Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
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

Contents

New "flag" for certain edits?[edit]

Should we introduce a "flag" - similar to existing flags like "mobile edit" or "smileys" - for edits where an URL is replaced which has not been marked as a dead link? That way stuff like this would be more immediately obvious, without having to look through all edits first. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a good idea. You can create a new filter here: Special:AbuseFilter/new Powers (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
don't you have to be an administrator to do that?Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you need to be an admin. As far as I understand it you want to detect if a URL has been changed and Tag it as such? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage at the Wikimania 2017[edit]

Dear Wikivoyage community members. The Wikimania 2017 conference will take place in August 2017. I am going to take part and I hope to meet some other community members. To prepare for the conference properly I would like to know more about all your wishes, problems and ideas related to Wikivoyage. I have created a small site on the meta-wiki where you can drop all your thoughts, wishes and concerns. Feel free to create sub sites if needed. It would be great to have a meeting at the conference venue or anywhere in town. -- DerFussi (talk) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Companies where you rent a tent/mobile home on a campsite[edit]

It appears we have a rather big blind spot when it comes to camping in general, but this issue in particular. I don't know how well known this concept is outside of Europe, but basically, what companies such as Eurocamp do is they rent spaces at a campsite and then put there own tents, bungalows and whatnot there for customers to rent fully furnished. In essence you get the comfort of a vacation rental or hotel while still going camping and often at a better price than a hotel would've been. Plus you are not bound by what your car can carry and can arrive via train, bus or plane, as the most stuff (tent, dishes and so on) is already there. Should we have a travel topic on that? Should we mention the companies present in campsite listings? Does this phenomenon exist outside Europe at all? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've seen advertisements for one of these in California. I don't know what that type is called. I asked Mr Google and came up with http://www.gocampingamerica.com/findpark which has a list of "site options". None of them really seemed to be "tent that is already pitched for you". Perhaps you'd search under w:yurts, w:teepees, or w:cabins? ("Cabin" implies a permanent structure.) A "Park Model RV" seems to be the vehicular version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons and deletion of static maps[edit]

I'm wondering if we should reconsider our stance on hosting graphics on Commons? We're losing stuff for no good reason, for instance c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kimberley map.png just removed the static map from Kimberley (Western Australia) on basically one person's say-so with little or no discussion. As this is happening on another wiki, we usually have no warning until an image (or even a static map) vanishes at the hands of User:CommonsDelinker - and by then it's too late. K7L (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC

@K7L: Definitely. Otherwise, we are hosting maps all over (e.g. Wikivoyage is in several languages). The solution here is simply to keep an eye on Commons. Would you like me to request it to be undeleted? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I suppose WT was quite sloppy about licences, like most people, while Commons is very strict. In this case the source of the base map seems not to have been explicit. If we know it, that information should be added, in other case we do not really know whether the map is free. In the worst case most old maps have to be redrawn with known base maps. Sad, but possibly hard to avoid. It may of course be that the source is evident or the base map de minimis (too little copyrightable material copied for the result to be a derived work), but not seeing the map or the description page that is hard to know. --LPfi (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons can be a little overly aggressive / straight on copyright sometimes. Yes we need to keep an eye on things there. But the benefits are generally greater than the drawbacks.Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Long distance hiking trails[edit]

this article got me thinking - should our coverage in that area be better? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We could put Via Alpina in WV:RA. /Yvwv (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have good coverage, but I think few people here are experts on the matter. E11 hiking trail is good, Appalachian Trail is an outline, but seems to have quite much information, Way of St. James is usable, with a two-paragraph Walk section and quite confusing subarticles. Then we have general articles and a couple more outlines. I think that is about it. The more good articles on hiking trails we have, the more we can hope to attract people interesting in working on the theme, but for the moment I am not very optimistic. --LPfi (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Doc James might be interested in this area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a decent article on the West Coast Trail but we appear to have nothing here. Definitely would be useful to have more on hiking. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Alt pagebanner layout?[edit]

Isfahan example
Boston example

Hello! I was just thinking about a minor cosmetic update to the pagebanner templates. With a few lines of CSS supported by all modern browsers, banners could look like this?

The main idea is to make the image aspect ratio a little taller without having to re-crop all the banners, so move the content bar below the image. Also switching the title background color with a drop shadow, and left aligning the title and content bar text will give a slightly more modern feel.

IMHO extending the page by 28px is a pretty reasonable trade-off for a little more image space up front. Text alignment is a no-brainer to me, but let's see what everyone else has to say!

If we actually want to go forward with this, I would also recommend moving the · from the A tag to the LI tag within the content bar.

Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both of these were raised when banners were first discussed but I can't find the conversations. If I remember correctly, I think the main page banners used the drop shadow and we were finding that it didn't work well in some backgrounds and people felt it would be good if the main page banners and the pagebanners had a consistent look. Regarding the content bar, the height of the banners was a bit contentious and 7:1 (including the content bar) was as tall as some were willing to go. Opinions may have changed, so it's good to revisit. I'm not fussed about where the content bar is placed. I do prefer the translucent box over the drop shadow because I find it produces a readable result more consistently (drop shadow can work really well, and other times the text will not stand out much at all). -Shaundd (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! From a design perspective I think this is an improvement, (people in general like to look at pretty pictures) but I respect that there are many other use cases for WV. I do think the drop shadow looks nicer than a transparent rectangle in almost all cases. Maybe for a few odd banners there could be a "reversed=true" option, where the text is black and the drop shadow is white? Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea of moving the text off the image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit slow/confused when you talk about adjusting the image aspect ratio. Does that man stretching the image to the new aspect ratio ? (bad bad bad idea) or does it mean keeping the banner image aspect ration and moving the title menus to a new box below the existing banner ? Stretching the image would be very bad. Moving the heading menus from being over the image to being below the image has good and bad points and personally I prefer it as it currently is (less screen space used and does look quite neat and tidy). But my main concern is about any changing/stretching of the banner image. PsamatheM (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Would be supportive of moving the title menus below the pictures rather than within the pictures if that is what is suggested. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hard for me to see any downside to this, but would still urge that you get a large consensus on WV before making such a fundamental change. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! How does one get a large consensus? Leave this conversation here and maybe do something in a month or so if people are feeling generally positive? Propose: 1) Move table of contents from on top of the banner image to below the image. 2) Change page title to have a strong drop shadow instead of a transparent black box. 3) Proper left alignment of text. 4) Move the separating dot to the LI from the A, so it doesn't underline when you hover it. (very minor, but it irritates me). Arguments: These changes would strengthen the design and visual impact of WV pages. The agreed upon 7:1 crop is aggressive and should not be changed, so by moving the table of contents below the banner; the image is given more room to breathe and visually delight visitors. That's the idea anyway. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your list of arguments is going to persuade me. IMO the reasons I support moving the TOC off the image are (1) since people don't always crop to leave a 28px border at the bottom of the image, it might cover up something that I want to see, and (2) you said that it's just 28px, out of the ~700 pixels (usable height) in my browser window, which is a trivial amount of screen real estate to "lose" to the TOC (especially since it scrolls off the screen quickly, as I'm almost never interested in the introduction). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ha, cool! Your reason #1 is my #1. (strengthen the design and visual impact of WV pages) Thanks for that! --ButteBag (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Branding[edit]

The idea of better tying together the branding of the various sister sites has been bantered about for a number of years. The idea is basically to also brand Wikivoyage as "Wikipedia Voyage". And to also use the url en.wikivoyage.wikipedia.org

Potential benefits include:

  1. increasing the page rank of the sister sites and thus potentially readership
  2. making clear to our readers what is and is not a Wikimedia movement sister site

My personal position is that:

  1. any such change should only be carried out with the consensus of the sister site in question
  2. the changes should be done gradually so that actual benefits can be determined

Would this be something the WV community would be interested in considering? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Can you put a finer point on this? E.g. would anyone ever link to en.voy.p.org? Would there be promotional material calling this "Wikipedia Voyage"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia Voyage would still be short-enable to WikiVoyage or WV. Would this lead to an increase in readership as WV's association with Wikipedia is clearer? I think it might. Is this worth a try? Maybe. Could it be used in promotional material, sure. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Wait--are you suggesting actually changing the name of the site from "Wikivoyage" to "Wikipedia Voyage"?! —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I like seeing a bold initiative around this, but A) are we sure the benefits would be realized? and B) Would this change our current governance structure in any way? Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
A) No we are not sure. One would have to try to see. We could set it up such that one could switch back if they were not realized. B) No this would not change current governance in any way. Projects shall always be self governing. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we also need to think about what does "Wikipedia Voyage" mean to someone who hears it... Are they going to expect an encyclopedia of travel or a travel guide? It would be great to leverage Wikipedia's name recognition but the two sites have some significant differences and I wonder if it will create an expectations gap with what people expect when they hear "Wikipedia" and what they see with a travel guide. -Shaundd (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
None of the other sister sites have "Wikipedia" in their names. I oppose this idea per Shaundd's points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Shaundd and Ikan Kekek and oppose. I do really hope WMF get rid of any ideas about changing how things work for marketing reasons, or confusing facts to make them more attractive. We are not a subproject of the encyclopaedia. If the projects are to be consolidated, it is Wikimedia, not Wikipedia, that is the common factor. To me this sounds as one more indication that WMF has forgot what the movement is about and started to adopt marketing practices from the business world (I stopped contributing to the fund raising when they insisted on calling "wolf" despite criticism from sv-wp).
Wikivoyage needs more users, and I suppose many other projects do, but at least those other projects should be well-known by active wikipedians by now. An awkward url like the one suggested is hardly the way to attract people.
--LPfi (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I also support the general initiative but strongly oppose this particular name. It's convoluted, confusing and misleading as we're not an encyclopedia. In many ways, we're the opposite. Original research is often better than sourced material here.
But I have sometimes thought that "voyage" is a somewhat obscure word in the English language and in particular doesn't flow with the word "wiki". There may have been better synonyms of travel to use, like Wikitrips, Wikijourney, Wikiwander, Wikitourist, Wikinomad or even Wikigo since to travel you have to go somewhere. They sound better to my ear but everyone is different and Wikivoyage might sound good to others. Gizza (roam) 10:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I could see it causing confusion amongst some. Casual users might look up e.g. Paris on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Voyage or does it matter or why are they different ... "I've checked one why check the other" ... "Wikipedia does not tell me about good places to say for that place". I see the sites as having ver different purpose and the different branding helps distinguish that different purpose. I think more cross links Wikipedia to WikiVoyage for e.g. matching subject pages (in the Wikipedia "See Also" at the bottom) would help, but merging the branding - oppose. PsamatheM (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I think many wikipedians who come to Wikimedia Commons are very confused, regarding it an en-wp subsidiary, and quoting (English) Wikipedia policies to defend their point of view. Few regulars would have such expectations here, but I think the example shows that clear separation has its merits. --LPfi (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The question is does Wikipedia only mean an encyclopedia? Or can it be applied in a broader manner to the entire movement? Should all the sister sites contain "Wikipedia" in the name? Should the chapters be "Wikipedia Canada", should it be the "Wikipedia Foundation"? Basically should "Wikimedia" simply be replaced by "Wikipedia".

I agree there are potential pluses and minuses and we do not know the exact result that will occur if tried. Wikimedia however does result in a lot of confusion and I frequently heard "you mean Wikipedia Canada right" when I called it "Wikimedia Canada".

Another benefit is that while we do not own the term "wiki", we do own the term "Wikipedia". That is likely a lessor benefit though. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose this specific idea, but I really like your moxie! To most internet users the answer to the question "does Wikipedia only mean an encyclopedia?" is definitely yes. I would actually be fine with all urls being brought under the wikimedia umbrella. So like, en.wikipedia.wikimedia.org, en.wikivoyage.wikimedia.org, etc. Although, it's a bit overlong now that I type it out... Anyway, good luck! --ButteBag (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Adding another voice to the oppose chorus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for your perspectives. I will bring this view forward and oppose such a change on your behalf. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James : Thanks for your bold initiative. I was really hoping this would be the genesis of a new discussion rather than just simply shot down. I'm personally quite in favor of looking for radical ways into improving the site and would like to see more discussion around it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that your boldness is to be praised, and I'm sorry I have no alternative suggestions at the moment, except that I agree with ButteBag that explicitly adding "Wikimedia" to the URL is totally fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Always happy to consider other suggestions. Wikipedia is our best known brand and the though was to simply try to leverage that to the benefit of the sister sites. We could try to improve awareness around Wikimedia and it might be similar enough to succeed. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thinking aloud (i.e. not thought through/off-top-of-head) what about a "Part of WikiMedia Group" small graphic that is added to the existing logos. Maybe based on the Wikipedia "W" (to keep it small and already well recognised), some element that can be added to without swamping each of the project icons indicating it's part of the "group" (a bit like companies do except they tend to use text as in "a member of the xxx group of companies". So everybody gets to keep their icons, individuality, separation but at the same time the icon/logo shows it is a member of the WikiMedia Foundation. BUT, the trouble is that the WikiMedia icon/logo is not well recognised amongst the users of most of the sites (even aid Wikipedia users are probably unaware of the way the organisation is structured or even that it is even structured and has other projects). The idea behind the original proposal to leverage off the Wikipedia widespread awareness is a good idea but I don't think general users are aware of WikiMedia so it would have to be Wikipedia based PsamatheM (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of having a "Part of Wikimedia", or something similar, displayed at least on the front page (on every page would be fine with me, too, if it's visible though not cumbersome). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
What, something like https://en.wikivoyage.org/static/images/wikimedia-button.png at the bottom of every page? K7L (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and preferably bigger than that image. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I would agree. My only question is about how widespread "WikiMedia" is understood (or even known about) in the general public/users. I wonder if it's an association with Wikipedia that would help most rather than WikiMedia. And in some regards (maybe I've misunderstood) WikiTravel also uses WikiMedia software so would the WikiMedia association distinguish enough (they and many others start with "Wiki" and many would think beyond that). Original proposal was to associate closer with Wikipedia which is where I think most of the benefit would be (mainly because most internet users are aware of Wikipedia). PsamatheM (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: Wikimedia is the non-profit that operates these sites; MediaWiki is the software. The WMF never had any association with Wikitravel but Wikitravel is built on MediaWiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
So if I had understood it wrong (and given I contribute here sometimes, made a couple of corrections to WikiData and Wikipedia) what chance do others who e.g. just use Wikipedia sometimes have and thus would they appreciate the difference between WikiMedia and MediaWiki and thus would WV get any benefit from association from MediaWiki rather than Wikipedia? PsamatheM (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: 0%. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Koavf: Afraid I don't understand that (I must be having a "senior moment"?) PsamatheM (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: No problem. Your question was: How much will rebranding the site help, since these names can be so confusing. My answer was: I do not think it will help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's how I think it could work: If it could be agreed on, it would be good for every Wikimedia site to have that same notice on every page. Then, over time, it will become more highly recognizable as the Wikimedia brand. I think it's worth trying and arguably a per se good thing to do, regardless. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I would agree. Whilst I think Wikipedia is the publicly recognised "brand" as you say, if all Wikipedia pages included the same notice on every page then the "brand" get broadened. For me the crucial site is Wikipedia as without that site doing it it would be much less effective. But a move I'd be in favour of but how does such an initiative/change get agreed on Wikipedia and how does it get implemented ? PsamatheM (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we agree: Wikipedia's participation is crucial. I don't know how we could best propose this to all Wikimedia sites. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm more incline to change wikipedia.org into wikipedia.wikimedia.org than to change wikivoyage.org into wikivoyage.wikipedia.org. We are a part of wikimedia not a part of wikipedia. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I could get on board making the Wikimedia "family" brands more prominent on each of its wikis, including WV but I'm not a fan of lengthening the url at all, or making our name longer. The world's leading web/app brands all have short, sharp, easy-to-remember names and urls: Google, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, Snapchat, Instagram, Whatsapp, Twitter, Netflix, Reddit, Tumblr, eBay, Skype, Tinder. Nearly all of them are 2-3 syllables, 10 letters max. Wikipedia has 5 syllables but still flows well while Wikivoyage feels long with 4. In the travel space there's Airbnb, booking.com, hotels.com, Kayak, Uber, Agoda, Trivago, with only TripAdvisor being the big exception (but still much easier to say than either Wikipedia Wikivoyage or Wikimedia Wikivoyage). We shouldn't swim against the tide. Gizza (roam) 11:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Have I been overlooking the two logos bottom right of each page (on WV as well as Wikipedia) "A WikiMedia Project" and "Powered by WikiMedia" or are they new ? (I can stare at things and not see them (as witnessed by supermarket assistants ...). Nice if they were more prominent (e.g. same size at the top of the page maybe (e.g. under the project logo) but I'd never noticed the branding there. PsamatheM (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@PsamatheM: Yes, you have--those buttons have been there for a decade. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

is Pyeongchang both a city and a county ?[edit]

That's what is currently stated in the intro of our our article Pyeongchang even though in Wikipedia it says it is only a county (this is where the 2018 Winter Olympics will take place). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have seen Pyeongchang (maybe Pyeongchang-gun?) as the county and PyeongChang as a small city? -- Matroc (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Both. In East Asia (China, Korea, Japan) is is quite common for a rural district to also be considered a town or city. This doesn't fit that well in the European style of organization, but there you have it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Is that kind of like the municipio of San Carlos (Nicaragua) includes the Islas Solentiname and said municipios in general have rather wide borders? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
According to w:San_Carlos,_Río_San_Juan, I would say so --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage district maps using Wikidata[edit]

Hello all of you. As a Belgian and someone who knows Brussels pretty well I would like to work on this page in the near future. Tons of interesting places in the city are missing in this article. With great pleasure I would like to add these, but I feel the need to introduce districts to keep it all comprehensible. As I do not have (deep) knowledge on making maps and Wiki techniques, I gave it a try on the User:Podrozniczek/Test page, which went pretty well until I got to the center. The problem is that the area that administratively is the center of Brussels, more logically for Wikivoyage would be split up in 4 parts (the northern leg joining the neighboring municipalities, the historical pentagon separately, as well as the European Quarter, and the Louise Avenue stripe on the south joining Ixelles. Since this is no official administrative border I can not find anything usable on Wikidata. Is there any way to solve this problem? Thank you in advance? Podrozniczek (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Podrozniczek, in situations like that, we'll have draw it ourselves. Commons now has the Data namespace where you can create mapshapes and then add them to a dynamic map in a couple of ways. The data files have to be in GeoJSON, but the code can be obtained at geojson.io -- just draw the shape on the map and the box on the right side of the screen produces the code, which can be copied to the Data page in Commons. There are a couple of help pages that explain how the Data pages work (certain things need to be included besides the GeoJSON code) -- mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer#Map_data_from_Commons and mw:Help:Map Data -- if you want to give it a try. I've been testing it a bit so you can look at c:Data:Sandbox/Shaundd/Northern Oregon Coast.map and User:Shaundd/Dynamic_Region_Map#Commons_Data_page_test to see some working examples. If you run into problems or don't want to deal with the code, let me know and I can try building the mapshapes if you don't mind waiting a few days. -Shaundd (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
What's to stop us losing data stored on Commons without notice? We just lost a static map at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kimberley map.png for no good reason; first anyone here noticed was when an automated script pulled the link out of the destination article. K7L (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As long as we use open sources and properly document it on the Commons page, there shouldn't be much danger in losing maps or data stored on Commons. According to the link, the map was deleted because the source was described as own work but it looked like a derived work (e.g., it was traced from another map). Looking at the original map on WT, I feel that's a reasonable assessment. A map traced from OSM is fine because it's CC-licensed; a map traced from Google Maps is a copyright violation -- but we don't know if the author doesn't state it. Anyone uploading to Commons just needs to take a couple of minutes to note the source and provide a link if there is one and this problem largely goes away. -Shaundd (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled upon your testing page yesterday night, User talk:Shaundd, and it helped me out a lot. Thanks ;) Podrozniczek (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Glad it was helpful! -Shaundd (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to add something, that I have just leant: When creating a polygon with help of geojson.io the output has plenty of line breaks, which makes the code extremely lenghty. I was able to remove the breaks with Notepad++ and this little tutorial. Hope this helps someone. On a more general note: A how-to for creating overview maps would be great. If it was easier more people would make them. --Renek78 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Renek78, what do you mean by "plenty of line breaks" and was it causing a problem? I've just been copying the code directly from the site to the Commons Data page and haven't had any issues, but if you've had a different experience it would be good to capture that in a how-to page. -Shaundd (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
If the map is called from Commons the line breaks do not matter. But if you implement the polygon coordinates right in the Wikivoyage article all those line breaks are not acceptable, I would say. --Renek78 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good to know. -Shaundd (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Line breaks are ok as I use them without any problems - especially when I have a lots of coordinates and group them for readability ie. 4 or 5 coordinates per line - without line breaks is ok as well -- Matroc (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Losing data is a posibility, see Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Wikidata#Deleted listings on Wikidata for another recent instance. K7L (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a possibility, but I think it's unlikely if we take the simple precaution of making sure the data complies with the license requirements and the source is noted. Commons has created a Data namespace specifically for maps and Wikidata has created a geoshape property (P3896) to reference those Commons Data pages. To me, it looks like they want that kind of data to be stored there. It's a trade-off, we have less control over data stored in Commons and OSM, but it's more shareable and the infrastructure is being designed for integration with dynamic maps. Anyway, that's just my opinion, the community will need to discuss and decide a direction to go in when the tools are more polished. -Shaundd (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Shaundd, it depends on whom you call they. The Commons community knows nothing about the Data: namespace, I think they were even against creating it at some point. But technical staff of the WMF chose to store such "long data" on Commons (as opposed to "short data" = individual statements on Wikidata), which is a bit disappointing for reasons mentioned by K7L. The Commons community is notorious for their ignorance to other projects and for mistreating the content that does not belong to them. On the other hand, map boundaries should have a higher chance of survival compared to images, which we store on Commons anyway. --Alexander (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
K7L, that's a serious concern indeed, but the same concern applies to page banners and regular photos. We lose many useful photos because of the unreasonable, ignorant, and hostile approach of the Commons community. Nevertheless, I think that map data are relatively safe for at least 2 reasons: i) you can always write "source=own work" and "license=cc-0", which will raise all typical Commons issues; ii) the Data: namespace is not frequented by any of the Commons users.
Our long-term experience with page banners, including those that do not satisfy all the stringent Commons criteria, tells me that files on Commons are quite safe when they are uploaded by experienced users and stored in a separate tree of categories, which mostly does not overlap with the main tree. Then the chance that anyone stumbles upon such files is minor, and the chance of deletion is minor as well.
Since we are interested in sharing map boundaries between different language versions, storing them on Commons would be great. But we have to decide how to organize such data. Ideally, we should organize them in such a way that people not affiliated with Wikivoyage will not put their nose into it. This should eliminate most of the risks. --Alexander (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussing and deciding how to organize the data is a good idea. Not only for the reasons you mentioned but also to make it as easy as possible for Wikivoyagers to find it. Do you have any thoughts? I was thinking any region boundaries should be clearly labelled, maybe like "Data:Wikivoyage/region name.map". Roads and other tracks I'm not sure about as other projects (e.g., Wikipedia) could use them too. -Shaundd (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Wikivoyagers can find everything via Wikivoyage, i.e., by copying a template from another language version and modifying it where necessary. The data file may include the word 'Wikivoyage' indeed, but I am not so sure about the 'region name', which is ambiguous, especially for regions that do not exist in English Wikivoyage yet (Moscow districts would be one example). I thought of using Wikidata IDs, which are unambiguous and essentially prevent anyone from looking into the files. --Alexander (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata IDs are a good idea. There's a link to the ID from the WV page (provided a WD id has been set up) so it should be easy to find in most cases and it's easy to describe in a help page. I just did a quick search and found some district articles aren't set up in WD yet, but I guess those can be created as needed. -Shaundd (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Instructions for bypassing Internet censorship?[edit]

We have Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy, which says that we should not advise travellers to break local laws. How should we categorize advise for bypassing Internet censorship? Recent example /Yvwv (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it illegal according to local laws to access those sites? If the Turkish (or Chinese or whoever) government mandates local ISP's to block Facebook, is it actually illegal for an individual to still attempt to access?
Maybe from personal experience, but I used to edit Facebook whilst in China via a machine hosted in the United States. I'm guessing that wasn't illegal, although the great Chinese firewall would have liked to prevent it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The nice thing is the governments normally do not want to tell what they censor, so they prefer avoiding explicit law. Accessing certain types of content, as well as bypassing firewalls, may still be forbidden. You would probably need a local lawyer to know the limits. --LPfi (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
In South Korea it is actually illegal to access North Korean websites (or websites run by organisations affiliated with North Korea). In this case it is just part of an established 'no contact with the enemy' law that has been in place for 50 years. Information about this law is pretty public and well known from school.
In China the websites censored by the government are not even officially acknowledged, and it is hard to determine who has the actual list. It isn't illegal to try and access site X, but the content you are accessing may be. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Access in China through a local IP may be blocked but using a smartphone with a non Chinese SIM card allows access to most. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it more a question as to how things are phrased rather than what is actually being said. In the linked example, the but being questioned text said You can also use a VPN-Client like Cyberghost [1] to bypass the blocks. The feature "Secure Wi-Fi" is usable for free on mobile devices. which is advising on how to get past governemnt blocks (which may or may not be legal/illegal I've no idea). But re-phrase it to Use of a VPN-Client like Cyberghost [2] could bypass the blocks. The feature "Secure Wi-Fi" is usable for free on mobile devices. and you are making a statement of fact rather than giving advice or suggesting anybody do anything illegal; in fact you could interpret the alternative phrasing as a warning. PsamatheM (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I think Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy is really for clear black and white vices (drugs, prostitution, etc) and not for vague civil law infractions such as taking an Uber and using AirBnb when your city doesn't allow it. Using Twitter in Turkey, would for me, fall into the latter category and therefore we shouldn't concern it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I agree with your way you seem to think taking a substance that happens to be locally prohibited is worse than using AirBnB or Uber against local (or even nationwide) law. There are some pretty good reasons for disallowing entire blocks to be turned into de facto hotels whereas I personally cannot see any harm coming to anybody but the person taking a substance, if said substance were not illegal. But let's not get sidetracked with political discussions. It seems to me, that we might wish for some more clarity on our illegal activities policy where it comes to stuff like the black market, internet censorship, substances where they are and aren't prohibited and such like. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This is actually a very good point, User:Hobbitschuster: some criminal activity poses little harm to others (some drug use, smuggling Bibles into certain countries, taking photographs, etc.) but may have extremely serious penalties. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The point gets rather hairy when we're talking about stuff that is legal in one place but not in another. Should we inform people on where to light up in Denver? What about a quiet evening beer in Mecca? What about the technicalities of it all? Is weed actually legal in the Netherlands? Which precise definition of legal should we follow? I can see a certain emotional argument in favor of trying to "punish" governments that restrict wikimedia projects by pointing out how such restrictions can be avoided. But I am no legal scholar. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit declined because of block -- page Port Isabel, Texas[edit]

I tried to make my first edit and it was rejected. I was directed to this forum. I learned that the page has a history of vandalism and/or someone has been "stealing"(?) info. I am a life-long resident of Port Isabel and have been active in the community all my life, including tourism, science and history. The Port Isabel page needs a lot of work and the georeferencing is way off for nearly all of the points. Can I be assigned a supervisor or, better, join a group with an interest in the general area (Cameron County, far south Texas) to monitor my edits? Thanks. Don Hockaday ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is not locked, so it is possible that there has been vandalism from your IP address. An administrator may be able to remove that block -- this may take a day or two. I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions -- welcome to Wikivoyage! Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, ShoreCrab2000. We've been having an unrelated problem with an editor in Australia who habitually adds various information in violation of copyright laws. We've set up a filter to block his edits, and it appears that you're a false positive that's been caught in the crossfire. Pinging User:Andrewssi2. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi ShoreCrab2000 . Are you sure that you were blocked and prevented from editing? We do have a filter that tagged some of your first edits to Port Isabel, but as far as I can tell no-one has been prevented from actually editing that page. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I am starting a new thread knowing that I should reply. However, I have given up on figuring out HOW to reply. I will be appreciative of a hint.
One of the comments on the thread (and one of the error messages I received) mentioned my ip address or server having a bad reputation. I realized I was using a VPN, so I restarted my computer and didn't use a VPN. I don't know if that helped or not. I still had problems. I found that sometimes if I hit "try again" an edit would stick, but not always. I have had to deal with it a few times since, but I have always gotten past it in a try or two. I also realized that I signed on using an email address I hardly ever check so it wasn't being confirmed. I changed the email address I used and confirmed it. In any event, the problem seems to have smoothed out and I have made edits about a dozen times since lately without a problem. I get a rejection now and then but just power through it by 'try again' or just doing it over or signing out and back in. Thanks for the concern and suggestions. Don ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
ShoreCrab2000 - To reply to a comment without starting a new thread, click on the word "edit" next to the title of the thread you want to reply to (instead of at the top of the page). That will bring up an edit screen that includes only the one thread you clicked on. Then just type your comment as normal, under the existing text.
Also, thank you for your patience as we continue to try to sort out exactly what's going on with your edits being blocked. Please be assured that the problem is on our end - your edits are absolutely welcome here!
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 We are going to need some more details. None of those Australian filters has prevented edits by ShoreCrab2000 (I know because I can see that Telstra users is frantically trying to edit Amusement_parks today to no avail). It sounds like another filter stopped ShoreCrab2000, although with the information I have at hand I can't determine which one. Also rather strange because without any intervention that I can see they are successfully editing Port Isabel Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Also Special:Log/ShoreCrab2000 suggests that they haven't been blocked here at any time Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
ShoreCrab2000 has been able to edit that page since then, so perhaps the problem, whatever it was, has been resolved. ShoreCrab, if you run into this again, could you please take a screenshot or write down the exact error message for us? It'd be really helpful. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
--- I haven't had any problems today. It may have been a glitch in my browser, router, etc. Anyway, I assume the problem is gone. Thank you all for your help and patience. Am I correct that Travelers' pub comments must always be done with "edit source"? ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm an old-schooler who disabled the Visual Editor feature on my account pretty much as soon as it was rolled out, so I can't help you on that. :) Anyway, glad to see the problem seems to have been resolved. ShoreCrab2000, please let us know if you encounter any further issues, and again welcome to Wikivoyage and thank you for your contributions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
You are correct. (It's because it's a discussion page, and the visual editor wasn't designed to support things like the way we use colons to create a visual indentation to replies.)
If you like the white toolbar from the visual mode, then you could go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn on the "New wikitext editor". You'll still be using wikitext ("Edit source"), but you'll have the same toolbar in both styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that I worked it out. We have been displaying the Queensland Telstra vandal this message MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-telstra which indicated the edit was declined, even though it wasn't. I have created a new message here for this filter MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-telstra-not-declined
Apologies to ShoreCrab2000 for the original message, but to be clear your edits were not actually blocked. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Country history sections[edit]

So the issue has come up again on Talk:Germany how detailed should history sections be? And should we be a bit more explicit on the subject in policy than we currently are? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I just signed up yesterday to work on the Port Isabel article (partly because of the inadequate "History" section) and I have the same question. My community relies on tourism and attempts to leverage its history as one of its amenities to draw visitors from other nearby tourism destinations. It seems enough of a challenge in Wikipedia to provide balance in depth of "history" in a place article, and much more so for Wikivoyage. What is done in Wikipedia when this comes up is to create a new article specific to history, then provide a brief summery and direct the reader to the history page for detail. I don't see having a special page on history as being acceptable for Wikivoyage, but I am new here. To me, it seems the solution is to create the suggested "history of (place)" article in Wikipedia, then link to it in a summery in "history" in the Wikivoyage (Place). I don't see a lot of links in Wikivoyage to Wikipedia articles. Is that discouraged? Thanks ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The governing guidelines are at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. We don't normally use inline links to Wikipedia articles, but we always add a link to the analogous Wikipedia article, if any, (e.g., w:Boston in the Boston article), so that it appears on the panel on the left side.
To give a quick answer to the larger question, I think that the thing to keep in mind about "History" sections on Wikivoyage is that they are geared toward travelers. So the thing we probably should be thinking is "What background would you want a visitor to know?" The way I look at it is that we're not being exhaustive, but a general overview with interesting highlights is great. And then if people want more detail, they can look at the Wikipedia article, which we hope has that detail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Do hotels view us as the enemy?[edit]

See http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hotels-now-see-online-travel-sites-as-rivals-2017-05-28Justin (koavf)TCM 18:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That's more about aggregators. We with our policy of not linking to aggregators could actually be a godsend for hotels. But apart from touts (many of them with bad English) the hotel biz seems to not yet have discovered us... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A Star Rises in the East?[edit]

Hello! Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Merging articles[edit]

We have a bunch of outstanding propsals for article mergers. In principle, the idea of getting consensus for article mergers makes sense, but where only one or two people have commented over a period of months, it is clear that there isn't enough interest to settle the discussion, and we end up with "merge" tags cluttering these articles indefinitely.

I have gone through most of the articles (listed here Wikivoyage:Requests for comment). I have plunged forward and completed some mergers where the article clearly did not meet wia or where there was negligible information to merge into another article.

I am proposing to define "consensus" on other articles as follows: after a further ten-day comment period, I will execute proposed mergers where there is no "oppose" vote. Where there is an "oppose" vote and no large number of "support" votes (e.g. Talk:Petersham), I will close the discussion as "no consensus to merge" and remove the "merge" tag from the article. Please add your comments to any of the discussions. Merger discussions can be re-opened at any time, and merged articles can be split out at any time if someone wants to put the work into creating an article with information (and the subject meets wia).

This should clean up most of the outstanding merger proposals, aside from a few where I lack the knowledge or interest to join the discussion (e.g. Filipino phrasebooks). Ground Zero (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's quite frustrating for the person suggesting the merger as well. There was a discussion on this a while ago, after I (wrongly in hindsight) merged two articles without putting it up for discussion, and I think the conclusion was that it was okay to go ahead with the merger if there's no opposition for a while after the merger has been proposed on the talk page. Drat70 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that if you know a given area quite well, going ahead and merging within a week or perhaps even a day or less if you know there couldn't be a reason for controversy is fine, but if you don't personally know an area and it's not blindingly obvious that a given place couldn't have a good article, you might want to delay merging if no-one comments, or at least delay for a week or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

With the help of some other editors, many of the mergers have been completed, and other merger discussions have been closed. I don't know what to do about some cases where editors do a "drive-by" tagging, i.e., they proper a merger or article move, there is support for it, but then they leave it and move on to other stuff. In some cases, if the merger is straightforward, I'll do it, but where the merger is more complex or requires local knowledge, I'm inclined to remove the merger tag if the proposer can be bothered to compete the merger. This sort of tagging strikes me as a bit of "someone else should do this, but I'm not willing to." These sort of tags are not helpful, and clutter the articles without adding value. Ground Zero (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Easier discussions?[edit]

I was thinking about this comment, and thinking how common that kind of problem is for new people. How many of you have tried mw:Flow? I've been using it more this last year. It took me a little while to get used to a few of its quirks, but I'm pretty satisfied overall.[1]

It works pretty well for basic discussions. I think it is better for talking to newcomers, and highly effective at getting responses from people. It has an explicit reply button (two of them, actually), which is really helpful to new contributors, and replies appear in Echo (unless you disable that in your prefs) as well as your watchlist (very handy for reaching the person who doesn't use a watchlist or doesn't visit your wiki very often). You can even watch a single thread, rather than a whole page. I was thinking that it might be appropriate to try it out at the Tourist Office sometime, since that page brings in a higher proportion of non-editors.

If you haven't used Flow, then perhaps this is a good way to start: Go to mw:Flow/Sandbox and start a new discussion. Feel free to ping me or your favorite contributors. Be sure to click the pencil icon in the lower right corner and try switching between visual mode (handy for newbies) and wikitext (familiar to us).

[1] Please do not tell the Flow devs that I'm satisfied. As far as they are concerned, I will only be satisfied when they add all of my favorite feature requests. 😉

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have understood it has some pretty serious shortcomings, e.g. regarding history. We have not enabled it on sv-wp, so I have very limited experience, but I hope it will not be introduced without a thorough understanding of the problems. --LPfi (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that a lack of integration with Special:Search is the biggest practical problem. (Each thread has a history page, and changes appear in your watchlist.) But search is perhaps less critical to the Tourist Office. (Also, I hope that fixing search will be high on the list of improvements that are scheduled to begin next month). I really think that you need to use it a few times to know how it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Workshop tomorrow[edit]

Tomorrow I'm planning to do a workshop with a group of 5-10 Uruguayan teachers-in-training where I'll show them how to edit the English Wikivoyage and they'll add some information to some of our articles about Uruguay. They speak good English, and I'll keep a close eye on their edits to make sure they follow wiaa and other guidelines. I think this will be a good way to make some improvements to our coverage of Uruguay and possibly even attract some potential long-term contributors. I just want to leave this message as a heads-up not to be surprised when a few new accounts suddenly start editing articles about Uruguay at the same time tomorrow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That's great! You might want to post in the Travellers' pub, which I think more people monitor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point—I've moved this discussion to the pub. (It was originally at Talk:Uruguay.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Why here rather than voy:es:Uruguay? Alternately, is it only here and not there as well? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Good question. I'm working with these teachers-in-training once a week, partly to help them practice their English, and the activity I've planned for this week is the Wikivoyage workshop. Doing it on es.voy wouldn't accomplish the goal of helping them practice English. But in terms of encouraging them to continue contributing in the future, it would be great if they want to do that on es.voy too, and I'll mention that possibility to them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if your students can help, but Montevideo (capital city) is presently one very long article. Great if you could take a look at districts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
We just finished the workshop. I think it produced some useful content, and some of the students said they plan to continue improving the articles in the next few days! This evening when I get home I'll clean up the new articles and contributions. Next week I'll show them how to add pictures.
With respect to districts in Montevideo, I wonder if it might be better to leave it as one article for now - though Montevideo looks spread out on a map, the attractions are mostly concentrated around the Ciudad Vieja and Parque Rodó/Punta Carretas areas. The article doesn't look too much longer than Albuquerque, which is a star article. But I'd welcome other opinions - if the consensus is that it should be split, I'll discuss it with the students and see what districts they (and I) think would be useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like if you also would have mentioned that also there is a Spanish language version of Wikivoyage in which they also could contribute the same content in their own language, so at the same time two projects would be gaining. --Zerabat (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I did mention that, and I very much hope they'll contribute to the Spanish Wikivoyage too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Maps Issues[edit]

  • Has anyone else seen issues with mapframe maps? I have noted that in some cases nothing appears, zoom doesn't work, expand to full page display neither... The condition I have found seems to occur when doing ExternalData geoshape service in a mapframe or calling for information using the template mapshape. No idea if its a code change or if a service is not working. -- (see map above Buenos Aires or certain maps at mediatwiki.org Help:Kartographer page). -- Matroc (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Matroc. Something is messed up there at the moment. The problems seem only be on pages, where Wikidata items are called? --Renek78 (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Glad I am not the only one that saw this issue - appears to be corrected now! yea! -- Cheers -- Matroc (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

ProjectPage:2018 Miniature Revitilization Project'''[edit]

I am here asking about a new project that User:Andrewssi2 said was an expedititon. I believe that motivation is THE KEY to spark a good change. That is what my page is about.

In 2018, I would like to launch the project with the following goals:

  • Allow people to feel good about joining something.
  • Give small stubs and outlines an actual chance, so that a travel is not missing out on info about that place.
  • Provide an anti-persecution zone to improve pages.
  • Turn this into a successful annual project.

I plan to do this by making it a free project, and then provide templates to get going.

WikiVoyage is the worlds largest non-profit travel guide in the world, and has the best info. However, everything that exists in the world can be improved even more than their best state, and so should wikivoyage. Would you view my page, and accept? 174.45.128.124 03:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a bit confused about what this expedition is about. As far as I understand, it's a sort of pledge to edit a lot and consistently (with no break of longer than 14 days) in order to improve the overall quality of WV. So far so good, I think that's a good aim. But I am a bit confused about the following:
  • What do you mean by anti-persecution zone?
  • What is the motivation behind the non-merge clause?
  • In the countdown box on the end of the page I see a US flag. Is this supposed to be concentrated on or limited to US articles?
Not trying to say there's anything wrong about any of these, just a bit confused.
Drat70 (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that you first register a user log in rather then use an IP address. Then move the ProjectPage proposal to your user space area to propose an Expedition. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I would encourage 174 to use a user login, but it seems they prefer to just use an IP according to their homepage.
Regardless, I have to say that my only understanding of this proposal is to encourage people to edit frequently. Although a good thing in itself, I actually don't really get why it needs formalizing in this way.
I would suggest that 174 takes a look at Wikivoyage:Expeditions in order to get some ideas about how to state and organize their goals. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a swell thing that I have feedback, so I can sort it all out. Okay, the mission is a project, potentially an experiment. As a project/experiment, members must not be fast to undo other users edits or creations. That would be persecution or condescension, which the project prohibits. This also means that in order for the 2018 MRP to have effectiveness, articles made by members, and articles assigned MRP status must not be written off for merge. The countdown box has a US flag because I didn't know how to add a WV logo there. If I were to be ranked for something, IT WOULD BE MOST FORGETFUL, so I wouldn't remember passwords, thus, I keep to an IP account. 174.45.128.124 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It's inefficient that we now have two threads to discuss this proposed project. I suggest you read my response at Talk:ProjectPage:2018 Miniature Revitilization Project''', but I will just say that considering edits "persecution or condescension" shows a basic lack of understanding of what a Wiki is. If you are so attached to your edits that you analogize others editing or reverting them to torture, you are in the wrong place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

American refugees?[edit]

I am not sure this is a reliable source, but it is an interesting story: French President Offers Refugee Status to U.S. Liberals. Would this extend to French Polynesia? Pashley (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a dumb headline by someone who doesn't understand what Macron said (or a clickbaiter). Macron suggested that US climate change scientists may be more welcome in France than the US which isn't anything about providing refugee status.
Not sure about your question. Justice in French Polynesia is directly administrated by France so it is reasonable to beleive that a refugee claim here would be treated in a similar manner to France itself. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Slippy maps[edit]

Hello,

I made a map based wiki website which seems to be what Dynamic maps Expedition wants.

Problem this website and probably Dynamic maps Expedition want to solve is the disconnection between information and their location. Traditionally, travel articles are organized by place names, and planning bigger trips involves going back and forth between the article and Google Maps, wasting quite some time. Furthermore, articles can't have too many listings in them or else it becomes a bloated ugly yellow page.

My solution is to attach info to the map as snippets which will appear or disappear based on zoom level with optional popups for extra info. Only 'interesting enough' snippets will show up as you zoom to prevent clutter. Listings of business can be made to hide in high zoom level, allowing more listings without bloat. You can zoom in to Amherst, MA or NYC (worse option as not much info is added) to see how it works.

If interested, the website is impressionmap.org; use default user whoisthefairest password memememe to edit if you don't bother registering. By the way, the website doesn't work on IE and renders a bit ugly on browsers released before March 2017. Tell me if something else if wrong!

Asking for thoughts, opinions and advice! I want more content and wikivoyage wants a good map, maybe this will work^_^

Hopefully it's ok to do this introduction here. Made a similar one on Wikitravel a week ago but it seems that they aren't that active. Found wikivoyage after some effort, don't want to get banned Wkenmomo (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see the benefits of such a system for specialist sites. But I think that on WikiTravel it becomes a lot harder to define what is more or less important or interesting. A family with children will find different things "interesting" or "important" than a backpacker who loves clubbing and partying or a somebody cycle touring or a businessperson with a few free days in Miami ... So what snippets are given prominence would depend on the interests of the user. PsamatheM (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! Problem with the whole hiding snippet thing comes from map congestion when zoom out. PoiMap2 hides everything and replace them with number of markers hidden which isn't very helpful, my approach is to hide the unimportant ones and show a summary of that area. As you said, importance is hard to define. My current definition is ability to motivate someone living on the corner of current map with general travel intention to come solely for this thing. If wikivoyage ever wants to show 'POIs of other articles' (from Dynamic Maps Expedition), the congestion while zoomed out/hiding stuff problem has to be solved somehow. As I'm not familiar with how stuff works here, is there any user's attention I need to draw? Like is there a group of users working on that map expedition? Wkenmomo (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion on a site like WikiVoyage "importance" is impossible to define because different users will have very different interests. What is important for a party/clubbing "let you hair down" youngster will be totally different from "important" for a natural history enthusiast seeking tranquility both of which have totally different "important" from a family with kids in their caravan, etc. I think other sites may have narrower interests and thus can define "importance" (e.g. bird watching site or a windsurfing site, etc.) PsamatheM (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage already uses some "importance" since it uses a hierarchy. For example in United States of America, there is no mention of hang gliding parks or the Emily Dickinson Museum in Amherst, MA. Somehow both are deemed not important and unworthy of mentioning. Furthermore, current map demo map and art map hides everything when zoomed out. Those numbers and '+' aren't helpful.Wkenmomo (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
On Wikivoyage maps it might be useful to be able to select only some categories of listings. If I have zoomed right out on a map, I may not be interested in places to eat or drink, or if I am looking for somewhere to stay, I might be interested in only seeing the sleep listings on a map. I think that this kind of decluttering could be more useful than having orange crosses (that are on full screen maps, but not mapframes). AlasdairW (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm proposing. For categories, in my opinion, custom icons can do the job without layers. Some lodging, bar icon was added on imp map, check them to see if it's effective for your eyes. The central proposal of impression map is indeed the ability to hide places when you zoom out and put an area description rather than orange cross/cram everything in one place. Wkenmomo (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry that demo really doesn't work for me. I start seeing a bar icon with "Vodka for the motherland", but when I zoom in to see where it is it disappears. Whilst removing bars as I zoom out is desirable, what I want is a set of checkboxes to select which listings are shown (the defaults could vary with zoom), so if I am planning a night out I can see all the drink listings, but none of the see ones. AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably didn't explain myself clear enough.
  • Checkboxes are the "inferior" solution, in my opinion. Relative context is lost if you uncheck, say you want a hotel that is close to attraction and has bars and massage nearby. I put my money on different icons for different type. With quality icons, everything seems easy to distinguish and no need to uncheck anything. It's up to debate which one is better, while both are easy technically.
  • For the disappearing bar, it's because every "thing" on the map has its own zoom range, very customizable. Setting Groups to disappear and appear at certain level are too uniform. Some bar are better than others, and Niagara falls is way better than my local one. There is a default zoom, set at the zoom it's created in. For the disappearing bar, I created it at zoom 3 and didn't change the zoom range, too lazy my bad. More demo are added to NYC, zoom in and see. If nothing, clear cache and reload.
  • You are very welcome to try to set zoom range, icons and random stuff, the map is a wiki and very easy to use/undo. Username is whoisthefairest, password is memememe.
Wkenmomo (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts and notes
  • Our dynamic maps I believe are by definition a Slippy Map.
  • Emily Dickinson Museum in Amherst, MA doesn't show up simply because that listing in the Amherst article does not have coordinates for it.
  • One option to see specific listings such as drink and not the others - uncheck various other groups in mapframe (under more details) that you don't wish to see.
  • Multiple mapframes can be used on an article page for each section/type, through the use of group and show parameters as well as a main mapframe showing all.
  • Marker icons can usually be clicked and information (usually name, an image and/or a description) pops up). Mouse over the marker icon and a name popup shows.
  • We generally rely on numbered markers that appear on maps; however, with some extra work, one can actually overlay the number on a mapframe with an appropriate icon such as a zoo, museum or something else. Putting those icons in a separate group which unchecked can disappear and the numbers will show for reference with matching entry on an article page.
  • The geo map - I would expect to disappear in the future with something else replacing it.
  • Markers with + symbol etc. don't bother me in the least. I normally do not look at maps covering large areas where this would normally occur. (ie. I don't think I would try to find a bar in Boston and one in Los Angeles at the same viewing)
  • Maps can contain more than what is listed on an article page by using maplinks which could have class=no-icon and text="" as parameters - with some other kind of icon being drawn.
  • More entries (listings) can be added to a map through transclusion from another page as well.
  • Important places can be accentuated on a map by placing a filled in colored star beneath/underneath the marker icon or stand alone.
  • Places on a map that show no label can also have text drawn on the map.
  • and probably other realities/possibilities...
  • Shouldn't all these discussions on maps etc. be somewhere else?
Cheers! -- Matroc (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Matroc, you are the expert! I see that Kartographer is powerful and suits wikivoyage well. Didn't know that from trying to edit. And I agree that this discussion should be somewhere else. Wkenmomo (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Wkenmomo - I am in no way the expert!; far from it! There are lots of issues that have not been resolved and some nuances exist about using Kartographer that can make one's stomach churn. I plug away at map issues to see if some problem could be resolved. Unfortunately; at this present time, one would have to do actual coding to resolve them (some of which is neither elegant nor simple). In no way would I expect users/editors to do lots of coding in Wikivoyage; which a basic reason why we use templates, Visual editor, listing editor, extensions, modules etc., thus hiding the multiple complexities that are under the covers (under the hood so to speak) and allowing time for more valuable editorial content input. -- Matroc (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing opacity from table of contents dropdowns[edit]

There is a longstanding bug on phabricator regarding the opacity of the table of contents dropdown. Is this a problem shared by other community members? Please comment on the task (using your Phabricator account). If I don't see any objections I am going to remove the opacity from the menus. Thanks in advance! Jdlrobson (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you like this idea? Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Alt_pagebanner_layout.3F Would be easy to roll the opacity fix into that. --ButteBag (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Admin request - move Atlantic Provinces to Atlantic Canada[edit]

The page Atlantic Provinces is suggested to move to Atlantic Canada. See Talk:Canada for discussion. Could an admin help out? /Yvwv (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus for a move yet. If and when there is, sure. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
In that case, more opinions about the suggestion is requested in Talk:Canada. /Yvwv (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
One week down, 3 users are for, 3 neutral, and 0 against. /Yvwv (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Where to save map in Commons?[edit]

I have created my very first self-made district map and saved it in my sandbox on Wikimedia Commons. I am quite happy with the result now and it is already used on the Kuala Lumpur article. So is there a proper place to save it in Commons? In the example they use a subfolder called neighbourhoods. Maybe there? Thanks! --Renek78 (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming it is your own work and you are happy to provide it with a creative commons license you can just upload it. No questions asked :)
There are no folders as such in Commons, but categories. Have a look at Category:Kuala_Lumpur and see if any are suited to your map. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andrewssi2! Moved the map now to c:Data:Kuala_Lumpur_Districts.map and tried to add it to the category Maps_of_Kuala_Lumpur with help of the little plus button at the bottom of the page. But then I get a syntax error ("Cannot add wikitext to Map.JsonConfig").--Renek78 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems that is because it is data. The media (images etc.) have a separate description page where you can add the category, which the data pages seem not to have. I suppose there is some other mechanism for organising this kind of pages, but I do not know it. --LPfi (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any way to organize data pages yet. There was some discussion at Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Wikivoyage_district_maps_using_Wikidata above about using Wikidata ids and/or including Wikivoyage in the name. Wikidata id's are easier for cross-language use (names can change from language to language but the id's won't). Including "Wikivoyage" makes it more clear that it was created for this project. But it would be good to hear more opinions on this. -Shaundd (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand the wikidata id thing. So you mean use the wikidata id in the title? or add the file to the wikidata element? And in the example above, which wikidata id? The one linked to the Kuala Lumpur city article?
I am having the same problem as I have created a map, that I would like to add to some of the Singapore maps with the train lines (c:Data:Sandbox/Drat70/mrt_singapore.map) but I'm not sure under what to save it. Drat70 (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
But in order to get Wikidata ID's we have to draw the outlines in OpenStreetMap, Shaundd. In case of Kuala Lumpur that does not make sense, because the official boundaries are for sure different. So it is useless information in OSM. We really have to draw the outlines manually in situations like that, I suppose. I understand your concern with the links, though (Drat70, in the KL map, if you click on the coloured surfaces, you get the hyperlink to the article). They will unfortunately only work for the English Wikivoyage page.--Renek78 (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant include the wikidata ID in the name (title) of map -- for example, Kuala Lumpur has a wikidata ID of Q1865, so the data page name could be "Wikivoyage Q1865.map". But there hasn't been much discussion about how to name and organize the files on Commons, so if you agree/disagree/have other ideas, it would be good to hear. For things like train/rapid transit lines, I'm not sure. There still might be a Wikidata ID but it could be hard to find. Maybe it's better to go with a descriptive name like Singapore MRTmap or Wikivoyage Singapore MRT.map?
Your point about the hyperlinks is a good one. To me, it would be ideal if the commons map just held the coordinates for the shape, and then colours, links, etc. are added on each wiki (like we do with shapes that come from OSM). It doesn't seem to work like that right now. -Shaundd (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You could compromise on both: "Wikivoyage Q1865 Kuala Lumpur.map" WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

mapframe[edit]

When there are map coordinates of a destination in Wikidata, this is not translated into a correct positioned map, when {{mapframe|||zoom=10}} is used without coordinates. I discovered this with the Chiang Rai page. This destination has in Wikidata the coordinates (Property:P625) 19°54'34"N, 99°49'39"E.

After making the map full screen, the address line in the browser shows:

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Chiang_Rai&diff=next&oldid=3213861#/map/0/10/20.0960/99.8752

Here 20.0960/99.8752 (20°5'45.60"N/99°52'30.72"E) are the coordinates of the map center, not the same as the P625 value in Wikidata. On the right side of the displayed map, another value is displayed for the coordinates: 20.0217, 100.0951.

I guess there must be something wrong in the supporting module of the mapframe template.

--FredTC (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The same or similar issue was recently raised on "mediawiki.org" in Help talk:Extension:Kartographer -- Matroc (talk)
I don't recognize this at that mediawiki page. --FredTC (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you care for most? What are you concerned with? Take part in the strategy discussion[edit]

Strategy Graphic.pdf
The World in 2030 - Presentation for movement strategy discussions.pdf

Hi!

The more involved we are, the more ideas or wishes concerning the future of Wikipedia we have. We want to change some things, but other things we prefer not to be changed at all, and we can explain why for each of those things. At some point, we don’t think only about the recent changes or personal lists of to-dos, but also about, for example, groups of users, the software, institutional partners, money!, etc. When we discuss with other Wikimedians, we want them to have at least similar priorities that we have. Otherwise, we feel we wasted our time and efforts.

We need to find something that could be predictable, clear and certain to everybody. A uniting idea that would be more nearby and close to the every day’s reality than the Vision (every human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge).

But people contribute to Wikimedia in so many ways. The thing that should unite us should also fit various needs of editors and affiliates from many countries. What’s more, we can’t ignore other groups of people who care about or depend on us, like regular donors or “power readers” (people who read our content a lot and often).

That’s why we’re running the movement strategy discussions. Between 2019 and 2034, the main idea that results from these discussions, considered by Wikimedians as the most important one, will influence big and small decisions, e.g. in grant programs, or software development. For example: are we more educational, or more IT-like?

We want to take into account everybody’s voice. Really: each community is important. We don’t want you to be or even feel excluded.

Please, if you are interested in the Wikimedia strategy, follow these steps:

  • Have a look at this page. There are drafts of 5 potential candidates for the strategic priority. You can comment on the talk pages.
  • The last day for the discussion is June, 12. Later, we’ll read all your comments, and shortly after that, there’ll be another round of discussions (see the timeline). I will give you more details before that happens.
  • If you have any questions, ask me. If you ask me here, mention me please.

Friendly disclaimer: this message wasn't written by a bot, a bureaucrat or a person who doesn't care about your project. I’m a Polish Wikipedian, and I hope my words are straightforward enough. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Quote style[edit]

User:Yvwv (perhaps others?) has been changing the style of quotes in multiple articles. For example, Retiring abroad now has:

If find that both wasteful of screen real estate and distinctly ugly. In particular, I find the (blue on my system) quotation marks revolting. I'd much rather use simpler markup to get:

Now more than ever do I realize that I will never be content with a sedentary life, that I will always be haunted by thoughts of a sun-drenched elsewhere. - Isabelle Eberhard

What was there before the recent change used more markup & looked like this:

Now more than ever do I realize that I will never be content with a sedentary life, that I will always be haunted by thoughts of a sun-drenched elsewhere. - Isabelle Eberhard

Other opinions?

Can this be fixed by changing the template definition? If so, what changes would people recommend? Pashley (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Since it is a template I assumed that it was according to Wikivoyage:Manual of style. If the template is poorly formated, let us change the template. /Yvwv (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be better to keep using the template and just to get the template modified. I've done a few quick changes in the sandbox version at Template:Quote/sandbox so that some testing can before before the change are made to the main template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That looks better. /Yvwv (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • On this issue in particular and in general: I say if the content is good, let it stand on its own merits rather than tarting it up with templates and oversized quotation marks and other bells and whistles. Substance over style, not the other way around. If you're starting a section off with a quote, italicize it, use regular quotation marks, and otherwise let it be. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with AndreCarrotflower's point. My understanding was that the "quote" template was for pull quotes, not for block quotes. Pull quotes are meant to duplicate content that's already there, but in a way that highlights them so as to be eye-catching. I find pull quotes irritating, but I guess they're useful in combatting readers' short attention spans. QuartierLatin1968 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also agree. Either type of quote described (pull quotes or block quotes) are rarely so crucially important to justify the massive highlighting and space the special "quoting" systems provide/take. It would be interesting to know where and to what purpose most of the quotes like this have been used in WV and how much the additional highlighting and space added to the usefulness of the page. PsamatheM (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few articles use quotes & all the ones I've noticed seem appropriate to me. e.g. Cold weather has Amudsen's line "There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing." & two city articles have

Heaven has paradise; Earth has Hangzhou and Suzhou. — Chinese proverb

A few articles like Retiring abroad, which I wrote most of, have a quote at the head of every section. That's arguably excessive but I'd say not. Some of those quotes are fine, others were added just to have one per section & might be improved.
As for "how much the additional highlighting and space added to the usefulness of the page", I'd say they detract. My preferred format would be as shown for the Hangzhou/Suzhou quote. Pashley (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither the terms pull quote nor block quote are appropriate for these quotes. Maybe we should use the term "adage" or "saying", with an appropriate template? /Yvwv (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any value in duplicating (or nearly so) templates just so we can type {{saying|whatever}} in the wikitext instead of typing {{quote|whatever}} in the wikitext. One of Wikivoyage's many virtues is its resistance to creating a multitude of templates. (In fact, I'd be content to replace all of these templates with <blockquote> tags, and have no template for this formatting style at all, even though the formatting for the author/originator's name is rather nice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
See also Talk:Retiring_abroad#Excessive_use_of_quotes Pashley (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about pull quotes, a term I'd never encountered until this discussion. For block quotes, I'd definitely prefer to just use <blockquote> tags but have no strong objection to a template provided we can simplify the format it imposes. Pashley (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd say {{quote|quote|author}} is easier to type and remember than <blockquote>''quote'' &mdash; author</blockquote> (for those not acquainted to HTML), and probably easy enough that using it scares nobody. And yes, I also prefer the simple layout of the city example. --LPfi (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no need to type the HTML code for an em dash. If you don't know how to type an em dash on your computer (it's ⌘⇧- on a Mac), then you can get it from the Special Characters menu (or copy it from another page). <blockquote>"quote" –author</blockquote> is not that hard (and works on all the wikis without needing any changes, which cannot be said for templates). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinion request: Move Midwest (United States of America) to Midwest[edit]

Go to Talk:Midwest (United States of America) to discuss whether the article should be renamed Midwest. /Yvwv (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus in favor. Can an admin please move the page? /Yvwv (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Still requesting the move. /Yvwv (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Further on Recent changes patrol[edit]

Do you think that Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol should be mentioned in the welcome messages ({{subst:welcome}}, {{subst:welcomeanon}} and {{subst:wikipedian}})? I think a lot of new users think that when anyone comments on their edits on their user talk pages, there's some spooky or otherwise objectionable spying going on. See another example here. If we somehow included in all our welcome messages the fact that one of the useful things users can do is to patrol recent changes for accuracy and style, might we proactively address some of the confusion and bad feelings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Mention about how new user edits are "patrolled" and the "Recent Changes" list can draw the attention of others to the page. And maybe how this can also help a new contributor to be come familiar with layout standards, etc. but how content is more important than the niceties of layout so contributors much appreciated even if others do come along and tweak them it's not a negative or critical thing. PsamatheM (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Well... I don't disagree with that, but the long-term contributors to this site tend to be experienced Wikipedians, so they probably already know how to find such tools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about long-term contributors to this site. I'm proposing that a brief mention and explanation of Recent changes patrol be included in welcome messages for new users. If people agree that this is a good idea, we should discuss phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
This is about accounts that are new to Wikivoyage ...most of whom are "old" to wikis. "New here" is not the same as "new". It looks like your first edit was at the English Wikipedia. My first edit was at the English Wikipedia. Nurg's first edit was at the English Wikipedia (albeit just a week before his first edit 'here'). AlasdiarW's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. Ground Zero's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. K7L's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. WOSLinker's first edit was at the English Wikipedia. Many of the "regulars" here started editing at some other wiki, and ended up here later. (This list of examples was taken from a quick look at the recent editors on this page.) So if the goal of the welcome template is to attract "regulars", why would we waste their time telling them one of the things that works exactly like it does at the wikis they're already familiar with? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
You are quite incorrect that most new users here are familiar with recent changes patrol. Even if they posted a few edits to Wikipedia, it does not follow that they automatically know what recent changes patrol is or how it works. I've had enough experience with new users taking offense at their contributions being edited or even commented upon to know that your perception is inaccurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The only welcome message in which recent changes patrol could be soft-pedaled is {{subst:wikipedian}}, and even there, a short statement that "Like Wikipedia, Wikivoyage has a Recent changes patrol for checking new edits; you may want to participate as a patroller, and as on Wikipedia, you may also find that your edits and other content in articles you edit are subjected to quick followup edits." Such a statement could only help, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm specifically thinking about focusing the welcome message on the subset of new users that are likely to become regulars (as opposed to touts, drive-by promoters, and other new users). It seems to me that if you want to increase the core group of regulars, then you need to write for experienced editors.
If your focus is on new-to-everything, then I think that it's more pointful to say "We work together, which means that other people will try to improve your contributions, and you should improve theirs". 02:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that our best users are all necessarily Wikipedia veterans. I don't know if I'm a good example, but if so: I have made occasional edits on Wikipedia for years, but mostly because when I read an article and see a typo or grammatical or spelling mistake, I correct it. So you could call me a longtime occasional, casual Wikipedia editor but no kind of veteran patroller or content provider, though I have provided some content for a few Wikipedia articles. Given the relatively small number of editors on this site, I wouldn't want to take any potentially constructive user for granted. All that said, I'm happy to discuss the best phrasing for addressing recent changes patrol, including something as simple as what you posted above, if there's any kind of consensus to add something about patrolling in welcome messages. I think it would help, because not a few users are put off by it, at least at first, and some of those folks probably stopped posting because of it, while others stayed and have indeed become valuable contributors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Main Page, tools, permanent Link[edit]

Sorry but I can't find a place to mention this in Main Page discussion. The subject link ("permanent link") is dead. I don't know how to fix it.ShoreCrab2000 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to work fine for me—when I clicked on it, it led me to this URL: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=3217767 . —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful establishments[edit]

In Wikivoyage articles, I often find establishments (museums, eateries, hotels, etc.) that I suspect do not operate any more. They do not appear on Google Maps. If they appear in a Google search, the references are 10 years old. They have no website, or they have a web link to an irrelevant page. The question is: Is there a way to flag such entries as doubtful, or should I delete them? It is impractical for me to go the address to verify. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My preferred course of action is to call the phone number (either the one listed in the article or anything you can dig up on Google). Even if it's not the establishment itself that answers the phone, there's still a good chance that whoever has the number now will have fielded calls from time to time from people trying to reach the establishment, and may be able to verify for you if it's closed or even, if it does remain in existence, what the new number may be. Failing that, it's probably best to delete the listing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
A lack of web site is in itself not an indication of a closed establishment, but if I fail to find on Google Map, with Yahoo search and sites such as TripAdvisor and Yelp have no reviews of the establishment in the last 3 to 5 years then I delete. In locations were internet usage is low I would maybe move the listing to the talk page with a comment, move back to article if anyone knows better. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I have this problem with South Korean articles, where turnover of businesses is very high. I agree that the absence of a web site does not indicate a closed business.
Google Maps has good listings (and they actively manage them as best they can), so I often check there, but generally speaking I don't close a business unless I have first hand knowledge of the fact. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Put them in hiding brackets <!-- such as this text --> until the issue is resolved. /Yvwv (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that we don't actively manage these listings, I fear that using hiding brackets would be effectively the same as a deletion. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Traveler100's approach. We know that there is a lot of turnover in businesses, and that we don't serve the reader well by keeping listings of closed businesses. If a business used to have a webpage, and now doesn't have one and doesn't have Trip Advisor or other reviews, it is reasonable to assume that they are gone. In cleaning up deadlinks, I have found businesses that have let their webpages expire, but continue to show up in a Google search, so I keep the listing and remove the link. Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
When updating sections with listings Google Maps (and Google in general) is my go-to resource. If they say it's permanently closed and it doesn't have any web presence at all (website, facebook etc.) and there aren't any reviews on sites like Tripadvisor, Yelp or such for the last year I think it's pretty safe to delete the listing. Needless to say, if their own website or fb-page say they have closed, then it's also safe to delete it. Nevertheless, if I find any "signs of life" from the last few months or so (e.g. the establishment has been mentioned in a news story), I let the listing be.
It's of course a bit harder for places with low Internet usage like Africa, but usually there is something online, at least some review or the business marked on either Google and/or Openstreetmap. If there nevertheless is nothing at all about the business and if there according to the article history have been many years since it has been added to WV, and there moreover are a lot of the same kinds of businesses in the article, I think it's safe to delete it.
I have a feeling it depends on the type of business as well, restaurants and bars are more likely to close than hotels and stores, while sights, attractions and activites are more permanent. --ϒpsilon (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I have always assumed that for most places WV is not aiming to be a complete directory listing every establishment. Where a listing was vague (e.g. just a name) I regard it as pretty useless anyway and if no web presence found then it was not much use to people wanting to visit so no real loss. If an address was included, if the place was worthwhile often local papers will have a brief report of its closure (returned from a Google search) or an address search sometimes gives a property website "for sale" listing. Where it looks likely it's gone and if no comment about it being "the best, not to be missed" (i.e. just another e.g. bar) I'll try and replace it with something similar nearby. I have found that some pubs/restaurants drop their web site and switch to only Facebook and that Google does not always list their Facebook page in their 1st page search results so I also always do a search on establishment name and "Facebook" and that has shown some to still be operating. PsamatheM (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
These comments feel like a consensus is emerging that would be useful to incorporate into Wikivoyage:Listings as a guideline for deleting listings. Agree/disagree? Ground Zero (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Likely Wikivoyage:Listings is the wrong place for this. There is no one single "right" method to spotting venues which have closed. This sort of suggestion might be appropriate for a task description in a Wikiproject-style expedition, but it's not hard and fast policy. An approach which works in a destination with cheap Internet telephony and widespread Internet access to every tiny mum-and-pop corner store may break down in a country which charges painful premiums for inbound international calls. In a war zone? Everything falls apart and it's very difficult to know if any of the listed POI's still exist. We must adapt to the situation on the ground. All we know about Aleppo might be what we read in a newspaper, or whatever passes for a virtual newspaper this week. K7L (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
"There is no one single "right" method to spotting venues which have closed." -- Yes, that would be the difference between a policy and a guideline. I am proposing a guideline to help editors decide, not a policy to which they must adhere. I see that WV:Listings is a policy page, but that would be the place that people would look for advice on how to handle this, so we would have to be clear that it is a guideline, especially for people who may read the page too quickly and jump to the wrong conclusion. Ground Zero (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Traveler100 suggested moving doubtful listings to the article's talk page. So, I could add a "Doubtful establishments" section to the article's talk page, and move the listing there giving a reason. Would there be any objection to doing this? I think a better solution would be to create a special template to flag a listing as doubtful within the article giving the reason for flagging (e.g. {{doubt|address not found on Google/Bing maps|June 2017}} ). I think half the eateries in the article for Saint-Pierre (south of Newfoundland) are doubtful.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe one needs to think about it from a users/travellers perspective. Would you want a guide book where half the listings were marked as "doubtful"; how long would you bother to wait for a reply to an e-mail to a "dubious" listing (would you bother to even send one); how far would you walk to a "dubious" listing ?, etc. Listings will never be 100% but my personal opinion is when reviewing/updating a page one should make as sure as possible that it is accurate. Would listings marked as "dubious" add to the quality or usefulness of the site ? Maybe look at questionable listings in the light of whether you'd add them as a new listing. PsamatheM (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that a lot depends on the listing. If a city has 10 places to eat and I have doubts that one is still open, I would generally remove it without delay. The case of a village with only one place to eat is more difficult, and I would spend more time researching, and in this case expressing doubt may be useful.
However I am more inclined to leave a see or do listing in place. A park, monument or volunteer run museum may not have much presence online. In these cases adding a note about the doubt may be worthwhile - I might not walk far to such a dubious listing, but I would ask locally. If significant see listings have definitely closed it may also be worth saying so in the article, as travellers may have heard about the sight elsewhere, and assume that we have just missed it out. AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I like AlasdairW's suggestion to express doubt as a comment in a listing if after research there is still doubt. On the other hand, I found another tool to resolve doubt: even a remote location such as Saint-Pierre et Miquelon has an online phone directory to look up establishment names or their telehone numbers. If the establishment is not listed there or in recent Google search entries or on Google maps, it is probably closed. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Page banner content[edit]

Did I miss a conversation and decision somewhere. Do not like the new contents title. What was wrong with the old one? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any conversation. What change have you noticed? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see now! (the page needs to change before the new rendering appears). There lower translucent menu bar is now much higher with the word 'Contents' above it. Looks bad. Can we please revert back?
I can't see any recent changes at Template:Pagebanner to cause this, so maybe at MediaWiki ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In the Dutch WV the extra space has the word "[verbergen]" (hide) in it. However it is not showed in every page: nl:Hongarije has it, nl:Praag does not have it. --FredTC (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
New layout looks dreadful compared to previous one - "damages" the banner image badly. Also makes WV look very inconsistent as some (edited) pages have new layout whilst old (unedited) pages have old layout. Definitely agree to revert to old layout. This one os also "greying over" virtually the bottom half of the banner - I don't get the "Contents" on a page I tested (but if you highlight the greyed area the word is there in black and in my test Woodbridge (Suffolk) the banner colour makes the menu items be white (so it's not been properly implemented anyway!). I did think these sorts of changes would have been discussed before being implemented. All my votes to revert to old layout. Edit note: Does not even work properly with the default page banner!! PsamatheM (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it looks bad and should be reverted. To do that we have to figure out what caused it, I guess. Maybe User:Thiemo Mättig (WMDE), who recently edited the MediaWiki extension, can help. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I've made a change to MediaWiki:Common.css which seems to fix the issue. The real cause of the problem should still be investigated though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that whatever caused the change required the page be edited before the new banner style appeared. But whatever @WOSlinker did has immediate effect and does not require the page to be edited for the banner to revert back. So I do suspect that the solution (which works) is not undooing the cause, just overriding it (great that it's back how it was, thanks) PsamatheM (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
My change is just an override to hide the problem. It's not a fix of the original cause, whatever that is. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Out of interest for my understanding as to how WV (and other Wiki's) work, how is the problem identified now. Is there some report mechanism to MediaWiki or do they just spot comments here on this thread, or does an Admin here take the reporting the issue to whoever, etc. i.e. who has to do what ? PsamatheM (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The place to report mediawiki bugs is at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ and anyone can do it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

FredTC, WOSlinker, PsamatheM, Andrewssi2 - Unfortunately, The bug isn't gone. Apparently it only affected the Hebrew Wikivoyage and Dutch Wikivoyage which are the only Wikivoyage editions that did not replace all their old banners code with the new banner code (the new banner code had several issues and therefore we chose to implement it in the Hebrew Wikivoyage). In order to see if the bug was fixed... take any page on either the Hebrew or Dutch Wikivoyage, press on Edit Source, and change the "&action=edit" at the end of the URL to "&action=purge" (which would refresh the page and show that the new hide feature is added or eventually will be added to all articles once they are refreshed. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For example - see the Granada article in the Dutch Wikivoyage and the Hebrew Wikivoyage. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
What seems to show on those WV's is completely different to what we saw on en WV earlier. They have a Show/Hide option to show of hide the heading jump menus. On en WV there was a "Contents" heading in black and the greyed area was covering almost half the vertical height of the banner. the nl WV looks different in that I cant see a greyed area. So I can't see how the issues relate PsamatheM (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Either way, someone changed the code of the old banner 2 days ago. Since it is only used by Hebvoy and NLvoy, and since we are not interested in this change, how do we revert this "hiding" feature? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Searches in WP show results from sister projects, incl WV[edit]

Searches in Wikipedia now show results from sister projects, including Wikivoyage. Cool. It will be interesting to see if it boosts our usage. Nurg (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Might have to test it out a bit more but from the looks of things, Wikivoyage results always appear below the other non-WP wikis even if WV is more relevant and has an article that matches the search exactly. I wonder who decided on the order. Gizza (roam) 03:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Noticed that too. Also only appears to find articles or redirect pages not listings of points of interest within a page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it matches on article title for WV, not on article contents. More info at the RfC. (There is also info at mw:Cross-wiki Search Result Improvements - not sure if that's the main project page.) Nurg (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
An RFC at the English Wikipedia should only affect the English Wikipedia, so you ought to see different results at different projects. User:CKoerner (WMF) could probably tell you more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a case to be made for listings with a WP article to show up in the search or maybe that listing being linked from WP in some way. Is someone going to make that case over at en-WP? 88.10.131.156 21:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I also think that there's a case to be made for seeing Minneapolis when someone searches for "Minneapolis, Minnesota" instead of only when they search for "Minneapolis".
I imagine that some editors over at the English Wikipedia don't want readers to be able to find relevant pages on other projects. Some of them probably feel like they have a lot (of readership) to lose from this. I therefore don't expect anyone to make that case, or for that case to be considered with an open mind if someone does make that case. It's probably more effective to let the editors there get used to the idea that cross-wiki search exists at all before trying to expand its use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I was surprised the proposal to include even some interwiki results in WP search was successful. There is unfortunately a significant minority of Wikipedians that have a massive complex with regards to other wikis. Gizza (roam) 22:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
But we have that complex here, too. Would we consider including Wikipedia results in Wikivoyage searches? How about Commons results, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the Wikivoyage results that show in the sister project snippets on the search results page are indeed, based on searching the title text only, as per the follow-up to the RfC on enwiki.
I'm not sure about the "Minneapolis, Minnesota" reference though, User:WhatamIdoing, when I search on enwiki, the query takes me directly to the page. If you search for ~Minneapolis, Minnesota, you do get a result of Twin_Cities in the sister project snippets which is a redirect from Minneapolis-Saint_Paul). We can look into not using redirect pages if that is the consensus here. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that the consensus here is that searching for a geographical/travel-related article at enwiki should always provide a link here, if there is any relevant article here.
It's a little odd to get Twin Cities when you search for one of them. Searching for "Minneapolis, Minn." at enwiki ('search inside' to get the search results from the top box) gives me no links to Wikivoyage. I don't realistically know if that's something your team can fix (or how many people other than print journalists still use this abbreviation style, but presumably the result is the same for "Minneapolis, MI".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I opened up a ticket this morning to chat with the team about the redirect to Twin Cities and it appears that this is the best course of action to take when searching for "Minneapolis, Minn." or "Minneapolis, Minnesota". Also, when searching in the top right search box for "Minneapolis, Minn." the result will be that exact page on enwiki, not the search results page that would include Wikivoyage as part of the sister project snippets display. The search results page (and corresponding sister project snippets) can be generated by putting a tilde (~) in front of the search query, something like this. The search algorithm for the sister projects displaying on the search results page will always search for a relevant article in the projects that are displayed, per the RfC on enwiki. So, if there isn't a snippet for Wikivoyage for a particular travel based query on the search results page, I would assume that either there isn't a travel-related article on that particular city - or - that the search term is not in the title of the travel-related article for our algorithm to search for and find in order to display. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The tilde (for "fuzzy" search) is only necessary if you're starting at the search box in the top right corner (rather than going to Special:Search), not choosing the "containing..." option, and using Vector (because Monobook has separate buttons for "Search" and "Go"). Try this link if you want to see the search in Monobook with "Search" instead of "Go". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat related idea[edit]

Is there any way to show in a WP article that WV has a listing on that place? Should there be? After all, our listings now allow the "Wikipedia" parameter... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see w:Template:Wikivoyage section Links to listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Everytime I change a destination page from "outline" to "usable" I check on Wikipedia (in the External Links section) - the better template shows as a box to the right side of the page under the External Links heading. Many pages already have the link but I think I've added 37 links to Wikipedia out of 76'ish pages "uprated". The inline template is more than easy to miss so where I've found the inline version used on Wikipedia I've changed it to the {{wikipedia|placename}} version. As most of my Wikipedia contributions are adding WV links, I've put a note on my Wikipedia user page about being mainly focusing on WikiVoyage and I always put a descent summary in (don't want other Wikipedia contributors reverting them!) PsamatheM (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't bother adding links to Wikipedia for outline WV articles as some are so "empty" they are not really worth attracting readers to (not yet - not until the page has descent content) PsamatheM (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Opt-out option proposed at English Wikipedia[edit]

An option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Which user/s has/have access to making changes to the old Wikivoyage banner?[edit]

? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Fellow European Wikivoyagers, listen up[edit]

...and why not people from elsewhere too. I thought the European Union article could make a nice Ftt in upcoming December or January, because on 1 January it will be 60 years since the Treaty of Rome (the foundation of the EU) came into force. Have a look at this discussion for more information. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to help out (more) but currently I'm on a tight schedule ironically thanks in part to the EU that makes working in Spain for a Dutch company not even require a passport. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Legal status of the moon[edit]

It seems that treating that subject in article Moon is a joke, i think is relevant info, there are no laws on the moon rather than "no population", this edition[3] was reverted when it was a SYNth from .--Neurorebel (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess even though there are no legal impediments to your visit, practical transport options may categorize this as 'unlikely'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Earth[edit]

Where is the start point of every voyage and to whom wikivoyage is directed? Is it the earth the start point? is it directed to the earthlings? I noticed that Earth redirects to Destination. I may be wandering too far but Do you think that only inhabitants of the Earth can read this and that only earthlings travel? I propose that Universe redirect there as a start point and that an Earth aticle be created, not only because it supports my outraged posture but as it would be also utilitarian as a general view for every voyage (obviously but not necessary to Earthlings), content such as population, countries, dangerous places and worth visiting should be included, Article should state a what to expect for most of the visitable places in the manner of stating a general norm, answer the question What is to expect on every place on the Earth? how are most places on the earth? --Neurorebel (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, but Wikivoyagers are uncompromising planetists -- they view everything only through their own, narrow, single-world perspective. You'll never convince them to broaden the scope of the project. Maybe you and I should start a "Wikiinterstellar" to make travel information available to the much bigger readership that exists -- the travel guide that anyone in the universe can edit.. Ground Zero (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Haha, geocentricists, the Earth article would be a practical application to this principle and in my opinion very useful for this site; Im not talking about Alpha Centaury (yet).--Neurorebel (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Possibly for the rich and famous; you can at least escape the earth and circle the globe - maybe visit a space station or even circle the moon. A trip to Mars is a possibility in the future as well. I agree that; for now that, the average traveller will probably follow the geocentricism model - after all the sun does revolve around the earth. -- Matroc

New here, need some help![edit]

Well, not that new.... I last edited as an IP address around late 2005 on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia). I'm going to try and add smaller towns (medium-size ones like Prestwich but how can I do so while keeping within policy?

Any help's appreciated. --Walkden861 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Prestwich is currently a redirect to Manchester/North, which has two listings for Prestwich. I would suggest that you start by expanding Manchester/North. The main Manchester article is at guide standard and has been featured on the Main Page, and some of the inner district articles are in good shape - if you want example of how to do things - look at Manchester/Victoria-Shopping District. AlasdairW (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for your efforts! If you're worried about where to draw the line between places that are or aren't large or prominent enough to deserve their own articles, the place to start is Wikivoyage:What is an article? Since Prestwich is a suburb of Manchester, you might want to pay special attention to the final paragraph of wiaa#What does get its own article? about the permissibility in many cases of lumping neighboring small towns together in ways that make sense from the traveller's perspective - editors, especially those native to or familiar with the area at issue, have broad latitude in deciding for themselves how best to do that. Finally, the general overarching rule of thumb here is "plunge forward" - as at Wikipedia, there's very little permanent damage that can be done on this site, and other editors (self included) will generally be happy to help with any questions you may have. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The National Trust (England and Wales), National Trust for Scotland...?[edit]

I was wondering if there was a policy about specfic organisations.

In the UK , The National Trust is a major operator and owner of a number of heritage sites ( already listed in region/city/town articles.)

Would policy allow for a specfic article on them and the top 15 or so major sites, they operate?

Naturally they produce their own listings for members. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

My own opinion is, as a general principle, that it is the sites that are interesting rather than the organisation operating those sites. And one can get into "challenging situations" when it comes to focusing on organisations. e.g. the National Trust has it's controversial/political aspects and create an article about them as an organisation and you start needing to ensure balance (which means the "good" and the "bad" and that can get harder to achieve). PsamatheM (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that an article on a specific National Trust would be against the spirit of the policy, which says that companies don't get their own article. I also think that both organisations have two almost separate types of properties - historic homes and countryside which would make it harder to have a travel topic that covered them.
However the properties in the care of the NT / NTS should almost without exception have listings in the relevant city articles, and the organisations could be mentioned in the relevant country articles (currently only done on Scotland and England). Also remember the other National Trusts, e.g. in New South Wales. AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You could do an article on stately homes and castles in the UK, which would cover properties owned/managed by National Trust, English Heritage, CADW, Historic Environment Scotland and others. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
True, Historic properties in the United Kingdom would be the most appropriate title for the stately homes I think, and would be in keeping with the unoffical naming rules used elsewhere. That said the National Trust does A LOT more than Stately homes, they own quite a lot of Senic Landscape as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe create the page in user space so it has plenty of content before creating just a "stub" ? PsamatheM (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Unusual item to add -[edit]

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Signs&oldid=3224523

You can still see fire marks on some buildings in the City (of London), so I put in a note where I felt appropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Related pages[edit]

I noticed this at the bottom of the Canadian National Parks article:

Related pages

Weir Farm National Historic Site - front of the house.jpg United States National Parks
Wikimedia list article

Is the only thing worth saying about Yogi and BooBoo is that they're part of a "Wikimedia list article"?

It looks like the description is being pulled from d:Q5408678 (national parks of the United States), which was created to point to w: List of national parks of the United States. Yes, it's a list article. So what. That's not very lively prose and unlikely to entice the voyager, but it looks like this description is shared across projects - so this was bound to happen. K7L (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that we (all the communities, including Wikidata) are still trying to figure out what useful disambiguation/descriptions are. The Canadian National Parks articles have "park owned and maintained by the federal government of Canada" as their Wikidata description. Perhaps something like that would also work for the US one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese Wildfires[edit]

Should the relevant articles have a caution box at the very least? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I think so, yes. The template page talks about natural disasters, "Warningboxes can be used in the immediate aftermath of natural disasters, but should be removed as soon as the destination becomes reachable again". The UK FCO has said "A forest fire has claimed the lives of a large number of people in the Pedrogão Grande area of central Portugal and isn’t yet under control ... Forest fires are highly dangerous and unpredictable" and Travel.gc.ca has said "A large forest fire is spreading in the Pedrogão Grande area, in central Portugal ... Several people have been killed. Avoid the affected areas" The template page also says "If a government agency has listed a travel warning for an area ..., a warning box is appropriate".  Seagull123  Φ  13:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Which would be the relevant articles would be the next question? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Added a warning box here - Central_Portugal, please revert if it's the wrong region article, or needs to be made more specfic. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikibreak Request for User: Zanygenius[edit]

Good evening/morning, Wikivoyagers, my recent changes has gotten me into a heaping of humiliation (Scottsbluff) and trouble (Cheyenne). I ask to be blocked starting at 06:00 UTC on 22 June 2017. According to the script below, I should be unlocked at 23:59 UTC 25 June 2017. I have invited User:LtPowers here.

	var date = { year: 2017, month: 6, day: 25 };
	var time = { hours: 23, minutes: 59, seconds: 59 };

We WANT your opinion! click on the edit source link below to edit!

[edit]

Enthusiasm is always appreciated, but I think you are taking all this all too seriously. If you edit in good faith then any mistakes can be rolled back. No dramas. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Besides, anyone can take a break at will, if that's what they want to do. No need for there to be a block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Go Next[edit]

An idea.

The mapframe has an option to find "nearby" destinations?

Would it be possible to have something like this for Go Next (with approximate distances) based on Wikidata and geo-data? This would in most instances enable some degree of automated update when destinations get added. At present they have to be added manually to relevant destination articles, which although flexible is time consuming. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussed recently Proposal: Use new modernised version of Extension:RelatedArticles PsamatheM (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Who decides what's related? While Belleville (Ontario) is near Prince Edward County, Rochester (New York) is not. Many "search nearby areas" programmes (such as the one on Craigslist) completely miss the "there's a lake in the way" concept, getting this badly wrong. K7L (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I gotta agree with K7L. There's a certain degree of nuance to the Go Next selections (distances vary, similar destinations might be further away, etc.), which I don't think you can trust an automated program to adequately handle. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree that a manually added Go Next is best. However there is a quick way of adding a list of places in the same region, e.g. on Calgary (Scotland) we have <categorytree mode=pages>Mull</categorytree>, which gives list of all the articles on the Isle of Mull:
Also a good Go next section may list places which are a reasonably long distance apart, but are similar - e.g. Ottawa and Washington, D.C. are 500 miles apart, but as both are national capitals they could be linked in Go Next (an obvious example to make the point, but it is more useful to link places where the link may not be so clear - say other cities with major buildings by the same architect) AlasdairW (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Top Sights[edit]

One thing I would like to see on Wikivoyage is a section in the article called Top sights, Not to miss or similar, which summarize places, that should be visited if nothing else. For example the Paris article we could add the Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe, Versailles Castle, Louvre, etc to that section. I personally find some articles on Wikivoyage overwhelmingly detailled and sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees. What do you think? I think some old-school travel guides like Lonely Planet have something similar.--Renek78 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd have thought that what constitutes a "Top Sight" or "Not To Be Missed" depends on the particular interests of the reader/traveller. List a fabulous club every 18-20 yr old visits and you natural history traveller or a family with kids will wonder what's going on when they visit it. For some, a forest with zip-line is heaven whilst of others it's nightmare with screaming people on their descent scare away all the wildlife ... So what would be in the sections comes down to the author's interest rather than the readers. For me the project needs to consider as wide a user base as possible. PsamatheM (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is something special worth highlighting, as well as been in the See or Do listings it should be mentioned in the Understand section at the top of the article.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Or even in the introduction, which I'd say should usually mention the main reasons people go there. Versailles might be mentioned in Paris#Go next, country articles could link to the relevant section of the UNESCO articles, some articles will have itineraries or travel topics, perhaps Paris with children, Gay Paree, etc.
I'm not convinced this sort of section is necessary. Would anyone care to construct a sample in their user space? That might convince me & perhaps others. Or not, of course. Pashley (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a lot harder to do this in big cities with a huge number of amazing sights, but look at Siena#See. In Siena, there's been a wide consensus for years on what the top sights are, so I think this is a pretty uncontroversial and also definitely a helpful way to organize things. I don't think this style should be copied in every article, though. Let's take New York City. Which are the top sights from among the following: The Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Metropolitan Museum, MoMA, the Whitney, the Natural History Museum, the Bronx Zoo, Yankee Stadium, Radio City Music Hall, Rockefeller Center, whatever they're calling the replacement for the World Trade Center now, the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian, the Holocaust Memorial museum in the Battery, Lincoln Center, Times Square, and I could go on. Do you really want to pick between that list and spoon-feed people? I would definitely leave off some of those, but you might leave off others, and there are plenty of other attractions that could be added (for example, Central Park, the Jewish Museum, the Guggenheim, the Frick Collection - just where do "top sights" leave off?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Understand your points. It is more complex than I initially thought :) --Renek78 (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Where to put a "historical recreation/cultural theme park"?[edit]

Prompted by a description elsewhere concerning w:Edo Wonderland Nikko Edomura, where it was described as a cultural theme park. To me it looked far more like a historical recreation/museum of cultural life, more in keeping with what's been placed in Pioneer villages. It came up when searching for some possible things to add in Amusement parks, Japan being a region notably absent in that article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Japan is actually pretty advanced for amusement parks, although that article is already like a list so we started the Talk:Amusement_parks#Remove_long_lists? discussion --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
That was my concern as well, which is why I'd reworded the US entry. I think the article needs reformulating. I'd tries to limit listings to 5-6 entries. Essentialy in respect of the UK, the entries listed are the top 5 (below the Top tier parks like Alton Towers) mentioned above them.
Your long lists concerns are equally valid for something like British coast, which I am planning on re-working quite extensively when I can find something to produce a good summary from. I agree that listing all the seaside towns would be overkill. However, giving say a paragrpah on each section of the coast which happens to list the major resort in it wouldn't to my mind by out of place. I'm still trying to think how British resorts differ from US or continental ones, other than in price and facilities :( .

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hot weather[edit]

I stubbed this, but it needs a massive expansion. I've marked this as a stub until is can be improved (despite what certain contributors think.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Stub'ing loads and loads of pages ... somebody has to write the content and more "needing significant work" pages does not give users a good impression of WikiVoyage. (I've loads of ideas for new pages but I've still got loads of existing pages needing attention on my list to do first. PsamatheM (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Duly noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the article in its current state, it may not be "useable" or a "guide" but there is definitely enough content to make useful to a reader and it adds value to Wikivoyage as a whole. On the other hand, there are skeletons like Bibbiena, Leavenworth (Indiana) and Menghai which don't add value at all. Gizza (roam) 11:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fires and other Emergencies[edit]

Yes we have a short article on Wildfires, but what about how to handle fires in other travel related situations?

Is it Captain Obvious to tell people to ensure they know evacuation procedures in a hotel and so on?

Related would be how to check that the travel industry operators have done their bit as well?.

Both these questions are prompted indirectly by claims in the UK media, that Premier Inns (a major motel operator in the UK), was looking into the cladding it used on it's locations following the major incident at West London tower block last week.

I am not sure consumer safety/protection as it relates to travel is something Wikivoyage does, but perhaps it should be borne in mind? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that this is unnecessary. Most people spend a lot of their lives in or near buildings, and have been doing fire drills since primary school.
Wildfires and campfires are certainly travel related. Fires on a cruise ship would also count. But a fire in a hotel is no different than any other building, and I think we can reasonably expect almost everyone to already know what to do. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We do run into third-world destinations with lax regulation in which there are no consequences for builders if a structure is a fire trap and no consequences for proprietors if they've blocked the emergency exits to prevent patrons sneaking out without paying. At least there are no consequences until tragedy strikes – and then it's too late. How do you advise the voyager spot these issues? K7L (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I think locked or blocked emergency exits can be found even in EU countries, as can safety instructions copied from some other building or not updated when there were changes. And I think fire drills are mostly to train staff and check procedures are working, not much about how to act in an emergency in an unfamiliar environment where you do not (or should not) trust procedures.
Also tent fabric, gas installations and camping stoves are things not all are sufficiently acquainted with. Perhaps a short note about the importance of following safety directions is enough, perhaps some more advice and reasoning is needed.
These things may be best handled in Stay safe sections and the Stay safe article. Perhaps just checking them and adding any important missing stuff would be enough.
--LPfi (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I am also assuming fire safety signs and building evacuation routes are now (or should now) all be ISO ones, so most travellers would be familiar with them? (On the other hand would some local variations need to be noted in relevant region articles?). All the ones I've seen in the UK were standardised since at least the mid 1980's (albiet BS not ISO until a few years ago.).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I spend about 3 to 4 months of the year in different hotels. Have had to evacuate a few times over the years. I now make a point of checking the fire exit route (walk down stairs at least once. It is surprising how many stir wells from room floors come out in strange meeting rooms or in the kitchen or back loading bay. Can be a challenge in calm good visibility conditions to find the way out the building, best to know before you need it in a dark smokey building. Have also twice been stuck behind locked doors and have had to call hotel reception on my mobile to let me out or back into the main building! --Traveler100 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

(Performance) Magic[edit]

Okay, I couldn't find Magic, as a topic, and didn't want to create a redirect to Fringe Phenomena as what most people call magic is of the distinctly non-supernatural performance kind.

Wikivoyage doesn't have an article on Performance Magic so I am considering what to put in a stub (currently here)

The main focus of a travel topic, should be venues that have regular live "magic", prop museums, or sites connected with famous illusionists.

I'm not sure but there may be some Stay Safe advice that could be added as well, although most of it is of the "don't get ripped off" design, already covered in Commons Scams, ( Like the "Find the lady" confidence trick in particular.).

Thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously getting frustrated by the recent trend of creating two sentence Travel Topics. They serve no use to readers, just gives the impression of a very bitty amateurish web site. Not just a comment about this topic but others too, if you do not have a good amount of information on a subject do not start a stub page on it. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll review some of the other articles recently created as well.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I really couldn't agree more with Traveler100 on his general point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Right a few marked for direct deletion, some others at VfD. Thank you for your co-operation so far ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with edits like Special:Diff/3194593/3227197 and Special:Diff/3209556/3227190. If something's up for discussion on VfD, it would be best to let that discussion run its course before removing all inbound internal links to the page in question.
We do normally wait until a page is usable before tagging {{wikivoyage}} boxes onto the corresponding Wikipedia article "external links" section, but no corresponding restriction applies to internal links to articles from within Wikivoyage. K7L (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
But do not get me wrong, a number of new contributions I do support. For example I actually think Inland waterways in the United Kingdom would make a great article, I though about it myself but would take a little time to write. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a Draft: namespace at Wikivoyage, hence why Performance Magic was in userspace, but certain comments here have suggested even a user-space stub isn't appropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Did not intend to give that impression. Developing in user space is fine, just stay away from adding tags that put it into clean-up lists. And I was talking about travel topics with just a couple of lines not ones with a reasonable number of entries or locations with just a couple of listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
(Personal opinion:) For me the priority is getting the many existing destinations and articles up to a better standard. As a general comment on the Votes for Deletion, I'd prefer time spent on adding content to the destinations rather than spending time trawling through emptier places or creating stub pages for others to write. I suspect we all have great ideas for new pages that would enhance the site, but we don't have time to write them and creating "stubs" for others to do the hard work on ... I find adding content to the vast number rather "empty" destinations quite a hard and boring slog but it needs doing. I think better to write and create one new page with adequate content to stand alone than throw many "ideas" out there in the form of "empty" pages. I feel content for many existing destinations really needs to get done to improve the site. PsamatheM (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Detailed list of all the items in the Traffic Line Network map layer?[edit]

Is there a full list anywhere of all the items in the Traffic Line Network map layer (that is available in the dynamic maps)?

(It should probably look something like this: Black Lines - routes of interurban bus lines, Red Lines - routes of urban bus lines, Pink Lines - routes of the light rail, etc.)

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Issues with Mapmask[edit]

I've created a dynamic overview map for Amsterdam. But something went wrong with the Mapmask for the district of Plantage. The ordering of the points seems to be messed up. The preview on gpx2mapmask was flawless. I remember, that there was someone else with a similar problem recently and it could be fixed by reordering some points. Anyone knows a way to avoid this bug? Thanks! --Renek78 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: I could fix it by deleting the last point.--Renek78 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Display of level 4 and 5 section headings[edit]

Hi, in my browser, the level 4 and 5 section headings look identical:

Example Level 4[edit]

Example Level 5[edit]

Do other people have the same behaviour? If yes, then I would say this should be changed, as it is confusing to the reader. Xsobev (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. They look pretty much the same (Safari/Mac). So ideally should be changed but difficult to see how it could be adjusted and still stand out as a heading (already easily confused with a listing)

Listing Section[edit]

A Test Listing. Which is pretty much as prominent as the Level 4 heading above it Do people often get down to such deeply nested headings ? PsamatheM (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Both pairs — 4/5 headings & heading/listing, — look about the same for me, using Firefox on Linux. I do not think either is a big issue since I rarely use level 4 & never 5, & haven't noticed the problems before. They might be reported as a low-priority bug to whoever maintains the templates or software involved. Pashley (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I would not call it a bug, as the least prominent header should not stand out too much, and nobody but the author knows which level will be the least prominent (I think HTML supports down to level 8). I think we should fix the problem just by avoiding those lowest levels.
By car & co are level 3. Is there really a need for subdividing their subsections? In itineraries Go is level 2, making alternative routes level 4, leaving no room for subsections. Perhaps we should have a different style for these? Or could the alternative routes share level 3 with main legs?
--LPfi (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I've used level 4 subtitles at times. I can't think of examples right now, but I'll post them if I remember. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, me too, probably, but I think the issue mostly appears with level 5 headings, which usually hint at a too complicated article structure. Level 3 could be larger, though. --LPfi (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay to have an On Foot section here?[edit]

I added this in good faith:- https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Missenden&oldid=3228982

But maybe it overlaps slightly with Go Next?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking this might be suited to destinations where a nearby one is less than 5km away (with some tolerance), meaning that you can walk there in the morning, find somewhere for lunch and walk back in the late afternoon.

Probably better suited to destinations in the UK, Netherlands, or "district" articles within cities. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You could say that about anywhere. It does not really help anybody. UK has an amazing network of footpaths that area as well. I think it needs to be more specific, a mapped route or something otherwise adjust the duration and add a list to every nearby town and village. So I'd say no, does not add to the information (and half a day for that distance ?) PsamatheM (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed, If it's definitely on a "named" path, I'll consider adding that. Generally I don't think English footpaths have specific route numbering other than internal ones used by local authorities.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In the UK there are two types of "named path"; the "significant" ones like The Ridgeway (90'ish miles), Icknield Way (100+ miles), Peddars Way (50'ish miles), etc. which I'd consider justify a "Get in/On foot" listing/mention (personal opinion). And there are those often created by local Councils, often circular, a couple of miles/couple of hours, given a name, map published on internet and those I'd view as a "Do" activity (again, personal opinion). The general extensive UK public footpath network is so extensive you can pretty well get anywhere, go anywhere, and it just part of the UK. That said there are probably some areas where the extensive public footpath network is a significant attraction (e.g. Yorkshire Dales, Lake District, Exmoor, etc.) but then descriptions/discussion would be very different. PsamatheM (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this section and its content are completely fine and belong in "Get in". Just a small style point: Wikivoyage style is to capitalise only the first word of subtitles, so "On foot". As for overlapping with "Go next", isn't that inevitable, in that any method for getting in could be used in reverse to leave? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, BTW I note some of the articles updated by the other contributor here have had distances and rough direction added. Whilst for the UK this isn't that vital, it's still useful information. Are there places were adding a distance and heading to "nearby" places would be more critical? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The half-a-day comment was based on personal experience, but different people have different walking speeds. I actually like the Distance/heading approach for Go next, but would generally suggest km is used, unless miles is more common in a particular region (like the UK and US.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Distance is important but not the only potentially important parameter. The degree of difficulty of the hike and variations of altitude can be relevant in certain places (think of a hike in mountainous areas of Ladakh or Nepal, for example). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Excellent point, and whether (in relation to hikes) you would need specialist skills like fording rivers, mountain awareness (which would also be relevant for some hikes in the remoter parts of the UK, like the Highlands, Snowdonia and the Lake District to give a few examples ) or a local guide etc. Sorry didn't really mean to go into as much depth on this discussion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Bit off-topic but reason I'm adding approx distance and heading in "Go next" is that many people use computer mapping, maybe on smaller tablets or even phones. Zoom out and you can lose place names (and will never find the place), zoom in and you can be scrolling around all over the place trying to find somewhere. Approx direction tells user which direction to scroll and approx direction says if long or short journey. PsamatheM (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Listings Data[edit]

How do I enter a post code/ zip code seperately, so it can be used to fill in other stuff automatically? (like lat/long for map generation) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be careful of postcode to Lat/Long conversion as postcodes are not very precise (in fact they can be very misleading!). Best to find the place on the map and take the lat/long from that (better to take a little longer than send somebody to the wrong place!). Apart from the area covered by a postcode being very variable, even within a town taking the centre of the postcode area as the position for something can easily put the marker e.g. in the wrong street. And you see a surprising number of "directions" saying "out address ... AB1 2CD" but "find us use postcode AB1 2EF". The number of restaurants whose own website map just marks on the postcode and you spot that their map marks the wrong street, check on other mapping and their own map is badly wrong (and a traveller would be cursing by that point)! It takes work and time but is worth getting right. Couriers delivering to my own house who use the postcode end-up in the wrong street all the time (because the postcode marker misleads); they then have a 3 minute walk to get to me when somebody points out their error. PsamatheM (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I tend to use the OSM POI, I KNOW that's been surveyed personally ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)