Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeing just latest changes on watchlist[edit]

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

@LPfi: I also use Monobook and have "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" checked at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. Are you sure that you saved it as such? I am seeing all changes. 22:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I have had it marked for ages and haven't touched it recently. I also twice checked it was checked. I now un- and rechecked it. The problem persists. I did something to disable some new features some time ago, might there be some coupling? At sv-wp the watchlist works as expected. --LPfi (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The watchlist seems to work fine on other computers. I will get back if I find something. --LPfi (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Travel topics broken on mobile[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I created an expedition (in userspace)[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

@ShakespeareFan00: Tell me if this fixed it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Well it fixed some of the problems I'd been seeing. It's not a complete answer, as I am seeing some different issues now. I noted a few other concerns on your talk page, or in edit summaries when i found temporary soloutions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Diving in the United Kingdom showing up on LintErrors, No immediate concern found.[edit]

So what broke?

This is generating an unbalanced span somehow inside a template called {{divesitelisting}}?

Can someone good with templates figure out WHY it's unbalanced and add the appropriate tag in the correct location please? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Some of the divesitelisting have bullet points in them, that could be it.
On a general point, is there a page on Wikivoyage explaining why there is this Lint Error activity, what tools there are to identify them, what needs to be done etc. Edits appear to be affecting a lot of pages, would be useful to explain to people. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be helpful. Most of the remaining LintErrors in mainspace though seem to be directly connected with the listing template. As I've said elsewhere this should be re-written in Lua, and the design limitations owing to the use of bdi tags reconsidered. (For those technically minded see also and vs This would seem to suggest that putting multiple paragraphs inside BDI tags shouldn't work, and only does so because of a quirk in how media-wiki tidies up the HTML generated. Ideally the template should be re-written so that the generated HTML is properly structured.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Something like Wikivoyage:LintErrors Expedition. Would appreciate input on this as I have only just started looking at the topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
That's an excellent start, The stripped tags error, seems to be where the parser is encountering a unpaired closing tag, which typically means something is mismatched elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Postal Area Codes (Postleitzahlen) in Germany[edit]

this is one of several edits where postal area codes (Postleitzahlen) have been removed from an article about Germany as supposedly redundant. I know that this is in line with current policy, but I disagree with policy on that. First of all, an address is only fully clear and unambiguous with the area code. Just google "Goethestraße 20, Berlin" to see what I mean. Second of all, the PLZ will give locals an idea where it is and it will also help if you want to look up the place in google maps or OSM or an old style paper map. Lastly, people are also often immensely proud of their local area code as they often reflect suburbs that have since been annexed or divide a traditionally "red" borough from one where bourgeois Catholicism was strong, one soccer team from another or the "haves" from the "have nots". Perhaps the most iconic example of (former) area codes defining neighborhoods are the two parts of Berlin - Kreuzberg "SO 36" and "SW 61" with the former full of notorious anti-establishment types and surrounded by the wall on three sides and the latter, well, not. So in short we should allow German postal codes and to make this whole thing easier, we should simply add an extra field to listings for the area code to be added. If there is any serious objection that this information is supposed clutter, we can make display of said information and opt-in feature for registered users. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does this apply only to Berlin, or more generally to the country as a whole? If the latter, I have no problem modifying policy to add Germany to our exception(s) - this club of one with the UK as the sole member state is awfully lonely.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well even a city as seemingly small as Erlangen (~100 000 inhabitants) has several PLZs contained in it; I am not sure how many street addresses need the PLZ as disambiguation there, but if - for example - you send a letter to "Neustadt" (without PLZ) it has a lower chance of getting there than if you send it to [five digit code] without the name of the town, as the latter is much more precise and unique. Side note here, before reunification, there were four digit postal codes and the GDR played a practical joke on the West by giving Weimar the exact same postal code as Bonn - the "old" BRD is often known as the "Bonn Republic" while the failed 1919 constitution was debated passed and signed in Weimar, so yes, the GDR tried to make a political statement out of postal codes. At any rate, postal codes give people a rough indication as to which part of town something is in. They are not "accurate to within a few houses" like in the UK (5 digits can never be) but they can sometimes tell you "wrong side of the tracks". Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The Federal Republic had the last laugh of course.The only remotely political postcoding I'm aware of here is Buckingham Palace getting assigned SW1A 1AA. The royal cult of personality is all consuming!
I'm thinking that postal usage is less important on Wikivoyage (otherwise why wouldn't we always including the code as standard?), but the PLZ would be helpful for navigating to the right neighbourhood, especially if the same street names come up a lot in different cities and even between districts of the same city. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
We talked about this a while back, and I thought that the conclusion was that the policy needed to be changed to be generally more permissive about postal codes, more or less on a "whenever it's useful to the traveler" basis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I've generally been opposed to including postal codes, but now that it seems more people are using them for sat nav, they are useful for travellers. I agree that it is time to loosen the policy, e.g., to allow them to be included "in countries where the postal codes is specific enough to enable its use in navigation apps", or something to that effect. Ground Zero (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Well in Nicaragua for instance, the postal code is probably of more use in Managua than elsewhere. By the way, the first digit of the postal code isn't too bad a scheme for subdividing the country if the current scheme ever disagrees with us. And it produces 9 regions, easily reducable to 8 by merging RAAN and RAAS. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
And I would say there is no reason why we couldn't use postcodes in some cities of a country, and not others, depending on where they're useful (i.e. if they're useful in Managua, but not other parts of the country). The postcodes in Paris are reasonably useful, as they indicate the arrondissement, but elsewhere in the country most municipalities only have one or a few postcodes, assigned haphazardly. Well, all postcodes in France indicate the department, but most people outside of France don't know the department numbers by heart, so there's little use there as far as the average traveller is concerned! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

London tips[edit]

I'm posting this here rather than Talk:London to get more eyes on it and to also encourage others to see if they can find tips-and-tricks posts like this for other articles. Additionally, I don't know anything about London, so I'm not sure how legit these hacks are. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Calling these "hacks" is a stretch, as many are well-known attractions (perhaps not by tourists). We already list a lot of them, but maybe not all. They're worth looking at anyway, to check we haven't missed anything. Not sure whether you saw, Justin, but that article belongs to a whole section called "Hack your city", and has similar articles on Denver, Philly, Toronto, Houston... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I did, yes. But I'm ignorant about those cities as well, so I'm not sure the extent to which I want to blindly port them into our travel guide. I think it's a very useful resource in principle. Thanks, TT. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely worth looking over. I'm looking through the London one, and if there's anything that seems legit and we haven't already got, I'll add it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So many good London tips here.Hill is fantastic for celebrity spotting too! Also, since Tube Strikes have been on the rise, it's good for visitors to check these possiblities too. The London Pass is a great suggestion. Bitgid

Where is it exactly - challenge of the day[edit]

It's at co-ords 7.07, 0.60, immediately adjacent to the border with Togo. The only access from within Ghana is by walking track. There is road access – the only road access – from Togo, which causes some small political problems. Nurg (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks to be at about 20.467, 100.773, based on TripAdvisor. It's also labeled 'Gibbon Experience' on the Mapnik layer of GeoMap (visible if you zoom in to level 12+). –StellarD (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Thulo Sailung apparently means 'Mt. Sailung', and the surrounding hilly region is also referred to as Sailung, or Sailungeshwor. Sailung Peak is shown on the Mapnik layer of GeoMap at 27.5614, 85.9744, and there's a village temple of Shree Sailungeschwor at 27.57519, 86.00453. I went ahead and added the peak's coordinates as a geotemplate – not sure if the village would be better. –StellarD (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Cross Country Skiing on Walking Trails[edit]

I've tried cross country skiing a few times and am curious to find any feedback to what I can do or even if possible to try cross country skiing on available walking trails just outside my door in our small town, compact snow. What type of ski I could try for this. Thanks for any suggestions.

That is a question for Wikivoyage:Tourist office. /Yvwv (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata request for comment on the ideal data import proccess[edit]

Community Noun project 26481.svg

Dear all

We are currently running a discussion on Wikidata about what the ideal data import process looks like. We want to get the thoughts of people who work on different Wikimedia projects who have different needs and knowledge of different kinds of data to make it our roadmap as inclusive as possible, please take a look.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Sweeping the pub[edit]

I've spent a bunch of time clearing out old discussions from the pub today, following the exhortation at the top of this page:

"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...."

I've done my best to move discussions to relevant pages, and failing that, to user talk pages or to the pub archive.

If you think there is a better place for something I've moved, please move it there. I won't be offended. If you'd rather complain about me moving something, please do so at the Pub Sweeping Customer Service Office in person.

You can avoid having your discussions moved somewhere you don't like by starting them on the correct page in the first place. You can add a note here in the pub to direct people to that discussion, which can be removed by a sweeper after a month, and that way we keep the pub tidy. Thank you, and a happy Christmas to those who celebrate it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon "5 years Wikivoyage"[edit]

See here for the preceding discussion, @ויקיג'אנקי, Hobbitschuster, ThunderingTyphoons!, AndreCarrotflower, DaGizza

We propose an edit-a-thon dedicated to the 5th anniversary of the Wikivoyage launch at the WMF servers that took place on January 15, 2013. At Russian Wikivoyage it will be combined with the celebration of our 5000th article that we expect in early January. In a nutshell, we plan to request central banner on relevant language versions of Wikipedia, and offer small presents to everyone who makes useful edits to Wikivoyage articles during the period of January 16 - February 15, 2018.

We prepared several pages:

  • Landing page that explains the basics of adding new objects and editing the existing ones; how to use Listing Editor and what to write in the description field
  • Getting started, where we explain how to use Wikivoyage (dynamic maps, images, GPX files, offline usage) and what is special about our project; how we are different from other travel guides
  • Rules of the edit-a-thon. The participants will score 1 point for each object added to an article, provided that they add practical information and write a meaningful description based on their first-hand knowledge. Copying information from the web is strongly discouraged.
Every participant who scored more than 10 points, will receive postcards (this is equivalent to the prizes given for the Asian Month in Wikipedia). Those participants who will write at least 2 articles with the usable or guide status will receive printed travel guide for the region of their choice.

These are the rules at Russian Wikivoyage. You should feel free to modify them in your own way, but please, stick to several general guidelines:

  • Prepare the landing page that will include brief instructions on which articles to edit, how to edit them, as well as links to relevant policies and guidelines in your language
  • Provide the text of the central notice in your language
  • Name one person who will be responsible for the communication
  • If you plan to give presents, draft formal rules and find the presents. Our presents are partly funded by Wikimedia Russia and partly by ourselves. Talking to your regional chapter or even writing a rapid grant application may be a good idea. The prizes are not compulsory, but they are likely to increase the number of participants and motivate them to work harder.

Deadline: January 4, 2018. After this date I will initiate the Central Notice request on meta. Without the landing page and other relevant information, I won't be able to include your language into the request, and you won't have the central banner. Should you have question, please, ask them here or on my talk page. Happy New Year, and all the best in 2018! --Alexander (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant to say this earlier: A CentralNotice about the "birthday" should be feasible. I suggest pinging Seddon when you post it, because the timeline will be tight.
(Prizes, even if "just" postcards that require people's real-world names and mailing addresses, add significantly to the complexity.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I will ping several Central Notice admins when we are ready.
Regarding the prizes, they are not compulsory (as I already said), and they are not difficult either. We give prizes for Wiki Loves Earth / Monuments on a regular basis. The prizes do show that the whole thing is serious. However, one can forget the prizes for now and focus on a much simpler task: find one person in each language who will be able to write the text of the central notice, prepare the landing page, and hold responsibility for the communication. --Alexander (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, some finicky and largely unreasonable editor appeared in the discussion on Meta. What would you recommend to do in this case? --Alexander (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that any single editor gets "veto rights". If it meets the usual guidelines, and you follow the usual process, then it will probably get approved in due course. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Hebrew Wikivoyage is definitely in! I already sent Alexander the information about Hebvoy's landing page and the text in Hebrew for the central notice on Wikimedia's Hebrew sites (Alexander, please reply there as I don't want to open two different discussions on the matter).
I really hope the most prominent users at the other editions of Wikivoyage would also choose to join. I'll try pingining some of their most prominent users below:
ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikivoyage coleagues. Happy to hear good news from you. I want to inform you that we together with Antanana and with help of Wikimedia Ukraine are organizing contest in Ukrainian Wikivoyage "Support Wikivoyage in Ukrainian" which will take place during February. Unfortunatelly, Ukrainian Wikivoyage is not active enough, so we want to make some steps in promoting it. During this contest we expecting new articles in Ukrainian and also articles about Ukraine in foreign languages (in case it is already exist in Ukrainian version). So, we should think about how to combine with Edit-a-thon "5 years Wikivoyage". And I also invite you to the page of our contest and put some propositions of articles about your countries. Happy New Year holidays to everyone! --Visem (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank ויקיג'אנקי send an about Wikivoyage news, though we Chinese editors are not active and the plan time is too tight, but we will do our best! Take this opportunity to fight! The here is Chinese Wikivoyage first creating project (like the Russian one)--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Yuriy, thanks for joining! Your landing page looks good. Consider translating other pages too, or at least provide links to relevant policies. --Alexander (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: By the way, Are these edit-a-thon awards from WMF provide?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Yuriy, the prizes for the Russian contest are partly sponsored by Wikimedia Russia (it's not the same thing as WMF) and partly by the Russian Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: OK, I understand. so we Chinese Wikivoyage no awards can provide, and take Destination of the month candidates to replace(Cause Chinese editors are not active). Non Russia Wikivoyage maybe can see also Chinese Wikivoyage(Landing page, Getting started, and Rules of the edit-a-thon).--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi! As other users pointed out about their language's wiki our Hindi wikivoyage is also not active (for now). But we will still create landing page and banner text. Please give me English translation.--हिंदुस्थान वासी (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@हिंदुस्थान वासी: Please see the the links below to the translated versions that are currently and stored in my userspace. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding Spanish Wikivoyage, most of Spanish speakers users from the southern hemisphere (several countries in South America) currently are on summer holidays, so there would be not many contributors from there who could active contribute. Also I need a template to write the Spanish version of the Central Notice banner, if you could provide me one. --Zerabat (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat: zh:MediaWiki:Sitenotice is this you want Central Notice banner?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I have translated it to es:Wikiviajes:Editatón_Wikiviajes_2018/Sitenotice waiting for more input from users. --Zerabat (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Zerabat, thank you! The automatic translation tells me that you "invite people to celebrate the 5th anniversary of Wikivoyage". Are you sure readers will understand that you actually invite them to contribute to Wikivoyage? --Alexander (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat: You can see Here, Spanish version was established at 2013-01-07!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course, German Wikivoyage will take part in the 2018 Wikivoyage edit-a-thon. We started to prepare the following pages:
We will extend these pages within the next days. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to prepare English versions of the Russian edit-a-thon pages[edit]

Without any doubt, I think what Alexander and the rest of the Russian Wikivoyage community created is the best source which would be the basis for any Wikivoyage edition that will try to create their own version of this edit-a-thon. As such, I think it would be best if we create English versions of the three Russian marathon pages so that people like Yuriy kosygin and Visem above could easily and quickly translate these pages to their own languages before January 4.

The three pages we need to translate to English (they'll be stored in my user space) are:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @ויקיג'אנקי: I think these are translated well, should be able to create it! However, the image may need to change for english version.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I plan to create the English version of these images later on today. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I think the examples of high quality articles mentioned on the edit-a-thon page will need to change. The examples of Perm and Bled are high quality on Russian Wikivoyage but not necessarily so here (especially compared to other articles we have). Gizza (roam) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The linked Edit-a-thon article appears to be mainly about Edit-a-thons which happen in a physical room, rather than online only editing events. I assume that we are not planning to hire any editing venues, and should make it clear that this is an online only event which you can join in from the comfort of wherever you are. AlasdairW (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed that link. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Shifting the dates to February?[edit]

@RolandUnger, ויקיג'אנקי, Zerabat, Adehertogh, हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी, Lkcl it, Yuriy kosygin

After checking with one of the Central Notice admins, I would propose shifting the edit-a-thon by 2 weeks and running it in February (1.02-28.02.2018). There are several reasons behind that:

  • Ukrainian Wikivoyage has planned its edit-a-thon for February already long time ago. They would not be able to start on January 16.
  • Talking to Central Notice admins is very slow (I posted the request on January 4 and got the response just now), so we may not be done with the Central Notice by January 15.
  • There will be more time to polish everything and perhaps find the prizes ;)

Should you disagree, tell me ASAP. If you agree, please, update your landing pages and post an announcement in Wikipedia in your language. It is not entirely clear to me whether we have to seek an explicit permission of each Wikipedia where Central Notice will be placed (most people don't seem to do that). I would propose that you make a more general announcement, where you advertise the edit-a-thon itself, invite Wikipedia editors to participate, request comments, and mention that central notice will be enabled. Thank you for cooperation! --Alexander (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In Spanish Wikivoyage case, there isn't many active editors, so meanwhile we aren't displaying banners on all [Spanish] Wikimedia projects who could make aware of the event to other Wikimedians, there shouldn't be any problem to change this event to February, and could be more beneficial to the esvoy community since it allows us to get ready, but I'd like to know if other editions would be willing to do the same change. --Zerabat (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Speaking about Italian Wikivoyage I think that the most important thing is to obtain the central notice banner. If to do this it's better to shift the dates then let's shift them! —Lkcl it (Talk) 09:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We Chinese Wikivoyage also supports Shifting the dates to February, Because time is too fast!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I was browsing through the language editions pages of this event and could see that no one other than ruvoy and ukvoy have changed the dates to February 1st to 28th. Was this proposal finally aproved or are we still going to celebrate this from the next week? --Zerabat (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Zerabat, well, you are free to choose the dates, but central notice is planned for February 1-28. Please, don't forget to post a notification on Wikipedia. --Alexander (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Posting an announcement on Wikipedia[edit]

@RolandUnger, ויקיג'אנקי, Zerabat, Adehertogh, हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी|हिंदुस्थान वासी, Lkcl it, Yuriy kosygin

It would be good to post an announcement on Wikipedia in your language and add a link to our request on Meta (some links are already there, but commented out for the time being). This announcement will pursue two goals: first, inform the Wikipedia community about the edit-a-thon; second, fulfill Central Notice guidelines that require a notification of the projects involved.

If you need an example of the announcement, check my recent post at the forum of Russian Wikipedia. I think it is important to put more weight on the edit-a-thon, to avoid nit-picky opinions about the Central Notice itself. It also makes sense to use the wording that implies the Central Notice will be there anyway, and the question is only about its fine-tuning, like banner text and display frequency.

Thank you in advance! --Alexander (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

So we have a provisional approval by the Central Notice admin, but he asks us explicitly to notify individual projects (viz. Wikipedias). --Alexander (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
We Chinese Wikivoyage also submitted a request to Wikipedia.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Spanish Wikipedia done. --Zerabat (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Italian Wikipedia and Commons done. --Lkcl it (Talk) 09:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
French Wikipedia done.--Adehertogh (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hebrew Wikipedia done too. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
English Wikipedia done also (apparently the only one left is the German Wikipedia). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Central Notice design[edit]

Currently, we have two options, one with the cake and one with the logo. Please, make the choice for your language. We may also be asked to use the same banner design in all languages. I would go for the logo then, because posting the cake on top of Wikipedia pages is a bit showy and may not be appreciated by the community. --Alexander (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

  • We Chinese need 2 logo(Traditional Chinese: 維基導遊, Simplified Chinese: 维基导游), and 4 year (Traditional Chinese: 4週年, Simplified Chinese: 4周年), but we Chinese wikivoyage nobody one can make logo....--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yuriy kosygin, since we have time, I can try to create the logos in Chinese (can't promise it, though, because characters are exotic). However, I don't quite understand why you need the different writings. Are there two different Wikipedias for the Traditional and Simplified Chinese? If not, how should one know which banner to use? --Alexander (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
On the Chinese Wikipedia, users can choose which type of characters they prefer to see, and the software automatically converts them. I assume the software would be able to decide which banner to show in the same way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Alexander, Because Chinese have 2 version user, The Simplified Chinese for China, Malaysia and Singapore use it, and the Traditional Chinese for Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong use it. as Granger talk, On the Chinese Wikipedia, users can choose which type of characters they prefer to see, and the software automatically converts them.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I also like the design with two images, copying and paste yours, I have created the Italian version, but I wasn't able to translate the svg file. Can someone help (years->anni)?. Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 09:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lkcl_it: I created what you've asked for: File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-it 5years.svg. --Zerabat (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Yuriy kosygin: I could make both logos for Chinese wikivoyage, but I don't have a lot of CJK typefaces in my computer to choose from. I have a few Heiti, Ming and Song typefaces, but I don't know if those have proper coverage of chinese characters. Also I don't have any Kaiti font. Are you OK if I use WenQuanYi for the text of 4 years? --Zerabat (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zerabat: I think Heiti typefaces is good, and you can use WenQuanYi for the text of 4 years.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: Yes Done: File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-zh-hans 5years.svg and File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-zh-hant 5years.svg. Do you think both look OK? --Zerabat (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zerabat: It's OK! Not bad.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the one with the logo without cake seems real better. Someone could make a logo in french? "Wikivoyage" = "Wikivoyage" and "5 years" = "5 ans". Thanks--Adehertogh (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Adehertogh: Yes Done, File:Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-fr 5years.svg. Please tell me if you need me to make a fix. --Zerabat (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Go next" sections[edit]

The article Nuremberg has a rather long "go next" section listing stuff some 200 km south. Is this too much? How much is too much? Hobbitschuster (talk)

It's a bit longer than usual, but not problematically so. Buffalo#Go next links to Finger Lakes, which are a comparable distance away. I'd say leave well enough alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, IMO it's not long enough to be a problem, and it's well-organized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well if you look at the edit history, a lot of those items were added quite recently. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why does that matter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Because I thought "leaving well enough alone" has a built in status quo bias... And the lengthening is not yet very entrenched. But I may be misreading this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me be unambiguous: There is IMO no problem with that section and no reason to shorten it for the sake of shortening it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps "Go next" in-general could benefit from two non-obligatory sub-section types, e.g., "Day trips" and "Major follow-on suggestions". Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "Further afield" for the second subsection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
"Nearby" and "Further afield" is better still. (See Buffalo#Go next). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
That leaves us with two different and conflicting meanings for the "Nearby" header. It was introduced in November 2012 at Wikivoyage_talk:Small_city_article_template#Buy/Drink/Around_the_region to list nearby villages which don't (and won't) have their own articles but have one or two attractions listed as a subsection of the Nearby section for the closest small city. That leaves "Go Next" for the next place with an actual article.
The usage in the Buffalo articles differs, in that it's using "Nearby" for links to places with actual destination articles ("go next"), not individual rural listings. For something that was first discussed on Wikivoyage five years ago, "Nearby" remains poorly-standardised. If anything, your proposal will leave it in use in two different places in the skeleton to mean two entirely different things.
We have ghost towns like Picher, Oklahoma listed at Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby but, given that the population of Picher has dropped from fifteen thousand people to five people, we're never going to have a full article about these places. K7L (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the sub-sections might be called, let's ensure they fit the mindsets of our readers. Many folks organize land travel by basing themselves in/near a major destination for one or more "day trips" locally; then they move to another major destination. Tour operators are also adopting this. So, let's offer titles for the sub-sections that fit reader travel interests. Regards again, Hennejohn (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Las Vegas missing "add listing" buttons[edit]

Las Vegas seems to be missing the "add listing" buttons that are present in most city articles. Does anyone know why? —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Working for me now. But I have had problems a few times in last day or so trying to use the edit button on listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Look here. I had this problem before. In Las Vegas I changed the heading "Cities" into "Other cities", and the problem disappeared. --FredTC (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I wonder if someone with enough coding knowledge would be able to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor.js so it works in a less hacky way (maybe by checking for Template:outlinecity, Template:usablecity, etc.) to avoid this kind of problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken breadcrumbs(?)[edit]

Guys, what does the "tree" icon at the bottom of the article mean? The breadcrumb path of the article looks okay to me, cleaning the cache doesn't fix it.... (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a new region article but no corresponding category has been created. If you click on the icon it will go into create/edit mode. You should then enter the parent region of the new region in the area marked. No problem leaving for a while, the web pages work, just bots will not find articles and searches will not always be complete. In the case of the ones you are creating I have already done the categories. For example Category:Heves County. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
But please do not rename regions unless really necessary. Lot of work to delete categories, create new one and edit again all cities. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, for both info and the fixes! I just made up my mind shortly after I created those, since rest of WV seems to use "XXX County" rather than "XXX (county)"... Won't happen again hopefully :) (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Has the "sleep test" outlived its usefulness?[edit]

In light of these two diffs, I'm starting to be of the opinion that the "can you sleep there" passage in wiaa does more harm than good. It's simply too ripe for misunderstanding: we've explained and explained and explained to people that it's not intended as a hard-and-fast rule that says a town without a hotel is automatically disqualified from having its own article, but rather as a general guideline to differentiate the types of places that get their own articles (i.e. cities and towns themselves, not individual attractions therein). But this continues (understandably given the fairly ambiguous wording of the policy) to fall on deaf ears no matter how often we repeat ourselves. So I think it's time to come up with a better metaphor with which to illustrate this concept. I'm going to ping Powers here because I know this has frustrated him too in the past. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree there are some cases where no sleep is not a reason to remove the article but the examples you give are not particularly good ones. On Hazettville maybe a little more information should have been moved to the region article but unless someone creates a more detailed list of stores and restaurants for the place then it is not worth having a separate article. On the Westmoreland article the timeline needs to be taken into account. At the time of the original merge there was no useful information in the article. That has now changed, so an article for here is now justified. If wording needs to be changed then it should be to do with the amount of information the article has not how much information it could have. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I really don't agree on merging everything just because there is not yet much information in an article for a town or city that actually has a fair number of sights, activities, hotels, restaurants, etc. However we define it, it has to take into account how much content an article reasonably could have as well as the amount of content it currently has. And I'm really not sure what metaphor or definition would really be clear enough. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"How much content an article currently has" is in fact a very poor indicator of whether it qualifies as an article per wiaa. There are cities of millions of people that have less well developed articles than the one for Childs, a small hamlet with a population of a few dozen that's a previous OtBP and current Starnom - that's just the nature of the beast here. And for newbie contributors who aren't intimately familiar with the workings of our site, filling in the empty sections of a skeleton article is a much more straightforward thing to figure out than how to de-merge an article that's been merged and redirected to some more geographically broad entity. The determination should be made entirely on the basis of how much content the article conceivably could have, if it were complete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
So it sounds like it might be a good idea to ask yourself a range of questions when considering if something counts as an article. "Can you sleep there?", yes, but also for the other 'main' sections; "Are there drinking establishments / restaurants?"; "What can you do?"; "What is there to see?"; or even more broadly "Can I imagine someone wanting to spend time there for any reason?"
Since having useful information under 'sleep' is a prerequisite for an article being 'usable', "Can you sleep there?" has never struck me as a bad guideline; the problem with the two diffs is with people applying the guideline too literally. Hence why asking a longer list of questions would guide people into sticking to the "spirit of the law, rather than the letter" and keep and develop articles for places that are obviously worthy of an article, even if there are no hotels. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It would be great to remove the sleep test, but I'm not sure how we are going to judge the amount of content an article could conceivably have. Conceivably a guide could be written about the tiniest hamlet with 2 houses, therefore the test will probably always be passed.
Could we perhaps require at least one substantial 'Do' or 'See' listing? (and not the Telstra style 'Church' and 'Town hall' listings) Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there are problems with the sleep test, but I think we also have problems with (mostly unregistered) editors creating articles for every little place with little more that "Whoville is a town in Who County". These articles are frustrating as the links to them draw in readers who tuen learn nothing about Whoville. I suspect that most are created by editors who feel that they have contributed by creating articles, or who expect that other people will come along to fill out the articles. This is not a productive activity, and we must have a way of managing it.
Andrewssi2 may be on to an alternative test. Maybe something like "an article should be merged if it has fewer than three listings in the See, Do, Eat, Drink, and Sleep sections". This would avoid problems where a village ends up with an article because a business owners wants to let people know about his/her guesthouse or restaurant.
I understand AndreCarrotflower's objection to "How much content an article has" as an indicator of whether it qualifies as an article, and I'm trying to figure out how to balance that objection with the objection to contentless articles. While in principle empty sections of articles may attract useful edits, in practice we have lots of articles that just don't. Ground Zero (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] That might work as a general rule, but if a region is quite well covered or being worked on, having a few places mere skeletons as placeholders might be better than messing up the structure by having them merged into the region article or some (not so) nearby destination. --LPfi (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Redirecting doesn't delete the content. If you're working on an article and it's redirected, you can easily restore the content and expand the article by going into the history and editing the version before the redirect. Not really a problem. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A church or town hall could be a great sight, indeed, so I would strongly disagree with excluding them as a reason for an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
A church or town hall could be a great sight, but not simply the word Church or Town Hall. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Under "Eat" we could put "restaurants", and under "Sleep" we could put "hotels" or "in a bed". Ground Zero (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
If there are such eateries – but then say so: "Several eateries along the main street, probably none for gourmets" and "A few bed and breakfasts in the town. You could probably find a cottage to rent at the lake". Them not being proper listings is not a big problem as long as there are enough beds that you don't need to book. --LPfi (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Somebody redirecting articles while I am working on them is frustrating, not a catastrophe, but merging the content requires some work and revering the merge is not always straight forward. Merging and redirecting, reverting, and again getting merged and redirected because of policy is a stupid way to collaborate. I'd very strongly advice not to merge if region or destination article has been worked on lately, and it thus seems likely the outline is going to be worked on in the foreseeable future. I'd also prefer keeping outlines without much content if the other destinations in the region have reasonable articles. One such outline is not that frustrating for a reader, it is trees consisting of mostly empty outlines that are the problem. --LPfi (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The merger proposal process gives time for someone to say, "hey, I'm working on this - it will get better", in which case regular contributors will back down. The only time I'd merge without proposing it first is when an article will never qualify (e.g. a single site), or when the article has been untouched for a long time (as you suggested). Ground Zero (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

(reset) How about this one for a new test: "Articles are for destinations — not individual attractions or establishments. Anything you can fit into a listing should not get its own article".

Maybe it would be a good idea to allow listings not only in the lowest articles in the hierarchy, but also in the layer immediately above (lowest region article) for listings in small towns/middle of nowhere that do not have an article yet and might have so little to offer that they may not need an article at all. I've suggested it before but people didn't think it was a good idea. How would this sound: if the destination doesn't have a minimum of (say) three attractions and travel-relevant businesses combined it should not get its own article and listings should added to the region article instead. If needed — say a big theme park opens there with all sorts of amenities, we can later create an article for the destination and move the listings there. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Happy new year, BTW. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of some bottom-level regions (presumably rural) having listings for tiny towns and villages that will never have enough content to stand on their own. If the region article does grow to a substantial size, we can split it at a later time just like we districtify huge cities. Gizza (roam) 21:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
The issue of having listings on bottom-level regions was discussed at length a couple of years ago, without resolution or consensus. Might be worth re-examining. –StellarD (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link StellarD. In the case of the Option 2 examples in Wikivoyage:Destination guides to rural areas, I would support creating new bottom-level article types called "island group" and "rural area". At the moment, we sometimes call these article cities (e.g. East Frisian Islands and Rural Montgomery County) while at other times regions (East Coast (Suriname) and Thousand Islands) which is inconsistent and confusing. It won't be appropriate in every situation as the wide range of examples in the discussion show but whenever it is suitable, I think calling them island group or rural area would make it clear that they are bottom level and can have listings. They will be the equivalent of districts for thinly populated spread out areas of the world. Gizza (roam) 22:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been criticism from some (I can remember User:PsamatheM, but there have been others) that Wikivoyage is too city-oriented in its setup, and doesn't cover rural areas well enough, but what you propose could go towards relieving that. A mixture of city and rural entries is certainly what you'd expect in a Lonely Planet or Rough Guide book. I'm not saying we should ape them in every way, but they're successful for a reason. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there is some truth to the criticism that Wikivoyage is too city-oriented and doesn't cover rural areas well enough. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but maybe DaGizza's suggestion would help. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of listings in non-bottom-level articles. However, what could make a lot of sense would be to have a region with two children: The city and the remainder of the region, or x-number of rural subregions. I don't agree with insisting that each article have at least 3 attractions. Childs has one listing for "See and Do", with 5 sublistings. And Chiusure has one "See" listing, but it's spectacular and the village couldn't really logically be listed in any other article because it's sufficiently remote to be its own destination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
The existing policy has exceptions (that I think we should retain) that would cover Child's and Chiusure: "... when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered...." The list of examples also demonstrates an intent to allow articles in these two circumstances. Having separate articles for them would be easy to defend in a merger discussion on the basis of the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(reset indent) Re: Sleep TestI would agree that the "sleep test" could do more harm than good and could actually have negative consequences (e.g. somewhere that deserves a listing not getting one as it's merged into an already too long page for somewhere nearby that does happen to have a hotel. It all comes down to "judgement" (rather than a set rule) and different people will always make different judgements but the thing about borderline cases is that they are borderline so it's not such a big deal. Having "rules" and "policies" (even with "flexibility") can be counterproductive as there will always be some who regard it as their duty to enforce such rules on the basis that they are rules. The challenge is to achieve an appropriate level consistency so there needs to be something. The challenge is that different places around the world don't fit into set rigorous rules and policies - too much variability PsamatheM (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Listings at higher levels The difficulty is that different places around the world don't always fit into a single structural policy. Too much variability so I think it sensible to allow listings in non-bottom level articles. It all depends on the particular place, how it is geographically organised in relation to things of relevance/interest to a traveller. I'd be in favour of greater freedom with the author (who knows the area) being questioned but those questioning NOT using "our policy is ..." to push for "listings only in bottom level articles". Defer/accept to local knowledge with the qualification that some contributors might not be aware of the consistency considerations but prioritise usefulness to the traveller. There will always be conflicting pressures to provide clear, useful, accessible, etc. content and the force the world into a single structural policy is unlikely to meet any of those aims. Unsigned comment by User:PsamatheM

Thousand Islands is not a region article and has not been a region article since 2013. It is a vast bi-national rural area with a few villages (Marysville, Fineview, Stella - and including the latter is a stretch as it's on Lake Ontario), none of which have a thousand or more people. That said, I'd prefer that bottom-level destination articles be drawn in area so that one ends where the next begins, even if that means the 28' tall novelty architecture Big Apple (as the lone attraction in tiny Colborne, Cramhe Township, Ontario) is listed at Cobourg#Nearby -- which ends where Trenton (Ontario) begins. Yes, there are issues with certain things being taken too literally - like the section headers (is "Drink" nightlife, or is it somewhere to stick winery tours like Westmoreland (New Hampshire)#Drink?), the sleep test (do we assume that Cartwright (Labrador) is a city but stops being one the day the hotel burns to the ground?) and the concept of what constitutes "a city". In general, we size articles (and their geographic coverage area) so that the text is of reasonable length (as the print and mobile versions still matter) instead of following the official city limits. I'd prefer not to push listings into higher levels as that does encourage the condition where every hôtelier thinks that their tiny five-room motel absolutely belongs in United States of America#Sleep and it's just one more article which the voyager needs to print and carry-on as baggage. K7L (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think part of the issue is that our writership has historically skewed and still to an extent skews "First World" (in the actual 1950s definition, even: NATO and allies) and urban. Exhibit A: I am writing this in a train at more than 125 mph going from big city to at least moderately large city. It is thus only natural that we struggle somewhat with more rural areas and our setup is not the best for certain types of rural attractions. There have been several proposals to remedy this, all of them workable in principle, but none gaining all that much traction. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

So maybe this was done to provoke the conversation (or just me) but this is a good western example: Randolph (New York). Town appears to have restaurants and a few shops but closest hotels are in Salamanca (New York) and Jamestown (New York). As it stands is just annoying click for readers to an empty page (yes I know it could be expanded but past cases have not). Andre I know you don't want to hear about this {from you) again, but you started the conversation again. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting allowing small motels in the United States article or any of that sorts, but explicitly listings in the layer immediately above. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that struck me as a particularly absurd use of the 'slippery slope' fallacy. Surely the proposal to allow listings in bottom-level regions (especially for rural areas, or those areas otherwise lacking a large amount of tourism infrastructure) is better than having hundreds of near-empty city articles whose only purpose is to act as a vessel for one or two listings or a solitary routebox that can't be placed anywhere else? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Traveler100, if you had bothered to click "edit" and get a look at the <!-- hidden notes to myself --> that I'd embedded in the Randolph article, or if you had checked the article's edit history and looked at the edit summary I left, you would have seen there was plenty of content that I intended to fill in later - yes, including one of your allegedly nonexistent hotels, plus a couple of campgrounds to boot. I just got done doing that, and I even got the article up to Usable status. So instead of running with your baseless assumption that there's nothing to do or see in this town that I just created an article for, and using it as a pretext to unearth this beef that you and I had years ago, I wish that you would have instead deferred to my local expertise (I had earlier added Randolph to Cattaraugus County#Cities precisely because it would make a worthwhile article) and proven record as a valuable contributor to this site, and maybe just given me some time to develop the article before jumping down my throat. Sorry that I didn't add the content all at once, but I do have a life outside this site, you know. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
In the past few comments on this thread I'm seeing an excessive preoccupation with the reader experience, almost to the point of tunnel vision, and frankly I find that to be problematic. I think that at this stage of Wikivoyage's existence, the perspective of the editor, and in particular the newbie editor, is equally if not more important. Right now, the number one thing this site needs more of - even more than readers - is content. And the way to get more content is to make it as easy as possible for people to contribute. As I said above: for editors who are just starting to learn their way around the site, it's a lot easier to add listings or other material to a skeleton article than to de-merge an article that's been merged and redirected somewhere else. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the best way to ensure that no one ever adds information about a particular place is to redirect it to another article, which of course is a completely self-defeating thing to do if we want more content. And if readers are really all that annoyed when they come across a skeleton article (I have my doubts about that, but that's a whole other story), then let that serve as motivation for them to do something about it, and cross over from being a reader to being an editor, which we also need more of. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And finally, mark me down as being in full support of Ypsilon's proposed solution. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I also fully support Ypsilon's proposal. –StellarD (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Listings at region level for small settlements or attractions in rural locations sounds like a good solution. Also can add red-link to city list with text as alternative. Suggest have a review and additional input on Wikivoyage:Destination guides to rural areas. Can this be moved on from a draft proposal? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a messy solution. I'd really rather have a separate city-level article for "Rural areas of [region name]" and put the listings there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

So far, the main options seem to be:

  • Replace tiny-town articles with articles about larger semi-rural regions
    • If you want to write about something in tiny Mulberry, Kansas (population 520, and home to the state's smallest newspaper), then make an article on Area around Pittsburg, Kansas, and stick it in there.
  • Allow listings for tiny-town/rural areas in the next layer up.

I think that both of these could work. At the moment, in this example, people seem to be doing the second one.

In terms of the narrower question, maybe the "sleep test" could be usefully re-framed as a "36-hour test". The idea is that the test (usually) includes sleeping, but that the point is having a reason to be there beyond stopping off just long enough to sleep, on your way to your real destination. You could spend 36 hours in a large airport or any town with an amusement park, but you would probably not volunteer to spend 36 hours in Mulberry, even if it were possible to sleep there (which it's not, unless you have family and friends in town. The nearest lodging is a campground five miles north, and across the border). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - I think the "36-hour test" is definitely a nonstarter. Childs - which, again, is a previous OtBP and current Starnom - would handily fail it. As for your list of main options, you're missing one: the status quo of tolerating skeleton articles unless they can be conclusively demonstrated to fail wiaa, which is the one I endorse. (It's true that I voiced support for Ypsilon's proposal above, but I don't see that as necessarily mutually exclusive with the status quo. If a skeleton article could have three travel-related listings, it should be left alone even if it doesn't currently have them; if not, the article likely doesn't fulfill the requirements of even the current version of wiaa.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the notion of if a skeleton article could have three travel-related listings, it should be left alone. This will just lead to 100s if not 1000s of empty articles. Clicking through multiple links in a region to find little or no information is just frustrating. Listing all settlements in the world is a task for Wikivoyage not a travel site. If I am visiting an area I would prefer to just read through pages with at least 4 or 5 entries. Better to have an area article or list on the region page. Once there is enough information then create the article. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Andre, I think some people could spend a happy 36 hours in Childs: Start at 7:00 p.m. with dinner at Tillman's. Sleep at the Fair Haven Inn. Spend the day wandering around the museum complex. (The formal tour takes two hours, but that doesn't mean that someone couldn't spend longer there.) Pick up lunch from Crosby's. Eat dinner at Tillman's again. Sleep again. Leave at 7:00 a.m., 36 hours later.
Now, whether we should have an article about a "town" that is actually just a cluster of buildings around one intersection inside Gaines, rather than an article that covers all of Gaines, is an open question, but I don't think it would necessarily fail a 36-hour test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, can we all please stop looking at everything exclusively through the reader's eyes? Not to say that they're not important, but let's face it: at the present moment we don't have a very good product to offer the reader. So we need to focus on expanding and improving our content before we get into anything to do with attracting more readers. And that means we need to think about the editor experience more so than the reader experience.
Now I already brought up the point about how much easier it is for newbies to deal with skeleton articles than redirects, and the response has been crickets chirping. Let me rephrase what I said before, this time in terms of two hypothetical scenarios involving a newbie editor.
Newbie Editor X lives in Small Town Y. He hears about Wikivoyage and decides to see what improvements he might make to the article about his hometown. He types "Small Town Y" into the search box and presses Enter, and then up comes an empty skeleton article. Newbie Editor X knows about a few interesting things to see and do, restaurants, and hotels in his hometown, and it's easy enough to figure out how to add them to the article: just click "add listing" next to the section title. Within a few minutes, the article for Small Town Y has a few listings and is on its way to being Usable.
Newbie Editor X lives in Small Town Y. He hears about Wikivoyage and decides to see what improvements he might make to the article about his hometown. He types "Small Town Y" into the search box and presses Enter, but instead of Small Town Y's article, he somehow lands on the article about Larger Region Z. Now that's all fine and dandy, but there's nothing specifically about Small Town Y in the Larger Region Z article, and Newbie Editor X has a lot of things in mind that he'd like to tell people about. What he really wants to do - what he was trying to do all along - is to write an article that's only about Small Town Y. But how? Small Town Y is a redirect, of course, but Newbie Editor X doesn't know what that means. It's all Greek to him. He keeps typing "Small Town Y" into the search box over and over again, but somehow Larger Region Z keeps coming up. He eventually gets frustrated and leaves. The end.
Now do you understand why skeleton articles are important?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess the third hypothetical scenario would be Newbie finding that Small Town Y is a redlink (probably the most common situation for small towns outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Not that I support outright deletion of all skeletons, but from my experience of wikis most newbies will plunge forward and start the article from scratch. It will have the wrong formatting but that's fair enough since they're new. I wonder how many people were first drawn to Wikivoyage because of wanting to improve coverage of their hometown as opposed to their region (state/province/county) or nation, a destination where they don't live or a completely different article like a travel topic or phrasebook. Gizza (roam) 23:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
"I wonder how many people were first drawn to Wikivoyage because of wanting to improve coverage of their hometown" - I would say it's greater than the number who stumble across Wikivoyage in the course of looking for information on a vacation they're planning. We don't have the brand name recognition or Google search rank of a Lonely Planet or a Frommer's. As for the option of deleting all skeletons, I think the disadvantage of that is clear: in virtually every instance, those who plunge forward and forge articles out of redlinks end up creating stubs, which then have to be manually retrofitted into Template:Smallcity skeleton. With preexisting skeleton articles, that step is eliminated. I think having a few "annoying" (and are they, really?) skeleton articles in the interim is more than a fair tradeoff. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that outlines serve this important role. My favorite example is Rock Hill, which I created as a fairly barebones outline, and a few months later it was expanded substantially by a new IP editor who went on to improve many other articles in the region.
I think the suggestion of a 36-hour test (or some other variant—maybe a 24-hour test or even a 12-hour test if need be) seems feasible and might do a better job than the sleep test of capturing what makes a place interesting or important enough to merit an article. The fact that Childs only dubiously meets it is perhaps a sign that Childs is only dubiously big enough for an article—the article seems fine, but it's plausible that it could be covered perfectly well in a "rural area" article or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, a piece of my response to Traveler100 that I forgot to add: "This will just lead to 100s if not 1000s of empty articles" implies that, in hundreds if not thousands of cases, people will go to the trouble of creating article skeletons for small towns and then not bother to add information. I think this is a stretch. (Yes, Traveler100, I know you took issue in the past with me creating skeleton articles for the sole purpose of adding them to routeboxes. In some ways, you were right that it was a stupid thing to do and that's why I stopped doing it. That doesn't mean I think skeleton articles, even the ones I created, shouldn't exist. And also, I created 10, maybe 20 skeletons, not hundreds.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Granger - I think Ypsilon's three-listing test is a better measure than any time-based threshold. By their very nature, some attractions simply require more time to take in than others, and I don't think that really correlates with their worthiness for travellers. In fact, speaking on behalf of countless people I spoke to in the course of my work in the hotel industry: those who don't have a high tolerance for tacky tourist schlock might very well find themselves bored at the end of 36 hours in Niagara Falls, and I certainly don't think there's an argument for that not passing wiaa. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that a place only merits an article if all travellers would want to spend 36 hours there—just that some travellers might plausibly want or need to spend 36 hours there. I've never been to Niagara Falls, but from what I've heard about it, I imagine it must meet that standard, or at the very least the weaker 12-hour standard I suggested! Certainly some attractions require more time than others, but if a town is so lacking in attractions that no visitor would want to spend more than a few hours there, how can there be enough to say to fill a whole article? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the majority of towns that would fail one test would also fail the other. I'm not saying it would be impossible to find a time limit that's a rough approximation of the threshold between worthy and unworthy articles; I just happen to think that when it comes to edge cases, number of listings is a better metric. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess the most important thing to remember is that any rule we come up with is just a rule of thumb, and there will always be edge cases and oddball destinations where we have to use our best judgment and make exceptions as needed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see a fair number of empty articles started by people who just seem to want other people to do the work. I think they make Wikivoyage look bad. I agree with Andre that Ypsilon's three-pronged test is a better way of managing this that a time-being rule that would be subjective. The existing exceptions should be maintained where a location has one or two really good and well-explained listings. Ground Zero (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts I have on this discussion:
  • I like the Can you sleep there? test as a good first question (not as an absolute rule), but I’m fine with a three-listing guideline that Ypsilon mentioned, or using it in combination with an hours test or other rules of thumb we agree on. When considering whether a small place should have its own article, be lumped in with another guide or form part of a “rural area”, I usually find a need to consider a number of factors beyond the sleep test before deciding how to proceed.
  • I agree with Andre that empty or nearly empty skeletons shouldn’t be deleted if they could meet the test for wiaa for all the reasons he listed.
  • I don’t really like listings in non-bottom level destinations but I think it’s OK as a measure of last resort when it's not clear how the listing should be handled (i.e., can't determine whether it should have its own article, be part of a rural area or included in a existing nearby guide). I find listings in region guides can overwhelm the See/Do/Sleep/etc sections and it gives me the impression the region is about the listings and not the important stuff in the cities that do have their own guides. I’ve also found it sometimes leads to listings creep where listings are taken from a bottom-level region and added to the next level up. It’s fixable but creates janitorial work to clean up. -Shaundd (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
finding a better way of encouraging new contributors is something we need to look at and I agree once a redirect is made it is not clear to a newbie how to create a city page. We need to think about a better way of doing this (maybe some sort of recreate button?). But there are already over 3000 city pages without listings, does this site benefit from more? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Moldavia could be an example to think about. For readers, I think the current format is good, given our actual coverage, but is it ideal for newbie editors, either locals or tourists from abroad? Those would probably have info on places just mentioned (most redlinks have been unlinked) and places not even mentioned. I think creating a skeleton region subdivision with redlinks or skeletons for all article-worthy places is the last thing to do here, while encouraging creating and linking new guides also for those smaller places could work. The problem then is reaching the 9-threshold with small destinations without having intermediate ones even mentioned. The small ones may be so spread out that subregions would not help very much, meaning real work for some experienced editor. --LPfi (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Another example. Eltville] - has information on POIs in other villages in the area, namely Erbach, Hattenheim, Kiedrich and Walluf. Now all of these do have more than 3 possible listings (hotels, campsites, places to buy wine, ruins, hikes, restaurants, ....). In an ideal world we should put the effort in to create each of these pages and expand to all attractions in each. However it could be some time before this happens, so if we split this currently useful usable page we end up with 5 poor outlines with one or two listings in each. Is it not better to add to this page until the content is enough to start splitting into individual settlements? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding newbie editors and listings in rural areas (including sleep) and tiny places not deserving of articles, I’d like to share my own experience. When I first began editing here, Southeast Arizona (an area which I know very well) was the barest of outlines, and inexplicably a bottom-level region of another region (which really should be fixed, when I get around to it). I did not know how to create articles, nor did I know how to deal with the random skeleton articles for places which in my opinion did not warrant them. So I simply began filling out the city and region articles, placing listings where I saw fit. Later as I learned about this site’s regional hierarchy, the assertion by some others that rural regions should be classified as ‘city articles’ simply confused me (and to me still makes no sense).
Now, after 4½ years of active editing, I’m still unsure of the best way to handle this region. Ikan Kekek’s proposal of having two parallel articles, one as a shell container for the cities, and another just for the rural listings, I cannot see working here. Perhaps to ease confusion I should add city marker listings to the dynamic map, so that both individual listings and population centers are shown on the same map. Some of the other rural regions highlighted in the discussion above are in more densely populated areas, so perhaps there IK's solution would work. I’m not sure this could be applied to every rural region across the globe, however, which is why I like Traveler100’s proposed amendment to the draft policy.
My point is that I think there should be maximum flexibility to accommodate any potential newbie who may happen along and want to edit a given region but finds the imposed region structure nonsensical and then doesn’t know what to do with it and gives up. –StellarD (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Bottom articles such as city articles should still be the primary place to put information and if a newbie (or whoever) wants to put some effort into a new article about a small town, then (in the most cases) I'd say go for it. Even if they do not write much, the article shouldn't be merged or deleted without looking up the place in WP, on a map or satellite picture. Does it look physically possible that the city meets a low threshhold of e.g. three travel-related POIs? Or are we talking about a hamlet of 8 homes and a convenience store that nobody will ever be able to write a serious travel article about?
Different destinations and POIs need different solutions. For instance POIs that aren't officially located in one city, but are in practice always accessed through it, it can be considered part of this city. "Lone places" in the middle of nowhere that cannot be easily tied to a certain city with an article are the ones I'd like to see in the region articles. If the aforementioned hamlet happens to have one (or two) attraction(s), the attraction(s) would also go in the region article.
Then there's IMO also another aspect of rural listings, that StellarD just brought up. If we have a regional article about Region X, and under it some cities plus just one "Rural X" article that would geographically cover so much of its parent article that we would in practice have two articles about exactly the same area; one with and one without listings. Wouldn't it look sort of silly? This is why I'd rather have such listings in the regional article, having them look like Suriname's regions. BTW I also remember discussions about the lack of content in regional articles so this would to a small extent address this problem as well.
On the other hand, if we get a ton of listings in a regional article (I imagine this will rarely happen), we can do what we always do with articles that have grown large — subdivide it into several rural articles and move the listings there. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's what I think will happen if we allow listings only for rural areas in region articles: (1) A lot of readers will think that's all there is in the region, not realizing that there are more listings in city articles. Yeah, even if we tell them so, some of them will miss the notice while skipping through the article. (2) We'll constantly have to police the article to remove listings for places in cities and towns that do have their own articles. (3) We'll have to explain why it's fair to exclude such listings, denying city listings equal billing in a regional article when they are very often more important attractions to someone visiting that region.
The problem with maximum flexibility for editors is that it also means maximum work for patrollers. We've previously taken steps to create bright lines, such as the policies excluding non-primary external links, inline links to Wikipedia and links to all garden-variety tour agencies. This would be going in the other direction. Try it if you like, but be prepared to deal with the issues I lay out, and probably other ones I didn't think of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree with your predictions, Ikan Kekek. The question we should ask ourselves is whether such extra work for patrollers is justifiable by the improvements moving listings up the hierarchy would bring. Possibly not, as any extra patrol work by experienced editors is less time that those editors could be getting on with creating content, rather than managing other people's work. So if there is a move / consensus against the status quo (we're not there yet), then the city article-style 'rural district' articles, on the same level as city articles may be preferable. Either that or (throwing yet another option into the ring), having 'city plus' articles for rural areas, whereby a city / town and its surrounding countryside and villages are included in one article; this is something we already do to an extent.
As a point of transparency, I am always going to be in favour of pooling our content into fewer and better articles where possible (more meat and less bone or fat), to create an overall more complete-looking guide. In opposition to the idea that skeleton articles encourage new editors, while I don't doubt that does happen at times, it is usually the case that articles created as outlines stay that way for years and years, because we don't have enough editors such that we can rely on every country / region / city in the world having someone who knows the place and who is passionate about writing a great up-to-date article. A travel guide that has far fewer stubs and outlines, and more guides and stars, will always attract more readers, and those readers will be more likely to become editors, because success breeds success. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wikivoyage is littered with empty articles that diminish the traveller's experience here. Special:ShortPages is filled with pages that tell the reader little more than "A is a village in B". Take a look at the 500th shortest article, Gračanica (Bosnia and Herzegovina). It says: "Gračanica is in Northeastern Bosnia, located east of Doboj and west of Tuzla." The article has been sitting around for five years now waiting for useful information to be added. The 1000th shortest article, Waynesburg (Pennsylvania), says "Waynesburg is a borough in Pennsylvania." It has been waiting for seven years for anything substantive to be added, and hasn't even been touched for the last 4½ years. And it's not some remote village in India or Siberia, it's in the United States, 50 miles (80 km) south of Pittsburgh.

Not all of the articles in the bottom 1000 are that sparse, but there are hundreds. (Maybe 10-15% are regional articles that contain links to only a few articles, but are useful for navigation.

I don't buy the conjecture that we are going to get many editors who start by editing their home towns and then become faithful contributors. It happens, but I think that most people who edit regularly do so because they are travellers who enjoy reading and writing about travel. I support continuing to put the traveller first. Ground Zero (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Copying my comment from Talk:Chora (Greece)#Merger? that's also apropos here:
"I think one element that's been missing from the ongoing policy discussion at the pub is the fact that getting an article to a place where its existence can be justified actually requires very little time and effort. Estimating liberally, it took me about half an hour of work to elevate Randolph (New York) from non-existent to Usable, and that's a situation where I took special care to craft good prose and be as complete as possible. Even if you multiply that by four villages on Alonissos, you still have a very easy fix that, more importantly, adds content - and I don't think there's any better way to put the traveller first [cf. Ground Zero's remarks above] than by doing that. In my opinion, no one has any business adding a merge tag to an article without at least trying to find content to add first."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
We have the benefit of hindsight here. We know that although these articles have been around for years (Chora (Greece) has been around for almost a decade with almost nothing of value for the reader), no-one has turned them into useful articles. I also have been turning stubs into useful articles (Laguna San Rafael National Park, Campobello Island and Lane Cove National Park recently), but clearly we do hot have editors to deal with the thousand (?) empty articles that make Wikivoyage look like one of those business listing sites that just gather basic info and ask people to write reviews. Of course it is dead easy for anyone who opposes a merger to spend a few minutes to add a few listings to an article to shut down the merger discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. 2 years ago I started adding Sleep and See listings to articles that did not have them. Have done a few hundred in the United Kingdom and Germany and a few other places too. As of today only 6526 city articles left to do. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The point that is being made is that we shouldn't be overeager to propose merging everything. If it's dead easy to add a few listings to an article, whoever would propose a non-obvious merger should do that instead of trying to crusade for a merger, not leave it up to others. The time it takes you to discuss a merger or even do one without seeking a consensus - which you shouldn't do unless it's really obvious (e.g., a district guide for an otherwise undistricted city) - could be spent adding content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiaa starts off by identifying two principles, one of which is "Articles should be relatively self-sufficient so that travellers can print them out, put them in their back pocket, and use them for travelling around." The "A is a town in B" articles violate this fundamental principle. The old approach of proposing and discussing mergers has ensured that Wikivoyage is littered with non-articles. I would be more comfortable with having fewer mergers if we could agree that the empty stub articles can be redirected without discussion. Then we could focus on improving articles like Chora. And, as I've noted, those opposed to mergers can easily end the discussions by making the articles worth keeping instead of arguing on talk pages. It works both ways. Ground Zero (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
So can you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think some of us in this discussion are holding this site to an impossible standard. On any wiki, even huge ones like en:wp with behemoth populations of active editors, the work will by nature never be done. There will always be stubs, outlines, or whatever the local term for incomplete articles may be - that's just the nature of the wiki beast.
And, burying the lede a little bit here: though many people in this conversation are talking about how "readers are put off by seeing empty articles", "it makes them doubt the quality of our content", etc., I have yet to see any non-anecdotal evidence of this. In fact, the available evidence suggests the opposite: readership is growing, slowly but steadily, and the gap in Alexa rankings between us and Wikitravel is closing rapidly. Specifically, I would have to ask if the average reader even notices the abundance of skeleton articles. I think we can assume a correlation between reader traffic on a given page and editor traffic, and many of these skeleton articles don't have so much as a "hey, where can I find actual information about this place" on their talk pages. Other than those of us who seek them out intentionally, who exactly is being bothered by these skeleton articles? The one person every six days, on average, who stumbles across an article like Chora (Greece)? (And how many of those are actually people looking for information as opposed to editors clicking around the site idly, people who typed an incorrect search term, etc.?)
Perhaps someday there'll be a concerted effort, on the part of more than one editor working alone, to address this issue - it might make for a good cotm. But even if not, I think that even if only a tiny minority of skeleton articles ever see a meaningful amount of content added to them, the benefit of that still outweighs the drawback of the rest remaining skeleton articles indefinitely, especially if no one ever notices them anyway.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Your points are well taken. To make a different point, I'd like to remind everyone that there is a status quo bias on this site, so those crusading to merge loads of articles have the burden of explaining why in each case and gaining a consensus. "Those of you who object to the crusade can add listings, thereby proving a merge is unwarranted" is not Wikivoyage policy or practice. So since it takes time to discuss and do mergers, I would again suggest that the amount of time devoted to this should be taken into consideration when deciding whether a particular merge proposal is important enough to make. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I don't mind near empty articles if there was a better way to encourage readers to add more content. We do have the outline template at the bottom requesting the reader to plunge forward and help it grow but on empty articles with the skeleton headings, the reader may not see that template unless they scroll or slide down. On Wikipedia stubs, you would see a similar template after 2 or 3 lines so it much more prominent. But I agree that Wikivoyage is growing anyway and am not too fussed if we either take an inclusionist or mergist approach. Gizza (roam) 23:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Article status[edit]

I'd be happy for all the article statuses to be moved to the top of the article if that could help in any way. I'm not sure how much work that would take - if there's a consensus behind this, would it be a simple thing for a bot to be programmed to do? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with putting our business (article status) ahead of the information the reader is looking for. Ground Zero (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Me neither. I suppose most likely contributors know what a wiki is anyway, and there are enough meaningless sites asking for contributions that a mere notice does not help. And if the notices are important, we should figure out what pages to link to – I think they are very unhelpful as of now. Why do they not explain what is missing? (it took me ages to learn how to find the status descriptions, and often tried to get at them via those links: very frustrating).
The current links explain our geographical hierarchy, discuss the merits and dismerits of outlines, present the templates, tell where to stick available info (first somewhat useful link for the one wanting to improve the outline), tell you may edit, and then how editing works technically. Does any of those present the info a newbie with knowledge about the destination needs, in a way that maximizes probability of engagement?
-LPfi (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Common travel scams infographic[edit] It ends up citing the other travel wiki. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Only natural, since they still get more views than us, and are higher up the Alexa rankings. However, with every passing month we are slowly making up the ground. It's a shame just how slow progress is, but if the increased number of active editors on here since this time last year is anything to go by, the process is speeding up. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Map/photo copyright question[edit]

Tambobo Bay is a yachting harbour in the Philippines. Looking at it with Google Earth the profusion of boats is clearly visible. Wow! I'd like to use that type of image in our article but don't want to violate copyright. One link for the Earth image is here; the Bay is near the point East of the town & you need to zoom in to see the boats.

Are the underlying photos from NASA? Another source? Pashley (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am no expert at all, and may just be telling you what you already know, but am mainly answering so this post gets noticed in amongst all the other goings on at the pub. However, I think Google Earth material is all copyrighted to them, as they watermark everything with their logo. OTOH, if you find out the underlying images do indeed belong to NASA, then you are free to use them as you wish, as NASA photography is free of copyright as long as you credit them (it's a bit like our CC licence). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The Google images are under Google copyright, the purchased the images, not published by someone else. You can use them under "fair use" if attributed. See here for some information. Basically you can only use the image on an article covering the subject of the image, must clearly state it is from Google and cannot upload to Commons. Also under Philippines law you will have to make sure there are no pieces of art or architecture in the photo that is under copyright.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think using images from Google Earth would be prohibited by EDP. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 - Do you support having the English Wikivoyage participate as well?[edit]

In the recent days I have created the following two pages in my user space - Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage_edit-a-thon_2018 and Wikivoyage:Short guide for new editors - which are mostly based on the edit-a-thon pages created by the Russian Wikivoyage, as well as the pages of Asia Month on the English Wikipedia. I was hoping that having those pages in English would help all other Wikivoyage editions to easily translate them to their own languages, after they would be collaboratively improved (Instead of having each Wikivoyage edition translate these pages by themselves from Russian).

At this point we already have six Wikivoyage editions that would participate in this edit-a-thon: The German Wikivoyage, The Spanish Wikivoyage, The French Wikivoyage, The Russian Wikivoyage, The Chinese Wikivoyage, The Hebrew Wikivoyage.

I wanted to suggest that the English Wikivoyage as well would join this Edit-a-thon. Please express your support in having the English Wikivoyage participate in the edit-a-thon as well + having the two project pages I made moved to the project space (and help me improve them as much as possible).

In my opinion, having the English Wikivoyage join is very important as this might help us ensure that the edit-a-thon would be approved and that as a result many people would be exposed to Wikivoyage and consider joining the efforts to develop it. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note, as of now I haven't yet re-created the included images in the two translated pages with screen grabs from the English Wikivoyage (they currently show the original screen grabs from the Russian Wikivoyage). I plan on creating the new screen grabs in a couple of hours. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think having English Wikivoyage on board is that important. What counts here is the solid preparation work and the interest of the community, which does not seem to be the case, given the fact that I pinged several active editors already a week ago, but none of them ever took a minute to respond.
Anyway, the Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage_edit-a-thon_2018 page is not needed when no prizes are given out. People can also contribute less than 400 words, why would it matter? As for the second page, Wikivoyage:Short guide for new editors (thanks a lot for translating it!), it has to be proof-read from the perspective of English Wikivoyage. From my side, I can mention two points. First, the section 'About Wikivoyage' promotes Wikivoyage as a place to find information beyond printed travel guides, which would be true for Russian Wikivoyage, but it's not quite the case here (see the infamous discussion about featuring Riga as Destination of the Month, and similar stories). Second, the concept of 'What deserves its own article?' is quite different in English and Russian Wikivoyages, and this might require additional comments. English Wikivoyage is more open to articles with whatever listings have been added, whereas Russian Wikivoyage tends to only host articles about places of significant interest to travelers. --Alexander (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. What's the scope of this? Is the aim to just add content/create articles for any destination or is there a specific area of interest? Drat70 (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, while the main goal is to encourage many more people to expand or create the articles they have most knowledge about or are mostly interested in... it would be ideal to also use this opportunity to pick around 200 articles, which are the ones we think are considered the most sought after articles that still need a lot of work (maybe selected articles from the Outline articles category), and have them listed on this page under the headline "Selected articles that especially need improvement" (that's what I did on the parallel page at the Hebrew Wikivoyage). Under the same headline we could also refer the participants to Wikivoyage:Requested articles. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I am supportive of the edit-a-thon though it seems to somewhat overlap with the Collaboration of the month, which was successfully revived on English Wikivoyage half a year ago. One of current Cotm nominations is to improve around 200 outline districts. Not sure if other languages have an active Cotm at the moment. Gizza (roam) 03:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between the edit-a-thon and Collaboration of the Month. The latter event is for experienced editors, while the former seeks to attract new editors. The Collaboration of the Month does not require the landing page and Central notice. --Alexander (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: do you think that there should be a scope to this edit-a-thon though? or do you think it would be better if it just encourages people to expand or create ANY article they have most knowledge about while completely refraining from adding any list of suggested articles that mostly need to be expanded/improved? How do you feel about my suggestion above? ("In my opinion, while the main goal is to encourage many more people to expand or create the articles they have most knowledge about or are mostly interested in... it would be ideal to also use this opportunity to pick around 200 articles, which are the ones we think are considered the most sought after articles that still need a lot of work"). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that this event should encourage new editors to share their knowledge at Wikivoyage. If you restrict everything to 200 cities, people may not find any familiar name in this list and will refrain from participating.
However, it's up to the community to decide. So far the community did not express much interest in this edit-a-thon. --Alexander (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I support having the edit-a-thon and think it sounds like a good way to attract new editors. My instinct is that we don't need to recommend a list of specific destinations, but it probably wouldn't hurt as long as we're clear that it's just a set of suggestions, and improvements to any article would be much appreciated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: thanks for clarifying. If it is meant for new editors, I don't think we should restrict the articles at all then. Let them add content to whatever they want. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Definitely no restriction! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I support English Wikivoyage participating in the Edit-a-thon. I've seen and done a bit of editing of a draft statement for the event. Is there a proposed timeline for when to have the statement finished and posted to Wikipedia? Would we post a much shorter announcement to Wikipedia and link it to the Edit-a-thon 2018 page here? Where on Wikipedia would we post the announcement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
w:en:WP:VPM is the usual place for announcements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you; I wouldn't have guessed that would be the place. Is there a timeline for when to have the statement ready and publish it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It should be ready and published now, see Posting an announcement on Wikipedia. --Alexander (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Shunpike advice[edit]

Should we give advice of how to avoid tolls? It is not in and by itself illegal, but it often involves somewhat local knowledge and it is not always looked upon with friendly eyes by locals. Furthermore, in countries like Switzerland or Austria, trying to avoid tolls is usually a fool's errand, especially as you have to avoid all toll roads, not just some of them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything unethical about it, though if your financial position is such that road tolls can make or break you, you probably can't afford to travel in the first place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You can drive from Lille to Seville almost exclusively on toll roads. That 2000 km péage fee won't look pretty, whatever your financial situation. This advice would be obviously useful to travellers, and no dubious claims of locals taking against it are going to outweigh that. I say if anyone has shunpike advice to give, don't hold back on giving it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I for one think nearly every single thing associated with driving is too cheap, but that is neither here nor there. France has a better system of tolls than does Austria - in Austria you pay a lump sum for all toll roads with the exception of a few singular roads that have their own special toll... And I think locals are justified in their anger if a whole caravan of vehicles waltzes through their downtown just to save a few coins... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And I don't drive at all, but can still see why people who do would find this info helpful. NIMBY rage from 'locals' is not WV's concern, no matter how legitimate the grievance. All we can do is tell travellers how to respect their surroundings, we can't actually force them to do it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, this is definitely useful advise. Of course where there are issues created by those avoiding tolls clogging up local roads, this should probably be mentioned as well, just like we would mention other cases where tourism might have an impact on the sentiments of local people (I can think of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park for instance). Drat70 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Should for each country, or state give the plus and minus. From my experience: Austria and Switzerland - virtually impossible to avoid, not worth the effort; France and USA - journey takes much longer and more starts and stops so costs more in fuel; UK can save time and distance too, but London should not use car unless really have to; Sweden can avoid with effort and time, more useful to know about time dependent fees; Italy - prices so low not worth avoiding. From the unethical side, living in a village that trucks pass though to avoid tolls, this point should also be mentioned. On the plus side of avoiding toll roads, the traveller gets to see more of the region, more towns and sites, and can bring income to local businesses.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Need your help figuring out how to add the GPX feature to the Hebrew Wikivoyage[edit]

I have been trying to add the top GPX icon+link to all the relevant articles on the Hebrew Wikivoyage without much luck. Maybe anyone around here know how to fix the following issue?

The icon is isn't displayed neatly next to the little map+magnifying glass icon but instead it is displayed above it AND it also affects the banner below which becomes smaller as a result. (See example)

Does anyone here know how to fix these two issues? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I had the same issue in Spanish Wikivoyage. The issue with the banner appears when there isn't a breadcrumb (in Wikivoyage editions with a breadcrumb above the banner), but it's fixed by adding it. I don't know how to permanently fix this problem. --Zerabat (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The breadcrumb generating template (ispartof) is placed at the bottom of the pag here, but the breadcrumb is displayed above the pagebanner. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

San Ysidro[edit]

So an IP editor wrote this (also look at the delightful edit summary). Can somebody other than me try to find an accurate and fair wording? I just don't want to get into a fight with that IP over this... Edited to add: The contributions of the IP editor seem to indicate that a rougher tone is employed by said user quite often... —The preceding comment was added by Hobbitschuster (talkcontribs)

Already addressed at User talk: Let's wait and see what happens next. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
There are some cases where a user might benefit from being counseled because s/he doesn't know how s/he comes off. This isn't one of those cases. I would have no compunction about giving this user the escalating-blocks treatment if this kind of blatantly uncivil behavior continues. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Right, one warning and then blocks if needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct time notation for Egypt[edit]

Hi there, could you please comment and "vote" on Talk:Egypt#Correct time notation, where we need a decision.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Euro templales[edit]

It would be useful to get some more opinions on whether to keep the template that lists all of the countries in which the euro is accepted. Pease comment here: Template_talk:Euro#Reconsidering_the_templates. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The kmh template[edit]

Over at Talk:New Zealand, I raised whether or not the kmh template is to be used after having my use of it reverted, yet got no answer. Please give this a few more eyeballs. And given that this affects more than just this one article, please weigh in even if you don't care about highway speeds in New Zealand. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback on Wikivoyage articles[edit]

I solicited some feedback on tea. I'd like to see what 1.) others think of the feedback presented, 2.) my method of trying to solicit feedback, and 3.) if anyone has better suggestions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It is an interesting way to solicit feedback. Thanks for plunging forward. I noticed that pageviews for the article went up substantially for a few days. I wonder how this would compare to articles posted on the Main Page (as DotM, OtBP, FTT or Discover) and to articles shared on other social media like Facebook and Twitter. The choice of subreddit would also make a difference. The question would potentially be just as relevant in the /travel/ subreddit. Other WV articles could be discussed in a subreddit dedicated to that city, country or region.
In terms of the feedback, I tend to agree with what a lot of what "cha_waan" said although it has to be said that unlike Wikipedia which follows NPOV, we follow being "fair" which allows personal opinions and original research to be stated within the article. I definitely agree that saying "XYZ tea is very good" doesn't add much value. This is a problem on many WV articles actually. Sometimes it is hard to talk about the difference between restaurants and hotels. Many listings end up saying "This hotel is nice and reliable" which doesn't reveal much. Gizza (roam) 21:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I, too, agree with a lot of what cha_wan says, except that I don't know if this can be turned into a reference guide as such. I think that we couldn't possibly cover the topic of tea sufficiently for really sophisticated, wealthy connoisseurs and also that we need to keep a specific focus on travel and on what styles of tea are typical and available in different parts of the world. I think there are indeed areas where the general level of the tea is better than others, and I also think that there are particularly good teas that are widely available in certain places. I guess I can try to describe the taste of Cameron Highlands tea from Malaysia a little more by memory, but beyond saying that it has a well-balanced flavor with a pleasant degree of natural sweetness, I don't know what else I could say. Perhaps some of our Malaysian contributors like User:Chongkian might be able to help more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The information about where tea-growing originated is a somewhat hedged summary from w:Tea, which makes sense to do, since Wikipedia is our sister site. See w:Tea#Origin and history:
Tea plants are native to East Asia, and probably originated in the borderlands of north Burma and southwest China. Statistical cluster analysis, chromosome number, easy hybridization, and various types of intermediate hybrids and spontaneous polyploids indicate that likely a single place of origin exists for Camellia sinensis, an area including the northern part of Burma, and Yunnan and Sichuan provinces of China. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Regarding the method, I think this is really interesting and worth trying more. I wrote some related notes at w:en:WP:Stackexchange and Reddit a while ago, but haven't had time/energy to move it beyond that. I was particularly thinking of bi-directional work, between both article-content, reference desks, and the external sites (i.e. we should avoid just trying to get them to help us; we should also consider the possibilities of perhaps steering forum-style questions from readers, to them - perhaps via talkpage templates, or via wikiproject external link sections, or similar). Kudos for trying new things. I wish I could help, but am already backlogged in work and volunteer tasks, so I'll just encourage you (anyone) to take my notes and run with them, if you're interested. Build the web! :-) Quiddity (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quiddity: Thank you. We really need to have best practices recorded at outreach:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India[edit]

I've been working on the Hyderabad article. The current obstacle to further progress is the districts. The exact district boundaries are unclear, and there are also large areas that seem to not be in any district - see here. I asked the person who originally made the districts, but he doesn't seem to be active anymore. Does anyone have local knowledge who could help out here? Ar2332 (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a real problem. It's really too bad User:Ravikiran r has been gone since May - hopefully, life intervened in a good way. I hope someone can help. If not, you could try posting to w:Talk:Hyderabad and see if that might rustle up anyone who's interested. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for raising the problem here. After some searching I found the following lists and maps: w:List of Hyderabad Corporation wards. They might help in defining the boundaries of each of the districts for our purposes. Xsobev (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those boundaries don't correspond to the Hyderabad boundary on OpenStreetMap (or the one on Google Maps), and also don't seem to be helpful to the traveler (natural destinations are split between zones). So I think it better not to use those. Ar2332 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the Hyderabad page meets most of the "don'ts" regarding districtification: Wikivoyage:Geographical_hierarchy#Districts_in_cities. I think it would be best (for the traveler) at the moment to revert the distrification and merge all the district pages back into the main page until we have at least a "comprehensive districts hierarchy for the city, which has no gaps, no overlap". However, I don't want to see your time and effort being wasted, so reverting should take the district page information into account (for example according to the suggestion: "to breed content for a district(s), you can create a subsection for that district(s) in the respective section (See, Do, Eat, Sleep) in the main city article"). I'm also open to any other proposals ... Xsobev (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Google has started up a travel guide[edit]

When googling a geographical place, I've suddenly been seeing a box with "things to do in X" and "X travel guide". Click on it and you get to see things like this.

So Google now has a travel guide too. But there's more to that. When you go look for some destination that's not a worldwide travel destination, like Iisalmi, the description is from our sister project Wikipedia. We use the same license as Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. What if we could somehow get Google to use some of our content and refer to us in their travel guides? That level of publicity could propel us far above the other site in the Alexa ranking, couldn't it? --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would google do that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Why would Google do what? Have a travel guide or link to us? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Umm... because our text is often better suited for a travel guide (when it comes to tone and content) than text from Wikipedia, which they now are using? --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
However it would be more likely that a large advertising company would come to a commercial arrangement with the other site (where their ads could be hosted), unless our site was say 100x bigger. AlasdairW (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
They have already decided to use content from Wikipedia, which does not accept ads, so we should not count ourselves out, especially as the other site's content is getting staler and staler. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
And they don't need to come to any financial arrangement with Wikipedia (or indeed with us) to use our content. If they wanted to reuse Tripadvisor / Rough Guide / travelling millennial instagram flavour of the month content, they would. It's at least worth trying, but does anyone know how to? Google are notoriously difficult to contact. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Most people still don't know that we exist. If you ask the average traveller with internet access to name up to 10 travel websites they know, Wikivoyage is not going to be one of them, unfortunately. WT is slightly more well known but declining as already said above. Google started integrating Wikipedia information into its search when Wikipedia was already a household name. And it seems to have actually reduced the number of WP pageviews (I remember reading an analysis on WP) because many people just read the summary brought up on Google instead of clicking on the link. I believe the second biggest WMF wiki is Wiktionary, and using information from Wiktionary could be useful too when people search for dictionary definitions but that hasn't happened yet. I think this is a long way away for Wikivoyage. Gizza (roam) 13:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that the fall in WP pageviews is a sign of a benefit to Google. People are now more likely to start their enquiry on Google rather than going straight to WP. So Google gets more pageviews, and an increased chance of an advertising link being clicked. Most WP pages usefully introduce the topic in the first sentence or two, but many of out articles do not - how useful would getting the first 100-200 characters of one our articles be?
If we are going to approach Google, we need find a way to pitch it as an opportunity for them to make money, or solve a specific problem that they have. AlasdairW (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage should be doing what's best for Wikivoyage, not what's best for Google. If Wikipedia experienced a net loss in page views as a result, I would just as soon not approach Google about this (and pray that they don't start including our information of their own accord). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
At Wikimedia there probably is someone who knows how to contact large organizations.
Google has of course set up a travel guide because they think there's a market for one. Travelers, as opposed to someone who's googling e.g. a person or a flower species, usually want to read more than just a paragraph about the destination (and its cuisine etc.), and this is where we would come in. Sure, many of these people would probably still use Google for attractions, restaurants, hotels but they would at least get to hear about our site. As it has been pointed out, we are not the most famous travel site on the Internet (let alone as famous as Wikipedia) and therefore I don't think we have anything to lose.
That said, if there's a risk that all this will do more harm than good let's not proceed with this further. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of being pedantic or arguing past the point, we should do what is best for the traveler as he comes first. That is not always identical to what is best for Wikivoyage or the WMF or whatever. I've no doubt you agree but want it stated for due diligence. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Justin, if Google reuses our data and that benefits the traveler, then it is a good thing. Our ultimate goal is not to get many pageviews, it is to get quality information under the eyes of those who need it :-) Syced (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that we had much say in it anyway, but it appears we probably lost before the battle was even fought. I just did a search for a city (not even looking for travel info) (it was Inverness, if you're curious), and Google's results included a preview box linking to their travel guide, followed by another summary box with a link to the other site. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata links to sub-topics[edit]

So e.g. with Taj mahal, I did this hack where I temporarily made it an empty page (from redirect to Agra#Taj_Mahal)- then I could put a link to wikidata, and thus we probably get another SEO point (due to link from wikipedia page)... Without this hack, wikidata tries to use the redirect target instead and fails, because Agra is already used elsewhere. I did similar thing already once or twice, so perhaps it's good time to confirm that nobody minds too much. :) (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The way to create a link from a Wikipedia page to a listing is first to add the wikidata number to the listing on Wikivoyage then add the Wikivoyage template on the Wikipedia page with the name of the destination page. The link will automatically add a section tag to jump to the correct place in the article. See w:Template:Wikivoyage#Links to listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
On a related but different topic, does anyone know why some monuments or "Wonder of the World" type articles have redirects to their respective destinations, like Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty while others like Colosseum, Hagia Sophia, Terracotta Army and Christ the Redeemer don't? Some of them such as Angkor Wat, Pyramids of Giza and Machu Picchu are so big that they have their own articles which is fair enough and others like Alhambra are disambiguation pages. Gizza (roam) 21:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty, these were originally created as stub articles in 2007, and later turned into redirects. Terracotta Warriors is also a redirect, but was created as such. There are several "Christ the Redeemer" statues around the world (most in Brazil) so this would need to be a disambiguation page. AlasdairW (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for that. On the one hand, you don't want to go overboard but on the other there may be an SEO benefit in redirecting the redlinks above and a few others like Sydney Opera House and Leaning Tower of Pisa. Gizza (roam) 11:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
No, we will just end up with thousands of these. There is nothing wrong with the current search which will list the pages those attractions are mentioned on. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It is still arbitrary as to why we have some of these but not others. Potala Palace, Palace of Versailles, Burj kalifa and Temple Mount are some more redirects that I found. Burj Khalifa isn't even spelt correctly, and the correct spelling doesn't redirect. If there is no consensus to have more of these, I don't believe we should have any at all. Gizza (roam) 20:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Do not think it is arbitrary. The ones that exist have been created with content then merged to where they should be. Either because who did it could not delete or a general preference by some to merge and redirect rather than copy and delete. Assuem so that history of edits are kept. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wiaa says "If an attraction or an event is really famous, and travellers may not know the city or region it is in, then create an article with the attraction name as title, but make it a redirect to the appropriate destination article, and put the actual description of the attraction in the destination article. For example, Taj Mahal redirects to Agra and Burning Man redirects to Black Rock City." That seems reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point, and make sense. I think Sydney Opera House and Tower of Pisa should not need a redirect page :-). --Traveler100 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mx. Granger, that seems to make the most sense although there still seem to be some exceptions. Palace of Versailles redirects to Versailles even though it should be obvious where it is. Terracotta Warriors was made as a redirect straight away. It wasn't an article of its own then merged. Gizza (roam) 21:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, this is somewhat confusing :) w:Template:Wikivoyage#Links to listings contains a sample with the template Wikivoyage template, but the w:Eiffel Tower article actually contains sisterlinks|d=Q243|voy=Paris/7th arrondissement|n=no|b=no|v=no|m=no|mw=no|species=no|q=no, because of ... So what gives, is Koavf just some bot? Also, I never before noticed the 'sister projects' box at the bottom (but maybe for google it probably doesn't matter) :-/ (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Sisterlinks template works the same. For Wikivoyage voy=Paris/7th arrondissement is the article name and it automatically adds the wikidata number to the link so that it jumps to the correct part of the page (Paris/7th_arrondissement#Q243). This was actually set up because Wikidata admins do not want links to redirects. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey, User:Koavf, are you a bot? ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC), Pigsonthewing: query:{koavf=bot}?; return=false. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Shapes on maps etc.[edit]

  • Recently I have been working on a template and module that allows one to create a single mapframe or a single maplink that actually draws a shape such as a cirle, cog, cross, star, boxframe etc. of varying colors and sizes to be displayed on a map.- This builds Kartographer code and does not replace any of our existing excellent templates and intended only to add to working with maps. These shapes can be output as a polygon or line in GeoJSON. In addition, there is the capability to place a Maki icon (GeoJSON Point - pick your color and symbol) on a map using maplink. One can also create a maplink that does not appear on an article page and is hidden though its marker (Maki icon with image and description) will appear on map. One can create a mapshape from OSM using a wikidata id or bring in a page from Commons. This also uses the group and show parameters (Helps keep things together). See: User_talk:Matroc/Mapdraw2 if interested. -- Matroc (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Very interesting. I think one of the common use cases for this will be to overlay a map with lines (metro lines or key roads), and it will be best to do this via OpenStreetMap data directly rather than generating a custom file each time (as you did for Israel Highway 1). Could you put together an example where this is done? Ar2332 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't access OSM directly but rather through Wikidata using an id to find an entry. In the Wikidata entry the OpenStreetMap Relation identifier is used to access OSM. No Wikidata entry found by id or no OSM Relation identifier in the Wikidata entry then basically out of luck. (I doubt very seriously that one would find many metro lines or key roads available in Wikidata; even fewer with an OpenStreeMap Relation id). I did manage to find one instance (after searching wikidata)Trans-Siberian Railroad which is not really inadequate for the Trans-Siberian Railroad article in Wikivoyage. We had used at first GPX files and then the idea came about to create data files in Commons to produce GeoJSON needed and usable by many. (I think even this may now be under some contention?). In some cases, users have created the data needed and entered/coded them within a particular article page by hand. To check out streets and roads closer, there are external maps available that might assist as well. -- Matroc (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Metro lines might be doable. I checked OSM and it had the Wikidata IDs for Vancouver's three rapid transit lines. Using {{mapshape}} and type=geoline, I was able to add the two lines that pass through downtown Vancouver to the Vancouver/City Centre map. But yeah, it requires the OSM Relation identifier for the metro line (or highway) to have the corresponding Wikidata ID entered in OSM, so it may not work very often.
GeoJSON data files can be stored on Commons, but the source of the data needs to be in the public domain... which is hard as OSM data is licensed under the Open Database License and most countries (other than the United States) license their data under an Open Government License. -Shaundd (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC) -- Thanks Shaundd - Matroc (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Works great! Most metro lines in the world do seem to have Wikidata IDs and OSM paths already, and the two can be linked where necessary.
Is there a way to change the color of the line? Stroke and fill attributes didn't seem to work... Ar2332 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I would leave a note on the Talk page for Template:Mapshape and ask if parameter stroke' could be added. -- Matroc (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Making sure our coverage of Spain is top-notch[edit]

It's evidently overtaken my homeland as the second-most traveled destination after France. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

unfortunately Spanish Wikivoyage is not as good or active as the number of Spanish speakers might indicate... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, but we are doing our best to improve those articles little by little. --Zerabat (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"service" as a verb[edit]

I have found in recent times that the word "service" is increasingly used as a verb. It sounds just weird to me. Is that a dialect of English issue, an unusual but perfectly cromulent wording, or am I right in finding it weird? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd use "serve", but it's not incorrect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It really depends on the sense. When used as a synonym for 'serve' (e.g. "The station is serviced by frequent trains") it looks weird to me and possibly wrong. But other uses are normal: the mechanic serviced my car (she gave my car a full 'check up', and fixed any problems she found); the stag is servicing more than one doe (the stag is sleeping around... attempting to pass on his DNA to as many females as possible). As I said, it really depends. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It mostly concerns "service" as used in the first sense you mentioned... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with ThunderingTyphoons! The mechanic definitely doesn't serve the car. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with TT: other than mechanics and stags, "servicing" is just a longer way of saying "serving". It isn't necessary or better. Ground Zero (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like it's perfectly cromulent. In particular, a usage like "Bus route 123 services the neighborhoods of Podunk and Timbuktu" is perhaps not any better than using "serves", but seems to be totally acceptable. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed with Bigpeteb. Depending on context, in come cases only one or the other word fits, but there's a considerable degree of overlap where both "service" and "serve" are appropriate. Barring full-fledged malapropism, I don't think we ought to be in the business of establishing preferred verbiage. Our policy should be to leave authors alone and free to do their thing unless and until there's a truly compelling reason to step in and change stuff around. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is proposing regulating this. I think Hobbit was just asking to understand English usage better. Ground Zero (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I generally think of this word in some industrial or commercial context. E.g. "I served my wife breakfast in bed" but "the mechanic serviced my car". If I were doing something similar, I would probably say "fix" (i.e. "I fixed the toaster over the weekend.") Servicing in my mind implies some level of skill or competence. There can be professionals who "serve" something—a computer server or a server/waiter/waitress at a restaurant—as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ground Zero - okay, looking more closely at this discussion, I can see that now. The first two sentences of my original comment still apply, though. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Justin, I think you fix a vehicle that is broken, but service a functioning vehicle as part of its regular maintenance. Ground Zero (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hm, good point. Curiouser and curiouser. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Problems with adding Templates[edit]

I've recently found that the "Add template" button won't switch to a blue background when you need to add the template. This includes problems with adding listings. Selfie City (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed now. Selfie City (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We need to remove all the RelatedSites links[edit]

Back in the WikiTravel days, we used an extension called RelatedSites to create interwiki links to Commons and Wikipedia in the sidebar. We now have these links created semi-automatically by Wikidata. See, for example, the sidebar at United States. It has a sidebar section called "In other projects" which links to the Commons category, the Wikipedia article and various other wikis. It then has a redundant "Related sites" section which again links to the Commons category and the Wikipedia article. The first section is created automatically via the Wikidata site links. The second section is created by links that are hard-coded into the WikiText of the Wikivoyage United States page. There is no reason for us to have both and the WMF would love to stop maintaining the RelatedSites extension and remove it. Before they can do that though, we need to remove all the hard-coded links, otherwise they will turn into regular red-links in the articles. Is anyone interested in creating a bot to do this? Are there any concerns with doing this? Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wikidata links only work well when there is a 1:1 relationship between WV and WP articles - which is most but not all articles. For instance see Lynton and Lynmouth. I think that we first need to consider how handle links in these cases - maybe a text box in "Go next", which could allow more than one link in such cases. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea (and how most other projects handle such cases). Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to list pages using the relatedsites option like [[Wikipedia:United States of America]]? Any chance of generating a category when used so we can check against wikidata entries and Category:Articles without Wikipedia links (via Wikidata). --Traveler100 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Right now, the only method is to search (example), but that probably isn't very useful for bots. I'll create a Phabricator task to add such pages to maintenance categories (which will require a bit of hackery since these are just links rather than templates). Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Useful search syntax, thanks. Thinking about this more I have another idea. We could replace the link entry in all articles with a template which has the same name reference to Wikipedia. The template however checks via Wikidata if the Other Project link is the same, if so does not create a related link, if not it creates the related sites link or an inline see also link. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In any case, I don't think we can completely eliminate the need to have extensions which the ability to place links into the sidebar. We used to have three different extensions placing different sidebar links, mw:extension:RelatedArticles, mw:extension:RelatedSites and mw:extension:Insider. The related articles extension was replaced with another extension (with, confusingly, the same name) which places the links at the bottom of the page. Wikidata is a partial replacement for RelatedSites, but only a partial replacement - as it only handles the case wher'e there's a 1:1 correspondence between Wikivoyage and another project. Insider (Wikivoyage:Docents) has no replacement. As such, the claims that WMF "won't have to maintain this anymore" are badly premature. If anything, I would've liked to see an extension created that replaces all three by allowing the tag to contain the more general "add sidebar link to section X with title Y and link target Z" instead of arbitrarily abandoning all page-specific sidebar links. K7L (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
How common is it that Wikivoyage pages don't have correspondence on other projects? I imagine that would be rare. It's important to understand that there is a real cost to keeping the RelatedSites extension maintained. Even if no features are added and no bugs are fixed, the code still has to be kept up to date with newer versions of MediaWiki and PHP, sometimes requiring significant refactoring (for example, the recent shift to extension registration). Because the WMF is such a small organization, that means not having as much time and resources to work on other projects that will be of much more benefit to Wikivoyage, like maps. Kaldari (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
As a first step how about using {{RelatedWikipedia}}. The [[Wikipedia:pagename]] could be replaced by {{RelatedWikipedia|pagename}} in all articles. This template is currently set to do the same thing, but also creates some administration categories we can use to check page links. It can then later be changed to use different method of showing the link and not duplicating the link if the same as the Other projects link in the sidebar. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a really nice idea! Should we do the same for Commons links? Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes can set that up too. Can run a bot to make the change but would like some input from other regular contributors before doing so. This will edit most articles on the site but initially will not change anything about how the page looks or works. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know what the #invoke:Wikidata syntax is to retrieve Commons link for a page? Sometimes it is under Other Sites commons, sometimes under P373 (Commons Category).--Traveler100 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Think will have different templates for referencing a Commons page and an Commons category. {{RelatedCommons}} and {{RelatedCommonsCat}}. have not work out the correct syntax yet to get commons page, but have written bot to make change if/when decide to go with this. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Commons category is almost (but not quite always) much better to link to than the Commons page, as it tends to be where all of the relevant photos are (or at least are linked from, in subcategories). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree but first step would not change what decision someone has made. It will however create categories so you can easily find and go through the articles referencing the Commons page rather than the category. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
OK worked out the code for Commons page from Wikidata. Templates and bot ready to go if other think we should change the syntax (but at this point no change to page or function). --Traveler100 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There are just under 7000 pages with a Dmoz link, should I get the bot to remove it from all articles?
Yes, please. I tried to save DMOZ but it's a dead issue. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree, there were some tentative efforts to save DMOZ, but I think it's best to remove those links now. Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First step - test sample[edit]

Updated the pages and categories in Category:North America. Please check, if no issues found will in later (say 12 hours) start the bot on the rest of the site.

First interesting result is the categories are showing links that are either redirect pages or no longer existing categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A large number of articles with Wikipedia links different to Wikidata are due to the moving of Wikipedia pages so are pointing to redirects. I am trying to find a programmatic way of checking this but cannot get Module:Redirect to work across projects. See Template:RelatedWikipedia/sandbox. Anyone with an idea? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: That might be tricky to solve. Any idea how common that is? Would it be feasible to just put those cases into a special category for a human to review and make a decision? Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I would say about 25% of Wikipedia sidebar references do not match the Wikidata name. Of those most, maybe 90% but that is what is difficult to check, are just a different because of a move/redirect. The rest are reference to close but not exact articles on Wikipedia. I am splitting those that are difference to the wikidata name but differentiating within that group I have not found a way yet. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like there are also some weird links like Special:Search/Alamosa, Colorado. I assume those should either be changed to a category or removed. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
First step done. Related sites controlled by templates. Now need to check and clean up the data and look at changing how handled and displayed. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove RelatedWikipedia[edit]

What is the purpose of {{RelatedWikipedia}}? We already have "In other projects" followed immediately by "Related sites". Just remove related sites entirely, since we are not linking DMOZ or Citizendium and Commons and Wikipedia are linked as other projects... What am I missing here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The long term aim is to get rid of the Wikipedia link in articles. This template is the first step. There are a number of articles that do not have a direct equivalent WIkipedia page but have a [[Wikipedia:relatedpagename]] link to a similar and useful page. Simply removing the link from all articles would remove that information. Swapping the link to the template allows us first to see how many of these there are. Also with a very minor change to the template can automatically removed "Related sites" entries that are exactly the same as "In other sites" entries. The current running update chances nothing in the pages but set up a template that allows for quick changes. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a perfect thing for d: in the future. It's possible to have a property like "Wikivoyage fallback" and define where users should be pointed on en.wp in case there isn't a single one-to-one corresponding article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Next step[edit]

@Traveler100, Koavf, AlasdairW: Now we need to get the Wikivoyage community to empty out all of these maintenance categories by reviewing and syncing the Wikidata entries (before the RelatedSites extension is turned off):

Any idea how we can drum up volunteers to do that? Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, RelatedSites may be turned off fairly soon. If you want to comment on this, go to mw:Talk:Code stewardship reviews/Feedback solicitation/RelatedSites. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe at d:Wikidata:Project chat? I mean, I can help too. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Well we could reschedule Cotm activities. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Any idea how to pragmatically identify redirects on another project? --Traveler100 (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
If the RelatedSites gets turned off before all the categories get cleaned up can easily change the template to show Wikipedia and Commons links in a box at the bottom of pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The wikitext editor needs to be altered, as at the moment it has Sidebar Templates: which give the two templates which we are no longer using. Either the new related templates should be substituted or these two should just be removed. Unfortunately I don't know anything about how this can be done.
I went ahead and removed the templates from the editor (after no one responded to my comments on the talk page). Kaldari (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that we also need to get others involved in the discussion about what form the replacement links should take, then the related templates can be altered to achieve this. And thank you to Traveler100 for all the hard work on the new templates. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: I changed your comment to have auto-updating numbers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Formalize map policy[edit]

I have started a new discussion to formalize the Wikivoyage map policy Wikivoyage:Map here : Wikivoyage_talk:Map#Formalize_this_policy. Please go there to comment further. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Booking vs. not booking advice[edit]

I am noticing that a lot of pages are suggestion travelers not book accommodation in advance so accommodation owners will not have to pay commission. Booking in advance protects travelers against unscrupulous accommodation providers, and gives the option to leave reviews which is important to the community as a whole. It is also important to ensure the safety of travelers as it leaves information embassies/police/family can use to ascertain their whereabouts.

The number of times I have arrived without a booking only to find

A. the place is booked out, contrary to their, and no assistance has been provided as "you didn't book"

B. there have been serious problems with the accommodation, and I was unable to warn others by leaving a review on popular sites

C. someone saw fit to cheat me, knowing without a booking I had little recourse

The only benefit I see in not booking is in very cheap countries where the commission a traveler pays is a considerable proportion of the overall price While the online commission giants make it harder for independent providers, they also make it easy to start up

Ultimately I do not believe the advice "not to book" is in the interests of travelers, and would like to seek consensus.

--Willthewanderer (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not booking ahead is something I do not do and would not recommend. maybe that is based on where I am travelling and the quality I am looking for. Can you link to some examples of this advice? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Twenty years ago I would often travel without booking ahead. I usually tried to arrive in town about lunchtime, so that I had plenty of time to look around, and when occasionally several hotels were full I could move on to another town. In those days booking ahead would have meant a phone call - international calls were expensive, there were language problems and I wanted to see the place rather than booking a hotel that the rats were checking out of.
However nowadays I almost always book ahead - the only regular exception is a small remote hostel which does not take bookings. I almost always book direct with the hotel or hostel, and I am still able to leave online reviews if I want. This change has mainly come due to the increased ease of making online bookings, and these days I tend to buy cheaper advance tickets for trains and buses, and so the whole trip needs to be planed. The main advantage is the time saved during the trip (not wandering around looking for a bed) and being able to give family my plans. A drawback is that I can less easily change my plans in response to the weather or local events. AlasdairW (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Occasionally I will book multiple hotels for the same as long as the cancellation policy is no charge and can be same day (usually by 16:00) or in some cases day before. Then can still be flexible. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that booking accommodation in advance is likely in the traveller's best interest in the majority of cases, and by all means we should remove such language in particular cases where we know it to be inaccurate, but I would be against establishing an across-the-board policy on that basis. There are exceptions to every rule. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Willthewanderer, could you please provide a couple of examples of pages that say people shouldn't reserve hotel rooms in advance? I still haven't read even tenth of our 28,103 articles, but I don't recall ever seeing this advice before. (If someone has scruples about commission fees, then they are usually trivial to avoid: just phone the hotel and book directly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I come across the advice from time to time, this is one I last saw on the Tbilisi articles "sleep section" "Check out prices on the usual suspect websites and turn up on site stating the price – hostel owners will happily give you the online rate, so they can skip the fee the pay on such websites"

It seems clearly like the advice is in the interest of the hostel owner, not the traveler on a number of occasions I find that the "walk in price" aka. not making a booking is significantly more expensive than booking online as owners try to cash in on disorganized tourists

What's up with the map that has been added to a bunch of articles[edit]

What's up with this map that has popped up in articles like rail travel in the US lately. It seems like a partial copy from Google Maps has a pretty low resolution and some weird artifacts. Should it be kept, improved or removed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The file seems to be a screenshot of this page, which is directly referenced in the item description. Copyright is most likely not an issue: WikiVoyage, Wikidata and Wikipedia are the referenced sources and the site itself seems to be a tool linking to Wikimedia data. I'd rather see the page itself linked to and the screenshot made into a proper map file if the author is okay with that. The author posted an announcement on their facebook page four hours ago for this project, and I therefore assume the uploader of the screenshot (User:Jkan997) is them.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks - Wauteurz - are right, the map is preview of the interactive map with content on CC licenses ( + OSM background). It has nothing to do with Google Maps. Regarding the look - I am open to suggestions what to change - the idea of the map is to give impression what use will able to find on interactive map. Nevertheless there are elements of the map that even without going to interactive map - Alaska Railways, some minor systems (ie. Metrolink in LA) and in case of longer relations it possible to read relation by color code from map (ie. California Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Sunset limited). If there is no better map I suggest this one to be left on the article.

--Jkan997 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The original map found under the link is useful. The screenshot less so, as it is too general for the shorter range systems and contains too many unexplained symbols (including no meaning for the colors being given) for an overview. Maybe the whole thing could be transformed into a WV style dynamic map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback Hobbitschuster, Wauteurz - from technical perspective it is not possible to include interactive map to article (too big dataset). Also right now map has train list, but it will also include features like filtering byt train type (sleeper, intercity, commuter, toursist). Generaly ShareMap Traveler site is intended to be what ShareMap is for wikipedia - geospatial enviroment. Maps contains a lot of Wikivoyage data and links user back to Wikivoyage so it can be treated as just different way of displaying Wikivoyage. I agree you that the map itself does not contains too much value without description. So I can suggest two solutions

Use direct interwiki link with thumbnail

Passenger trains in North America

PROS: user see what he will see after clicking

CONS: user can be little misleaded that he will redirected from WV site (however because this is inter wiki not external link this is permitted from Wiki rules perspective)

Use textual link

Interactive map of Trains in North America

PROS: small, non intrusive

CONS: Can be easily skipped and user will not see informations.

Use image with Interwiki link in description

Passenger trains in North America (interactive map)

PROS: user see what he will see after clicking

CONS: after clicking on image (not link) user will see the enlarged image that is not very useful.

Waiting for your comments. --Jkan997 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hobbit. As you might know, we have our own dynamic maps here on Wikivoyage, and I think that I speak on behalf of most of us when I say that it's better to work the information given into one of those maps and leave a link to the ShareMap in Rail travel in the United States. Placing a link to the ShareMap on every article in the US that has a rail connection is very much unnecessary. If you must link to it, give the articles of cities and towns along the lines a Routebox and link Rail travel in the United States from there. Information about the running stock and whatnot can be listed in there as well, as is the case in Rail travel in the Netherlands#Trains and rolling stock. The biggest stations can be listed as {{marker|type=go|}} to give the reader a sense of location. I think the best option is to simply link the ShareMap in Rail travel in the United States#Further reading.
Also, a small sidenote: redirecting from enWikivoyage or any WMF site for that matter to ShareMap as you describe in your first stated option is not an interwiki link. Interwiki links refer to links between WMF projects, so enWikivoyage to nlWikivoyage or enWikipedia to deWikiquote.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Wauteurz - for clarification ShareMap is interwiki (there are two types of inter wikis foundation and non foundation sites). There was long acceptance process to include it interwiki list. Regarding Netherland map - the thing that is missing on for me on NL map are lines, I know that they can added on dynamic maps - and this can work for smaller countries, but for US the shape will be too complex. Also I agree for you that including map in every city with rail station will not make sense--Jkan997 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
Alright, I am not saying that Rail travel in the Netherlands needs a likewise dynamic map. It might be a good addition, but it is by no means necessary. What I meant was:
I hope this clarifies.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes this clarifies a lot - thanks Wauteurz for your feedback --Jkan997 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Airline destinations[edit]

Some editors here may be interested in w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?. At the moment, all such lists (but not similar lists for railways) may be headed for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think they are fine on WP, but I think if the decision is to delete them - we should take them. I don't think WV is a directory either, but I would love to have their editors and readers here at WV. --Inas (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
A list of all routes to and from an airport I can see as being useful to a travel site and travellers, a list of routes of an airline not so sure. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Traveler100. I initially thought they were going to delete all the 'Airlines and destination' tables from each of their airport articles, which would have been a disastrous move for us and WP. But that's not what this is about, and I don't see why it would serve the traveller for us to import all of these hundreds of pages. We haven't got the manpower to maintain such lists anyway (even the behemoth that is English Wikipedia think they're overstretching themselves), so the point is largely moot. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Another reason to travel without a smartphone[edit]

In addition to them being surveillance devices, Instagrammers are sucking the life and soul out of travel. "My view of Sri Lanka was spoiled by the peachy backsides of tourists obsessed with their social media feeds." —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As much as I like The Guardian as a source of news, its travel section can basically be summed up by "All these bloody tourists ruin everything for proper voyagers like me. They should all just stay at home and leave the enlightened few (i.e. Guardian journalists and their families) to enjoy [destination] in peace". It's a hideous lack of self-awareness and a huge dose of self-entitlement. Funnily enough, The Telegraph, which as a newspaper is too right-wing for my tastes, has an excellent travel section with loads of well-researched and sublimely written (and illustrated) features. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

When an event is cancelled.[edit]

If a previously-scheduled annual event that is listed in the 'Events' list of a city article's 'Do' section is cancelled, is it normal to delete the listing as soon as the cancellation becomes apparent, or is it better to keep the listing in a modified state (informing travellers of the cancellation) until the date it would have been held has passed? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is more useful to have information that it is cancelled. May want to treat permanently cancelled or just this year cancelled a little differently. If permanently cancelled and a well known event should have a sentence on the fact, if a minor event people outside the area would not of heard of then just delete. For a one off cancellation but back next year, keep and add content appropriately. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds reasonable. The event in question is a lesser-known winter spin-off of a popular summer music festival. Probably worth keeping just for this association until the date has passed. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018[edit]

Only 8 days left until the edit-a-thon starts. A lot has been accomplished towards this edit-a-thon (thanks to everyone whom have contributed to that, and especially to Alexander), although I still wish more editions of Wikivoyage would join the edit-a-thon in the last second (why aren't the Polish, Dutch, Greek and Persian Wikivoyage editions joining?).

I wanted to request that the English Wikivoyage community help me with the following things related to this edit-a-thon:

  • Please go over the three pages of the edit-a-thon (1, 2, 3) and help improve them as much as you can (I still think that the contributions page could probably look a lot better but not sure how to do that). A LOT of people are going to discover the English Wikivoyage for the first time through the edit-a-thon landing page through February 2018... and therefore, please help me make sure that it would be inviting and effective.
  • I need at least one or two more editor/s to help me with with the tasks related to organizing this edit-a-thon on the English Wikivoyage. any volunteers? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The aforementioned Wikivoyages do not join, because they do not have any active editors capable of organizing this. As already mentioned, there is no need to pull dormant Wikivoyages into the edit-a-thon. It will only have negative impact on the others. --Alexander (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would it not be simpler to run this if we removed any suggestion of it being a competition? I expect that some readers who are not used to wikis will expect to receive a barnstar through the post. AlasdairW (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding that... yesterday we managed to get Wikimedia Israel to support the edit-a-thon at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, meaning that they would supply ten prizes to the 10 most prolific editors participating in the edit-a-thon at the Hebrew Wikivoyage (I basically asked if they would be willing to supply the same prizes that were given as part of the 2017 Asia month edit-a-thon). Whom should we approach in order to have Wikimedia support the edit-a-thon at the English Wikivoyage? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in helping me co-organize the edit-a-thon on the English Wikivoyage? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind participating in edit-a-thons, but I don't have the time to organize. One thing I want to point out is that you shouldn't restrict people from signing up after February 15. Just keep it open until the last day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
We are getting some good new contributor, but also getting the attention of vandals. So patience with new users not familiar with this site's conventions but vigilance for those only here to disrupt. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad that the list of participants have grown substantially since it started. If it's about vetting contributions after the end of edit-a-thon, I can do that. (I will be travelling abroad in the latter half of this month. And yes, that includes a full day in Andorra which was the reason it drew me to Wikivoyage.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Breadcrumbs for airports[edit]

Is there a general rule where to breadcrumb an airport article to? Do municipal boundaries matter for that? Does districtification? Where to breadcrumb Denver Airport, Frankfurt Airport or Phoenix Airport? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The region they are in. If it is an article then it at least serves the region around it, if not more. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides that, I would totally recommend directin g to the city it's in, for more info about traveling in and out. Just saying trhat would be helpful. Not required, just helpful. -Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Wish me a happy 2nd anniversary of my first edit at my chat page 17:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi there.

Can someone explain to me why we are using this template, which shows the converted dollar value in brackets? Why do we prefer USD over GBP or EUR? I reckon the English WV is actually used more by non-US people than US (this is just a matter of numbers not preference), and also it is the major source for British folks. This additional value is just taking up space, is even confusing, and pretending that USD has any additional relevance in this country, which it does not.

So, unless we are also including GPB and EUR, I would like to remove it. Any objections?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should create a new one based on format of others. See Template:Exchangerate/list. For example using {{ZAR|100}} will show R100 which gives currency rates on mouse over. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
This was one of many currency-related templates created by a new user in violation of our policy on introducing new templates (and as I understand it, that user went on to try to unilaterally alter our template policy after being called out). They should be deleted en masse. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Andre. When I was updating exchange rates for our country, territory and dependency articles that include them, I found these special currency templates to be a pain to update. I would be happy to see them deleted.
The only ones that should be kept are those for currencies used in many countries (euro, US $, UK £, CFA franc, Eastern Caribbean $, Aus $ and NZ$). These templates (which I created with help from the much-missed Ryan) make it easier to update exchange rates and ensure that we use the same rates scriss articles. Ground Zero (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that the African Francs are tied to the Euro, is it possible to have them automatically update when the € updates? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Reverted those weird NTD template edits. Ceever (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct placement of "Visitor Information Centre"[edit]

Could you tell me where would be the right location of a "Visitor Information Centre" listing? I expected it to be most helpful in the "Understand" section.

Where would you place it?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Understand, as suggested here. Very useful page to remember :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Ceever (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What about parks?[edit]

Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it#P currently has:

park (city) the See section of the City page
park (state or national) the Other destinations section of a Region or Country page

Is this consistent with our actual usage? I've been listing small parks as "do" (activity) rather than "see"; if they're outside the city in some rural location that doesn't merit its own article, that may end up in a village-level "nearby" section of the closest place with an article. Provincial parks aren't necessarily "other destinations" unless they're large enough to justify creating an article specifically for the park, Jellystone-style. Anticosti is treated as a rural bottom-level destination, Adirondacks is a region with villages under it, Algonquin Provincial Park is an actual park article - but there are countless small provincial (or even federal) parks which merit little more than a listing in the closest town with an article... as "do". K7L (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well now we get into the fine distinctions between individual parks. The Adirondacks are referred to as a "park" in official terminology, but functionally it's more akin to an undeveloped wilderness preserve, albeit with a few populated areas contained therein (IIRC towns, villages and built-up areas that predate the establishment of the preserve are grandfathered in and not subject to the same land-use regulations as elsewhere inside the Green Line). For Anticosti a convincing argument could be made either way, as it functions as both a municipality and a provincial park. Small state parks contained wholly within one municipality, such as Buffalo Harbor State Park, should be listings (always "See", though individual amenities within the park, such as BHSP's Safe Harbor Boat Rentals, can be filed under "Do"). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd suppose there is a distinction between a city park where you would stroll with your picnic basket, and the out-of-town protected area ("park"), where you would have hiking boots and a backpack. The former seems to belong in See, while I'd certainly place the latter in Do, even if it is comparably small. "State park" is not usable vocabulary for the distinction, as it requires knowledge of the system in specific countries – and that "one municipality" is not usable criteria across Buffalo and Enontekiö. --LPfi (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd expect that we'd want to keep the park and any sub-listings for individual amenities in the park together as one group, much as we do for a university campus which contains a museum (see), an opera house (do) and a conference centre.
As for the confusing "parc national" labels? Perhaps the distinction is between a small park which serves a single village vs. a small village (or handful of villages) which serve a large park. Rouge National Park on the Scarborough-Pickering boundary is listed to Toronto/Scarborough#Do even though it's federal and not municipal. Is Trawna just a small village which primarily serves the park, or is this (conversely) a small park which primarily serves the city? Torngat Mountains National Park is another matter entirely - a huge park, way off the beaten path (and watch for hungry white bears!).
I'd expect that getting your pick-a-nick basket nicked by cartoon bears would be an activity ("do") - although there may be an edge case where a tiny village which "has no restaurant, but one may buy deli sandwiches from the grocer and eat them at the picnic tables in the park" could include a picnic area in "eat". A picnic is an activity, so doesn't really best fit with the museum and architecture listings in "see". K7L (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)::
I'd put "Take the kids to the playground" under ==Do==. I'd put "stroll around the manicured gardens" under ==See==.
I don't think that you can have a hard-and-fast rule that can be applied thoughtlessly, because "park" is an expansive subject. There are locations that are half public art installation ("See") and half children's playground ("Do"), or half flower garden ("See") and half restaurant ("Eat"), etc. In those cases, I don't think we should spend too much time worrying about the ideal section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

PD templates[edit]

I want to reorganize the PD templates because I think there is unnecessary duplication in some cases. Currently, Category:License tags shows:

The first three are effectively the same template but with minor differences. The fourth one (PD-fed) should really be called something like {{PD-USGov}} because "fed" suggests the FBI or the act of being fed. The PD-old template should indicate why something is PD e.g. it is a US work from before 1923. The first, second, third, and sixth ones should offer an optional author parameter in case someone wants to add a name mext to the declaration. I have put this here to see if there are any suggestions or objections before I start tinkering away. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added a use count. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning the author is important at least for EU residents, since the "moral rights" require attribution (there is no way to put works in the public domain), but isn't the author line of the information template the place to put that information?
Then there is a problem with saying "this applies worldwide". Do only such images qualify for use here? Who is going to do the checking? I think the template pages should give some advice on when they can be used. For Commons it is enough that an image is free in the USA, in the "country of origin" and perhaps (there are conflicting guidelines on Commons) some other countries related to the image and the uploading user.
What about the "fed" template? Shouldn't we have a template for any copyright-free governmental works, and handle specifics as a parameter?
--LPfi (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with mentioning the author but creator is the same as author. I’d prefer a generic government PD template as suggested by LPfi but Commons experience tells me that it might be better to have at least two such templates (one US and one for others) because there is so much variation between governments. Green Giant (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as worldwide application, please see c:Template:PD-self for the information that is needed. Checking should be done by any user willing to do so (I would hesitate to suggest a License Review-type group). Green Giant (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
PD-self is less problematic, as there essentially is the European version where you cannot waive your moral rights and the USA version where you truly can put something in the public domain (are there further variants?). The PD-old thing is much more complicated. I think "anybody willing" here does not include anybody who knows that a PD statement applies worldwide. On Commons the templates usually state "in countries where ...", and I think that is the wording also we should use. --LPfi (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think there should be just three PD templates on Wikivoyage:
  • {{PD-self}} should be for when an uploader declares their own work to be in the public domain;
  • {{PD-author}} should be for other people's work, which the author/creator has put into the public domain;
  • {{PD-Gov}} should be for works that are by a specific government, which does not attract copyright by law (this should have a parameter which lets you select the country);
Anything that is PD-old suggests it has fallen out of copyright by virtue of X number of years (50, 60, 70, 100 depending on the jurisdiction) having passed since the author died. These files should really be at Commons. Green Giant (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Over here it is not just governmental works that are free, but decisions by (nearly) any public sector body, so "gov" is not necessarily the right name. The PD-old files may be here in some cases, where they are not deemed to be of interest for Commons (at least suggested DotM banners). And what about PD-1923? --LPfi (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, the reason why DotM banners are hosted locally is not because they were "not deemed to be of interest for Commons", but rather "to prevent them from being overwritten or edited on Commons". The trigger-happiness of some Commons admins with the delete button has caused problems here on more than one occasion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to keep important files like the banners locally. I'm not suggesting moving them, just that the templates should be easier to use. It is confusing to have both a creator template and an author template for example. Green Giant (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
André: that makes more sense, true, as they are very nice images. Giant: the author and creator templates are redundant with each other, but it suffices to choose one. The "this applies worldwide" of PD-old (or the current equivalent implicit statement) is the problematic thing for template users. Otherwise the current wording nicely covers also the PD-gov cases. Parameters at least for pma/1923, and some instructions, should be added – especially as we want to be able to move the images to Commons. --LPfi (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Offline wikivoyage partly broken[edit]

Does anyone know which code is used to convert the listings into static htmls, that are part of the offline ZIM archives? [kartographer], or something else? Or even better - is there some "developer overview" of wikivoyage? Currently, the offline dump has broken indices (all listings are "1") - and I'd say also some static copy (at least a screenshot with some link to online wikivoyage perhaps?) of the dynamic maps wouldn't hurt. (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this problem form the German archives, too. Some weeks ago the Kiwix team changed the creation of the archives. In the past they were derived from the Vector skin, but now from mobile skin. It seems that the CSS styles are missing, too. We had to prepare a failure ticket to the Kiwix team. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

wheelchair accessible vehicles[edit]

Why can I not post about our wheelchair accessible vehicles in Orkney, Scotland? Its deleted as it is thought to be promotional. Is this less important that the other clearly commercial stuff that's on the site. we are a company that supports the work of a disability charity and I would have thought this would have been a valuable entry to a travel site —The preceding comment was added by Orkneyheritagetours (talkcontribs)

Orkneyheritagetours - There seems to have been some confusion on the part of one of our administrators. By way of offering a possible explanation, identifying and removing spam is a constant battle we fight on this site, and the vast majority of the time when a contributor's username clearly identifies him or her as the representative of a specific company, any contributions he or she makes end up being very clearly promotional. However, I reviewed your edit to Orkney Islands and that seems not to be the case here. My apologies for the inconvenience. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, preempting a possible response to me: though we do have a policy of not including value-added tours (i.e. those which don't offer anything more than what a traveller could hypothetically see or do on his or her own), I'm going to argue in favor of including this particular listing. It seems likely to me that this tour is value-added to its target market, being that the company offers experiences to travellers in wheelchairs that it would be difficult if not practically impossible for them to do on their own. I'm going to reinstate Orkneyheritagetours' edit on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Orkneyheritagetours, I'd love to see you bringing your knowledge here. We talked about disability-related themes a while ago, and one of the outcomes was that everyone thought that adding information related to a disability to some individual listings would be very helpful. If you felt like looking through listings for places you've visited, and adding information, that would be really helpful. Some of it's obvious, like "wheelchair ramp around back" or "has a Braille menu", but other useful pieces of information, such as "busy, energetic atmosphere with rock music pounding through the night", is very helpful to people with a variety of disabilities (hard of hearing, autism, anxiety) as well as other travelers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
If the listing is allowed by policy, then it's great that we add disability information. But if the tour isn't allowed by policy, then I don't see what disability information has to do with anything. From what I can see, this is a tour company adding their tour. Am I missing something? I would have thought most tours these days would cater for people with a wheelchair disability. --Inas (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that very few tour coaches can take people who are in a wheelchair and need to stay in the chair, unlike service buses which often have access ramps and a space to park a wheelchair. Most tour coaches have a few steps at the entrance. If the passenger can walk short distances then they might be able to take a tour with the wheelchair being stored in the boot. The policy says "If a traveller could fulfill the substance of the tour on their own, the tour should not be listed." A disabled traveller may find it much harder to "fulfill the substance of the tour" due to the route/terrain etc. AlasdairW (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I can think of situations for which the fact that the attraction offers a particular accommodation is what makes it worth listing. For example, if you're using a wheelchair, it's usually difficult to rent a wheelchair-accessible van when you arrive at your destination, and it's almost impossible to rent a vehicle with other adaptive equipment. If a business offered such equipment, then I would be inclined to list it specifically because of its unusual offerings, even if I wouldn't normally bother listing any other car-rental companies at that airport/train station. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this possible?[edit]

Is there any easy way to generate a list of all the articles that have been defined as being located within a certain much larger area in the geography hierarchy? for example, a quick list of ALL articles about destinations in Southern Italy, or a quick list of ALL articles about destinations in the Bay Area, or maybe even a quick list of all articles in a very big country like Russia? Would I have to copy and past names from the categories in order to assemble such lists? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: Trying a category like Category:India would do. :)
-Signed, the amazing Zanygenius. Visit my chat page 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
But it Category:India doesn't actually contain India. :/ I've been reverted on this here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC) is what you're looking for. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Or with fields set so Southern Italy --Traveler100 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Expat clubs?[edit]

I noticed this edit on Busan LINK that added an Expat Rugby club. Is this in scope? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording "an expat rugby club open to all residents of Busan and surrounding provinces" might be an issue, as we´re looking for things which are open to voyagers - and not merely to residents. K7L (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to say that this is not relevant to travelers as per Wikivoyage:Listings#Relevance_to_travel Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania 2018 call for submissions now open[edit]

On behalf of the program commmittee of Wikimania 2018 - Cape Town, we are pleased to announce that we are now accepting proposals for workshops, discussions, presentations, or research posters to give during the conference. To read the full instructions visit the event wiki and click on the link provided there to make your proposal:

The deadline is 18 March. This is approximately 6 weeks away.
This year, the conference will have an explicit theme based in African philosophy:

Bridging knowledge gaps, the ubuntu way forward.

Read more about this theme, why it was chosen, and what it means for determining the conference program at the Wikimedia blog. Sincerely, Wittylama 08:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon progress report[edit]

Thus far, it looks like the 2018 edit-a-thon has been mostly a success. Lots of new folks have been introduced to Wikivoyage and have contributed some quality material, but as we know by now, there has also been an uptick in 1) vandalism, as well as 2a) good-faith but inexperienced newbie edits that have to be reformatted to fit our standards and 2b) good-faith but inexperienced newbie editors who've needed to be counseled on how things work around here. I just wanted to leave this note here to recognize everyone who's stepped up on Recent Changes patrol to take on the sharply increased workload on all of these fronts (especially in terms of the good-faith newbies, who present situations that require a bit more time and diplomacy to address). We've all done a great job keeping up, and let's keep that going however much longer this lasts! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to echo everything Andre said. Overall, this has been a real shot in the arm for the site! Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree. This is the most attention we've been getting since the relaunch 5 years ago. Let's hope and do all we can to make sure the increase in editors and readers is more sustained than last time around. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As "good-faith but inexperienced newbie" thanks to those editors that are helping to counsel. There are lots of people out there that are potential resources for this site. Everyone brings a different perspective, and when you are too quick to block or revert something in the early days of contribution the "good-faith but inexperienced newbie" probably quickly gets disconcerted and is more likely to leave. Good luck to the growth. J-wonder (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Haiti blurb[edit]

Please see here for the discussion. I think this deserves more eyeballs. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Hobbitschuster (talk) for putting this over here. Yes, please more view points would be great. Specially from anyone that has been to Haiti in the past 3 years. Developing countries change quickly and it's not fair to have a label stick for life. This is not the mainstream media, we should be more in tune with what represents a travelers interest, not a political narrative. The very nature of a travel wiki is that unlike a guidebook from 2001 it can be updated ;) and updated again if the situations changes!
J-wonder (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This really should be moved to Talk:Haiti with the inbound link from Wikivoyage:Requests for comment instead of misusing one user's personal talk page for this sort of community discussion. K7L (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
certainly not Talk:Haiti as the blurb is to be found at Caribbean. I also don't understand how contacting a user who reverted a change via their talk page counts as "misusing" said talk page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
In that case, Talk:Caribbean is the appropriate venue and pointers to discussions go in Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. K7L (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
well regardless of where the discussion is had can anybody please address the issue. Not even User:Ibaman who made the initial revert has said why he thinks it justified. I don't think this is a good way to deal with a good faith newbie editing articles on an area where our coverage is lacking. And I can see the argument that Haiti's poverty might not be the most salient feature for a blurb. But apparently nobody wants to actually discuss this, instead we ate wasting time about which talk page this does or does not belong on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For the record, when I reverted said edit, I wrote on the summary "rv per Be fair. Haiti is indeed very poor and still very much wrecked by the natural disasters. Whitewashing the situation is not fair." The usual news that come to me from Haiti are mostly about the UN peacekeeping force, that has a significant presence of Brazilian Army men. I have the opinion that, from the Wikivoyager's point of view, this is a fair viewing of the facts on the ground, and therefore justified, even if not wholly compliant to our WV:Avoid negative reviews and WV:Tone policies. And I must say I'm glad the community is concerned, and actively discussing the issue, with the sole intention of building the online travel guide of superior quality. Ibaman (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Tocumen International Airport[edit]

This page for the main airport of Panama City was created as a stub recently. On the Talk Page an "otherstuffexists" argument is made via comparison to Gimhae International Airport, which indeed has similar numbers and is actually smaller than Jeju Airport for which no article exists. I think we should either make this airport into a proper article with template and whatnot or merge it back to Panama City. I have had one or two layovers at PTY, but that does not necessarily mean much... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's not going to be deleted I would be happy to take some degree of ownership over this. It's not just that "otherstuffexisits" it's also that the metric for saying we should only have "Huge" stuff on here is based on where the biggest populations exist in the world. This region is small population wise, so therefore the numbers should reflect that and they do. Airports are important, whether they are comfortable or not they are usually the first access point for a traveler.
The airport does qualify for "Article criteria"
J-wonder (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm really unconvinced Gimhae International Airport should have its own article. Sure, it's a useful article in some ways, but how is it a more important or complex airport than someplace like John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California? I'm satisfied that there is enough traffic at Tocumen to let the article develop, but in no way would I like to see articles for every medium-sized airport with uncomplicated transportation within and to and from the airport and few things to do while there. I think the article on Stansted is probably justified by the information about sleeping overnight there for early flights, since it's so far out of London, but while I'm OK with a degree of expansion of the number of airport articles, I think we should be cautious about going too far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes there is certainly a slippery slope involved. We redirected Hamburg Airport a few months or so ago due to it being too minor. The more airport articles we have, the likelier it becomes that we will one day have an airport article for an airport that is no longer served by any flights or where flights have vastly decreased. I also find it kind of bizarre that Gimhae has an article but Jeju does not... Maybe there is some logic to that, I don't know, I'm not a Korea expert... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this was discussed somewhere, but Jeju is an "end of the line" airport serving an extremely popular tourist destination just like is the case with McCarran International Airport. I.e. in practice nobody transfers there, but the airport is used for people going to and from the destination. Panama Tocumen on the other hand is to my understanding the most important transfer hub between Mexico and Sao Paulo.
When it comes to the number of airport articles, I think we're starting to have a little too many of them and should pull the emergency break and probably delete some of them. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Busan pretty "end of the line" as well? It has domestic flights to Seoul and Jeju, so it is unlikely to be part of a domestic connecting itinerary and it has few international flights and I wouldn't know of any not available via Seoul. Plus the airlines will inevitably lose the competition with KTX reducing flights to Seoul. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Busan is to some extent used for transit but it's not exactly a global hub. What do you say, Andrew? ϒpsilon (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Showcasing Pyeongchang Olympics article on the Main Page[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Main Page

April 1st[edit]

See Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#2018

A few proposals, and I'll consider stubbing 2, if I can.. However, I'll need some input from others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

One idea is a developing stub at User:ShakespeareFan00/Nano-tourism , I'd need some ideas ( or sci-fi references to consider). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Espionage history[edit]

I've recently stubbed this with one listing, but would appreciate a view on whether it's a viable travel topic?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you can find enough additional listings, sure, why not? I think that's the only hard-and-fast metric on what constitutes a "viable travel topic". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Make sure to include spy museums like the one in Washington, D.C. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That is literally the one and only listing :D I think there's an espionage section in the Imperial War Museum (London), and will check that out later. By the way, I like this idea for a travel topic. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
See w:Category:Espionage museums for some ideas, although it only has six US museums and one German one. I have added a listing for Berlin Friedrichstraße station, and I think that there are other cold war sights to add. AlasdairW (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Noted... There's one really small military museum in the UK that's relevant. If you include crypto and signals inteligence there's a few other sites. Not sure if ex Radar count as espionage though... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a Secret War section in the IWM, which covers espionage, special forces and other covert operations. If that museum groups them together, I don't see why this article couldn't collate other military intelligence-related attractions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The DDR Museum in Berlin deals with the Stasi among other aspects of life in East Germany. I think most any museum about East Germany would almost have to deal with the Stasi, because they were so pervasive in East Germany. Museums about Nazi or wartime Japanese terror would also deal with those regimes' secret police forces, as would any memorial to Stalinist terror, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Discouraging New Wikivoyage Editors[edit]

Hi! Why is it necessary for the Wikivoyage community to be so discouraging to new members?

Today is only my second day as a participant in the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018, and less than 10 days as a Wikivoyage member, yet already two members have felt it necessary to run me to ground for adding a library to the cities I was editing. The document Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it clearly shows that libraries, colleges, universities, and schools are allowed, but apparently these members, with many edits under their belts, feel the need to point out that I am wrong to list them. Even more absurd is both of them felt the need to welcome me to the community, and then tell me I screwed up (when I actually hadn't).

Which leads me to wonder:

  • Why is every edit I make being put under such a large microscope?
  • Shouldn't the Wikivoyage community be actually welcoming to the new editors and edit-a-thon participants?
  • How is Wikivoyage going to retain these new editors when they are immediately pounced upon?
  • Did the editors (patrollers?) who apparently have nothing other to do than minutely inspect newbie edits really join Wikivoyage to do nothing other than play "gotcha"?
  • When was the last time these editors (patrollers?) actually created new content, created new articles on the site, and/or formally made improvements to articles?

I see the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 as a tremendous opportunity for the Wikivoyage community to expand the number of editors, but if this is the way that new community members are being treated, do you think that any of them will really stick around after earning their Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon barnstar? Will they even stick around to complete the challenge? Yes, the Wikivoyage policies need to be upheld, but these editors (patrollers?) definitely do not make being an editor here fun.

Please encourage and gracefully correct the many (hopefully) new editors who have shown up because of the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018 challenge. Doing so will only create a better site in the long run.

Respectfully, Zcarstvnz (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've looked over your edit history, and regretfully I have to say that what you see as "members running you into the ground" could more reasonably be seen as nothing more malignant than experienced editors offering gentle guidance to a less experienced editor. Obviously we welcome contributions from newbies, otherwise we wouldn't be having an Edit-a-thon. But the other side of the coin is newbies need to be willing to respect that there's a certain way things are done around here, to understand that it's that way for a good reason, and to be counselled when they (understandably) make missteps that come from inexperience. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
While some of the traffic being brought in by the edit-a-thon is harmful or vandalism, I am seeing a w:WP:BITE or two being taken out of newbies: this for example. A link to WP is perfectly legit if it's made from a {{listing}} but, instead of turning the paragraph into a listing in this instance, an experienced editor has merely stripped out the inline WP links and treated everything the new user has contributed as wrong. I looked at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, the policy stick which was being wielded in that instance, and what I saw looked badly out of date - mw:extension:RelatedSites as the primary or only way to link to WP? Isn't that being deprecated? We do need to be a bit more cautious here, instead of endlessly insisting "but that's the way we've always done this". K7L (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's awkward for new editors and patrollers. I mean, I just looked at this edit to Australia, and I thought there were so many ways it could be improved. Its a bit encyclopedic, couple of typos, a bit technical for a traveller, and I think I could rewrite it better. But I left it. Maybe I'll go back another day. But it's hard to do. I'd be really interested in what Zcarstvnz thinks we could do to encourage editors like them to stay. Do we give an explanation? Do we leave well intentioned new edits alone for a week - there is plenty of stuff here to copyedit if we have the time? WDYT? --Inas (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
K7L, my bad, but I'm frankly unclear on where to put the Wikipedia tab into a listing. It would be a hell of a lot simpler if we had it automatically appear in every listing template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Most of the edits that User:Zcarstvnz made to the Schaumburg article remain in the article. In any collaborative project, contributors have to accept that their work is going to be edited by others. Ikan and I both explained our edits on his/her talk page. We were trying to gracefully correct and encourage the new editor. I would welcome any suggestions on how to do that better next time. I have posted a follow-up message on the editors talk page. Anyone can check our contribution history to see what content we've added and what articles we've created. I keep a list of the latter on my user page. Ground Zero (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In response to User:Inas, I think the best ways to begin to retain new editors are twofold: patience and encouragement.

Patience. If a newbie (including myself) is working on a page and a more experienced user comes along and starts changing things simultaneously, this is very frustrating. Before I am posting anything I am looking at other Wikivoyage pages, and there may be a gap of time between posts in the same edit session. Should well intentioned new edits be left alone for a week during the edit-a-thon? I imagine that's too long, but giving editors, especially new editors, the freedom to create new content during the edit-a-thon, even if it has incorrect elements (style, wording, format) without being reedited by a patroller for a couple of days would probably be appreciated. As long as they are not vandalizing or causing harm, couldn't the "perfect" page formatting wait a few days, and let the editor create in peace? The edit mentioned by User:K7L this is the perfect example. Fifteen minutes after making the edit in question, someone was there correcting something (that appears to have actually been okay). Isn't this an edit-a-thon and not a correct-a-thon? This morning I created too red links on purpose. I haven't had the time to go and create the necessary pages to support them, but I intend to do so in the next couple of days. Shouldn't there be some leeway to give the edit-a-thon members some extra time to work toward filling in the content like this, and not have someone immediately go and remove the red links?

Encouragement. I have no idea how many editors or new editors are participating in the edit-a-thom, but I imagine someone or a group of administrators are tracking this statistic. Have these editors and new editors been welcomed to the edit-a-thon? Have they been thanked for completing their first 4000 byte update to the site, or at some other interval? I am not talking about the standard Wikivoyage welcome, but an actual message from someone that they might be able to go to for assistance, as opposed to an anonymous account (like this one). A mentor is probably too strong of a word, but just knowing that someone can help is encouraging in itself. But part of encouragement is also having revisions and edits made by other members actually be correct. The adding of schools and libraries that I was told was incorrect is one example. If the patrollers revoke a change, but they are consistently incorrectly revoking, this is actually discouraging. Shouldn't the patrollers be experts at what is allowed to avoid frustrating the community and especially those who have joined the site specifically because of the edit-a-thon?

I hope this is helpful, and is obviously just my perspective from having been here less than two weeks. Respectively, Zcarstvnz (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Zcarstvnz. Thanks for your contributions, for joining us, and for coming to talk to the rest of us about your experience. I hope that you decide that you like us and will stay. We're small enough that we don't have people who just patrol other contributors' work: everyone's a content contributor, and some of us do other things, too.
I think some of this is easy: edit conflicts are painful and cause lost work, and it's a good idea to avoid them whenever possible. (For folks watching edits, some research suggests that a 30-minute gap since the last saved edit is usually the minimum safe distance.)
Some of this is also complicated. For example, you've given the example of adding a listing for a library above. On the good (great!) side, you added information about free internet access at the library; on the irrelevant side, you added information about interlibrary loans, which (a) basically every public library in America offers but which (b) is strictly unavailable to travelers to Schaumburg. Some of it's also not clear: can non-residents realistically use those children's DVDs? I've lived in places where travelers were able to check books out of the public library, and in places where they're not, as well as in places where DVD players were available on site and places where they weren't. So looking at this from the POV of an actual traveler, I'd personally include the library, remove the interlibrary loans, and try to clarify the media-viewing situation (and maybe make sure, if you haven't already, that the library's internet access doesn't require logging in with your library card number). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
My message to you was (a) not just the standard Wikivoyage welcome, but also contained specific remarks from me; (b) you don't need to know my personal name to be able to communicate with me, so I don't understand your point about "anonymous accounts" at all. My record is all there in my edit history. I don't reject criticism, but I kind of feel like you are asking for something close to perfection from longtimers. We remember consensuses that were unfortunately not sufficiently documented, and in my case, I remembered an existing policy on Wikipedia links but I'm insufficiently familiar with a newer policy on where Wikipedia links can be installed optionally in a listing template. These are problems, but it's not like either you or we have been operating in bad faith. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Two ideas come to mind to address problems raised in this discussion:

  1. create a standard banner that editors could put on an article to let other editors know that an article is a work-in-progress that would disappear after 24 hours, and
  2. including the Wikipedia link line automatically on See and Do listings to make is easier to add those links.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea behind the banner, but unfortunately I think that it may be of limited value. For me edit conflicts are most likely to happen as a result of following a change that appears on my watchlist. In that case, I tend to view the differences, and the banner is not displayed when viewing differences.
The Wikipedia link line whould be added to the standard See and Do listings - it is already displayed if the listing editor is used, so this inconsistency should be fixed. (WP links can be added to other listings but this is uncommon, and adding it as standard in Eat etc would encourage the addition of WP articles about chains, not individual venues.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I would make it standard for all forms of listings. It could be blank whenever there is no Wikipedia equivalent, just like the much-misused "alt" tab. Often enough, it will be useful for "go" listings of train stations, airports and the like, even superhighways, and for unique hotels, restaurants and bars. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I can see the value for "Go" listings, but Eat, Drink and Sleep listings would so rarely have a Wikipedia entry, that I think it would be more confusing for editors who think that they should try to find a WP article. I have also concluded aftet poking around that I lack the programming skills to make this happen. Ground Zero (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I have mentioned before, but worth restating. A number of regulars have worked hard to create and keep quality articles, it is very tempting to fix an edit as soon as you see it. What I try and do (but sometime fail on my own self control) is wait a while before correcting a new edit I feel could be improved. What I have in my browser is a bookmark folder call "Wikivoyage - articles to revisit". With a new entry I will bookmark it and place it here. Then at a later date revisit the page and clean out the bookmark folder. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I tend to leave the diff open in a tab, and get back to it later. (Main advantage: it doesn't require a separate workflow; whenever I see the tab later, it's likely time to make the edit. Main disadvantage: I do this for a lot of things (things I want to read, things I want to edit, things I need to remember...), so I have about 100 tabs open right now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, based on this discussion, I've made changes to the Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors article. That's not policy, of course, but it gives us all something to consider. --Inas (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to expand "Read"[edit]

Currently in the "Read" subsection of "Understand", we list books that inspire or give the traveller insight into their destination. In this day and age, I believe we should go beyond and allow the listing of travel documentaries. Travel literature is more than the written word these days. Personally when I think about the books that have inspired me to travel, I can think of a few but I reflect on the documentaries that have made want to wander like a nomad I can think of many more. I am sure I am not the only one! I propose expanding "Read" to "Read and watch" in the appropriate circumstances. Like "Read", "Watch" will be an optional section and will only be added when it is useful and beneficial to the traveller. I imagine most article's won't have it but some will. What does everyone think? Gizza (roam) 02:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, especially since a documentary can really pack thousands of words into a few moving images. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd support this, providing that we maintain a prohibition on promotional or online travel guide video links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Expand away - I see no issue with putting links one or two in depth explorations of culture, society or geography. But no links to video travel guides on youtube. --Inas (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes links should be prohibited. Gizza (roam) 07:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Add a "default address info" field to listings[edit]

So we have for whichever reason agreed not to list most postcodes and the city or district something is in in the "address" field of listings. I don't want to re-discuss this shaky agreement, but am instead proposing the following, given that having this default address info is a good thing for certain machine reading applications or for inputting the information into certain programs...

Anyway, my proposal is as follows: Have a field named "default address" or "postcode/town" or something of the sorts, which does not show up on the page unless a registered user explicitly opts in. That way those who complain about "clutter" with "useless" and "redundant" info won't have the problem but we enhance machine readability and those who wish to have this information can opt in. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

In theory, I am supportive, but have no idea how / whether this could be implemented in practice. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed that postcodes should be included whenever they were useful (e.g., it identifies a small area, or it helps you find the "10 High Street" that you want, and not the wrong but nearby "10 High Street"). Is this question about when they're not really useful (e.g., everything in the town/on the page is in the same postcode)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose so. It is for the case when the postcode is not useful for human readers (otherwise it should be shown) but necessary for finding the address by pasting it into some app, which does not otherwise know the context. --LPfi (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we're talking about making it useful for external apps and other websites. The human eye doesn't need to see the postcode 75001 in every listing in the 1st Arrondissement, but computers often do in order to make sense of the information. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus to use postcodes wherever they are not identical for all listings in the article does indeed exist, it is not yet borne out by what some copy-editors do.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Does that consensus exist? It doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. San Rafael and Chapel Hill each have more than one postal code, but I don't see what use those postal codes would be to travellers unless they're trying to send something in the mail. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The use of postal codes differs around the world. In Australia putting the postcode isn't actually ever useful unless your sending a letter. Bu in the United Kingdom, the postcode is more important than the name or the street address. It's the default to navigate somewhere these days. And every place is different. --Inas (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Some addresses exist more than once in a city and can only be distinguished by postal code. Search for "Goethestraße Berlin" for just one example. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not taking a position on how we should format addresses in Germany. I'm just saying that I don't think we should have a global policy of including postal codes in listings for all cities that cover more than one postal code. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If we develop such a policy, every single address in New York City will need to include a zip code. But I want to know more about what is actually being proposed here. Is it that postal codes would be included in every address but by default invisible, with a toggle switch clearly shown that enables readers to see them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You should keep Wikidata in mind: in WD address (P969) means street + ZIP code + town. I think there is no simple way to extract ZIP code and town to make them invisible. --RolandUnger (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
A lot of us really don't know much about Wikidata, myself included. But I'm not sure I understand why the number in a Wikidata address is of any significance to whether we can see addresses in Wikivoyage listings. Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If we export or import addresses via Wikidata (and I think this has been proposed, perhaps even implemented in some language versions), then what the Wikidata "property" includes, and its format, are important. If address, zip and town were different properties, it would be easy to get them one by one and show the ones we want. It seems we have to show all three if we import the address from Wikidata, unless we want to do parsing, which probably is too complicated for the general case. --LPfi (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The property P969 was proposed by the English Wikivoyage community and contains: “full street address that the subject is located at. Include building number through to post code.” To learn about Wikidata entries look to some examples: Q42016015, Q2981, Q9188. I think the proposal of P969 was done because there is only a single address parameter in the listing template. Separate items like street names are only possible if there are [Wikipedia] articles about the street of interest. --RolandUnger (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Magnets in clothing, can affect compasses[edit]

Noted this in passing,

@Bluerasberry:, Maybe something the ConsumerReports people have covered in respect of outdoor clothing in the US? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a note on the risk in Orienteering and Wilderness backpacking, could perhaps be done better. --LPfi (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As the BBC link may not work for all readers, see this from Mountaineering Scotland, whose safety adviser is quoted by the BBC. I would also suggest keeping compasses away from motors (including fans) and wind-up torches. AlasdairW (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

New public transport map features[edit]

I plunged forward and added Template:rint and Template:Mapshapes, mainly for usage with dynamic maps.

The former is a copy from wikipedia - if there's no objections, I'd setup a bot to keep this in sync (perhaps the articles could be made read-only for normal users?). So far I only imported a few subtemplates for central europe (so e.g. Berlin and Vienna use it). The only issue is that the template generates links to subway articles, which is probably not too useful for WV. Perhaps there's some way to fix this via some nifty template hack? Also, wikipedia recommends to not use the icons in-line with text - but I think in a travel guide it's quite useful to have it this way. Right?

The Mapshapes stuff seems to work OK too, it's used in Prague, Vienna, Berlin and Naples currently. I tried London too, but not sure yet how complete the map is. E.g. Munich is not prepared at all, currently. Making this work means interlinking wikidata and OSM stuff, then putting the Mapshapes thing into the article... But that's still much easier than trying to create the vector lines manually.

If there are any questions... (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the links to subway articles are bad per se but it might be annoying if one "accidentally" clicks them, especially on mobile. Most of our articles basically just state that a subway exists but give little background on history or architecture. The main exception I know of is Berlin where I inserted a bit because the effects of partition in particular are just so endlessly fascinating. However it barely scratches the surface and any discussion of the Berlin U-Bahn that doesn't mention Grenander cannot be considered complete. Thing is: I know next to nothing about Hamburg U-Bahn and the history of Nuremberg U-Bahn is not particularly interesting or long. Maybe we could go into a bit more depth for NYC subway or the tube? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I love the mapshapes feature. I've in the past added metro systems to dynamic maps by creating the lines manually and saving them to wikicommons (for instance Singapore/Riverside), but that is a lot of work. One feature which would be nice to have, would be showing stations and station names, nevertheless I think this is a great feature as it is. One question I have is: how do I see whether the coordinates for the lines are linked to the wikidata element? And if it isn't, is there a way to add them ourselves? Drat70 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The stations are a bit nontrivial - I didn't see them mentioned in the wikidata articles I saw so far. So you'd have to do it from scratch. Implementing this into the Mapshapes module wouldn't be too big problem, I think.
The OSM-wikidata linking is a detective work, actually :) Here's the steps I did for the few cities I did so far:
  • Find the wikidata entry for the metro. Quickest way seems to be - google "$city metro wiki" to find the wikipedia article, then click "Wikidata item" on the wikipedia page. Sometimes also direct search on works :)
  • Check that the wikidata entry has "has parts" statements, listing all the lines. If not, you'll have to find the lines (usually the wikipedia article has them listed/linked as articles, so you can find wikidata IDs from wikipedia again) and add them to the parent wikidata.
  • Finally, the wikidata entries for the individual lines have to refer to OSM data and vice versa, this is described in Template:Mapshape, and additionally it should contain either "sRGB color hex triplet", or at least "color" statement. If there's no OSM link, you need to go to openstreetmap and try to find whether at least the relations are mapped (I'd say all metro lines will be). Usually the OSM relation ID was missing in the wikidata article (most OSM relations had wikidata tag already, on the other hand), so you need to find the metro lines in OSM first. Usually it's enough to find one line in OSM and then click to parent relations. Most of the cities had a "super relation" referencing all the metro lines...
If there's some real interest, I could put some guide to the template, maybe even with some pictures. On the other hand, it'd be probably good to know some basic OSM/wikidata-fu to understand the above (and not break too much stuff in the process :) ). However, I have a plan to make a bot to do this automagically in case at least one direction of links (OSM->wikidata or wikidata->OSM) exists. :) (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been waiting and hoping for something like this to appear for a while, so thank you! The maps you've made so far look really cool. My only concern is that the lines are a bit thick, especially when the map is zoomed out. The London map is complete as far as the Underground goes, though would benefit from also showing Overground and DLR as well, and possibly trams in South London.

It doesn't matter what kind of transport it is, so of course even Tramlinks could be added (you'd have to fill stuff into [1], the referenced 'has part' sub-articles; e.g. here's tramlink 4 - OSM relation 7560907 (no links between OSM and wikidata :( ). But as you pointed out, in some zooms the maps could get too cluttered, so perhaps this could use some usability improvements later - esp. if Roland manages to bring in some cool features from de: later, the dynamic maps could really become very interesting. But hey - it's a first step...

Depending on how easy the instructions are to follow for a novice, I might be interested in making my own metro maps for other cities. Overall, this is an exciting new feature, and something which I hope will be rolled out across a good number of articles. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's actually relatively simple, but you have to have OSM account to make changes there, obviously.. :) I'll try to put together some step-by-step tomorrow... (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we make the links point elsewhere? I just found that when one clicks on the B or C in Prague it prompts one to create an article of "Line C of Prague Metro" or some such on Wikivoyage where it is out of scope. Can we just have those point to Wikipedia instead? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, done - at least we won't get unwanted articles until we sort it out... (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we might at some point think about stuff like Tramways in cities without metros but one step at a time. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Berlin/South - proposal to go ahead[edit]

So I have some time ago proposed to subdivide the gargantuan (at the very least by area) district article that is Berlin/South. I created by mostly copy-paste in my user space three sub-articles that I think make sense geographically and from their density of attractions. They have some room for improvement still, but I would not be too concerned if they went live today with minor changes. Those are User:Hobbitschuster/Berlin/Treptow-Köpenick, User:Hobbitschuster/Berlin/Central-South (the name may be changed later if it is too generic) and User:Hobbitschuster/Berlin/Steglitz-Zehlendorf. I think we can quite easily expand some things that are currently dealt with in one or two words by making them listings and so on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)