroller status? ϒpsilon (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback is very useful to remove obvious span/vandalism quickly. Are you sure you want to remove patroller status? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
At least I am able to revert multiple edits by opening the page history and it doesn't take many seconds (can't speak for the other editors with patroller status, though). Rollback edits are marked as minor edits, and I've hidden minor edits in Recent changes, so it's possible that I haven't even noticed accidental rollbacks every time.
But well, if editors who've been around for a few years lose the right to continue as normal editors I guess I just need to be more careful when scrolling up and down Recent changes when logged in. --ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not just the rollback button, your edits will also be marked by small red exclamation points like the edits of newbies are... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope, patroller and autopatrolled are different things, users removed from the latter group have their edits marked by exclamation marks. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
All of us occasionally rollback something accidentally. If you're sure you want your patroller status ended, though, it's just a click for an admin to do it. So you're really sure about that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact, I roll things back accidentally far more often than I do so intentionally, and no one has taken issue with it yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Just remove it. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thank you! ϒpsilon (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I should point out here that the main purpose of the "patroller" right is to allow the marking of unpatrolled edits as patrolled. We all should be doing that as we edit -- if you see an unpatrolled edit you should either mark it patrolled or revert it. Powers (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes I see a red exclamation point edit and my reaction is "Well, I don't know" (the last two edits to Nazca are such a case) what should I do if that happens? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the exact same edits and had the same reaction, so would also appreciate some input. If a case is borderline where I don't really know if something is valuable or not because I don't know the destination, I tend to leave it to an editor who is familiar with the area. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm in Bolivia at the moment and I've talked to a couple of travellers who are using Peru Hop/Bolivia Hop. It seems to be reasonably popular, and I think it probably makes sense for us to cover it on Wikivoyage. I'm not a patroller, though, so I can't approve the edits myself. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
To me, marking a change as patrolled means it isn't spam, vandalism, and it's a vaguely coherent contribution to a travel guide. It doesn't mean that I've visited the destination and I can verify that the information is correct. 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Inas (talk)
Well but that user seems to have added that company to more than one article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeless skin[edit]

Hi there. As you may have noticed we have the new "Timeless" skin available for the wikis. Its a responsive skin working on all devices. It looks quite modern and I have switched to it immediately. Your language versions seems to have some problems with this skin.

  1. The page banner is not shown at all. Articles like Chiang Mai start with the map with POIs and no photo of that place
  2. The main page does not show the three featured articles at all - just the three numbered buttons. You do not need a mobile phone to check it. Just reduce the browser width to a small mobile phone width.

Maybe it's useful to have an eye on it. People like me could use it or the new skin could be switched to standard for anonymous readers. -- DerFussi 06:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The schedule change is nigh upon us[edit]

So I know I am getting on everybody's nerves with this, but the schedule change for European railways is on December 10, which is like two days from now. As a matter of fact the grad opening of the new Nuremberg-Erfurt line (cutting Munich-Berlin journey times to just under 4 hours) is/was today, so I feel rather justified in saying we should probably update the "soon to open" and "starting 2017" and so ons in our articles along the route. I am not entirely certain whether other important stuff will happen in this schedule change (probably) but the most important and pressing imho is to update articles like Thuringia, Saxony Anhalt, Saxony, Berlin, Erfurt, Leipzig, Nuremberg, Erlangen, Munich, Halle, Berlin and so on and so forth with the information of the new schedule and stuff. If you need to look exact travel times up, just use and chose a travel date beyond the 10th of December. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Script to reference banners from Wikidata[edit]

The script was run yesterday. The remaining articles in Category:Banner_missing_from_Wikidata must be fixed by hand. There are 2 issues: articles without page in Wikidata (create it manually) and articles with the banner hosted in Wikivoyage (move it to Commons).

Thanks! Syced (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Another technical question[edit]

Is there any way of knowing the exact amount of individual listings that exist in each Wikivoyage edition? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably not as some "listings" are merely one word and some do not use proper format. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the easiest way to get statistics about the number of formatted listings is to run a pivot (using LibreOffice for instance) on the CSV file of your choice at You will notice that Hebrew is not present, would you be interested in adding it? :-) Syced (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Definitely. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This could be useful. Would it be possible to add the event template to this? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft namespace?[edit]

Do we have a draft namespace?, Was thinking about a topic called Aquatic and other sea-life. but don't want to put it up in mainspace until it's a reasoanble outline.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Usually, a subpage of your user page (ie: Special:Mypage/Aquatic and other sea-life) is used for this sort of thing. K7L (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
On the general question of draftspace, I am convinced that we don't want one. The experience at the English Wikipedia is that draftspace is where articles go to die. Pages in draftspace get less attention, fewer edits, less growth, and almost no page views (because the major search engines ignore them). I suppose that there are people for whom quietly killing an article a desirable goal (e.g., if you dislike the subject and therefore don't want a search engine to index the page), but I don't think that we would benefit from anything like that here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month - December 2017[edit]

As of today now only 1000 articles without geo templates, down 232 from the start on this month. Will a little more assistance with the task it could be completed by the end of the year. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's some links to city articles that are missing the {{geo}} template:

It should be possible to switch the search to a different type of article in the Category:Articles by type if you want to work on non-city articles; just take out "City articles" in the search box and replace it with a different category name, such as "Airport articles" and click the "Do it!" button (note that all of the airport articles already have the geo template, so there will be none in that list). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I fixed a few ones, mostly by copying existing coordinates from the linked Wikidata item. That made me think: How about using the coordinates of the Wikidata item when a geo template is not available? In the rare cases where the touristic center is far from the administrative center, all we would need is to add the template. That could save us some energy to deploy it elsewhere :-) Syced (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
My concern is that Wikidata and Wikipedia are often wrong in the articles that do not have geo on Wikivoyage. Often the reason they currently do not have geo tags is because of wrong spelling or more than one place with the same name. I have spent as much time correcting (mainly merging or redirecting) Wikidata entries as I have adding geo tags with this project. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Can someone check the corrections I have made. I believe the Patalpani article which mentions the waterfall and a rail station is not the same as the location on wikipedia w:Patalpani, Bhopal. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Need your help convincing more prominent Wikipedians to help expand Wikivoyage[edit]

I am currently thinking of trying to convince some of the most prominent/prolific Wikipedians at the Hebrew Wikipedia to help expand the Hebrew Wikivoyage (there are only so many Hebrew speakers whom actually contribute to Hebrew Wiki websites, and the majority of them are mostly active on the Hebrew Wikipedia, so it makes most sense to me to go there in order to try and recruit potential editors).

Although through the years the Hebrew Wikivoyage was mostly disregarded by Hebrew speaking Wikipedians, probably because initially we had to build the foundation of the website from scratch + I think many Wikipedians never saw the advantages of Wikivoyage and probably prefered to mostly write encyclopedic articles instead... I am hoping that nowadays, that it is much more clear that the Hebrew Wikivoyage supplies a lot of valuable content which does not exist in Wikipedia and that it isn't a Wikipedia clone.... some of them might actually choose to join the effort.

If possible, please write below the main arguments ("pitch") which in your opinion might hopefully convince some of them to help expand Wikivoyage - Why in your opinion is Wikivoyage important/essential? Why should they invest their time and efforts in Wikivoyage in addition to Wikipedia? (any other ideas for arguments that might convince long time prominent Wikipedians to help out would be more than welcome). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

One thing that I would emphasize is how the writing at Wikivoyage is more casual and fun. It's still work but it's not like an encyclopedia so it gives you an opportunity to write in a different style which is more enjoyable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I echo Justin's comments. Wikipedia policy strikes me as restrictive and repressively applied. When editing there I feel almost like I'm in a straitjacket, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Wikivoyage is nothing like that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point, although it's probably not the main argument that would convince a prominent prolific Wikipedian to support Wikivoyage (because most likely, a typical prominent Wikipedia editor... I am talking about the 200-400 people whom made most of what is the Hebrew Wikipedia... has most likely gotten used to writing in the "Wikipedia" writing style by now, and doesn't see an advantage in not writing in a encyclopedic writing style). Also, the argument about the text in Wikivoyage being written in a less formal and more casual and fun style... this point is probably not yet well noticed in most Wikivoyage editions (including the Hebrew Wikivoyage) EXCEPT for the English Wikivoyage or the German Wikivoyage, since most Wikivoyage editions are low on text due to the relative low amounts of active prolific editors/writers. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I find de-WV at times overly formal an bureaucratic... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
That may be your experience, but trashing Wikipedia is probably the worst way to attract Wikipedians here, and the most effective way of making them feel unwelcome. Maybe we could do a bit less of that so that we don't scare people away. Ground Zero (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to trash anyone... on the contrary (and I'm very sorry if you got that impression from what I wrote so far). I myself am a Wikipedian (one of those 200-400 people whom made most of what is the Hebrew Wikipedia nowadays) and through the last five years ALL the 8-10 prolific editors on the Hebrew Wikivoyage were also Wikipedians whom discovered Wikivoyage after first being active for a while at Wikipedia (and all but me eventually gave up due to various reasons). I tend to believe that most Wikivoyager on the Hebrew Wikivoyage are most likely to have been Wikipedians beforehand simply because people whom edit Wikipedia for a while acquire tools and knowledge about how to collaborative create decent quality content on wiki websites (while most people don't know how to do so or don't have any interest in doing so). Because of that, I tend to believe that the future of the Hebrew Wikivoyage (and maybe of other smaller editions of Wikivoyage) heavily relies on Wikipedians and that it is important to look into how to make the case that Wikivoyage is important, valuable, and that more Wikipedians should consider helping out (and I believe that in order to do so it is very important to listen to the arguments made by the prominent Wikipedians whom refuse to help improve/expand Wikivoyage). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@ויקיג'אנקי: No, I wasn't referring to your comment. I was referring to comments by other editors, here and in other discussions. Ground Zero (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I stay because it's fun and the people are nice.
Also, it's a good place for information that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If the overall mission appeals to you, then the idea of sharing your knowledge doesn't need much explaining. This is the place for that part of "the sum of human knowledge" that sounds like "whenever we have visitors, we always take them to..." or "the best value for your hotel money is at...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I actually also like the more relaxed tone. Another thing which I prefer with Wikivoyage is that I feel like I'm making a larger individual impact here. One additional active editor makes a much larger difference to Wikivoyage than to Wikipedia. I suspect that a good tactic for attracting new editors is to ask for specific help. E.g. if you see that a wikipedian is from X you can ask if the person could help editing the X Wikivoyage article. It is always nice to feel wanted, and I think that many wikipedians wouldn't mind doing a small task like updating one article. Once they try Wikivoyage for themselves they'll hopefully get hooked and stay. MartinJacobson (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried getting specific editors from the Hebrew Wikipedia that seem to be the experts about specific cities/countries (for example, people whom made most contributions to the articles of prominent cities/countries, but after a while I found out that in the Hebrew Wikivoyage most of those prolific writers actually never been to those cities/countries, but actually write a relative short summarized article based on the information which exists on the parallel articles in the English Wikipedia (this is most likely due to the fact that most Hebrew speakers live in Israel). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I think wikis can be revolutionary in many areas, not just the world of encyclopedias. I'm a fan of most not-for-profit wikis in existence and all the non-WP ones tend to be undervalued by readers and editors alike. Also I think there are many people interested in actively writing travel context that would never write for Wikipedia. The number of travel bloggers, travellers who post articles and comments on dedicated forums, people who review points of interest on Tripadvisor, Yelp, even Quora etc. is huge, far more than the number of people who edit Wikipedia. That is the much larger untapped pool IMO but the challenge is to get them to join us. Gizza (roam) 01:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing just latest changes on watchlist[edit]

I now see only the latest change of each article on the watchlist, although I have chosen to see all. As the latest change is no more likely to be important than the others (in fact major changes are usually followed by minor edits) the watchlist is now nearly useless. Am I supposed to look at the history of every article listed? A lot of unnecessary clicking. Is it just me or has there been some update causing this? I use the classic Monobook skin, which might affect things. --LPfi (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@LPfi: I also use Monobook and have "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" checked at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. Are you sure that you saved it as such? I am seeing all changes. 22:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I have had it marked for ages and haven't touched it recently. I also twice checked it was checked. I now un- and rechecked it. The problem persists. I did something to disable some new features some time ago, might there be some coupling? At sv-wp the watchlist works as expected. --LPfi (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Travel topics broken on mobile[edit]

We must think "mobile first", because most Internet users (and certainly most travelers) are on mobile.

Unfortunately, Travel topics is broken on mobile, each line is a bit longer than the "card" it is in, so for instance if you want to read the first paragraph you have to scroll left/right/left/right every 10 words.

The "sub-cards" also look weird because they do not start at the same height (when you are on mobile you can not see that it is the result of vertically aligning pairs of sub-cards).

Communication looks a bit better, but it is not responsive design or anything close. The paragraphs are so narrow that each line only contains 1 to 3 words.

I know wikicode does not make responsive design easy to implement, but I want to bring this positive criticism here in order to make Wikivoyage's experience for mobile users. Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this comment. The pages are attractively formatted on desktop, but on mobile they don't look great. I think a good solution would be to make it so that on mobile, the pages are displayed as just one column rather than two. I have no idea how to implement this, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have brought up the topic here before about mobile functionality. Totally agree should be thinking mobile first. Also have no idea how this is defined and who knows anything about the subject. Who do we ask about this subject? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing might be able to help, or if not maybe she knows someone at the WMF who can help with optimizing for mobile devices. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Major - undiscussed? - change to Jerusalem districts[edit]

So the user whose name consists of Hebrew characters made a major change to Jerusalem and moved the erstwhile district articles Jerusalem/Ein Kerem and Jerusalem/Haredi. I am agnostic as to the value of the district layout old or new, but it appears to me the old layout covered the entire city while the new one does not. What I want to stress for now is that I could not find any place where the changes were proposed or discussed before being implemented. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I created an expedition (in userspace)[edit]

So, I made this in my userspace. Before I move it to main, I would like someone - was it User:Traveler100 who did them in the past? - to make one of those nifty status update checkbar things we usually have for expeditions which tell us which listings are needed and which status articles have. You can of course weigh in, edit and ask me questions and I will make it a regular live expedition as soon as the aforementioned feature is added. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I will give it a go. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry for misspelling your username... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello... My is Herwia, good to know this Thank you

Best Regards, Herwia —The preceding comment was added by Herwia2018 (talkcontribs)

@Herwia2018: Hello and welcome. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


This template is broken somehow, given the disproportionate number of LintError pages that seem to be caused by it.

Can someone PLEASE repair it so that a vast number of LintError's can be eliminated very quickly?

The precise reasons for it's failure, have me head-scratching, and a template this important should be re-written so it can be maintained by normal users, and not a template genius. I am of the view it should be converted to Lua as soon as possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Tell me if this fixed it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)