Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the Pub

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

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

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Proposed Afrotour project by Free Knowledge Africa Group[edit]

Greetings

Free Knowledge Africa is a group that seek to promote free knowledge and wikimedia projects by Africans, in travel, geography, and cultural heritage.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Knowledge_Africa

We intend to launch a project/contest that will encourage active participation and contributions to the English wikivoyage from Africans and towards African travel content for towns, cities and countries.

We seek your partnerships and support towards achieving this.

We look forward to a favorable response from you.

Thank you. Timmylegend (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Timmylegend: That sounds like a great initiative. What support can we offer to help you make it a success? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: We would appreciate it if case studies from past projects can be shared as well as learning modules and putting up a banner. Timmylegend (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is exciting! Our coverage of Africa needs a lot of improvement. Just quickly on banners, for now: Information about banners is at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition and Wikivoyage:Banners. If a page has no custom banner (banner with a photo) on it, any banner with the right dimensions is welcome and can be added without a discussion. If someone wants to suggest a different banner for an article that already has one, a proposal should be made on the article's talk page with thumbnails of the existing and proposed new banners, so that we can discuss and reach a consensus on which one to use. Ikan Kekek (talk)
I assumed "putting up a banner" meant making a cross-wiki advert, like we did for the Editathon a couple of years ago, but I could be wrong. Not sure how easy it is to get one of those, but it's certainly possible.
As far as I know, we don't have any learning modules as such, but there are extensive help pages already and if the group needed a specific portal gathering the relevant how-tos in a single place, I'm sure we could manage that. I wouldn't have thought you would need a comprehensive knowledge of policies and style norms, because there are plenty of Wikivoyagers on recent-change patrol who can 'tidy up' in the wake of your groups' (hopefully copious) additions, but information on how/whether to start a new article, where to put certain information, what the basic layout of an article should look like, etc. would presumably be very useful.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For reference: the "inter-wiki banners" are called central notices and can be requested here; I haven't looked into the process in any detail.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Your contributions are definitely welcome! As others have said, Africa is a part of the world where there's certainly room for improvement. Also, if contributors don't feel like reading through policies and style guides, they can have a look at (good) existing articles instead to see what information goes where and how it should be formatted. For example the articles nominated at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates are good examples. Ypsilon (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
And I hope we can improve our coverage of African history, in particular sub-Saharan African history. I have been an advocate of promoting historical sites in Africa, because many people have a misconception that sub-Saharan Africa is good only for safaris, and most non-Africans are unaware that there are pre-colonial cities in sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do it myself. With this project, hopefully someone can start an article along the lines of Historical sites in Africa. The dog2 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a great idea. Timmylegend, we've had some good projects in the past. It's really helpful to remind us when it starts, so we can be on the look out to help newcomers. Are you expecting (mostly) existing Wikipedia editors to participate? If so, then Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians might be a good starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As for making page banners (I see other types of banners were mentioned), I could contribute in that area. I did a couple for Namibia in the past and could continue, though in the DRC I found it difficult to find pagebanner images. But there would be many places and countries and I'm sure I could find some where there is a suitable picture that no-one has used for a pagebanner yet. After all Wikimedia Commons is always growing! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I support having an edit-a-thon. It drums up a lot of editing interest over a short period of time. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Africa Expedition[edit]

I've started a draft of an Africa Expedition page, which could be a starting point for participants in this project. I think it is best to keep it brief, and high-level so that it does not overwhelm new contributors. I used Wikivoyage:India Expedition as a starting point, but that page goes into a lot of detail. It would be a great resource for experienced contributors, but way too much information for newbies. (We should also avoid spending too much time working up a "wish list" of everything we'd like to see as that takes time away from actually improving articles.) The page is already long. What could we take out to make this a better starting point for new contributors?

Timmylegend: do you think this would be useful? How can it be better? Ground Zero (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Before I finished the draft in my workspace, this expedition attracted another member, which indicates that Wikivoyagers are eager to support this project. Ground Zero (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC))
Thanks for taking the initiative to create that page! I made a few edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Quick question: What would make me a project supporter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a very exclusive inner circle of important contributors, i.e., those who add their names to the list. Ground Zero (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be a great way to monitor the growth and progress of contributions, while also providing a guide to newbies. Although it could be difficult when the page is bulky. Africa is a big continent with over 50 countries, I believe if shared with the various African communities it could be easily achieved. Maybe a contest could also help in driving contributions, what do you think? Timmylegend (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ground Zero, I meant what I needed to do to be a project supporter, but someone (perhaps you) made an edit explaining that. Timmylegend, if you think a contest could help, I suppose we could take a vote on which 5 people made the best contributions or something. Dunno. How about giving everyone a prize of 10 years' free membership to Wikivoyage, with an option of 10 more years after that... ;-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I've moved the page from my draft to the main space now. Ground Zero (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Timmylegend: Sure, please, get all the other African communities involved if you can. I understand that Africa is a very big and diverse place, but the great thing about an online travel guide like this is if an article gets too long, we can always create spin-off articles to move some of that information to. In the example I mentioned, we can have an umbrella article about African history, but if we have a contributor who is an expert on the Benin Kingdom for instance, we can always create a separate Benin Kingdom article, and leave a cursory and brief summary in the umbrella African history article with a link to the new article. The dog2 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
How can I help even though I have never been to Africa? (It's on my to-do list once pandemic is over) OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Copy edit and fix any formatting that doesn't conform to standard Wikivoyage style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Try adding lat/long coordinates. Major attractions should be fairly easy to locate (and may already be in Wikidata). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a cool idea ! Anthere (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So are we doing an edit-a-thon so that we can track how many pages and images have been added? OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our African friends seem to have lost interest, but I would participate if you want to set something up. Ground Zero (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: an edit-a-thon is a great idea. As our core editing base doesn't have many Africa experts, we would need to reach out to WMF, get editors interested in improving African content to edit Wikivoyage while the established editors can mentor them on style and formatting. Gizza (roam) 00:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
We really need a lot better coverage of Africa, but it would be good to know why the Expedition petered out after a short while. Timmylegend, do you have any thoughts on that, and on how we should best go about getting more sustained and broader contributions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
A worthy cause to improve our coverage of an all-too-neglected continent. I can't commit 100%, but I'll try my hand at improving listings in capital/major cities in Lusophone nations. I've already made some updates on Luanda. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ground Zero Ikan Kekek, We are still very much interested in improving the gap on African content on the English Wikivoyage, however as I stated on the Wikivoyage:Africa Expedition discussion page that we would be starting with Nigerian towns and cities as a pilot phase later this year, pending the approval of a grant to organize a contest. As that seems like a more sustainable strategy and to increase the number of potential editors. Apologies for the long silence. Timmylegend (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Timmylegend: There is no need to apologise. We are volunteers, and everyone contributes according to their own schedule. I am very glad to hear that there is still interest amongst our Nigerian friends,and look forward to seeing Nigerian articles expanded when you get organised. And we will be here to assist you. Best regards, Ground Zero (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual Event[edit]

Wikimania's logo.

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open Call[edit]

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantsTemplate:Atwikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion"[edit]

Folks, please pay attention when you see that in recent changes. A lot of the time, the photos being deleted (or not deleted) aren't visible on the page, but right now, it looks likely that everything including the pagebanner will be deleted from the Pekanbaru article and a whole bunch of photos will be deleted from Commons just because a sockpuppet has been adding thumbnails of them to sister sites (but I added some to Venice, for example). I think we'd better at least locally upload photos of Indonesia that are being deleted for lack of super-official assurance of total freedom of panorama. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded the pagebanner and the photo of the mosque in Pekanbaru to Wikivoyage, but the sizes are smaller than the original. I don't understand the problem and hope someone else can fix it and explain what you have to do to download the full-size photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The solution was that I had to download the photo when it was fully open, not from the photo page thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
[answering the postings in Talk:Pekanbaru#Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion]
There seems to be a problem in that we don't have enough people that know Indonesian law. The law does not mention FoP, so interpretation relies on whether these photographs are regarded to infringe on the copyright of the architect, which in turn might depend on local tradition.
However, the "precautionary principle" is sound. Wikimedia Commons intends their media to be used also commercially by people who could not afford paying damages or losing an edition of a book because of an infringing photo. Even if that would be the first Indonesian FoP case ever, we don't want it to happen.
Perhaps we indeed should upload locally all photos we use of (new) architecture in Indonesia. I suppose collecting a list of photos and uploading them locally should be a bot job, with the list made in a way where a user easily could tick upload or don't upload for each photo. Are the photos many thousands?
LPfi (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea how many such photos we use. I'm skeptical that the "precautionary principle" is being applied well in a situation in which a country is leaving well enough alone and last I checked, it appeared that the participants in the discussion that actually have expertise and have read the sources in Indonesian don't agree that there's an issue, but I'm not a lawyer. I should say, though, there's also the issue of the need to substitute photos that look likely to be deleted just because they were uploaded to Commons by a sockpuppet. Those photos are not from Indonesia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Those latter images should not be our problem. The uploader being a sockpuppet is no reason for deletion of files on Commons. Some change images to tout their business, somebody substituting their quality images, for whatever reason, is not the form of vandalism we should get overly worried about. The Indonesian images are a worse problem, and I suppose you are right that the problem is in handling the Indonesian law on Commons, but if I understood correctly, there is valid concern. –LPfi (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I get the concern but would defer to the experts. But of course my opinion is not going to carry the day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Impending deletion of nearly all photos of Italy on Commons?[edit]

This is very threatening and must be taken seriously. Look at Liuxinyu970226's comment in this thread and now look at the reference they link. I think we're going to have to upload every goddamned photo of Italy we want to use here, and we might want to consider forking from Wikimedia and declaring that any commercial use of the images on our site is forbidden. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe Commons should be split into two projects: one for the WMF wikis to use internally with a special licence, the other with a full CC licence that anyone (but primarily commercial entities) can use. It seems that the possibility that someone in charge of an ad campaign or editing a magazine may use a photo from Commons that turns out to be non-free (e.g. in a country with no FOP) is having an increasingly damaging effect on the wikis that Commons is there primarily for.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The other thing Commons could do is have a special template that says "This photo may not be used for commercial purposes". But I doubt we're going to get Commons to change. I'll propose it, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: Commons won't be changing its licensing. See m:NonFreeWiki (2). —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand the frustration, but "all our media is free" is a founding principle of Commons. Expecting that to change -- and swearing about it -- is Sisyphean. Frankly, simply allowing non-free media on individual products is controversial in some quarters. Powers (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at the links in a bit more detail, I'm not so sure there's an imminent threat to all the photos of Italy. Liuxinyu970226 certainly doesn't say as much, and there doesn't seem to be an actual mass-deletion process underway or even proposed, but then I don't know the ins and outs of Commons very well. Even if the worst case scenario comes true, don't expect me to be at all enthusiastic about a fork; better to fix the system from the inside than become irrelevant on the outside. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm more or less in agreement with ThunderingTyphoons! about this. I support localizing all our images of Italy as a precautionary measure, but any reaction beyond that is overkill. As to the question of fundamental changes to Commons licensing, if what Ikan Kekek says is correct, and the stark choice Commons faces is to either change its licensing or else 1) allow entire countries to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage and 2) face the prospect of Commons becoming an irrelevancy within the WMF as the individual wikis move more and more toward hosting images locally, then I think they'll find they have no choice but to change. And that's assuming the Italian government wouldn't reverse course in the event of a mass cull of images from Commons (and, ergo, from the much better-known Wikipedia), which would certainly generate negative press about the real-world effects of unnecessarily stringent interpretations of copyright law. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact, upon further inspection, the Commons template referenced by Liuxinyu970226 (i.e. the second link Ikan Kekek cites in his original post) has been in existence since 2012, and the law itself has been in effect since 2004. Occam's Razor says Liuxinyu970226's personal interpretation of which images of Italy are permissible on Commons, as he expressed it in that thread, is not shared by the WMF. Otherwise, the "actual mass-deletion process" that ThunderingTyphoons! notes hasn't begun yet would have happened at least nine - or, more likely, 17 - years ago. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: "allow entire countries to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage": that is the situation at Commons. The WMF can't determine anyone's laws. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: You're missing the point. Regardless of whether countries hypothetically have the power "to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage", as yet no country actually has done that. It's easy enough to be a hardcore dyed-in-the-wool free-media purist when the threat of being barred from an entire country is just a farfetched hypothetical, but would such a purist stance survive if that threat became an impending occurrence? For the reasons I cited, it's very, very doubtful that it would. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"would such a purist stance survive if that threat became an impending occurrence?" Yes. To use media on Commons, it has to be freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States as well as whatever was the original jurisdiction of the creation of said media: there is a 0% likelihood of that changing, barring the United States essentially abolishing the public domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Essentially, you're saying "Commons policy is to only use freely licensed media, and that won't change even if entire countries declare them off-limits because Commons policy is to only use freely licensed media." Not only is that circular logic, it's also quite a naïve view of human motivation. For reasonable people, which I believe most WMF contributors are, at some point preserving the integrity of the work to which they've dedicated so much time and effort becomes more important than stubbornly holding fast to some pie-in-the-sky philosophical ideal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"Not only is that circular logic, it's also quite a naïve view of human motivation..." No, it's not circular logic: I am not stating a premise as my conclusion. I'm saying that Commons only allows media that are freely licensed in the place of origin and the United States; if media are not licensed in the place of origin, then it's not allowed on Commons. That's just being consistent and explaining the most basic rules about licensing media on Commons to you. "For reasonable people, which I believe most WMF contributors are, at some point preserving the integrity of the work to which they've dedicated so much time and effort becomes more important than stubbornly holding fast to some pie-in-the-sky philosophical ideal." It seems like you have fundamentally misunderstood what Commons is: the entire point is that you know that you can use these media without restrictions. If there are some restrictions, then somewhere other than Commons is where that media should be. It could be localized on individual projects or it could be off-wiki but when you go to Commons, you have to know that you can use the media that you're getting with no restrictions other than (at most) -BY or -SA. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The "new" Italian law is about a non-copyright restriction, and Commons policy is that such restrictions do not affect their willingness to host a file. There will just be a warning template. This is from the Commons viewpoint a restriction similar to trademarks or personality rights, something that the reuser has to take into account, possibly filing a request to the Italian authorities before using the file – or knowingly ignoring Italian law on the matter. –LPfi (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, Liuxinyu970226's deletion rationale is invalid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Justin, the proposal for a "non-free Wiki" is more complicated than simply tagging some images as non-commercial use only. I don't really see a clear advantage in farming out local use of exemption doctrine based on fair use and important educational purposes when the only issue is that a file can be used for any purpose other than making money. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I'm just suggesting that there is an existing proposal to fix this issue in a systematic way rather than the piecemeal, panicked response offered here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Justin Do you mean NonFreeWiki? It is not much of a solution to this problem, I think. Fair use rationals depend on a file being in use, so you cannot store good files for potential use there. In most cases you have to find the image and upload it, just as you now upload it locally.
For the hardcore dyed-in-the-wool free-media purist issue, I'd say that it sometimes works. We wouldn't have GNU/Linux without them. WMF showed a similar stance when Wikipedia was blocked by Turkey. And Commons has lots more of free media than it would have if "free" hadn't been a requirement. Of course, not all contributers to Wikipedia and Commons are hardcore privacy-and-freedom-of-speech or free-media purists (most are probably "reasonable" it-works-so-who-cares types), but the movement has attracted quite a few of the hardcore ones.
LPfi (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
At least this bunch of files is looking more likely to be deleted. We need to upload any of the ones we want to keep locally. Fortunately, there are many photos of Italy on Commons - for now. So as long as they're not all deleted en masse, we're likely to have options. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The argument in favor of deleting those files specifically doesn't seem to have anything to do with FoP in Italy. We at Wikivoyage have our own problems with sockpuppets, and I actually think it would be a nice show of solidarity to at least attempt to find other images to replace those for use on our site. As for a mass deletion of material from Italy, I feel confident in saying we have nothing to worry about, regardless of Liuxinyu970226's misconceptions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that trying to find suitable replacements for those photos is a good idea. I had meant to include that in my post above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back![edit]

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Putting dates on things[edit]

I've encountered resistance from some contributors who think that putting dates on numbers and prices adds "clutter" to articles. I believe that the dates show us when something should be updated. This edit shows what can happen when we are using an out-of-date statistic. In this case, it was the town's population from 2000. Ground Zero (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Until/unless we have a bot that updates all of these data in real time or we have ~250,000 active members, so that we can assume that most data are fairly up to date, then I think that this is useful for the readers: ttcf and all. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In most cases, I am not too bothered whether the population figures in the article are from a 1980s census or a 2010s one, as 50% change doesn't make much difference to what the city looks like. However Woodstock (Georgia) is clearly an exception - the population has grown from 870 in 1970 to 33,039 in 2019, and I would like to have 2 or 3 figures to see this growth, which tells me that I am going to see loads of new buildings and very few old ones. As a contrast the population of Edinburgh grew by 42% between 1901 and 2001, and so dates are much less important. I am happy to have the dates on population figures, but am not bothered about those without dates. AlasdairW (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty much of the same mind as AlasdairW (with regards to both population figures and prices). Avoiding clutter is a worthy goal, but ttcf is our prime directive which trumps all other considerations. I would be very much opposed to requiring dates on numbers and prices, but as an optional thing, I think the benefit to the reader is self-evident. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Alasdair and Andre. It's a good option to include the date but shouldn't be compulsory. The majority of our articles are small towns whose populations haven't increased significantly (some remain stable or decline slightly). I've updated population figures from old censuses recently and the growth in Woodstock, Georgia is the exception. Smaller levels of growth like this, this, and this are more common. It doesn't make a meaningful difference to the traveller if the stated population of a town was 5,000 from a few decades ago or 5,600 now. Gizza (roam) 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Who proposed making it compulsory? Changes to policies should be discussed on the talk page of the policy in question, not in the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there maybe a way to tag numbers with dates in wiki markup so that it doesn't appear in text directly, but is automatically converted to a "outdated" superscript behind the number in question if the tagged date is older than 3 - 5 years? This already exists on Wikipedia to tag claims that are missing references or citations. Having such tags in wiki markup also enables automated scripts and bots to aggregate outdated numbers. 87.74.131.12 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It is quite easy to construct such a template, but then you need to add the template markup, including the date (which can be added automatically if you subst the template, but will show in the wikitext anyway). The question is what statistics we want to enclose in such templates. A template for population figures was developed, but I think we never introduced it. –LPfi (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese cuisine article[edit]

I wonder if anyone has the expertise to create this. Vietnamese cuisine is one of the great cuisines of Asia, and I think it's kind of a pity that we don't have any articles covering it. The dog2 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There are always Wikipedia articles to consult, and they're usually much more comprehensive than Wikivoyage articles, which should remind us to be focused squarely on practical travel-related questions like where to go for the best examples of this or that dish and what kind of behavior is normal and expected when eating and drinking. That said, I think a lot of us have at least some experience eating Vietnamese food. I have yet to visit Vietnam but have eaten Vietnamese food in France, the U.S., Canada and Hong Kong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been to Vietnam, but only for short trips; once to the north and once to the south. The Vietnamese food you get in the U.S., Canada and Australia is mainly southern Vietnamese food. The pho in the north is different; you typically don't get the condiments like lemon, basil and mint, as that's a very southern thing. But you may get some fritters to dip in the soup. Generally, Vietnamese people regard pho to be better in the north, but there are other dishes like banh xeo which are more famous in the south. A potential article could cover the regional differences in Vietnamese cuisine. And just like in Thai cuisine, Vietnamese cuisine makes heavy use of fish sauce, so that could make things a little tough for vegetarians. And in general (not just in Vietnam, but in other Asian countries like Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand too), I will advise you to avoid your hotel restaurant, and try the local food at the street stalls where you see many locals eating at; not only is it cheaper, it usually tastes better too. The dog2 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Our rule when travelling in Vietnam was to look for places with plastic chairs or stools. If it didn't have plastic chairs, Vietnamese people wouldn't eat there, and neither would we. Ground Zero (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

People in photos[edit]

Our upload form says "Avoid people in photos, unless you have their written permission". I do not know from where that comes. At least our image policy does not have any corresponding wording in People in photos. I suppose we don't want to have images that show deserted roads when visitors will see them crowded (and you wouldn't get the written permission of a crowd). Sometimes also having somebody look out over a landscape makes a better photo than the landscape alone. Commons' guideline Photographs of identifiable people is quite lenient.

Can we simply remove the wording from the upload form, should we have a link to the relevant section in our policy, and perhaps a link to the Commons guideline, or is there any reason we would want the present language to stay in some form?

LPfi (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur. This policy has always struck me as unnecessary. Perhaps in the Wikitravel days, before we were affiliated with the WMF, it made sense because as a small independent wiki, we would have been less able to finance a legal defense in case someone sued (regardless if such a case had merit or not). But we're in a different situation now. First of all, in the vast majority of cases we're supposed to source our media from Commons, with local hosting remaining appropriate in only a narrow range of special cases which mostly exclude any context in which you'd see images of people. Secondly, LPfi correctly points out how much more lenient Commons' "photographs of identifiable people" policy is than ours; as a sister project whose entire purpose is to serve as a repository for copyleft-compatible media, they presumably know better than we do what passes legal muster and what doesn't, so it's perfectly sensible to follow their lead in determining where the boundary lies. Thirdly, in the infinitesimal chance that we do miscalculate and find ourselves in legal trouble for allegedly violating someone's privacy in a locally-hosted image, WMF Legal is a resource we now have at our disposal that we didn't before. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, we don't really want people uploading photos of themselves posing in front of the attraction. A crowd of people or a few incidental people in the background, but I don't think we want photos that feature identifiable individuals prominently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
True, but if we want written permissions, that is easier to get from your own company – the wording furthers exactly that kind of images. The wording in our image policy, on the other hand, discourages exactly such selfies. –LPfi (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Former policy ca April 2006 (text by Evan and WTjk44)

In general, photos of people will be removed from Wikitravel. There are two reasons for this policy:

  1. A photo of the Taj Mahal is useful for travellers; a photo of your girlfriend in a funny hat standing in front of the Taj Mahal is not. In general, we don't really want pictures of travellers or other people in Wikitravel. Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform.
  2. In the United States and elsewhere human beings have privacy rights, that is, a right to control the use of their own image, even if they didn't create the image. Image creators need to get authorization from human subjects of photos to publish the images. See http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html for a description of why and when a model release is required. A general rule of thumb is that if an image contains a subject that is identifiable, a model release is needed.
"Avoid people in photos, unless you have their permission to publish their image" was present in the very first revision of the Upload page, written by Evan. At the time that was written, our image policy read as seen here. For convenience, I've put the text in an infobox. Powers (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
There are times where a person is convenient to give a sense of scale, or just to identify that rockclimbing, snowboarding or skiing etc actually take place there. I'm uncomfortable with doing so in ways that make those people identifiable. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

NewsVoyage and Wikimedia Small Projects User Group[edit]

This is fun: m:Wikimedia Small Projects/NewsVoyage. For those of us gringos who can't parse Spanish, it's a friendly competition between the Spanish Wikinews and Wikivoyage and part of the first spate of challenges initiated by the Small Projects User Group. This is a recognized user group fostering growth and promotion of smaller WMF wikis, particularly Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage. As someone who speaks decent Spanish and who is interested in all of these projects, I figured I'd extend the invitation here that if users on the English-language editions want to have a similar friendly contest or otherwise want to get involved but feel like there's a language barrier, I'm happy to mediate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting @Koavf: As a gringo myself I wonder if a Spanish speaking newsie/wikivoyager can inform us if this initiative produced any results. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Emergency numbers[edit]

I noticed our country article template says:

If there are local or national safety contacts (or even standards such as "911" in the USA), note them.

I'd prefer there to be a note anyway. That way reading the country guide is enough for knowing at what level you should search for the numbers, and whether you have to update for every new city (or neighbourhood?). For editors it is good to know, as those numbers would be essential lower down in the hierarchy if there is no country-wide standard – and you'd know to note if they are missing at the relevant level. –LPfi (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what change you want to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd like any country page to have a mention about whether there are standard emergency numbers in the country, and if not, point to the Stay safe sections at whatever level they should be mentioned at. And any article at that level should either have the numbers or some kind of pointer. –LPfi (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Copycat site[edit]

See Talk:Tourist Drive 33#Wow, just wow.

It seems traveloca.org has copied all of Wikivoyage (with InstantCommons direct links for the images) without giving us any credit or attribution. See e.g. the travellers' pub. Their contact fields seem to be blank.

Do we have any standard procedures? I was thinking about a complaint mail to their internet provider. I think there is some (kind) letter template for the purpose at Commons. If I write myself, I might be rude.

What do you think?

LPfi (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We keep the copyright to our work at Commons and Wikivoyage. The only way they can use it is through being licensed by us. If they don't comply with the licence, they are breaking the copyright law. I am not personally very interested in going to court in Arizona, but you US folks might have an easier time doing it. And I suppose they either comply or take down the site just through some correspondence. –LPfi (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I recommend looking at Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution and then if you want a template / inspiration for an email of mine that was successful in getting copyrighted material deleted without resorting to legal action, its talk page. Remember also that we have an in-house legal team. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It's also not true, by the way, that "the only way they can use it is through being licensed by us" - under copyleft anyone and everyone is free to reuse or remix any and all of Wikivoyage's content, without our knowledge or permission. That's how we get third-party organisations making offline apps based on our content, and that's also how the Wikivoyage community was able to legally fork from Wikitravel without the permission of that site's owners. However, the licence requires a reuser to credit us as their source and also to place any work of theirs that uses our content under a compatible copyleft licence. The above website is in breach of these terms.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I am probably writing an e-mail later on, but as they have copied all the site, any interested contributor could write.
Our work is licensed by us through our CC-BY-SA licence. What I tried to say is that there is no other mechanism making our content free to use. We have not resigned our copyright and that we share it by a free licence does not make it public domain. I said it because many contributors talk about "copyrighted" content in contrast with free content. The difference is just in the specific terms set forth in the licence, and BY-SA is definitely not a public domain dedication.
LPfi (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Geez, looks like they're not just plagiarizing our entire site (from articles to user talk pages, just try replacing what comes after /wiki/ with anything we have here and you'll find a copy of it) but doing so pretty much in realtime – this discussion including LP's last comment is already in their "Travellers' pub". Could be a good idea to involve the WMF legal team. Ypsilon (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
My comment appeared there when reloading their Travellers' pub immediately after posting it. Ypsilon (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(conflict) Interesting; it's obviously an automatic process.
@LPfi: If there's any way I can help, just ping me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Contact the legal team, see https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a draft for a message to the legal team, feel free to modify (and copyedit) it as needed: --Ypsilon (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear staff of the Wikimedia legal team,
As a contributor to English Wikivoyage I'm writing to notify you about a gross copyright violation that members of the Wikivoyage community have recently discovered. The whole English Wikivoyage is being re-published in real time at https://traveloca.org/wiki/*insert name of an article or indeed anything on en-WV here* . In violation of the copyleft licence, they do not credit Wikivoyage as the source for their content, nor do they notify readers of their lawful right to reuse the content.
You can see the community's discussion about the matter here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Copycat_site
The traveloca website doesn't seem to provide any contact information, so there is not much more we can do about it. Therefore we're asking you to take it from here, as you have the knowledge and tools to investigate and deal with this kind of issue, and also because the copyright violators probably are less likely to ignore messages from you than from Wikivoyage contributors.
Thank you.
[someone's name here]
That's looking good. My only major change is to the last part of the first paragraph: your version seemed to repeat the attribution issue twice, whereas there are actually two ways in which the licence has been broken.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
A w:whois request gives an abuse address (sorry for forgetting to include it here): abuse@namesilo.com, phone +1.4805240066. –LPfi (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
So in theory, that's a way of contacting the people behind Traveloca? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't risk sending it by just us contributors. It's best if the legal team did so. TravelAroundOz (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that WMF (and its legal department) cannot act on our behalf because of the rules on lawyers and clients. The client is WMF, and representing us would mud the waters, which is disallowed. See Wikimedia Legal Disclaimer. They can help informally, but we must respect their not giving formal advice nor acting as our attorney. –LPfi (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As we own the copyright of our own work, each of us can legally defend it independently. Nobody needs to represent the community. As long as one doesn't do something stupid, as in actually going to court without having a clear case, there is little legal risk, and the risk is on the individual. Of course, uncivil or badly founded complaints will risk our reputation, and might make other complains less effective, but I don't think any of us will act without due thought. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose Namesilo isn't there to help infringing on copyrights (there are probably also that sort of providers, but there is no reason to think they are one). So, to avoid legal risk, they might gladly shut down the site. Often providers reserve that right in their terms of use. They could also notify the site owners and ask them to clear with us, which would not harm their business, nor be much work for them. –LPfi (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Fill in this form https://www.namesilo.com/report_abuse.php TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
abuse@ is probably not the right address; that is mainly for complaints about user actions such as spamming or stalking. This complaint should go to webmaster@ or www@. The official list of what addresses should be available is in RFC 2142; not all sites follow it.
If they are in the US, some obligations & a complaint mechanism are defined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, & some other countries have similar legislation. I do not think that should be the first thing tried, or that our editors should try to invoke this formal legal mechanism without first consulting WMF legal, but it is another string to our bow if polite requests do not solve the problem. Pashley (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The best address would be webmaster@traveloca.org, but I doubt that address is in use. Most hosted sites not even read postmaster@site.example, the only one that is mandated. Webmaster@namesilo.com would be a little off, as they might handle only their own web site, not issues about their customers' sites. It seems (using traceroute) that the web server of traveloca.org is hosted at Cloudflare or some customer of theirs, not at Namesilo, but as they don't have reverse DNS at the web server, I cannot tell. Traveloca's web server's email is handled by emailowl.com. Oh dear. –LPfi (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe focus on what we can do right now, and worry about the rest later. Ypsilon drafted an email to Legal above, which I then modified. Is it suitable to be sent like that, or should it be rewritten further? We want Legal to provide us with the most help they can without breaking their own terms; would it therefore be better to change the focus of the email somewhat and instead of ending with "Therefore we're asking you to take it from here...", we go more down the route of something along the line of "We are in need of some help. Are you able to advise on courses of actions that we could take? Are there any actions you can take on our behalf?" It's a bit more open-ended, and avoids giving the impression that we presume we're entitled to their help but are grateful for anything they can offer.
Also worth noting that, when writing to Traveloca (or their server provider or whoever), the merest hint of involvement from lawyers (i.e. just stating that we have informed the legal department of the WMF) may be enough for them to comply without the need for further action. I don't claim to be an expert, but it worked like a charm with a similar copycat a few years ago.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd also remove the sentence on not having contact information (they'll found out for themselves, either way). Feels funny, though, that our discussion about the matter can be found at their web site. Kind of emphasizes how openly we act. –LPfi (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Remove the sentence on not having contact information from the email to Legal? They won't necessarily even try to contact Traveloca, and if not won't find out about the lack of contact info unless we tell them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it would be a nice surprise if Traveloca would just take down the copy (or add the information required by the copyleft license) after an e-mail from us, though I'm afraid they won't do that. If the WMF legal team cannot do much about this other than give us advice, then is there some other Wikimedia department we could ask to contact the copycat site? After all they're plagiarizing a whole Wikimedia project. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps just remove the "so there is not much ..." part of the sentence. We are at least able to write the abuse address.
I suppose legal action from our side is very much possible, with or without help from the WMF, and the copyright infringement is quite obvious, so I donẗ think they want to be taken to court, and their providers have even less reason to let it deteriorate that far. I think we should contact WMF and then proceed based on their advice. As they have plagiarized so much, it should not be too difficult to find e.g. a photographer based in Arizona interesting in cashing in some copyright infringement damages, or WMF could give me a lawyer contact interested in representing me for a percentage of damages. And Traveloca and their providers know that, so a polite but firm email communication should certainly be enough.
LPfi (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, but what is the significance of Arizona? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Whois gave "Registrant State/Province" as "AZ". I suppose that is Arizona. I don't know whether that is relevant, but it could be. Cloudflare in California hosts their DNS and probably also their web server, so that would be another contact, and probably closer to more people. –LPfi (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Any updates? TravelAroundOz (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have died. Is everyone happy for this email to be sent to Legal? And would someone please refine the sentence about being able to contact Traveloca, i.e. insert the correct address? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear staff of the Wikimedia legal team,
As a contributor to English Wikivoyage I'm writing to notify you about a gross copyright violation that members of the Wikivoyage community have recently discovered. The whole English Wikivoyage is being re-published in real time at https://traveloca.org/wiki/any_article (or indeed nearly anything on en-WV). In violation of the copyleft licence, they do not credit Wikivoyage as the source for their content, nor do they notify readers of their lawful right to reuse the content.
You can see the community's discussion about the matter here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Copycat_site
The traveloca website doesn't seem to provide any contact information (ISPs seem to be Namesilo and Cloudflare, according to whois and traceroute). We are in need of some help. Are you able to advise on courses of actions that we could take? Are there any actions you can take on our behalf?
Thank you.
[someone's name here]
That's cool. Perfect draft Jamie. If it were an article, do Tourist Drive 33 since there is a little bit of discussion about the copyright violation and where I originally found the copycat site. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we can send it. I adjusted the link not to return 404 and the wording accordingly (and added "nearly": they don't seem to include Special:*), and added the ISPs. Remove the parenthesis if you think it is useless. Personally I won't do anything about in in a week or so. –LPfi (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, my editing activities will be reduced in the next week due to personal reasons. I'll see what happens then. TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ypsilon, ThunderingTyphoons!, LPfi: Anything back from the legal team? TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
No idea, I for one haven't sent any e-mail. Maybe would be best if one of our admins or bureaucrats would get in touch with them. Ypsilon (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, AndreCarrotflower, The dog2, Mx. Granger:, any thoughts? --Ypsilon (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The letter looks fine to me. Gets straight to the point. The dog2 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been following this issue closely, but I have no objections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll copy edit slightly (unindented for ease in copying):

Dear Wikimedia Legal Team,

As a contributor to English Wikivoyage, I'm writing to notify you about a gross copyright violation that members of the Wikivoyage community have recently discovered. The entire English Wikivoyage site is being re-published in real time at https://traveloca.org/wiki/(name of article). In violation of the copyleft licence, they do not credit Wikivoyage or its editors as the source for their content, nor do they notify readers of their lawful right to reuse the content.

You can see the community's discussion about the matter here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Copycat_site

The Traveloca website doesn't seem to provide any contact information (ISPs seem to be Namesilo and Cloudflare, according to Whois and Traceroute). Would you be able to advise us on courses of actions that we could take to address this situation? Are there any actions you can take on our behalf?

Thank you very much

[someone's name here]

And yes, I approve of this letter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Did anyone actually send the letter? Has there been any response? STW932 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April fools[edit]

This year, I want to go to Before Times. They were kind of nice the last time I was there, and it was so much easier for the traveler. Take a leisurely drive on back highways, knowing that you could stop at any gas station or convenience store to get what you forgot to pack. Speed through the airport without getting your temperature checked. Set foot on a cruise ship with only norovirus to fear. Join the surging crowds on the subway. Hug family members when you arrive. Does anyone want to go with me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As a travel wiki, and especially as a wiki that during the pandemic has explicitly offered itself up as an escapist vehicle for "armchair travellers" who would otherwise be travelling in real life, we need to be very careful about how we treat the pandemic and pandemic-related themes. It goes without saying that we should include information in Wikivoyage that's legitimately useful to travellers, such as the COVID-19 pandemic article itself and the COVID-related infoboxes at the top of country articles and others higher up in the breadcrumb hierarchy. But reminders of the "Before Times" - a term I viscerally loathe, FWIW - are a very serious emotional trigger for many of our readers and editors, and it would be insensitive and inappropriate to make light of the subject in a joke article, least of all one that gets top billing on our Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Reminding people of what was normal in the past also gives us hope for the future, and talking about what we miss promotes good mental health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
That may be true for you. But for others - including me, and including a large majority of those I've interacted with on both a personal and professional level - normality is already something that seems to exist in some inaccessible fantastic realm not unlike how we portray our April Fool's joke articles, and living through this pandemic is incredibly distressing. In these trying times, it's more necessary than ever for people to try to see things from others' point of view. And coming up with a different topic that we can all enjoy is not a difficult proposition, especially this early in the game when the article hasn't even begun to be written yet. So again, let's please have a little more consideration, especially for those who are on Wikivoyage for escapist purposes and would prefer not to have reminders of the pandemic thrown in their face at every turn, as happens in real life. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Andre, did you just say that it's necessary for me to see things from your point of view, right after you forcefully dismissed mine as a point of new that only "may" be true "for me"? I hope you didn't mean that.
If you think that there should be a different topic, I'd be happy to hear your suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
First of all, no, I didn't say it was necessary for to see things through my point of view. If you reread my remarks, hopefully you will see they are in the spirit of ttcf first and foremost. It happens to also be my personal viewpoint, but that has no bearing on the validity of my argument. Second of all, I'm confused as to the position you're staking out here. I've already explained the downside of running Before Times as our April Fool's article, but what I've yet to hear is the alleged downside of "coming up with a different topic that we can all enjoy", as I suggested above? Why is it absolutely necessary that we publish this particular article, regardless of what our readers' reaction may be? I'm honestly trying to assume good faith and see this as something other than you feeling disappointed that your idea didn't get the reception you were hoping for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Remaining in good taste has always been a problem when considering what topic to go with for April Fools Day and how to cover it. I agree with Andre that the topic you're proposing would be deeply depressing and not funny at all, except maybe in a very darkly sardonic way. I'd much rather have no joke article than the one you want to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
For anyone interested, there are already a couple of suggestions at Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#April Fool's 2021.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Andre, I repeat: I'd be happy to hear your suggestions. NB that I don't want to hear a suggestion from you that other people should do the work of coming up with other ideas. I'm asking that you make a constructive suggestion yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the original proposal was unacceptable remains true regardless of whether or not I have offered an alternative. As a Wikivoyager, I am interested in the overall reader experience, hence my participation in this discussion, but I have never been particularly interested in participating in the April Fool's article tradition, even during non-COVID times. I don't begrudge those who do enjoy it, but I personally don't, and the act of exercising my right not to participate in it does not mean I waive my right to participate in other areas of site governance, such as determining what does and doesn't belong on the Main Page. If you'd like some alternative ideas, ChubbyWimbus has already suggested two, ThunderingTyphoons! has pointed you to a place where there are others, and I'm sure anyone else who enjoys the April Fool's tradition would love to share their preference. But, to make myself absolutely clear, I will not be sharing any of my own. And quite frankly, your insistence on hearing one specifically from me comes off as rather dismissive of the ideas others have already offered, which seem quite well-considered. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I liked the original idea and I'm surprised that it could be considered triggering. There are reminders of the pandemic everywhere, including on this site. Powers (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(indent) Of the article suggestions linked by ThunderingTyphoons!, I like the Captain Obvious suggestion. I also like the suggestion of the Simpson's Springfield IF there are enough people with knowledge about the places in Springfield and events that occurred there or other tidbits to make it fun and interesting. I have of course seen many episodes of the Simpsons myself, but it's been a long time, so I probably don't have the memory to make such an article funny/fun/nostalgic. If others do, it would be a fun feature. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd be enthusiastic to help out with a Springfield article. (A relative owns a travel guide!) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Simpsons idea has been proposed many times over the years. The obvious problem is that almost all conceivably relevant images would be copyright-protected. If we manage to find a way around that, it would make for a great article, but it's a pretty formidable barrier. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Commons has a small handful of images that it seems to either consider acceptable or has at least turned a blind eye to that we could use, such as c:File:Gran Sello de la Alcadia de Springfield.svg, c:File:North Takoma mapa.png (not in English, but only sort of an issue), and c:File:MoesBarConcepcion2016.jpg. I think there's definitely something we can do. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think deliberately violating the copyright of a TV show that might be likely to sue is a good idea, just because some images haven't yet been deleted from Commons. This isn't a case of fair use in regard to a permanent work of architecture somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, we can start a Simpsons Tour article along the lines of Seinfeld Tour. Gizza (roam) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft article[edit]

Contributions are welcome at Draft:Springfield (USA). Ground Zero (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikiProjects[edit]

I have just reached out to WikiProject Portugal (w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portugal#Wikivoyage), hoping to entice participants of that project to contribute over here. I wonder if anyone thinks that similar outreach to other geographic WikiProjects would be fruitful. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In cases such as Portugal where there is already a Wikivoyage in the local language, we should be directing them there and not to en:. pt: is even more badly in need of new contributors than we are, and the same is true for most non-English Wikivoyages. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and agree with you in principle. PT WV is basically dead, as evidenced by their Recent Changes. I am not confident enough in my Portuguese to contribute much, and the broken listing templates deter me from even trying. However, educated people in Portugal (and other Lusophone countries) are often conversant in English, as it's a required subject in school. They also recognize that English is largely a lingua franca among those most likely to travel internationally. People contributing to an EN WikiProject would seem to be the sort of folks who might enjoy contributing here at EN WV. I wouldn't advertise this on PT WP or other languages, though I would cross-advertise same-language WV and WP instances. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I did something like this once before on Wikiproject:Ireland; it didn't result in any interest expressed or in any apparent increase in edits to Ireland articles. Let's hope Wikipedia's lusophiles have a bit more gumption about them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're reaching out in the English-language Wikipedia, then editing at the English-language Wikivoyage makes most sense even if they usually edit and add content related to Portugal. You may meet people who are interested in the country for one reason or another but are not fluent in the language. The best way to attract editors at the Portuguese-language Wikivoyage would be to go to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. Gizza (roam) 21:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Thanks for doing that. It's a low-traffic page, though, so it might be better to have equally low expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I also think we lack Aussie and Kiwi editors too. TravelAroundOz (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrectly identified as a vandal[edit]

Dear Admins,

I'm trying to work on my own sandbox, when it says my edits have been not updated and I have been identified as a vandal called Brendan John Williams. I am not a vandal, and how can I vandalise my own sandbox when theoretically I could type anything into it before I publish it? Could you please remove the block.

Thank you.

KevRobbAU (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You are clearly not blocked; if you were, you couldn't have posted here. What is the error message you're getting, and did you try to insert any link when you got the message? Sometimes, there are problems with blacklisted URLs, and if that's the issue and you can figure out which URL is causing the problem, that's something we can remedy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, to avoid any problem: If there are links that might be an issue, you can type them here as [name] dot com, so that they're not blocked here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@KevRobbAU: By any chance is your internet service provider Telstra? We have had problems with edits from this ISP before, and as a result there's an edit filter which prevents certain edits from IP addresses registered to Telstra. Now that you're logged into your account you should be able to edit the sandbox, and I see that you have. If you have trouble again please let me know.
@Ikan Kekek: KevRobbAU probably referred to a block because MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-telstra says "please leave a message on the Travellers' pub to get the block removed." It might be good to rephrase that warning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ikan, the issue seems to have been resolved after 1-2 hours, so I assumed it was either a glitch or an admin had removed the block. There was no mention of any URLs causing issues in the warning. I had rebooted my modem to see if a new ISP address might resolve the issue, but it didn't at the time, therefore I concluded I was actually blocked due to this and the warning message sayihg so. Maybe the vandal-filter policy for Telstra should be tweaked - Telstra is Australia's largest communications provider, not some little fly-by-night company favoured by troublemakers - being negatively affected simply because I am with a certain internet provider did not sit well with me.

KevRobbAU (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had that trouble. We'll consider the costs and benefits of the Telstra filter and whether it should be tweaked or eliminated, but the constant stream of different uncommunicative sockpuppets posting inane or unreliable (sometimes plagiarized) stuff from that ISP causes us a lot of unnecessary work, so it's tempting to eliminate some of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
So, technical people, what do you think? Are there ways to better avoid false positives? If we eliminate this filter completely, I suppose somewhat more work will be needed to revert undesirable edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not one of the technical people, but does this filter even work? We still get plenty of edits from the vandal, and this isn't the first time someone else has been caught as a false positive.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Idk but I frequently use a Telstra wifi and I get no problems. I also can't see why you decide to block telstra entirely considering it's Australia's largest network provider. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@KevRobbAU: Anyway, I'll be on the lookout. Btw, I'm currently using iinet so it's not a problem for me now but which part are you in? TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the tweaking should be discussed behind the scenes, as any tweaking would be depending on the specific edit patterns by the vandal – which they could change accordingly. Regardless, it would be easy to exempt established users and specific Australian users. –LPfi (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
TravelAroundOz, we don't block Tesltra entirely, as should be obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd still say we are pretty draconian. See AbuseFilter/17. –LPfi (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we should talk at the filter, so that we agree on the current situation. –LPfi (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Oops. I might have made something unintentional. Can somebody check my filter edit? –LPfi (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sex tourism, porn, etc.[edit]

Just so you know, whenever I see editors adding links to things like porn sites, escort sites, brothels and so on, I have been adding them to the spam blacklist even if they were only added once. It may seem harsh, but since porn is irrelevant and inappropriate for a travel guide, and we do not cover sex tourism as per Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy, I think a "one strike and you're out" approach to such sites is appropriate since I don't see any reason why anybody editing in good faith would want to add such links to a travel guide. The dog2 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have thought for a long time that the sex tourism policy needs a rewrite, though I've failed to convince others. My suggested rewrite is at User talk:Pashley/STP. Pashley (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if it did, though, online porn links couldn't possibly be relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not appropriate; even on en.wiki, commons or any wikimedia project. TravelAroundOz (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, articles about particularly high-profile or in some other way important porn sites are relevant, because it's an encyclopedia. Wikivoyage is not, and there really isn't an active debate about this site's sex tourism policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that for spambots, advertising porn or anything else, "one strike & you're out" is the right policy. A permanent block on the account should be the minimum response, then consider additional things like a WMF-wide block or adding the advertised site to the spam blacklist.
I also agree with Ikan that "there really isn't an active debate about this site's sex tourism policy", though I'm inclined to think there should be. My last attempt is at Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy#Re-start_discussion?; it failed.
However, we should be careful not to impose a long ban on anyone for good faith edits, adding information for travellers on things like Bangkok go-go bars or other sexy facilities. Some such stuff should be deleted & in a few cases a short block might be needed, but nothing close to "one strike & you're out". For one discussion of such edits, see Talk:Philippines/Archive_2017-2018#Prostitution. Pashley (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The advertised site can generally be added to the list without problems, as we don't want links to it, and it can be removed after discussion if we ever do want to link them. For the user account I don't see much difference from other spam accounts. They are probably one-offs, so a one week block is effectively a permanent one (and so could be used if there is any doubt about the bad faith).
I agree with Pashley, that a good faith user adding a link about a go-go bar they would like to recommend should not be blocked for that, just pointed to our sex tourism policy, if the link or language were inappropriate. The porn links I've seen have all been obvious touting spam; I suppose we could err on the side of good faith with no bad effects.
On the policy: There are tweaks I might want to make, but that is opening a can of worms. I think there is quite strong consensus on most of it, and little support for Pashley's version. It is unlikely that has changed in less than two years. We can have a new discussion next year, if something new turns up.
LPfi (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure. In the case of someone adding listings for a Go-go bar in Bangkok, or a brothel in Amsterdam's red light district, those are actual tourist attractions, the person adding them could potentially just be unfamiliar with our policy, so we should show leniency in such cases. Those sites I've been adding to the blacklist after only one strike are very obviously inappropriate for a travel guide (eg. porn sites, and more recently, an escort agency). The dog2 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Mobile App[edit]

I wrote this same article to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), Wikimedia Forum and Wikivoyage/Lounge page but I share my ideas one more time to here. Wikivoyage is one of the best projects of Wikimedia. In last days, I'm so concentrated to develop the new opened Turkish Wikivoyage page. And I think, an official mobile app for Wikivoyage is a good idea. It can be perfect for the travelers around the world. The people mostly use their smart phones during traveling. This project will not make much sense if there is no app of WV. I think the Wikimedia Foundation should consider that.UcuncuUlus (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A well-designed website does not need an app. A good website is responsive and will adjust itself as needed for the platform it's being displayed on. The existing Wikipedia app is unnecessary. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There is already the kiwix app for offline browsing. Also, e.g. OsmAnd or maps.me support WV articles... If you need some additional functionality, probably it's best to extend one of those, than to write it from scratch...? -- andree.sk(talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A well designed website may be easy to navigate on a smartphone but that doesn't mean an app is not necessary. Millennials and Gen Z increasingly use apps instead of mobile browsers because of their ease of use and efficiency. Instead of typing the website url or searching for it on Google or another engine and then going to the website, it's much easier to click on an app. And the Wikimedian urls are not intuitive. Rather than wikiname.com it's en.wikiname.org as we're non-commercial. Nobody bookmarks websites like they did 20 years ago. Any organisation providing an online service that thinks an app is unnecessary in 2021 will go the way of the dinosaurs. Gizza (roam) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd love a mobile app. The only reason why I don't edit so much is because I'm on desktop, and editing on mobile isn't convenient. TravelAroundOz (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
DaGizza: That may be true, but for a dinosaur like me (who has used gopher), it sounds absurd. What about an app that just starts the web browser, feeding it with the address? Like icons on desktop. You need a fancy image of course. But no need for any code that you fetch from an app store if you can use the favicon or something similar. But you need a black box app to give control to the .com site, so that is what they have made people use. –LPfi (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@LPfi: Yes, but time goes, things change and what we do changes. TravelAroundOz (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There are apps that are useful, such as a Wikivoyage app for offline use. But having to install an app because the freaking smartphone won't let you save a bookmark or make a simple scripted icon is absurd (as is the website not letting you access advance features without the app). Yes, the times goes and absurd things become common, while we get rid of other absurd things. And sometimes we have to adopt to others doing absurd things. But to do absurd things just because that is how things are done, that I do not understand. –LPfi (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That may be okay for some but for most, it's inconvenient. If I weren't an editor here; I may as well use tripadvisor due to convenience. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose an app is useful, both as people expect one, and e.g. for offline use. Still, I don't understand why it is more convenient to go to an app store, download and install the app (after checking whether it seems trustworthy), and place the app icon where you want it, than just asking the web browser to add a favicon based icon where you usually want to have them. I rest my case. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Downloading an app may feel less convenient to you, but that's not how it feels to most young people. I'm on the oldest end of Generation Z, and a nontrivial proportion of my peers -- and many more people the younger you go -- interact with the internet almost entirely through apps. (I'm considered weird for using Facebook on the mobile website rather than in the app, for instance.) For travel, this is even bigger, because people are more phone-based, and as you might guess from that bracket using apps seems to be overwhelmingly preferred over using mobile sites for whatever reason. Whether it makes sense to you or not, this is overwhelmingly how multiple growing cohorts of people interact with the internet, and a travel site without an app is hampering itself. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, being born in the middle of Gen Z, I'd say; editing on mobile website is terrible. No one would want to use WV if there isn't an app. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that editing on mobile is awful, across the Wikimedia family. But it's no easy matter to just create an app that allows editing in sync with the website from scratch. I can also see value in an official Wikivoyage/Wikimedia-branded offline app, but again it's easier said than done.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
After all of this arguments I think we can easily say that: Yes, editing on phone is more difficult than editing on pc but our first goal is creating a guide for people on the travel. If we can't reach to the travelers (taking into account the habits of the users), our effots on this site are in vain. So a official mobile app for WikiVoyage from Wikimedia is important.UcuncuUlus (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd also add that when travelling, people are less likely to have their finest smartphone with them, and are more likley to have secondary phones instead. To this end, a KaiOS app would be extremely useful for travellers. KaiOS is used on a lot of cheap/basic feature phones with extended features (most Nokia feature phones use it, including the 800 Tough) that are popular with travellers as they are cheap enough to be disposable, but still have a basic app ecosystem with apps like Google Maps, WhatsApp etc. Wikipedia have a very well made KaiOS app, so that could be a good starting point for WikiVoyage, as the KaiOS default browser doesn't render the wiki sites very well at all. --JasminLovesTheOcean (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not the case from people who I know well. I myself generally want to look at WV but end up using trip-advisor instead due to convenience. Plus who has more than one smart phone with them? I have two but one is a satellite phone, not two smart phones. TravelAroundOz (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Having an app that works on KaiOS in addition to Android and iOS sounds good, though having one that only works on KaiOS sounds about as worthwhile as not having one at all, considering its market share (0.1% worldwide in 2020, compared to 72% Android and 27.5% iOS). I have to concur with TravelAroundOz about the 'secondary phone' comment -- most people don't own multiple smartphones. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure about whats it like in other countries but here in Australia; we usually only have two phones. A normal one and a satellite one. That's it. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that in India, KaiOS has about 15% of the market share these days.
The arrangements you will take depend upon your risk level. If you're already traveling with a burner laptop (one cheap enough that you don't mind losing it; if you're in a sensitive industry, it will contain only the content that you need to have with you during that trip), then you're probably going to travel with a burner phone, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree. We need one for iOS. TravelAroundOz (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A mobile app doesn't make much sense if it's just a viewer, then you can just as well launch the URL in a browser like User:LPfi pointed out. But many mobile devices have additional sensors like GNSS receivers and magnetometers (electronic compass) that laptops don't have. These could be assets that offset the drawback of smaller screens and lack of a proper keyboard to type on. For example the app could blink or vibrate when the user is walking close to a POI [for which WV already has coordinates in the articles] or pop up the picture in the [image] field of a POI to make it easier to find for the user. Or it could have a Skyrim-style horizon that follows direction of heading [using compass] and shows directions of POI types in different icons. With the Wikidata links, it's also possible to fetch opening hours and admission fees for POIs automatically when the user is standing in front of them, and even hide POIs that are closed. 90.244.151.58 12:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Bringing back a dead conversation but a version that can be viewed offline would be great significant help to me and most Aussies. Most areas have only very slow 3G networks; which only really works on Telstra. Others are a hit and miss or no mobile signal entirely. Being able to view articles offline would be a great help. And typing up the URL when you've got the worst connection is no help at all. TravelAroundOz (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@TravelAroundOz: Have you tried Kiwix? That's the app I use for viewing Wikivoyage offline in places with no mobile data. It's not perfect, but it's much better than nothing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Our UAE article reads like "everything is great, pay no attention to the people in chains"[edit]

I know that our policy is to be travel positive, but wv:be fair also includes calling a spade a spade and it is a bit ridiculous how the wording of the UAE article (well I tried to work on it a bit, but it's far from done) is basically fawning over the Emirs... I fear if I alone were to take the hatchet to it, I might fall into the other extreme, so please lend me a hand in striking a balance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edits seem fair to me. I'm not really an expert on the Emirates, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The article looks much better to me. The other thing about the UAE is that their military, along with Saudi Arabia's, has conducted indiscriminate bombings of Yemen for years and made it well-nigh impossible for food and medical aid to be distributed to the sick, malnourished people there. However, that's the kind of thing we would usually avoid mentioning in the travel guides to the countries whose governments are responsible, although it is briefly mentioned (though without naming the UAE) in the Yemen guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, now it looks less like propaganda. I will say though that the U.S. is hardly innocent when it comes to human rights issues though, despite the common impression that the U.S. is the gold standard when it comes to human rights; they actually tightened sanctions on Iran while they were struggling to deal with COVID-19 and as a result, medical supplies cannot get into Iran. And I'm going to leave you with a quote from Singapore's former ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani. "Anybody who believes in the term benevolent great power is an idiot.". The dog2 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are you bringing up the U.S. in this discussion? Who the hell ever said the U.S. is innocent? For God's sake! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean, not only is that irrelevant to the discussion, but the U.S. government is complicit in the indiscriminate bombings I mentioned by supplying arms, logistical support and intelligence to the Saudi and Emirati regimes. It's just really, really annoying when you decide to engage in straw-man arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
As the other commentators said, your edits seem pretty fair. The UAE is definitely an interesting place to try strike the balance for -- I don't think I can think of anything quite as sui generis as it in tourism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
"Who the hell ever said the U.S. is innocent?" - Was the US ever innocent. To me the only innocent country is New Zealand. Since the British ever discovered it. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The British and white New Zealanders have been a lot less violent toward the Maori than British and post-colonial(?) whites have been toward the Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, etc., but if you really think there's no history of conflict in New Zealand, I suggest you read w:Māori people. I think there's no point in searching for "innocent" countries, but of course some abuses are more severe than others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Not only that; but slavery did exist here; where people were brought from Pacific Countries. I know; there was conflict but not as bad as how Aboriginals were treated. TravelAroundOz (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Towns in wrong region - move to right region[edit]

Hi all,

The cities Gunnedah, Boggabri, and Narrabri are in the wrong region in New South Wales, Australia - they are placed in the Central West region when they actually belong in the New England (New South Wales) region. Is it easy enough to transfer them across to where they should be?

Many thanks,

KevRobbAU (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Just note in the edit summaries where you're moving them from and to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
And remember to change the {{IsPartOf|}} template at the bottom of each of the three articles (only visible in edit mode).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean. Narrabri is in the Central West. TravelAroundOz (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Aussie link tax?[edit]

Australia has a new law requiring sites like Facebook & Google to pay news organisations whenever they link to content on a news site (or whenever someone follows the link?) and to share some data about the user with the linkee. I'm more than a little hazy on details.

Here's a summary, not for those easily offended by language.

Will this affect us? How? It certainly looks like a problem for WP, who routinely cite news articles, but I cannot see that it will matter much to us. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

AIUI that law specifically applies to only Facebook and Google, and I'm not sure that it's about the URL ("link") as much as it is about the content (headline/first sentence/image preview). Someone recommended the analysis at https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ to me, and it has more information than the page you linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It's best to not include any links to news articles. TravelAroundOz (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This will not have any implications for any Wikimedia projects. It is explicitly only about Facebook and Google. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if it did apply to Wikimedia Projects, why would this affect WikiVoyage? TravelAroundOz (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Since Pashley said "I cannot see that it will matter much to us", I think he was posting in the hope that other people could confirm his impression (or tell him that he'd missed something). He didn't claim that it would affect Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The goverment FAQ says "Digital platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google.", so it won't apply to us. We (or Wikinews) also can't apply to receive money as we don't "operate primarily in Australia" and have annual revenue over $150,000. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest[edit]

01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Upgrading Stratford (Australia)[edit]

Hi all! I've been working on upgrading the Stratford (Australia) article to make it suitable for guide status, adding a map, an understand section, and a few other changes on the road to making it a useful guide in its own right. Would someone mind taking a look over at the state of the article, and giving me their thoughts on what needs to be done to achieve guide status? --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's good but the shields are out of date (at the bottom). Anyway, I'm currently working on AUshield, like what's on en.wiki so the shields will be up soon. But for the timebeing; place {{AUshield|VIC|A1}} which'll produce TravelAroundOz (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The lead paragraph should explain why someone would want to go there. What are its principal draws for visitors? Ground Zero (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I've added a bit of information on what there is in Stratford. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, a reader wouldn't need to get a guide or look anywhere else because its already here. I will be going there later this year so I'll see if I can. TravelAroundOz (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
My first observation was that geo had a sign error, so the full page map was just a load of sea! - I have corrected this. I am surprised that there is no mention of Maffra, if only because it has a Woolworths supermarket. Why is the Stratford Historical Museum not listed? I think it has some way to go before it is a guide, but a lot of good work has been done in the past week. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! I didn't think to include Maffra, but that's probably worth adding. As for the historical society, I've visited there in January and I've been meaning to add it, just need to check out their Facebook as they don't have a website -- main reason why Wa-De-Lock, Stratford Motel, etc weren't listed until an unregistered user added it. I'll add them a bit later today and do Maffra right now. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Also why no mention of Traralgon, Yarragon and Trafalgar? TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I suppose they could be added in the "Go next" section, but they are already mentioned in the "Get in" section. May add Traralgon et al later. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Back to the guide but it'll take a while. I'm not a great person to judge considering I've only made two usable articles; Grand Pacific Drive and Tourist Drive 33 which none of them are even close to guide. TravelAroundOz (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyway; can Tourist Drive 33 get an upgrade from usable to guide? TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviation of "lane"[edit]

There are many ways "Lane" could be abbreviated. Would Ln. or La. be more better. Or would it vary by country. In Australia, La. is more common but I don't know whats it like in other countries. Is there a manual of style for this? TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Abbreviations says "Ln", with no period. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Mapshape's dark surroundings[edit]

Hi there

I noticed that more and more articles are fitted with an according mapshape (not the mapframe) for their WikiData ID. While of course this makes it easy to identify the location the article is related with, this leads to the the rest hidden behind a dark grey layer barely usable for anything else.

While I understand that at the moment of article visit the location's area is the central point of the viewer, I feel that being an interactive map it is kind of contra-productive to mostly hide everything else. I think travellers will also want to see things not just inside the administrative boundaries of that location, e.g. where travelling next or often even POIs are outside of these boundaries.

Can I therefore suggest that we somehow make the non-article related area only slightly less accessible and more useful for the interactive map when using the mapshape template? We could even just highlight the location's area with a light color like I did for Kyrgyzstan.

Does this make sense? Any suggestions to achieve this globally, maybe applying a random color?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ceever. Guilty as charged. I just added {{mapshape}}s to every Portugal article. To turn these off, one can open the map in full screen mode (clicking the square icon on the upper right), then hover over the stacked squares icon and uncheck the items with "geomask" in the descriptions. Not ideal, but handy in those instances when the traveller needs to view details outside the borders of the destination. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The point I am making is not that mapshapes are bad, but that in their current form they deter readers and undermine the interactivity feature ... wonderfully proven by your description. ;-) Cheers Ceever (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If you know or have the coordinates for the polygon - you can use a "maplink" or "mapframe" and define the properties (ie. shading outside of the shape, color etc.)... Matroc (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I know, but it would just be better practice, I believe, the default mapshape shading to be in a way we all agree on and not just in a way the original developer decided on without consulting our advice. Cheers Ceever (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hiking destination standards[edit]

Hi there (again)

Do we have any standards for creating information around hiking destinations? I feel this is not properly covered at the moment and I am regularly struggling on how to properly create a hiking destination most useful to readers.

Here is a example what I am doing at the moment, a listing and GPX downloadables: Valdivia#Hiking

While I think this example is already usable, I thought you might have additional ideas and we should create a HowTo for future editors. Also, we might extend the listing template to also cover some hiking specific information and functionality. Furthermore, I am currently providing GPX through the waymarkedtrails functionality to download relations of Openstreetmap, because WV does not provide such an option. However, all those references (2x WD, 3x OM) cause a lot of potential for mistakes.

Also, it seems there are different options to provide the mapshape/geoline functionality, see Israel_National_Trail#Route and editing.

Some thoughts on useful functionality and information:

  • When providing the WD ID, we could in addition to the WD link (barcode icon)also provide a GPX icon behind for download of GPX.
  • Should we include GPX information of the trail in the GPX download of the article at the top right corner? Maybe this could be extended to two options: download only POI and download POI & trails.
  • How can we standardize the hiking listing so OsmAnd can access also the trails and not just the POIs for its guide book functionality?
  • Where to store hiking specific information ... should we create a standard information bundle like length,duration,climb,difficulty?
  • Can we create a simple GPX download functionality on our side to not rely on external sources?
  • For which purpose could we use the lat&long of the listing template, centre of the trail (incl. zoom?) or starting point of the trail?
  • Could the trail appear automatically when using the listing template with WD ID instead of the need to ad mapshape? Maybe this could be a shortcut but for complex functionality we can still use the mapshape template.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ceever. I cannot address most of your concerns, but for guidance, I think a combination of Wikivoyage:Itinerary article template and Wikivoyage:Park article template might help, as I don't think we have anything specific to hiking destinations yet.
I looked at Israel_National_Trail#Route and I see you're using HTML and JSON (I think). These can be simplified using wiki templates, as you can see at User:Nricardo/Sandbox3 (code reproduced below).
{{mapframe|31.585|34.994|zoom=8|width=300|height=850|name=Israel National Trail|align=right}}
{{mapshape|wikidata=Q583897|type=geoline|stroke=#003e81|stroke-width=5|title=Israel National Trail}}
--Nelson Ricardo (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nelson. Sorry for having been unclear, I am not really looking for guidance. I can just continue doing what I did before, and I was already using the mapshape.
I was more looking for something we determine together to be best for the readers and potentially extend WV functionality to cover hiking routes better, especially potentiallyextending/improving the listing template and GPS functionality. "Itinerary article template" and "Park article template" do not really tackle questions on GPX and route display.
So, for everyone reading this, please head back to my original message and start from there. 👍
Cheers Ceever (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
A comment on one particular point – I'd say the lat/long in the listing template should generally be for the starting point of the trail. Broadly I agree with you that our hiking coverage could use improvement, and I'll keep thinking about the other points you brought up. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I had the same thought, just that this might overload the maps with too many POIs. It would be good to have the option to hide such "POIs" but still provide the map link functionality, zooming into the start point of the trail.
I think I cannot answer your specific questions, but we indeed need better guidance for editors on how to work with hiking destinations. About the specific listing: the hike is said to be "green" (is that only referring to the map marking?) and "Grade: Easy to medium" – the characterisation would be very much more useful if these grades were described in Chile#Do: Hiking and trekking. Are those grades comparable to the Norwegian scale? Is a "moderate" hike what you would expect as an Englishman? Can you go unprepared on an easy hike? –LPfi (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the colour is arbitrary, of course it would be better to have the actual colour code and actually being able to display a geoline with it on WV.
Also the grades are arbitrary. Of course for someone coming from Germany easy-medium might actually mean hard for an Englishman (little joke) ... we/I should probably instead use a proper international scale. I know the SAC scale, never heard of the Norwegian scale. Are there other, more international ones?
Cheers Ceever (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
OSM has a discussion in connection with their own trail rating system. I think they primarily use a mountaineer scale, but discussed how that would relate to non-mountaineering trails. I read it once, but I don't know how to find it again. –LPfi (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Oklahoma City districts again again[edit]

They continue to be a mess years hence. Can someone please do something? I have proposed merging them all back into the city years ago, but quite frankly I'm not sure that would solve anything either... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Among other things there is a supposed "Asian district" (which redlinks) mentioned in the text of the article but not part of the district hierarchy in any way... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
We decided a while ago to merge the many districts into just four. There's a lot of work to be done in the articles anyway, but I think this is manageable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
So what about that redlink? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
If it's a redlink and not part of the hierarchy, why not just delink it? Powers (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I was wondering that too, so I just did it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It wouldn't make sense to have a redlink for a district we decided not to have. The other alternative would be redirecting it to the larger district that the Asian district is now part of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

How does one navigate wikivoyage?[edit]

How can I navigate my way through wikivoyage? If I have a specific query I use search, but in many cases I find it rather awkward.

Let me give an example: I last edited Israel and at the bottom of the page I saw a button that I clicked to get to Hiking and Backpacking in Israel. If I want to see how to backpack in another country, or see what other countries have a Hiking and Backpacking articles, do I have to search every time, or is there an easier way to navigate? On other wikis I can use categories to navigate, but I don't see any categories on WV? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The breadcrumb hierarchy is our equivalent of categories. To use your example, if you navigate to the top of the Hiking in Israel article, you'll see the breadcrumb trail above the pagebanner: Travel topics > Activities > Outdoor life > Hiking > Hiking and backpacking in Israel. Click on any of those, and you should get a general topic article that includes lists of specific articles under that topic. The idea of the hierarchy is that it starts very general and becomes more and more specific as you go lower down.
Does that answer your question? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, we do also have article categories, e.g. Category:Hiking.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
We have categories, but most are hidden by default, as they are mainly used for maintenance. To enable them , Go to Preferences - Appearance and select "Show hidden categories". AlasdairW (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Our Main Page, our Facebook page, and the end of COVID[edit]

Now that several COVID vaccines have been developed and approved, mass inoculation campaigns are ramping up, and we can begin to envision a future return to normalcy in a more than theoretical way, let's talk about at what point we can remove the COVID-19 banner from our Main Page, the special COVID-19 message from our Facebook page, and the warningboxes from individual articles. Obviously now's not the time, but all the same it would be nice if we clarified in advance what needs to happen before we as a community feel comfortable doing those things. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I think we have to keep in mind that Covid-19 will be "over" in industrialized countries that have access to the vaccines long before it will be over in developing countries. We may have to re-write those messages first, and remove them later. Ground Zero (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we should talk about this later, when it's warranted. But it won't be the end of COVID-19, just the end of the pandemic. The disease is likely to continue to be endemic in many places for quite a while. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I can foresee a situation where the (north hemisphere) summer makes numbers go down in many countries like last year, and that vaccines get the credit although only a moderate percent of the populations have got vaccinated. If so, I think we should have decided on how to react (i.e. the decision should be made in a few months). I suppose we should rewrite the warnings etc. about at that time. In autumn we'll see whether there will be one more wave even in these countries. Before New Year vaccines should have made life go about back to normal in many countries, but not in all the world. Then we need new updates. What they'll be like, we cannot know yet.
So I think we can postpone most of the discussion, but we should have decided not to join the first wave of people saying the pandemic is overcome.
LPfi (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Even within the industrialised world, the vaccine rollouts are going at very different speeds. It's likely that some countries will be up and running by the summer, but not the majority of even the "rich" ones. So I think we're a fair way off removing the guidance from the Main page, though we may have to update it sooner rather than later.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Some countries will still maintain the quarantine system (like Australia) until it is fully over. Best to still keep it. TravelAroundOz (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
TravelAroundOz - But that's exactly why I'm asking the question. What exactly does "fully over" mean? How is it quantified? And if only one country, or only a few countries, are still under quarantine, do we really need a banner on the Main Page or would just a warningbox in the individual country article(s) suffice? The reason why I bring this up now is not because I think the end of the pandemic is imminent in the short term, but because I expect there to be - or rather, because given the enormity of the issue, there rightly should be - a protracted debate about the specifics of when and how to ease up on the warnings. If ever there were a decision that requires a true community-wide consensus, rather than a "consensus" crafted by one or two interested parties that the rest of the community just goes along with because they don't care either way, this is the one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
One criterion is that WHO declares the pandemic to be over. Another is that major airline hubs no more have any special arrangements for the disease. After those are satisfied we can consider whether we still should have general warnings (e.g. for those who still are vulnerable) or just in select destination articles. We should of course reword the warnings earlier. –LPfi (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It's possible that the WHO might not ever say that COVID-19 is "over". I think they will reclassify it from "pandemic" to something else, perhaps "global epidemic" (which is the label they give to HIV/AIDS). There isn't really a single accepted definition for the start or end of an epidemic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk[edit]

Does anyone have any recent photos from within the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics that would be suitable for a banner? I tried to use the flag as a banner, but Ground Zero removed it. -Bonehilda

Have a look through c:Category:Donetsk and c:Category:Luhansk to see if anything catches your eye. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Page banner discussions[edit]

I opened several page banner discussions. Please share your opinions in:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you have to give quite some time for us to digest those. Stating an informed opinion requires more than a cursory glance, and for those interested in more than a few of these articles, one cannot expect them to engage in all these discussions at once. –LPfi (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Please take your time to review all these suggestions and respond according to your best judgement. Those alternative banners took me a long while to find and create (Probably a lot longer than it would take most Wikivoyagers to review). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
What is a reasonable time for discussion? Two weeks? One month? Ground Zero (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
From what I recall, two weeks is a reasonable time for a consensus to be formed in such a discussion, and a decision to be made based on that consensus (unless of course the discussion keeps on going after that). Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem here is that there are so many of these discussions, that people interested in them might not have time to engage in all of them, or would have to postpone other work to do so. I think it would have been better to make half a dozen suggestions or so at a time, to concentrate comments on such a small batch at a time. Now people might be looking at different ones. I'd suggest you look whether there are different participants in different discussions and post an update about a few where there seems to be consensus, to ask for comments specifically for those, and then, later ask for comments on a batch with few participants. –LPfi (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
We're talking about changing some page banners, not about changing policy. I don't think that ויקיג'אנקי should spend a bunch of time managing a process here. The articles are posted. Those who want to participate can do so. I agree that two weeks is sufficient time. Let's not get bogged down in process here. There is other work to do. Ground Zero (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
OK. –LPfi (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It has been about two weeks now, and the discussion on these has wound down. Does anyone want more time to consider these? @LPfi:? or should we close the discussions and post the new banners where there is consensus to do so? Ground Zero (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it has been more than two weeks now. As such, I've made the changes based on what the majority decided. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Australian articles[edit]

I have also opened up a few discussions. I'd love to hear your opinions on this

Thanks, SHB2000 (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please also share your opinions in Talk:Strzelecki Track as well. SHB2000 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

One more new banner - 27 March 2021[edit]

Hume Highway vs. Hume Freeway vs. Hume Motorway[edit]

G'day WikiVoyagers,

It's probably my 10th edit now fixing the Hume Highway and Freeway errors here. They're both part of the continuous Syd-Mel Fwy except that in some parts its called Hume Motorway, Hume Highway and Hume Freeway. Hume Highway is what most New South Welsh people call it and Hume Freeway is what Victorians call it. It's because it's called Hume Hwy in NSW and Hume Fwy in Vic. But for some weird overkill, most have it from a Victorians perspective of Hume Fwy.

I really have no clue on what to do, furthermore, Hume in NSW is only a highway unlike Victoria where it's a freeway. How shall we write it making it consistent between signs, locals, and both state's point of view.

We also have a problem with the Pacific but that's resolved with renaming the article.

Cheers, SHB2000 (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not just try to name it consistently depending on which section you're writing about, and add a note to the article that the Hume is called "freeway", "highway" and "motorway" along different sections? If there's no reason to refer to the NSW section as a "freeway", no reason to refer to the Vic section as a "highway", then follow local usage. For a lot of people not accustomed to the Australian road system, all three words might as well be synonyms. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Times were good before 2013 before all this happened :) Plus, all of it is freeway alike but it has cross junctions (in NSW) SHB2000 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree with TT -- call it the Freeway in Vic articles and the Highway in NSW ones. (The Dukes Highway/Western Freeway between Adelaide and Melbourne has similar issues.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but what do we do in Albury-Wodonga? I've put highway as it's mainly in NSW but if Fwy works better then I'll change it. SHB2000 (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: The SE Fwy/Dukes Hwy/Western Hwy/Western Fwy/Western Hwy/Western Fwy must be really confusing. SHB2000 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Explain it in Understand of the itinerary and in a parenthesis or whatever in other places where the naming might be confusing. Is there some specific place where that is difficult to do sensibly? –LPfi (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Albury-Wodonga might be a bit tough for it, as it's a town (two towns blending into one, really) on a state border that the Hume [Freeway/Highway] runs through. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I changed it to "Hume Freeway/Highway" in that article. Isn't that a working solution? The itinerary may need to address it in a few more words, but I don't see that as a problem. –LPfi (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, my car says its Hume Fwy even in Albury. SHB2000 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, what about Berrima? A town between the Hume Motorway and Highway? SHB2000 (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This feels like a lot of more effort than this problem is worth. Unless Australia is in the habit of having separate roads, one named "X Fwy" and the other named "X Hwy", and going completely different places, I wouldn't worry about this, especially around the state borders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikipedia calls it [1] and notes that: "From north to south, the road is called the Hume Highway in metropolitan Sydney, the Hume Motorway between the suburbs of Edmondson Park and Prestons and Berrima, the Hume Highway elsewhere in New South Wales and the Hume Freeway in Victoria." I wouldn't get bent out of shape over this as I think that readers will generally understand that, as they sang in w:A Mighty Wind, "the highway's just one big road and it goes from here to there". I don't think readers will be confused if the terminology changes from highway to freeway to motorway if they are are called "Hume". Ground Zero (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ground Zero, Vaticidalprophet: - Sorry to bother you but what about the Pacific? It's somewhat different to the Hume where it keeps changing from Pacific Highway to Motorway frequently. SHB2000 (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement[edit]

Hello,

Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay if I create two armchair travel articles?[edit]

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to ask your opinion on creating two armchair articles. Strzelecki Track and Birdsville Track. They can be physically accessed but with one vehicle every 2-3 days. Just wanting to ask whether I should create it based on if a traveller goes and explores it or for armchair travel?

Cheers, SHB2000 (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say cover these as itineraries, but what would be the difference in your coverage if it was meant solely for vicarious reading, which is what I think you mean by armchair travel, than if you simply cover it as a practical itinerary? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd generally put a lot of humour in armchair travel and be a bit more serious in practical itineraries. SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
You mean kind of like a joke article? A bit of humor is fine, but if the trip is doable, I'd say don't make a joke of it. You might look at some of the articles linked in Next-to-impossible destinations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I might use Ashmore and Cartier Islands as a guide. It is doable, it's just that I don't think anyone will actually use this alone. SHB2000 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think your article is looking good so far. Maybe the Ashmore and Cartier Island article reads like a joke because it's not written very well and has no information about why someone might want to visit, talks about what isn't there instead of what is, and is even a bit fuzzy on basic accessibility (It would really benefit from adding information provided by the Australian government. I'd suggest not trying to emulate that article. The Track and the few locations along it seem to have some history, so it shouldn't be too fill out as a legitimate travel article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User ban nomination[edit]

There is a discussion underway here about what to do about ongoing contributions by a previously banned editor. Other views would be appreciated. Ground Zero (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, this editor remains banned as of now, but that's under discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
We'll have to look out for all IP's from the UK. SHB2000 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Since I am only a very part-time participant here I wonder if anyone is interested in my opinion? If so, is there a summary of diffs where a new participant in this discussion can come up to speed? (The discussion started on March 17 and consumes many pages as it stands today). Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech:: I can only answer your first question. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, and the more people who do, the better.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response, and for pinging me. I can help get together some diffs, time permitting. I wonder if it would be acceptable to insert anchor templates to facilitate this endeavor? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It's up to you, but I think your time would be better spent just reading the discussion and deciding whether you have an opinion, as I don't see anyone else asking for a list of diffs. Anchor templates might make the discussion difficult for others to read and make sense of. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: :This post identifies some of the banned user's objectionable comments that got him banned in the first place. He has returned to editing without signing in, and signs his posts "AC". He offered an apology, which many editors do not feel was sincere or sufficient. Ground Zero (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: You mean the long comment by user:. Xsobev which responds to User:ArticCynda's post which said:

Discriminating people based on factors they did not choose, and cannot influence or change, such as country of birth, eye/hair/skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, is completely unacceptable.

which to me sounds reasonable?
(Just to let you know I did not get your ping, not sure why) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The long comment yes, but look at the quotes from edits to article space. AC might have seen reasonable in the discussion, but that was just smoke screens. –LPfi (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It is my personal observation that indef-blocks do not work, YMMV. All a block does is force some determined contributors underground (socking). There are thousands of socks running around wikimedia projects creating havoc, actually there is now a whole sock-industry at WMF, with way too many contributors spending too much time fighting the noble fight instead of concentrating on building content.
I realize this posting may get me into trouble with the "authorities", and that many believe I have ulterior motives. It has even been suggested that I am a sock-master myself. I have been known to advocate for a sock-master on anther wmf-project, for which I have just been threatened with a block. The point I was trying to make, unsuccessfully, was that not all socks are (completely) bad guys. Some actually do good things for the community, and concentrating on ridding us of all socks is counterproductive, both because of its futility and because socks actually do some goods things for us. IMIO.
I know the issue of socking is a difficult problem and I have no ready-made solution, but I think it is time to call a spade a spade and stop hiding our head in the sand, and concentrate instead on figuring out a solution to what we should do about prolific contributors that do not fit into the mould for one reason or another.
Sorry for this walloftext and I hope I have not been too much of a distraction to all the good work being done on this wiki building up content, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppets are not prohibited on this site. What's prohibited is block-evasion. And even then, if a banned user shuts up about their previous identity and provides only unimpeachably good content, no action will be taken against them. You seem to be suggesting that we should allow people with neo-Nazi attitudes and distorted contributions to match to run rampant on this site. Would that be a good way to make Wikivoyage a friendly site for the majority of the world's population? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential user to keep an eye on[edit]

There's a guy out at enwiki who's just come to the community's attention for writing a number of bizarre travel guides on exceptionally small towns. You can read all the dirty details here. I have the sinking feeling someone trying to get him out of enwiki's hair and noticing the details of his articles is going to point him at Wikivoyage, so I'm just giving a heads-up to the broader community that if this guy comes here we should at least be watching him. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That discussion, where all the admins seem to think they have the right to belittle the user in question, is a good reminder why I'm not more involved in Wikipedia. Having said that, thanks for the tipoff, and let's hope the user doesn't discover Wikivoyage (frankly, let's hope none of them discover Wikivoyage, as they come across as bullies).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
w:Draft:Nugunek is a useful example of this contributor's work, and why we should be on the watch. The reader is told that "Nugunek is a town in Turkmenistan without earthquakes.", and given a table of sunrise and sunset times for the first and 15th days of each month. That would not be a useful travel article. Let's hope they don't find us. Ground Zero (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ground Zero:, okay, I'm booking my flights now. :) SHB2000 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be useful if it had some content useful for travel. SHB2000 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think any of the information in the article belongs in a travel article, so that leaves it empty. An empty article becomes useful only if someone adds travel-related info, which this user is not doing. Ground Zero (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hope he doesn't even know about Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the only good article that would be useful would be w:Draft:Bromley, Victoria, which I will start to work on with no research from en.wiki. This way, we hope he doesn't have good reason to come here. SHB2000 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Forget about it, the village has only 56 people and is nowhere close to Cooladi. SHB2000 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet, Ground Zero:, I see the user is blocked on enwiki. SHB2000 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Unsurprising. For what it's worth, there are people here in good standing who are blocked on enwiki, and indeed I'm pretty sure that's true for every Anglophone sister project. But I've been following the discussion on this guy there, and it's turning out about how I'd expect. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately only blocked on enwiki. Hope no one points both Fram or TableSalt342 here. SHB2000 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally. after reading this, we don't want them here. SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Sort of related to this: One of the things that I like about Wikivoyage is that the community is basically good people. We all have different strengths and interest areas, but we try to help each other out, and even when someone has a bad day, or we have a disagreement, people try not to be nasty or hold grudges about it. I sometimes get to this page and feel like I've somehow lucked into finding a whole group of reasonable adults on the internet. Thank you for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
"and feel like I've somehow lucked into finding a whole group of reasonable adults on the internet" - What about User:AnglaisEP's students?
Anyway, I have a similar number of edits on en.wiki. 96% are reverting vandalism. There's more vandalism on enwiki per minute than total edits per minute here on WV. SHB2000 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, Considering that KevRobbAU has retired (meaning no personal admin attacks on User:Ground Zero) I'd sort of agree with you there. SHB2000 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Community Notification: Nigeria Expedition[edit]

Dear all,

I wish to inform you of the proposed Nigeria Expedition; a project to promote travel information and tourism in Nigeria by improving existing and create new articles about cities, villages, geographical areas/regions, churches, monasteries, buildings, schools on the English Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. See the details of the project by using the link to the grant: [2] If you would love to join and participate, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Timmylegend (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timmylegend: Thanks for keeping us updated. On the grant application, do you know what kind of "community endorsements" they're looking for? Because if it's the support of the host community (i.e. English Wikivoyage), I'm sure several of us will be happy to voice support over there.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The endorsements process is for anyone (Wikivoyage or otherwise). Make a list to sign your name in that section if you think this is a good idea. It's helpful but not required to say something about whether you might participate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I have expressed my support at the link. I encourage anyone else who considers this a worthy project to do so. One suggestion, Timmylegend: You might also consider adding photos relevant to the articles that will be created and improved as one of the goals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the endorsements, comments, suggestions and support. I will do well to notify the community when the project commences. Timmylegend (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Timmylegend, I'm concerned that there isn't much voting on your proposal. Have you done much to publicize it on Wikipedia? If you add the uploading of new photos relevant to the Wikipedia and Wikivoyage articles to the goals of the project, you might be able to publicize it on Commons and get support from there, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Chatrium PR people now[edit]

Watch out for touts adding promotional listings for Chatrium hotels, and especially "Eat" listings for their uninteresting-sounding buffet restaurants, which are very unlikely to have numerous patrons who aren't staying at the hotels in question. Wikivoyage:Don't tout essentially prohibits hotels from also listing themselves in "Eat", "Drink" or any other non-"Sleep" section, unless they include restaurants or bars (or spas, whatever) that are independently famous and patronized largely (say, more than 50%) by people not staying at the hotel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ikan Kekek, am I allowed to list a hotel for eat in Innamincka, that is the only restaurant available in the town along with a servo; which isn't really one. SHB2000 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
In small places one has to use common sense, and do what is best for the traveller. I'd just point to the hotel in prose: "The only places serving food are the hotel restaurant in X, and a servo: [listing the servo]".
In any real city, listing the restaurant in Eat is clutter and distracting from more interesting eateries, as the reader can assume there is a restaurant in any hotel, and check those listings if they want to go there.
LPfi (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, although only a town of 44 people with enwiki now saying it's 15, it certainly is a place I really want to go. SHB2000 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
So yes indeed, in an article about a tiny town, it's indeed reasonable to mention that the hotel is the only place with a restaurant, a bar, etc. The full listing can be in the "Sleep" section or the section for the most prominent aspect of the establishment, but it should be mentioned in every relevant section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable to assume there's a restaurant in any hotel. Of the hotels closest to me, it looks like half of them have restaurants and half don't. I don't think it's worth a double listing, but I think that the quick mention that Ikan Kekek suggests would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for being sloppy. It is reasonable to assume they might have one. So if listed restaurants are far from where you are going to stay, you could check the listings for nearby hotels. They do not need to appear in Eat for that. For small places the situation is different. –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I checked their website, they do have one and tripadvisor also tells me they have one. SHB2000 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Right now there are 6 external links to the same commercial website (the hotel) in the Innamincka article. I think that is far too much. I think a single listing in the Sleep section, mentioning all services offered, would be a better solution. --FredTC (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Considering that Innamincka is a tiny town, I think it's important to mention the hotel in every relevant section, and it might merit full listings in more than one section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Monterrey districts[edit]

As it stands now, none of the articles on districts for the Mexican city of Monterrey are particularly overflowing with content. If I understand the municipal boundaries correctly, only Monterrey/Centro and Monterrey/Outer Monterrey are technically "actually Monterrey", but then we don't have to slavishly follow administrative boundaries. So, what do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonky Yugoslavia[edit]

I'm trying to create a dynamic map (User:Nricardo/Sandbox3) to replace the not-quite-right static map at Western Balkans, but the mapshapes for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia aren't filling properly. If I change type from geoshape to geoline, the outlines do populate (but without fill color), which is weird. I checked that the Wikidata and OpenStreeMap IDs are populated in the respective databases. Something must be off somewhere along the line, and I don't think WV is the problem. French WV is showing the same behavior (fr:Yougoslavie), though they use the older html tag syntax. Any ideas, folks? Thank you. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For B&H, the respective map query returns empty data, as compared to e.g. working Serbia. So there's either bug in OSM data (incomplete boundary in the relation), or some bug in the wikimedia map importer. Both are possible... I summon @RolandUnger:, since he has probably more ideas to figure out what's happening. :-) -- andree.sk(talk) 19:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The shape contour of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not closed, that's why it cannot be the border line of an area. It is working with geoline, {{mapshape|wikidata=Q225|type=geoline|fill={{StdColor|T1}}|title=[[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]}}. It is commonly known that there are many cases in OSM where contour lines are not closed. Normally these lines should automatically be closed by the mapserver software. Unfortunately it seems to be a never ending story. --RolandUnger (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@RolandUnger: I see that Bosnia and Herzegovina is fixed now. I believe that was your doing, so thank you! Any ideas on Croatia? --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

2 maps in an article?[edit]

Hi everyone,

This might seem very odd but am I allowed to have two maps in Innamincka. One's for the 1.5km long town centre and the other is for the vast Innamincka. The problem is, they're either too close to each other or too far. Solution: A controversial request for two maps.

Is it okay?

Thanks, SHB2000 (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Since these are dynamic maps, that's probably not necessary. You can pick a kind of compromise zoom level and let readers click the map to zoom in or out for more location info. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000, have you considered a rectangular map? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, how do you do that? SHB2000 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Like this, if you want the default/auto-zoom approach. Since you have one marker in a different town, you may want to put a location and/or zoom level back in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I feel like in this case a "compromise" in zoom level would leave both purposes unsatisfied. I use two maps where necessary; see, for example, Niagara Falls (New York). Powers (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I would probably add the latitude, longitude and zoom parameters for the mapframe to center map and zoom in on the main area. You can use the width and height parameters to make the dynamic map into a rectangle if so desired. Two maps are probably acceptable but I think one map would suffice. Best wishes! -- Matroc (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I've decided to remove the second map and incorporate both Ikan Kekek's and WhatamIdoing's ideas. Considering that for it to be a proper guide, it'll need 4 maps. (Town centre, greater Innamincka, Birdsville and Moomba) SHB2000 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Questionable additions at Budget travel / Minimum budget travel[edit]

Just look at their revision histories. I have thus far reverted, but would like to step away from this and would like an additional set of eyeballs. To me those additions seem very clearly not in line with our way of writing travel content, but I could not very well put it into words or policies... Certainly the linking to aggregators is at the very least a grey area and probably more in the realm of "frowned upon"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look great to me either. I can see the user's intent, but it's a bit sweeping and the grammar/writing really leaves stuff to be desired. Good revert, would've made it if I were the one on Recent Changes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Flightnavigator has now made quite a strong accusation in an edit summary: "If you want to start a discussion, you can do so on the Talk page. I have the right to add helpful content for the travellers. And I will so as long as you call my content "stuff". Are you working for the tourism industry in a high price country?" Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It can be frustrating for new users to see their edits reverted. I notice no one has actually taken time out to explain to him our policy against using aggregators. A message on his user talk page might help him understand why he's being reverted. Hopefully he'll be gracious about it, and let's wait to see if he is before we start getting confrontational. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Andre, here. SHB2000 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I worked for an airport pre-pandemic and plan to do so again, but I can't see how that's in any way relevant. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Roberto (Illinois) is not a real town.[edit]

As an Illinois resident, I know for a fact that this town is BOGUS.

—The preceding comment was added by Midwestern Social Democrat (talkcontribs)

Google confirms. Deleted.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, who the hell created it? SHB2000 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Check out Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. Powers (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

I would like to try to "fish out" a list of all the tourist attraction articles in the English Wikipedia for a certain country in order to use that list in the Hebrew Wikivoyage.

Some years ago I figured out how to do this but since then I forgot, so I was hoping some of the experts here could maybe help me figure it out again.

So, for example, I would like to be able to take a category like Category:Tourist attractions in Spain and create a list that contains all the articles in that category and in ALL the sub categories (at least 5 levels down that category tree).

Is there any easy way to accomplish this? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: I believe that this will give you what you seek. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nricardo: thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
You may also be interested in the Nearby Attraction tool. This finds all the English Wikipedia articles (max 49) within 10km of the nominal centre of an English Wikivoyage article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Oh wow! that one is amazing. I saw there's also a climate template generator in there for the climate template used in Engvoy... we at Hebvoy use the Wikipedia climate template... is there a similar generator capable of creating new climate templates for Wikipedia articles? (Which we could then transfer to Hebvoy too) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I have only used the Nearby Attractions and Nearby Destinations tabs. See Wikivoyage talk:Listings#New_editing_tools_for_generating_article_content for a discussion on these tools. AlasdairW (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please help me improve this 100-most-prominent-tourist-sites-in-the-US list[edit]

So I are slowly and gradually implementing a new feature in Hebvoy in which the "Other destinations" section in 83 most toured countries articles would be expanded from 5 to 9 most prominent sites to around 60 until 100 most prominent sites that might also include some of the most prominent tourist sites located within cities.

I first noticed the need of such expanded lists as because the articles of the most prominent traveled large countries, which only present very few sites, made it very confusing for our readers to figure out from a quick glance where are the areas of those countries which are most worth focusing on (for them) when they would be driving around in those countries looking to see the "highlights" in a relatively short amount of time available to them.

The process by which I use to create these big lists is as such - first I extract a big list of all the tourist destination articles in a certain country at the English Wikipedia (from categories like Category:Tourist attractions in Spain), afterwards I sort all those articles by pageviews during a rough approximation of the tourist season (March until the end of September, in a pre-covid year), then I go over the one hundred top results and make sure to pick the most sought after articles/sites that actually make sense, and the final stage of the process is a peer review process in which more Wikivoyagers help improve the list as much as possible (which I am hoping to achieve with the help of you guys in this thread, as there aren't many people active on Hebvoy these days).

This is the list.

If possible please help me improve this list by mentioning below which sites you recommend adding and which sites you recommend removing. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope it's ok that I bring this up here :) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure it's OK, but (a) it's a thankless task - even trying to agree on a top-10 list of "must sees" in New York City means plunging into controversy, and (b) these are only certain kinds of sites, as I don't see a single museum mentioned, and I have no doubt that the Metropolitan Museum, the National Gallery and the various Smithsonian museums in D.C. get huge numbers of visitors every year (and probably also MoMA and several others). I see Faneuil Hall. What about the Boston Museum of Art, or simply the Freedom Trail? I feel like you'd do better having separate lists of parks, amusement parks, zoos, national monuments, mountains and mountain ranges (I see the Appalachians, which literally extend from Georgia into Canada, so that's hardly a place), city squares - and then how about museums, great buildings....How much you want to do is up to you, but I doubt how useful this kind of somewhat random, undifferentiated list is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. This list is currently not finalized. I’m hoping more people would help improve it. Eventually it’s all down to the consensus regarding what should be in and what shouldn’t. Which specific sites would you remove from it? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like you've missed my point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You are saying that unless only 5-10 destinations are picked as the prominent “other destinations”, it’s pointless to make a bigger list. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
You really didn't understand; do you see that my point about the difficulty in agreeing on a top-10 list of "must sees" in New York City was mentioned in order to make clear how well-nigh impossible it is to create an agreed-upon list of top attractions in the entire country? Instead, I'm suggesting you make separate lists for separate categories of attractions. Furthermore, a lot of what you're listing should simply be covered in a United States National Parks article and one on United States National Monuments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict] No, that is not what he is saying. You might want to read it again, with thought, but I get the impression you won't get it anyway. Your list will be more or less random (or rather: arbitrarily biased), and more people participating will not solve that problem, and IK feels awkward about that. You don't see the problem and won't see it, so you will get a list that is good enough for you, only a few more people recommend adding or removing a few entries. But you might at least heed the advice of categorising the attractions to see whether you are content with the distribution among them, and have the chance to treat some categories in a different way. –LPfi (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Just looking at the map, it's obvious the list is heavily biased toward national parks and monuments. I, too, noticed the complete absence of any museums -- the conspicuous lack of any markers within 50 miles of Washington, D.C., is arguably sufficient grounds to justify scrapping the entire list and trying again using a different methodology. Asking what specific sites we'd remove and which ones we'd add to a list of 100 sites within a country as large and as diverse as the United States is definitely not the right question: I doubt any of us has been to more than half of these sites. Powers (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to do a different list where an equal amount of items would be given to various sub categories of items (museums, national parks, etc.) - I would definitely consider doing that. In general though, I think I have been misunderstood with what I am trying to accomplish here. I am trying to create a useful list for the traveler by combining the use of technology to create a rough initial list, and then relying on a peer review process to further improve the list. From my experience so far, the end product is usually far superior than what any individual would have managed to create by themselves. The first list we created in this way was the list made for the Israel article at Hebvoy (which is probably the ultimate list any Israeli would love using as a "bucket list" of sites they want to see in their own country before they "kick the bucket"). As an Israeli, whom know many of the sites on the list but never seen such a comprehensive list, I was very impressed with the final list we made in that instance. I will also add that, based on my vast experience from creating content for the Hebrew Wikipedia, in many instances I noticed that other Wikipedians heavily object to creating content which isn't based on pure empiric data, so for people like that, a list of the most prominent people/sites/films/etc., that is purely based on the consensus between a large group of people is problematic and non-encyclopedic (nevertheless, content like that is needed even there in the instances of decade articles for example like 1990s and 2010s (just an example). I believe the same issue is happening here - most of you probably prefer that there would be a better more empiric method or a method that makes more sense to pick the items on the list rather than the process I suggested which heavily relying on the perception of people, because content that is mostly based on the perception of a group of people can't end up being good enough. I believe that unlike Wikipedia, in Wikivoyage eventually it should be more encouraged to present information that a group of editors have come to an agreement upon that it includes the most notable sites within a certain city/region/country for Wikivoyage to eventually be super useful for the readers. But either way, I must say I appreciate all your feedback regardless, and would have to consult about your points with the few other active Hebvoy users to see how this idea could be further improved. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about your English-language reading comprehension ability, sorry. When you start with a straw man like "a different list where an equal amount of items would be given to various sub categories of items" that no-one is suggesting, I'm very disinclined to read further. Are you really having as much trouble reading the plain text of the responses in this thread as you seem to be, or are you just making a very unfortunate habit of adding totally unwarranted assumptions to the plain meanings of the words we are typing for you? Because if that's the way you're going to keep reading responses to you, everyone is utterly wasting their time and I'm outtahere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
You wrote "I feel like you'd do better having separate lists of parks, amusement parks, zoos, national monuments, mountains and mountain ranges (I see the Appalachians, which literally extend from Georgia into Canada, so that's hardly a place), city squares - and then how about museums, great buildings....How much you want to do is up to you, but I doubt how useful this kind of somewhat random, undifferentiated list is.". ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
What's your point in quoting my words back to me? I know what I wrote! Where do you see "equal amount (sic)" or "equal number"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Ikan, you're being a little too aggressive. Dial it back. "Equal" may not have been the right word for ויקיג'אנקי to use, but it's a relatively minor point; "equal" or "comparable" or "similar" could all go in the sentence and the purpose of the sentence would remain the same.
@ויקיג'אנקי:, I don't think it's that we'd prefer a more objective list; much the opposite in fact. At Wikivoyage we often have to rely on subjective ideas, backed by consensus, to curate our travel guides. The problem with the U.S. list as it stands right now is that it's not even a good starting point. It's too far from a comprehensive list to be useful; we'd be better off just trying to compose a list from scratch. Powers (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry you think I'm being "too aggressive", but in no way had anyone suggested that every category of attraction needs to have anywhere near an equal number of entries, and that's not a "relatively minor point" because it's part of the larger point that ויקיג'אנקי has misunderstood or mischaracterized all the responses in this thread, making it seemingly pointless to continue responding. But have the last word in the thread if you like, and I hope you enjoy your day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind that the 100 best destinations for an English speaker is likely to be different from those for a Hebrew speaker. Museums are often of little interest to me in countries where I am not good at reading in the language. Similarly residents of a country may be more interested in some destinations than other English speakers (e.g. US travellers may be more interested in museums of European art than visitors from Europe). It may be better asking this question on Hebvoy, or in other language WVs. AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

[edit]

MediaWiki has a new logo (see mailing list, MediaWiki.org and T268230). Can someone please update Template:WikivoyageSister to use File:MediaWiki-2020-icon.svg instead of File:MediaWiki-logo.svg. Thanks --Nintendofan885 (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We should perhaps not rush it. The linked MediaWiki website still has the sunflower. –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It displays the new logo for me --Nintendofan885 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I see the new logo. Ground Zero (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I see the new logo too. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Same here. I have gone ahead and changed it in {{WikivoyageSister}}. -- Wauteurz (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems they haven't lessened caching times in anticipation of the change. I still get the sunflower at their main page. –LPfi (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon at the lower right corner of every page also has to be changed. Why did they change their logo, anyway? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The "MediaWiki.org" (project page) link above explains the reasoning. The old logo is a bitmap image (in contrast to vector graphics), with "too realistic" fine details, making it hard to adopt to smaller sizes and special applications. There may also be some "not following modern trends" reasons, but if so, they are not spelled out explicitly. –LPfi (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It happened for the same reason that everything else happened: A volunteer wanted it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Basically, the old MW logo looks outdated and unscalable in 2020s (SVG version exists but it is ugly IMO).--Vulphere 10:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Global rights[edit]

Does Wikivoyage have, or want, any kind of global rights policy (which of the other English projects, Wikipedia, Simple (which for some reason I can't link), Wikibooks, and Wikinews have)? I'm curious in particular about global rollback, considering that hasn't (AFAICT) been unbundled on this project. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why I'd want such rights. Maybe some other bureaucrat or admin might. Anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
To make it clear, this would be a policy as to what people with global rights already (e.g. grollbackers, stewards, etc) are and aren't allowed to use on Wikivoyage, such as whether global rollbackers are allowed to use rollback here (they're restricted on some projects). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Are you sure stewards don't have the right to roll back a series of edits here? We've had some excellent help from stewards who've gotten rid of vandalism and blocked vandals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I suppose it would be an opt-out policy, as small projects need the global people handling things until they decide they can stand on their own. I have seen few problematic actions from global rights users, so I don't think we need a policy – which would need maintenance when the systems change. I suppose the defaults are good enough, and otherwise we can return to the subject when we notice problems. –LPfi (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm grateful for the help stewards have given us. It's been very important at times when there weren't admins around to take care of things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that we want any sort of restrictive policy. The only policy that I can imagine us wanting would say "Help wanted" and "Thank you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet (and others): An interlanguage link has three parts, and sometimes you need all three. The parts are project, language, and page. If you don't include the project, it assumes that you mean the same project that you're already at (Wikivoyage). If you don't include the language, it assumes that you mean your language (English, for most of us). If you don't include the page, it takes you to the main page. Therefore:
  • [[w:en:WP:GRP]] means Wikipedia – English – page named "WP:GRP"
  • [[w:simple:Wikipedia:Global rights policy]] means Wikipedia – Simple English – page named "Wikipedia:Global rights policy"
  • [[b:en:WB:GRP]] means Wikibooks – English – page named "WP:GRP"
The language code is always the bit from the URL (e.g., "ja" for Japanese, not "jp" or "Japan" or "Japanese").
If you are at another project, then the project code for Wikivoyage is voy: That means that (elsewhere), you link to [[voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub]] to get to this page.
In case anyone is wondering, it is "legal" to prefix all blue links (except relative links to /subpages, which won't work) with a : (as in [[:w:en:WP:GRP]]). This is usually unnecessary but will prevent you from accidentally making interlanguage links, adding the page you're editing to a category, or adding images to the page you're editing (assuming your link is to a file). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, help wanted and thank you indeed! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultations[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2[edit]

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applications[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translators[edit]

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk)

20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Global bot policy changes[edit]

I'm not sure what our policy on global bots should be. Some like the Community Tech bot that gives the message "A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion" are really useful, but are there any we'd want to block? Has anyone been keeping track of all the global bots? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It'd be easier if the Meta userpages for the global bots described their function, but many don't. (Do we have any local bots here?) I've had experiences with problematic bots on other projects; I can't think of any prior experiences with global bots, problematic or otherwise. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
There are local bots here, but I'm not sure which ones been run lately, other than the graffiti wall reversion bot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't remember any problems over here, so I suppose there haven't been any major ones. Watching the bot discussions would do no harm, although I trust the global bot users to be sensible and considerate. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with LPfi. If anyone notices any issues or has any concerns about a global bot, they can always start a discussion here at the pub. Off the top of my head I can't think of any problems I've noticed related to global bots, here or on the other wikis I frequent, so it seems to me the folks at Meta make sensible decisions about whether to approve them. When I notice global bots at work, they usually seem to be doing uncontroversial crosswiki maintenance (for example, keeping interwiki links and image filenames up to date). In an emergency, a malfunctioning or problematic bot can be blocked by any admin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that there haven't been problems so far. It's just that the word "changes" focused my mind a little. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense. Rereading my comment, I might have come across too strong. No harm in raising the question. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think you came across too strong at all, no worries! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Once the interlanguage links moved to Wikidata, the global bot policy became less than useful, to the point that some editors have run bots without authorization or disclosure, because (a) the work really needed to be done, and (b) it didn't involve repairing Special:DoubleRedirects, which was the only remaining approved task according to the global bot policy. As an example, the WMF's Parsing team identified some wikitext errors few years ago (remember Special:LintErrors?), and much of that could be fixed by bot. Some smaller wikis didn't have enough volunteers to do it, and the global bot policy didn't approve it. Everyone wanted the errors fixed, so some bot ops did it "unofficially". There were no complaints.
I agree with LPfi: I trust the global bot folks to be sensible. Also, if they do accidentally screw up, any admin can block the bot locally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I'm curious - is User:CommonsDelinker considered a global bot? If the only remaining approved task was double redirects, how has it been allowed to operate? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Would I count it that way? Yes. The policy has been so broken in practice that nobody's been enforcing the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Global filters[edit]

Please see my talk page for a brief bit of context

User:Billinghurst has suggested that Wikivoyage should have one or two m:Abuse filter helpers who could keep an eye on the global abuse filters (particularly the ones marked as private) as they pertain to Wikivoyage. Would any sysop / bureaucrat who is confident using our internal abuse filters like to put themselves forward for this? As I understand it, it's just a monitoring role, making sure that global filters are not having detrimental effect locally.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a quality control role and some eyes out for your community. There are a lot of global hits for all the wikis, so someone with broader vision focusing on your logs is valuable. It can also be seen as a proving ground for those who are good at the role and have a global view. AF are currently going through a rewrite and improvements, and when they go live those eyes will be useful. Billinghurst (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help with this. I'm not an abuse filter expert by any means, but I have modified them now and then and have enough programming experience to be able to understand how they work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to have at least two, if we can. Anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned on TT's talk that this is interesting timing, because I've actually been thinking about whether I could help out with abuse filters on Voy recently (partially because I recently had a run-in with some fast-paced vandalism that could've been better dealt with if either I could rollback or we had more filters). While I'd be happy to help out, I don't have the mop, and that being mentioned here gives me pause. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
With all respect to your edits so far, you'd need a longer track record (specifically on WV) for the mop, but there's no reason that I can see for you not to have rollback rights instated right away if it would help.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, certainly no rush to adminship -- I'm still not sure if I'd even want it. Much thanks for the...smaller mop? :P, though! (Dustpan and broom?) I would wonder if it'd be useful for anyone to apply for local edit filter helper rights on projects that we share some private-filter issues with, too -- I know there are some shared edit filter helpers between enwiki and enwikibooks, for instance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

New Banners Help[edit]

I am not good with image manipulations. I request someone can create banners for Mehsana (Rajmahal palace), Vadnagar (Kirti Torana) and Siddhpur (Bohra Havelis). I have indicated most relevant places in brackets for each of the city. The See section have them listed. Regards,-Nizil Shah (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made and uploaded three banners from pictures on Commons. I couldn't always find the exact ones you wanted, but I did get them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't edit pages with the VisualEditor anymore[edit]

Why can I no longer edit pages without editing source? It is really annoying because:

A) I can no longer easily edit templates without editing their source
B) The 'lastedit' section of templates doesn't change automatically, so I have to go back and change it manually.

The last time I was able to do this was on the 7th of April. Why won't it let me edit pages with the VisualEditor anymore? 82.3.185.12 11:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I can change it from source to visual editing on my tablet. I will see if I can do that on my laptop (where I do most of my edits) when I go back on it later. 82.3.185.12 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Had a similar problem earlier today except that my computer would freeze every time I’d try and click a wiki voyage link. No problems on en wikipedia (even twinkle and redwarn were loading. Something wrong with wikivoyage today SHB2000 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@82.3.185.12, SHB2000: What browsers are you using? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Was using Chrome now I’m using safari on mobile SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, Mx. Granger, ThunderingTyphoons!: Never mind, I figured it out. It is because I cleared my history and cookies a few days ago, and it forgot I preferred visual editing over source editing. 82.3.185.12 12:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, Mx. Granger, ThunderingTyphoons!: Yes, I'm on my laptop now and it is letting me make visual edits. 82.3.185.12 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It's still a problem for me, although I prefer source editing except when it comes to tables (which I'm okay with). SHB2000 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Logged-in editors might want to check Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, specifically the "Editing mode" option. That lets you define your favorite starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I just realised that I only noticed on talk pages and this pub, which don't need the visual editor and don't have the visual version. SHB2000 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
If you'd like a visual experience on talk pages, you might look at "Discussion tools" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. I like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Last Edit Date[edit]

Why did the 'Last Edit Date' section inside templates change? It used to say "subst:#time:Y-m-d", but now it just has the date. Why do I have to change it every time now? 82.3.185.12 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For me it still seems to say {{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}.
Have you tried using the listing editor instead of the visual editor for modifying listings? You can get to the listing editor by clicking the grey "edit" button at the end of the listing. I find it easier to use than the visual editor, and it gives you a box to check for whether or not to mark the listing as up-to-date. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger, 82.3.185.12: On the most recent tech updates section (see on my talk page) it says it could be confused with Y-Y then Y-M. SHB2000 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That note is about the mw:citoid service, which makes Wikipedia-style little blue clicky numbers (like this: [1]). That change shouldn't affect anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: It does for me, but whenever I update a template, it replaces subst:#time:Y-m-d with 2021-04-11 or whatever the date is. 82.3.185.12 16:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I see. It seems that in the visual editor, the lastedit date is only updated automatically for logged-in users, not for users editing anonymously. I can see three solutions:
a) accept that if you want to mark the listing as up to date, you'll need to do so manually,
b) use the listing editor instead of the visual editor, or
c) create an account instead of editing anonymously.
Granger (talk · contribs) 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: It used to do it automatically for me, it’s just doesn’t now. I’ll probably do option A or B, depending on how I feel. Thanks for your help. 82.3.185.12 20:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: unfortunately 82.3.185.12 can't as whenever he does that, it triggers the filter "block evasion" SHB2000 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000, Mx. Granger: no it doesn’t, it triggered that filter because I typed the name of a blocked user on my talk page. 82.3.185.12 07:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh I see. That's ArticCynda right? SHB2000 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: Yes. You left a message on my talk page saying you were checking all IP addresses to check if they were him. I tried to type his name in my reply to you, and that’s what triggered the filter. 82.3.185.12 07:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm sometimes very sloppy at times and have goldfish memory other times. SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. 82.3.185.12 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Option B seems to be working fine for me. Thank you for all your help. 82.3.185.12 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

GFDL-only local uploads[edit]

I'm curious about if we should have a local upload policy for files uploaded under the GNU Free Documentation License alone. It's a copyleft license and many images across projects are uploaded with it, but Commons has phased out GFDL and no longer permits the uploading of new files licensed under it (old ones are grandfathered). I've been making banners lately, and I've made a pretty good one for Sale (Victoria), but noticed after creating that the Commons file it was derived from was GFDL-licensed -- meaning I can't upload it there. Most of the projects I know of with local uploads permit GFDL uploads and treat them as other free images are treated, so I'd support us having that policy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support – Considering that we don't have to go cross-wiki to do this, I'd support it. SHB2000 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about and expanding on this proposal, I think a significant objection people might raise would be using this as a loophole to preferentially upload free files to Wikivoyage rather than Commons by granting them a free license Commons doesn't use. Personally I don't think "preferring local uploads" is a huge issue -- people have reasons for what they do -- and GFDL files can be used cross-wiki by uploading them to other projects that accept them. However, it is something there are reasons to oppose, and Wikivoyage generally has a culture of only having local uploads when absolutely necessary.
I'd be inclined to say there's no reason to put a hard limit on "if something isn't in this category you must upload it to Commons" rather than "we prefer anything that doesn't have to be GFDL go to Commons", but similarly I have absolutely no qualms with a hard rule as to when and where we could make local GFDL uploads. I'm happy to have a position that says we can have GFDL uploads that are either Wikivoyage-related derivative works of a pre-existing GFDL file (so the Sale banner, for instance) or cross-project imports of GFDL files relevant to Wikivoyage (as an example, there's a couple hundred or so GFDL files on the English Wikipedia of towns and locales around the Western United States that would be pretty excellent to have here and that I plan to import several of if we decide to implement GFDL local uploads) if people want those restrictions/clarifications.
Also, more broadly, I've been thinking about our local image licensing templates -- which are currently rarely used, but will be moreso should this get consensus. Right now, they all have very small text (80% of normal size). This strikes me as an accessibility issue, as they're tough to read even with normal vision and could be unreadable with poor vision. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
By my reading of commons:Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License, you can upload the banner on Commons, as the photo was (I presume) licensed before 2018. If that's correct, I think there is no need for a special local upload policy for GFDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that permits new derivative works of pre-2018 uploads, and it definitely doesn't permit transferring other local files that I'd want to use on Wikivoyage licensed after that time. Having poked around a bit, it seems we have a couple GFDL local uploads already, so it might be worth formalizing. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello! GFDL is not a very good license for photos, video and audio. That is why WMF decided that wiki projects should not use GFDL as the only license. They did not forbid it completely but left it for the wikis to decide.
commons:Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License mention "licensed on or after 15 October 2018" so if a file is uploaded to Commons or any other wiki and licensed GFDL before that date then it is still possible to upload a crop of the file to Commons. It is also possible to move a file from xx.wiki to Commons if the file was uploaded before that date.
So I do not think there is any reason to allow local uploads of files licensed GFDL. --MGA73 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I just stumbled across this page, which is worth reading too: Wikivoyage:Why Wikivoyage isn't GFDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Line numbering coming soon to all wikis[edit]

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally! SHB2000 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000, please tell me more. I would have expected editors to either not notice (because we're not using CodeMirror) or to be irritated (because the line number clutter up the interface). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
It ain't live yet. I'll decide then whether to be irritated or not.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
When I did my first edit 12 mo. ago, I was surprised that it didn't have one, considering C, python, BF and javascript, all do SHB2000 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
No, they don't. It's just your editor adding them. The only programming language with line numbers that I know is BASIC. But the reasons your editor adds them might be good reasons for the wiki editor to add them too. –LPfi (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's the 15th, where's the line numbering??? SHB2000 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Line Numbering#Status and roadmap says, "only for the template namespace" "Deployment on more namespaces is planned for the near future" Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see this thread[edit]

Your presence and participation is requested in this linked thread, especially if you're an admin, long-term user or user with many edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this user sometimes will send you private attack emails, there's no way of knowing unless someone steps up or he is community banned. (with an edit filter blocking his IP range). SHB2000 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Large city transport as distinct articles....?[edit]

I note this article:

Using_Sydney's_public_transport

I previously wrote a fairly extensive distinct article on London's Tube network, before being advised to merge it back into London.

I thought transport stuff went in the Get Around section of the city/region article as opposed to it's own article?

Is it time to revisit this guideline? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Bay Area Public Transit Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not something we want to encourage, but once a Get Around section reaches a certain length threshold, it might make sense to break it off like this, leaving a brief summary in the destination article. We should determine if doing this is desirable and come up with a consensus on what the threshold would be. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In most places where public transport sections grow large enough to warrant an article of its own, public transport is essential for visiting the place, so the net result is that travellers have to read two articles instead of one, with some duplication and risk of updates in only one of the two places. I suppose that was the reason to merge back the London subarticle. This is different from a travel topic such as, say, Roman heritage in Rome: while most people will visit some of the relevant attractions, not all visitors to Rome are interested in the in-depth descriptions. –LPfi (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
For large cities, we have already decided that we don't want to have all of the information in one article. It is easier for readers if we organize the information in several articles so they can find the information in articles that are relevant to them. We break large cities into districts, and put airport information into separate articles, with the key points summarized in the main article. Allowing separate public transport articles with the key points summarized in the main article is a logical extension of this approach.
In some large city articles, we make the reader scroll through screen after screen of detailed information on how to get around before they get to the See and Do listings, which are what help the reader decide if they want to go. Not everyone takes public transit, even in London, Paris and New York. Many visitors use taxis and ride-hailing services exclusively. Ground Zero (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Sydney is already too long and my new article is meant to cover connecting areas, and basically have the key points but a lot longer and would eventually be in depth enough for the reader to not search it up. Additionally, the lack of a map with bus, train, ferry, light rail and coach makes it harder for the traveller. SHB2000 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
P.s I don't think having 4 large chunky tables is ideal in Sydney —The preceding comment was added by SHB2000 (talkcontribs)
Those tables are the kind of thing we tend not to use on Wikivoyage. They can be hard to keep up to date – I typically link to the official schedule or map instead. Information about how to get to specific attractions should be mentioned in the relevant listings. If we remove the tables and edit for conciseness, most of the rest of the information in the article would fit fine in Sydney#Get around, I think. But if others feel this is useful as a separate article, I don't feel strongly about it.
A map or two would definitely be a good idea and can be included in Sydney#Get around. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are two problems with that:

1. There is no map with all the up to date info

2. It's hard to find a large map that has both ferry and something else.

I'll be sure to update it regularly as I'm a person who frequently takes Public Transport, additionally, I'm well aware of the new services in the upcoming 4 years. SHB2000 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user[edit]

Contributions by User:Air fans appear in Recent Changes with a ! even though they are an autoconfirmed user. Air fans is a reliable contributor whose contributions do not need to be patrolled. Does anyone know how to fix this? Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is the difference between auroconfirmed users and autopatrollers. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand the difference, but I guess I can fix the problem by making them an autopatroller. Ground Zero (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users vs. Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I made Air fans an autopatroller earlier this afternoon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Ground Zero (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Restaurants in hotels[edit]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I recall a guideline stating that if a hotel with a Sleep listing has a restaurant, the restaurant does not get its own separate Eat listing. I cannot find this guideline, so I might be wrong. I would appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the rule. The exception is if the restaurant is well-known in its own right, such as if over half the customers typically are not hotel guests. See the first entry at Wikivoyage:Don't tout#Identifying touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. So, I guess it's okay if I revert this reversion? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
How well-known is that restaurant and are most of the customers generally not hotel patrons? Also, that's not a full listing but a pointer. "Gets great reviews" without specifying a professional reviewer or reviewing organization, however, is touting and should be removed no matter what. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I know nothing about the place. I'm fixing London listings that lack coordinates. I'll remove this one. Thanks for your help. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
A word of caution: User:ThunderingTyphoons! may know something about the place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I've often summarized opinions from a range of user-review sites as "gets good reviews" or the like. Is that unacceptable now? Powers (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:Words to avoid: "approved by TripAdvisor, Or Yelp. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. Or any other random website which relies on user-supplied content instead of sending its staff out to inspect restaurants and hotels under established criteria." If you can't specify which random website something "gets good reviews" on, how is it OK to be even vaguer about it? If we're going to allow such language, we should change our policies and allow the mention of reviews on all those sites and others, but I don't think I'd support such a change in style and guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that if I were looking at a listing, that it would be more helpful to me to read "Good service" or "Good food" or "Good location" than "Good reviews". So maybe, if possible, mention a theme that appears in those good reviews? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Nricardo: Either ask User:ThunderingTyphoons! or User:82.3.185.12 (our most active and reliable IP user) SHB2000 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nricardo, SHB2000: I believe you mean this policy. 82.3.185.12 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I pinged you because you know better about london regarding Nelson's comment at 0014h. SHB2000 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: I see. In that case, I agree with Ikan Kekek. 82.3.185.12 13:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing that it's OK to mention that customers have mentioned x, y or z about a restaurant or bar. That's substantive and different from according unwarranted deference to ratings on sites like Yelp that are by non-experts and have been manipulated for profit in the past. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but how do we get that information without going to places like Yelp or TripAdvisor? (Also, an aside: is comment threading not allowed anymore?) Powers (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers, local wikis and blogs, you or people you know, food discussion boards, etc., etc. If we're relying completely on Yelp and Tripadvisor, we should end our policy on not linking to them and substitute links to their sections for each destination for our content. I don't understand your question about comment threading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
By 'comment threading', I meant using indentation to indicate which previous comment a new comment is in reply to. There is such a preference here for continuous indentation that I had a previous comment reindented. As for reviews, I don't know why local wikis and blogs or "food discussion boards" (?) are better sources for general sentiment than Yelp or TripAdvisor. Powers (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Should we resume this discussion at Wikivoyage talk:External links? Yelp and Tripadvisor are there to make a buck, and Yelp in particular is known to have put its thumbs on ratings. But my larger point is if all our content is really from other sites, what's the darn point of this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I will tell you that the great majority of the restaurants and bars I have added listings for are establishments I have personally patronized and therefore am confident I can describe fairly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That is the ideal way, but we don't have enough editors to cover the world through own experiences, and I've understood it is acceptable to do armchair research. Even when using TripAdvisor & co, one can make an own assessment on what to believe (and combine impressions from several sites). Reviews that don't tell what was good and pure stars are little worth, but many people praising the food in their own words are an indication of something (I would tone down the praise, but might mention a point or two that seemed agreed on). Independent forums may be better, but not all off the beaten path eateries are discussed in gourmet fora. (About moving the discussion: let's do that afterwards.) –LPfi (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Angler (the original London restaurant in question) has one Michelin star, so is most definitely worthy of its own listing under 'Eat'. I agree the wording that "it gets great reviews" was ambiguous and should be changed, but it's clear that whoever wrote it meant "great reviews (from food critics and other influential people in the dining industry)" not simply a good Tripadvisor score. So unless there are other objections, I'll restore the listing with the needed improvements.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I fairly often use a variety of travel websites for armchair research. I don't use the stars/rating numbers. I tend to use them to look for very specific things: Is it noisy? Do they take credit cards? Is there a public restroom? Is this a good place for kids? Is parking a problem? If a particular detail gets mentioned frequently (e.g., a popular dish at a restaurant), then I might mention that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
A restaurant that has a Michelin star has been given an imprimatur by the most famous professional restaurant-rating organization in the world. Its Michelin star should be mentioned, not the vague phrase "it gets great reviews". And it absolutely should have a listing. No way should a Michelin-starred restaurant be subsumed into a "Sleep" listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a break[edit]

Just dropping a note to say that I'm alive and well :-) but will be taking a break from WV for a while. I've been idly wasting my time here re-reading and nitpicking the same few dozen pages without contributing much new content. It's become a bad habit, much like endlessly scrolling social media sites, and I need to take some time off from that. Plus, I started a new job a few weeks ago, so I don't have as much free time as I used to, not to mention I can't edit any Wikimedia sites from my company network. I'll check back in occasionally, but I won't be a regular fixture for a while.

I've enjoyed being a part of this small community, and I hope to come back someday when I can set better limits for myself and am motivated to rediscover the joy of travel and travel-related research.

Until then, bons voyages,

--Bigpeteb (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Take care, also note to other users that I'll be away next week (25 April/Anzac Day til 1 May) as I'll be away SHB2000 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
All the best, Bigpeteb, and thanks for everything. I dare say the Atlanta Airport star nomination will still be under review when you return ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
With probably a third star nomination up there (Stratford (Victoria)) SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion[edit]

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikivoyage users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikivoyage. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Xeno. This is a small wiki, and that probably makes it harder for harassers to hide among a crowd, as it's still pretty possible for users to patrol all recent changes every day (at most, some will patrol some edits and others will patrol others, but the number of new edits isn't crushing). We don't tolerate harassment. People who threaten violence or lawsuits against other Wikivoyagers are blocked indefinitely (or if IP addresses, for a month or more, as IP addresses are not blocked permanently). People who are not acting threatening but are for example making life miserable for valuable content-providers by edit warring and writing nasty edit summaries are engaged in discussion and blocked when necessary, as we want to support users who are making good edits. Most of the harassment on this site is from vandals and trolls, most of them cross-wiki, and that's a problem that WMF should continue to work hard on because it really makes things less fun around here. Of course there are also misunderstandings and people who think any reversions or further edits to their work constitute harassment per se. If you engage in any moderation, you know that kind of thing goes with the territory, and we try to smooth over hard feelings, but there are limitations to the faceless communications we engage in here and if push comes to shove on matters of site policy, guidelines and basic style, the existing consensus and procedures by which a new consensus might be formed generally have to be enforced against edit warriors and people who make huge unilateral changes to site organization and the like, because as some of us are old enough to remember, most Usenet newsgroups proved the theory that if anyone can post any kind of thing they want any time with no moderation, a venue ends up as a cesspool of spam, flaming, trolling and vandalism.
Is this the kind of answer you were looking for? Any other questions we could address? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is quite useful! I'm glad to hear of the positive interactions on this project. From the perspective of a smaller wiki, what more could be done to help make dealing with cross-wiki abuse easier to address when it lands here? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a technical matter better not discussed openly. And don't get me wrong, there are certainly conflicts here, and there are times when people have frayed nerves or otherwise misunderstand people's intentions, and as we're all human, it shouldn't be surprising that many people who have lots of interactions with other users have probably been guilty of misjudgment, overreaction, a bit of intemperance or unintentional offense, yours truly certainly not excepted, but we try to advise each other when we think things may have gone overboard, etc.
Part of the history of this site is that we used to let edit warriors run rampant for years, and that chased away several very valuable members including long-time admins. We therefore thrashed out a policy of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks to deal with problem users who unilaterally buck consensus to edit war or otherwise hassle people in a way that makes the site unpleasant. I think most of us long-timers consider such policies part of the growing pains of the site. When then-Wikitravel was a tiny backwater, it could afford to have an indulgent policy toward vandals and disruptive gadflies. Wikivoyage still welcomes original thinking when not introduced through edit warring and insulting remarks, though we could probably be better in that regard (there is somewhat of a status quo bias on all wikis, I suppose, by the nature of consensus, and there is somewhat of one here), but we learned the hard way that discussion is great but that users have to be willing to tolerate consensuses that are contrary to our preferences and pick their spots for when to start or resume arguments for changes in site organization, guidelines or style, which should be or at least eventually go on the appropriate pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Another way of looking at his question (he's w:en:User:Xeno in his real-wiki life, by the way):
What could we do to make some of the struggling wikis be more like this one? We have wikis that try to exclude editors because they live in the "wrong" location or have the "wrong" religious affiliation or the "wrong" political view. We men who get called "girls" as part of a campaign to drive them away. We have women who get rape threats because they dared to disagree. Some of these communities are a mess. What advice could we give them, to help them through their problems and their growing pains? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Which wikis are trying to exclude people and being abusive toward them on those bases? That's shocking! My immediate reaction is that I wouldn't give advice to such wikis but would instead recommend for them to get an ultimatum from the WMF that they have x-amount of time to shape up, and otherwise, they'll be taken over from outside and those engaging in such abuses will be banned - or if that's too much work for stewards, expel such wikis from the Wikimedia Movement, as the WMF shouldn't associate itself with that kind of behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Appalling behaviour. These communities should be ashamed of themselves and definitely get expelled from the WMF movement. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Add auto archiving to the pub?[edit]

May we please add auto archiving to the pub. Probably once a discussion is inactive for 45-60 days? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also got the code for it. Edit the page to see it. {{[[Template:Auto archiving |Auto archiving ]]}}

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd oppose automatic archiving. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)