Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Contents

Reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh[edit]

I suggested over at w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in the List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh section, that maybe some of the material in the dubious article over there might be more appropriate here. Anyone want to chime in? John Carter (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Provided it is focused on areas that travelers would be interested in visiting and not just on dubious claims of hauntings, a mention Fringe phenomena would be an appropriate location. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Provided that the focus is on what a reasonable traveller may be interested in. Wikivoyage does not as I understand it exist to help "promote" any specific paranormal claims. There were concerns expressed about credibility in the a VFD, see the article's talk page.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Archive bots for some pages?[edit]

If you look at. e.g. Talk:USA, you'll see that the talk page is rather full of discussions and people tend to open new discussions even if a previous discussion on the same topic stalled. Maybe we should introduce bots that archive some talk pages for discussions that last had activity several years ago. Maybe a two year timeframe would be good? And we could tell the bot to only archive certain pages, because many talk pages only contain one or two discussions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This comes up now and then. I did a good deal of archiving after the WT migration, but the main problem around newer discussions is that once archived they are effectively hidden.
It would be good to formulate a strategy that would preserve 'strategic' conversations on the main talk page (i.e. cities, region divisions, etc) ad infinitum and archive 'tactical' conversations (i.e. 'where do I put X?') in an archive after 2 years. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A bot is already running here to perform archiving - see Special:Contributions/ArchiverBot. In the past people have opposed auto-archiving for all but a handful of pages, but the functionality you want exists today just by adding Template:Auto archiving to any page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add it to Talk:USA and Talk:Germany Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Those pages only get a new thread every couple of months each. Manual archiving should be sufficient. In fact, I'll archive the USA page now. Powers (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the best term for a train that carries automobiles along with their passengers?[edit]

While this service has greatly diminished in recent times (mostly, I think, because it is now cheaper and easier to fly somewhere and rent a car when you're there and the only exceptions to this are highly seasonal), it is still around in two "flavors" a) a bridge/tunnel/causeway that was built railway only (e.g. the Chunnel or the Sylt-causeway) which allows you to take a car with you - those are still rather successful b) a long or very long distance train between mostly a cold weather origin and a warm weather destination, like Amtrak's Auto Train - those have been hit with a lot of cuts in Europe in the last couple of decades. Now I don't know whether a travel topic on them makes sense, but they should definitely be mentioned in destination articles where such trains exist (and in some cases even in region or country level "get in" sections) as well as articles like Rail travel in Germany. I have used the term "car train", but am not quite satisfied as a train is composed of cars (well, in most cases) almost by definition, so the term is not quite the right one. What else could be used? Motorail? Autotrain? Car transportation on mainline rail? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking "auto train", but maybe that's because that's what Amtrak calls it. It is unambiguous, though. Motorail isn't, as railways have motors, just as trains have cars. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
DB says 'Motorail' in English and 'Autozug' in German. If you are looking for this service in Germany then the official name, albeit confusing, is probably the way to go. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
SBB in Switzerland calls them 'car trains' or even 'car-carrying trains' (those are of the "flavour" a) type, usually a short-cut through a tunnel to circumvent a mountain pass). Passengers usually stay in their car as opposed to sit in a separate coach. Drat70 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Andrewssi2 that we should use the official term in articles about Germany. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think DB gets to define the official term now that the only such service they have left is the Sylt Shuttle. All other such trains have been withdrawn or taken over by ÖBB who is now the biggest player in that business in the German speaking countries Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
So since different companies use different names, and there doesn't seem to be a single name we can all agree is universal, why don't we just use the official term for each system, with a brief definition in brackets? Using Hobbitschuster's title for this section, that would be "a train that carries automobiles along with their passengers". It might be a little long-winded, but if we don't know which term is best to use, we can't expect our readers to automatically know what an "Autozug" or a "Motorail" is without any further elaboration :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Motorail was the brand used by British Rail, for their long distance car trains. But all of those services stopped about 20 years, so not sure if the term is still known in UK English. The Channel Tunnel is probably better known as a "car shuttle" or just "car train". It is a relatively short distance, so maybe a different sort of service (you sit in your car, instead of going to a separate passenger carriage).--Fuaran buidhe (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
For what it is worth, traveling with a car on a boat between France and England is known as a 'car ferry'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
We have car ferries (so called) in the U.S., too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Over here, VR uses the terms "car train" or "car-carrier train" in English. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Using the local term is probably the best choice for Rail travel in Germany and the like. When mentioning the service in Get in sections, having to explain the term or concept is more awkward. Then a self-explanatory or widely understood term would come handy. Car-carrying or car-carrier trains sound quite usable. Would "motorail (car-carrying train)" work, where the former is the local term? --LPfi (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(indent reset) I don't think there is an official term as such besides the German term "Autozug" which was indeed used by DB for a long time and seems to be a common shorthand even today (ÖBB seems to like to use complicated terms like "Nachtzug mit Kraftwagenbeförderung" or some such) but as there are currently about as many companies as connections and not all of them even have websites in English, discerning an official English term for something which the national railroad has ceased doing is a bit difficult. And there seems to be no global term or term agreed across "Commonwealth English" either... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

New way to edit wikitext[edit]

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Spa towns[edit]

I created this stub using my alternate account.

Would appreciate some people taking the plunge so to speak and adding to it, as I am only familiar with a few of the British ones, and I'm not sure if the Spa (resort) town is purely a Western European thing.

I'm planning on adding to the "destination" list, based on the Wikipedia article.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not! Spas are a big thing in Korea and Japan, although they tend to be individual establishments than a whole town. There are some dedicated towns such as Beppu. Even Australia has some in Daylesford. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. Onsen is a pretty good analog for spa, isn't it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that this article is likely going to become another long list, which we really should try and avoid. Rather than list the town of Sedona with no context it would be far more preferable to have a full paragraph on Spa towns in the United States. I'll give this a try. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed another thing. Spas is a seperate well filled article that already exists! Would recommend merging. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
And yet another article on the same subject :) - Hot_springs Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I think Spas has a very different focus, mostly on things like massages etc, whereas Spa towns are usually baths. However, yeah, looks like Spa town and Hot springs are mostly the same, I'd suggest merging those, but not Spas. Drat70 (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You also in the UK had some costal resorts that started out as being much closer to the 'traditional' spa= mineral baths.
I will also note that you have modern 'health and beauty' centers that are called Spas ( per the named article), that have no connection with the original mineral spring/mineral baths. You also have things called various "Health farms", which are more like (expensive) residential gymnasia, and pyhsical training centres.
Yeah, there are "spas" like you describe throughout cities like New York and Los Angeles. No natural springs or mineral baths at all in those. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps some articles in this area need renaming or clarifcations?.

I'd started the stub, because many of the UK Spa Towns, the legacy of former "traditional" spa use is considerable, even if the towns aren't nessecarily host to Spas in the modern sense. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think a town named Bad xyz (in Germany) is definitely distinct from an individual facility doing the whole "wellness" shtick. And I think we could definitely have an article on towns like that. But yeah, just a list of town names is not desirable. In many cases spa towns have a lot of nice buildings dating back to the 19th century and in at the very least one case a crowned head in a spa is at the beginning of one of the more consequential wars in European history. But that has more to do with Bismarck than with Bad Ems itself. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
So given that there are now three articles, each with their own take on what a spa is, I think it is worth making the distinction between them. For example, do we really care about German and English towns that were traditionally spa towns but today have little or no spa facilities.
Also worth making the distinction between facilities that offer natural mineral water (eigher hot or cold), and 'modern spa businesses' that offer face packs and massages. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Well Buxton is still a resort destination even if it's not still in the old-style spa business, and yes I think there should be a distinction between the old 'mineral' bath/springs sites and Health and Beauty centres which are typically part of larger resorts. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Badges for language links[edit]

While editing the Zermatt article I noticed that the German language article on the side bar has a star in front of it marking it as 'recommended article'. However when looking at the German article, it's a 'usable' article. This is not the first time that I found such an inconsistency. I noticed that there's an option to manually add this kind of badges to the wikidata item and I found it referenced in this article: d:Help:Sitelinks without much detail. How are those badges handled? Is that something we're supposed to manually add or should this be used at all? Drat70 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drat70: There can/should be bots but what the different rankings mean is different across languages and projects, so it is probably tricky for any one person to maintain. You can manually edit it on that page, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia grades are used. Recommended = usable, good = guide, featured = star. Badges can be added manually. I am not sure whether bots take care of this on the regular basis. --Alexander (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate question[edit]

I just added a listing for Korean Kitchen to the page Espoo. However, when I added the coordinates, the map shows its location all to the west of the Iso Omena shopping centre, when in fact (I have visited it myself) it is located inside the shopping centre, on the eastern side. But to look up the coordinates, I used Google Maps to find the restaurant and copied the displayed coordinates almost exactly. Why is it still showing it in the wrong place? JIP (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A Korean restaurant in Espoo? I need to check it out sometime!
Considering the issue at hand, likely there is a difference in the coordinates Google gives and the coordinates our map uses. You can click on the icon in the upper right corner of the article that has a map and a magnifying glass to open the old version of the dynamic map (which still retains the feature of enabling you to extract coordinates). Then right click on the map to get coords for a place (coords as shown on our map). It will open in a speech bubble; copy and paste that into the listing's parameters. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
On a sidenote, copying coordinates from Google Maps is discouraged due to licensing issues. Vidimian (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Industrial action[edit]

Should the possibility of it be mentioned, on destination pages?

In London, there was some news coverage about some suburban rail being disrupted by a strike in few days time. (http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/strike)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Strikes or unrest is possible nearly anywhere, and communications or accommodation can be broken also by e.g. extreme weather. I think mentioning it everywhere where it is possible is overkill. A warning is due where disruption is worse than normally expected, but otherwise I think it is just one more thing to be prepared for as a traveller. A section could be added on Travel basics, Prepare or some similar page, though. --LPfi (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
If we have reasonably exact information, like here, and the disruption is significant, I think mentioning it in the article is good. Dates have to be given, so that the info can be removed when it is not relevant anymore (and I'd like a template putting it in a maintenance category when it should be checked or removed). --LPfi (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is not a news service, and attempts to do so will always be really poor because we can never be up to date and complete. Should we start listing every industrial action everywhere in the world? If not then we are inconsistent.
Usually a warning about a dangerous situation is warranted, but a spot strike at Heathrow on Christmas day really doesn't qualify. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Southern Railway, this is a dispute that's been going on for months now, with misery for all involved, including passengers travelling to Gatwick and Luton airports. If someone like ShakespeareFan00 with local knowledge of this disruption wants to put in a notice, we shouldn't stop them just because editors more familiar with other regions don't wish to do so elsewhere. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
There was a discussion for United States some time back about putting in warnings for the 'Federal Shutdown' (where a political budget impasse meant that it wouldn't be possible to keep federal facilities open, including national parks, museums, etc). I'm supportive of those kinds of warnings if they are long term or indefinate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata issue for currency exchange rate in country summary box[edit]

The current summary box on Hong Kong says "Currency: Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1 HKD = 0.0000 Hong Kong"

The related Wikidata item d:Q8646 doesn't seem to hold exchange rate information. How can this be fixed? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the value is taken from the 'price' attribute of the wikidata element for the currency (and not the country). So in this instance we'd have to add a value to 'price' here: d:Q31015. Compare this with the Euro value in Germany which seems to come from here d:Q4916. I'd add it myself, but I'm not sure what kind of source would be acceptable. Drat70 (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Can't we just implement a quick fix to "suppress" this value (i.e. just make it not show) until we fix the underlying issue? Displaying some obvious software bug is worse than displaying nothing imho. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I managed to do that, it is now not showing the value any more (just the currency without the exchange rate). It seems to be working fine, but in case I broke something, you can revert my last edit here: Module:Quickbar Drat70 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's completely fixed now. I put in a line to check for zero values, so it will only show exchange rates which are not zero. Drat70 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks much better.
I'm wondering if we should be able to customize these more? For example, Hong Kong does a lot of commerce in both USD and Chinese RMB. South Korea uses USD and Japanese Yen extensively. Ireland with British pound and so forth. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if it would be possible to suppress the ±0 that's appearing as the tolerance for a few values, such as mains voltage? K7L (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's already possible to use more than one currency, the script loops through all the currencies with values. You just have to add the exchange rate to the wikidata object for the currency. I've done it for Hong Kong as an example (See d:Q31015). However I am not sure how easy that would be to keep up to date, as exchange rates change over time. Drat70 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem still persists[edit]

Just now (non-mobile version) the Article for Chile shows the follwoing "Chilean peso (CLP) 1 CLP = 0.0015 Chile" Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The value is now correct, but it should show USD instead of Chile. The reason this happens seems to be that some of the currencies define the unit as an own attribute (such as Chilean Peso: d:Q200050) whereas the module looks for an unit such as it is defined for US Dollars: d:Q4917 (Note that it says Euro after each price element whereas for the Peso USD is an attribute on its own). I don't how to fix this in the code especially since not all the currencies are defined consistently on wikidata. Going through all the currencies on wikidata manually and adding the units would work, but I don't think that's a good way of going about it. For now I deactivated the exchange rate display again. Drat70 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Caffè sospeso[edit]

I just learned about the w:Caffè sospeso tradition in Italy, and I am hearing that it happens in some other places, too. I see nothing in Wikivoyage about this. Does anyone know anything about it? It seems like a fun thing, and if it's common, then perhaps we should explain (for the benefit of flat-broke student travelers as well as for people who think it'd be fun to buy an extra). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Buonasera! This is the first I have ever heard of it, but I see no reason for a sentence or two not to be included in the drink section of the relevant destination articles, whether it be at a national (is this common throughout Italy?) or more regional level. I wouldn't talk about it in every single place in the world where a cup of coffee has ever been donated (leave that, and the history lecture, to Wikipedia), just where it's a frequently practised part of the local culture. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I thought this was a thing already in the United States? I believe it is called "paying it forward", although not just for coffee... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be a Neapolitan thing, but sort of everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
How would Italian baristas react to foreign tourists, no matter how relatively poor (but still able to travel there), asking for a caffe sospeso? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Also vice-versa, how would a barista react to someone outside of the community offering one? (just curious) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think offering is never an issue; it's perfectly acceptable for anyone to order and pay for one. The reality in most cities is, of course, that there's no community in the sense of people knowing everyone anyway. The whole point of the suspended coffees is that it's relatively anonymous. Travellers asking for one is another matter entirely though, and I don't think we should encourage it, even when most owners wouldn't know they're dealing with a traveller. I'd guess that many would consider it a form of abuse, if they found out - and that's not helpful for the concept. I've included the info occasionally in listings for coffee shops that have this option. We could mention it in the drink-section of our Naples article, if that's where it comes from. For the rest, I'd say it simply belongs in listings for participating establishments. The concept became relatively well-known in the Netherlands for a couple of years, but it seems to be dying out a bit. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I like your approach, Julias. It'd be good to send the interested traveler to a place that does this as a matter of routine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

PDF creation[edit]

I used the "Download as PDF" function for a few articles. The dynamic maps didn't make it into the PDF (which I'm ok about), but instead there was the gobbledygook ?'''`UNIQ--maplink-00000000-QINU`'''? It would be better if the program could be changed to leave that out. It was followed by "Map of Xyz", which is less ugly but also useless. Also, all the listings that had numbers due to having lat and long co-ords came out with the number 1, which is confusing. Nurg (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nurg: For what it's worth, this is a pan-wiki problem regarding the maps. See mw:Maps and the Phabricator tag at the top of that page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A holiday or Christmas destination featured for a day?[edit]

Every April 1, it seems that we send our readers to hell in a handbasket or some similarly lovely destination. The article appears in place of the featured destination for a day, then is promptly forgotten.

I'm wondering if we should take a similar approach on December 25, but feature a real place with a holiday theme like Bethlehem or a North Pole-style destination like Rovaniemi? It's a bit late now to create something new, but do we have a good article on an existing destination which fits the theme? K7L (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

At a minimum, a destination could be featured on Facebook - see Wikivoyage:Social media/Nominations for a place to suggest future social media posts. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
What we could do is create something travel and Christmas related. I don't know... holiday travel, Christmas around the world, Channukka in Jerusalem or whatnot. And yes, I know Channukka is a minor holiday that even many Jews don't know more than the basics about, but it is commonly celebrated as Ersatz-Christmas by North American and European Jews. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
A Christmas feature seems unnecessarily Western-focused for a global travel website. Why not Yom Kippur? Or Chinese New Year? Or any other primary holidays in other parts of the world? Powers (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Not solely Western-focused, but focused on a Christian holiday. And I totally agree with you about a feature. We would need to also feature both Eids, Wesak, Chinese New Year, Thaipusam, Diwali/Deepavali, etc., not to mention Easter, which is more important than Christmas in many Christian countries. In the long term, maybe features for each holiday could be a good idea, but considering the ratio between the amount of work, the number of people who might do the work and the number of days anything would get a holiday feature (at most, a month for Ramadan, but we already featured Travelling during Ramadan), I think this is a thought to put in the deep freezer for now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 in review[edit]

At the beginning of the year a number of people posted their wishlists for 2016, and with the year almost over it seems like a good time to look back at how things went. Regarding my personal goals:

  1. I had hoped to see the number of site contributors increase, and while there are some new names in recent changes, sadly any increase appears to have been small.
  2. I also hoped to see continued SEO improvement, but unfortunately, after a bounce from the improved interwiki linking, I think Wikivoyage has actually regressed, at least for articles that I watch. This site does rank well for areas not covered by other travel sites, but as far as I can tell for most destinations WT maintains top billing, while other sites seem to have leap-frogged Wikivoyage in the Google results.
  3. On a positive note, it took a late push, but the sub-regions of California are starting to fill out nicely.

Some items that weren't on my wishlist that turned out to be highlights included:

  1. The Wikivoyage:Listing editor was significantly updated in August after User:Ikan Kekek helped spearhead an effort to allow sister project links in listings, and there appear to have been thousands of edits since then taking advantage of the fact that listings can now be linked with Wikidata to allow easier retrieval of lat/long and other shared info.
  2. Wrh2Bot has made over 12,000 edits this year to flag dead links, clean up formatting issues, and otherwise automate mundane tasks so that editors can focus on more important things. If people have suggestions for further cleanups that they'd like to see automated with a bot, please let me know.
  3. User:Yurik has introduced new dynamic map functions that allow a myriad of extremely valuable capabilities, including mapmasks imported from OpenStreetMap, User:Matroc's dynamic map draw, etc. See User:Wrh2/Maps for some experiments with these new features. There are still some rough edges to work out, but given the quick pace of development I suspect Wikivoyage's articles will have vastly better maps in a year's time.

There were obviously many more highlights (and a few lowlights) than what is above, so hopefully others can share their thoughts on 2016, as well as what their hopes are for 2017 - personally my goals will carry over from 2016, I'd also like to put some effort into improving the site's usability and UI, and I'm cautiously optimistic that the status quo bias that often stalls discussions will thaw enough to allow some significant changes to things that haven't changed in over a decade, including some site policies.

Best wishes to everyone over the holidays, and hopefully we can put some ideas in place to finally make 2017 the year that Wikivoyage fulfills its potential. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am increasingly convinced that SEO won't happen unless we deliberately edit certain articles to get rid of "copied" content. It will be a long and tiresome slog uphill, but I can see no other way to do it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Static levels of site contributors is concerning. The same is true of Wikipedia which is experiencing declining contribution rates, although they still have tens of thousands of contributors and have plenty of buffer. Active admins could also be an issue, with most of the work done by only 9 people (determined as admins committing at least 10 admin actions this year), and of those a disproportionate amount of heavy lifting is done by the top 2. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the points made in this thread, but I'd like to point out that it's not all about quantity. Quality is important, too. So look at the honor roll of new posters: User:De88 has done a fantastic job on the Brownsville (Texas) article, among his other edits; User:RhinoMind, who joined in Sept. 2015, has spent quite a lot of time inputting a huge amount of information into the Aarhus guide, among others; User:Halowand added a tremendous number of pagebanners to articles about Japan, many of them notably excellent, plus information. These are just the contributors and contributions that come to my mind right now; there were many others, and I feel strongly that the quality of the site and its coverage has improved notably in the last year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Ikan. The contribution of these new users and others has been amazing, and we should celebrate them :-) Not forgetting all of you admins who work tirelessly 'behind the scenes' for hours every day.
My concern, beyond the number of active contributors, is the number of visitors. Yes, we need people who are willing to give up some of their time to help the site to grow, but all of that only matters if we are reaching 'passive users' as well, i.e. readers who are using the travel guide for its intended purpose. Is there any way of checking this, beyond the possibly inaccurate search engine data? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Not only admins but other valuable established users like you, User:Ypsilon, User:StellarD, User:Hobbitschuster, User:The dog2, User:Erik den yngre and many others. And among the valuable new users, one I omitted above is User:Wauteurz. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Precipitous drop in Alexa Rank since October[edit]

Now Alexa rank is not to my knowledge a scientific measure of anything, but it is cited quite often (including by our own page on Wikivoyage and Wikitravel), so even if there is no reason beyond "just 'cause" a drop is something that should worry us. Our site seems to have fallen from well above 25 000 (probably in the 22 000s) to an as of today rank of 30,253. Now this might be seasonal, but even if that is the case, this rank is worse than the January First 2016 rank (from which there was a slight but notable downwards trend until about March). Now the advertising hellhole has similarly dropped in rank since about October (from the 7 000s) to an as of today rank of 8,714, but the curve for 2016 does not exhibit any trend that could be construed as seasonal.

What is happening here? A statistical artifact? Something Alexa does? Something we did right before October? Something we did wrong since October? Random movement? A seasonal effect?

Should we do something about this? If so, what? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

No idea whether this is real or an Alexa quirk; the same numbers have Uncyclopedia traffic dropping off a cliff for no apparent reason. K7L (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been tracking our Alexa rank off and on since the WMF relaunch. It has a habit of random precipitous drops and meteoric rises that don't seem to have much rhyme or reason to them. I've given up trying to figure it out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there some other site that measures whatever Alexa is measuring with more scientific basis to it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
similarweb seems like a good alternative with more detail, although still not providing you with that scientific basis.
I would say that fixating on traditional SEO in an increasingly mobile first world is maybe the wrong way to look at things.We do seem to have the aspiration to build a great product in splendid isolation and then wondering why this isn't more visible. How about:
* Mobile focus : Are our articles designed for a great mobile experience, or are they just a simplified and stripped down version of the 'main' desktop article?
* External community engagement : Discussions on the Traveler's pub and article talk pages work for us, but the conversation is invisible from the outside. What if we started moving these conversations to a community site such as Reddit?
* Social Media : Tweeting the DOTM to our 100 followers isn't really working. We could set up campaigns and use the community to broadcast and amplify through the different channels we all use. Why not have a discussion about best restaurants in #Manhatten over Twitter than the WV talk page and draw in new people that way?
Just some thoughts. Appreciate all this is effort, but I'm suggesting blue sky thinking rather than just focusing purely on content for our next Google rank. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey everyone,

I leaned a little on the Analytics team, and collected some information for you – plus an invitation for any interested parties to join their public mailing list and ask whatever you want.

  • Alexa's methodology isn't appropriate for sites that don't get a high volume of traffic. I don't know what the cutoff is, but "inappropriate method for this size" may be the main explanation.
  • Traffic to the Wikivoyages is pretty stable.
    • The English Wikivoyage pageviews run around 60,000 per day; a third of your traffic comes from mobile.[1] For comparison, about 40% of traffic to the English Wikipedia comes from mobile; Google has reported that they get more searches in the US on mobile devices than on desktop systems.
    • You get about 15,000 "unique devices" each day.[2] I believe that I'm two of your unique devices for today, because I understand that each web browser is counted separately (and I've seen this page once in Firefox and once in Safari today), but with a very small number of exceptions for people like me, each unique device is one person.
    • That number, combined with the previous number, gives you an average of each device looking at four pages. Generally, mobile folks look at fewer pages than desktop folks.
    • You get about 300,000 unique devices per month.[3]

Finally, if you want more information, then please subscribe to the Analytics mailing list, and feel free to ask the volunteers and staff there whatever you want. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks ever so much for taking the trouble to provide that --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Here [4] you can see information about what unique devices represents, you are right that 2 different browsers on the same computer are 2 devices, the best example is a mobile phone and a desktop for the same user, 1 user, two devices. So devices tells you about the "relative" size of your user base but not the absolute number of users you have. In the case of en.wikivoyage, if you assume every single user has two devices you are looking at a userbase of about 150.000 "users" monthly. 71.212.30.134 01:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Replace "very small number of exceptions" with "a relative majority of users at least in the western world", see also m:Research:Unique devices. The "unique devices" number is about twice the "unique visitors" number comScore used to give us, IIRC (totals are not officially provided yet because they could be misleading, as far as I understand). --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of non-proper nouns[edit]

I just came across this remark:

"[...]In most varieties of Commonwealth English that I am familiar with, there is a predilection for capitalised ordinal points of the compass[...]"

I see this all the time and consider it straightforwardly incorrect, but is it really standard in any variety of English? In other words, I think we all understand that proper names like North Korea, Southern Sudan, West Palm Beach and Southeast Asia should always be capitalized, but is it truly standard in any variety of English to capitalize the word "north" in "Go 3 km north"?

I would also mention that another category of words that I constantly see capitalized on this site and copy edit to lowercase if I have the energy are phrases like this:

The park, the state, the country, the hotel, the beach, the monument, the national park, the state highway, the museum — you get the idea.

I nearly always consider phrases like this not to have any proper nouns in them. On the other hand, the reverse happens a lot, too. It's "Hudson River", not "Hudson river"; it's "the Hilton Hotel", not "the Hilton hotel". Etc.

Does anyone disagree or believe that another standard of capitalization applies in your dialect of standard English? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

On rereading the quoted passage, I realize that ordinal points of the compass would be "northern", "southern", etc. "The northern part of the state" doesn't get capitalized by me, either, because "the northern part" isn't a proper name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on capitalisation describes it exactly like you suggest. I see this is also an issue in many of the article names as listed in Natural attractions. For example, Canadian National Parks and Icelandic Hot Springs should then not be capitalised. On the other hand, individual national parks (e.g. Yellowstone National Park) would still be capitalised, as this is part of the proper noun). --ErwinFCG (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I will have a look at those articles soon and probably change the capitalization as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you Ikan, it sounds like the way I always though capitalization was supposed to work in English. I think moving pages around should be treated with caution though. For example, the official name of Canada's National Park system is "National Parks of Canada", and its website capitalizes "National Park". Wikipedia has also had this debate in the past and decided to capitalize National Park (when referring to Canada)[5]. -Shaundd (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I won't take unilateral action on that one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I've heard both asserted as the One True Way™ in the past, but Mr Google seems to find mostly advice against capitalizing directions and in favor of capitalizing regions (example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
In British English, I have heard of the points of the compass being capitalised, but I don't think that it is current practice. This source and others do say that regions like The North should be in capitals (The capital T in The is less clear). So "Manchester is in the North". AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The North, when it's a region name, should be capitalized. Same in the U.S.: The South, the Northeast, the Southwest, the West Coast, the Eastern Seaboard, the Mountain States, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Your understanding seems correct to me. The one exception I might argue is this: when referring to a proper noun using just the noun part of the name, in a sense that represents some sort of official stance or speaking in the voice of the entity. For example, this would be incorrect:
We're going to Baker Park next week; it's a nice little Park.
But this alternative could be argued either way:
The University of Springfield is a non-profit institution. The University strongly believes in community service.
-- Powers (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that that's not the most obvious choice, but I would still come down against capitalization, with one exception: If I were writing on official behalf of the university, such as in a brochure, I could feel totally free to capitalize at will, because it comes across as more authoritative. I'm not as militant about this as I am about "the Hotel", "the Park" or "the Museum", all of which should be lowercase, but the principle is really the same. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Where Wikivoyage doesn't take a stand, I go with the Wikipedia policy [6], which is not to capitalise "the university", "the hotel", but only "the University of Springfield" and "the Hotel Springfield". Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Things in miniature...[edit]

We don't have a topic on Miniature villages, of which the UK has a small number. I'm using miniature over model because a 'model village' is something else (see Port Sunlight or Bournville for examples of the latter). This got me thinking that there must be some miniature villages outside of the UK.

Also there are a number of indoor miniature worlds, and dioramas (like the one in Hamburg), that are essentially permanently located model railway layouts.

Are there are other collections of miniature items, which are worthy of inclusion in a specialist topic? (Such as collection of model ships for example.)

I've not included rideable-miniature railways, as these probably belong with rail tourism stuff on which we already have an article. If anyone wants to expand a topic on Miniature (rideable) railways.

And given the season the other topic which came to mind which we don't seem to have is Old toys..., which to me seems to be a part museum guide/ part shopping guide. ( A full buyers guide to old toys is probably out of scope though.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget Madurodam in The Netherlands! -- Matroc (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I put some initial thoughts in a stub here Miniatures,_dioramas_and_scale_models
I also added a new section to Tourist Trains Tourist_trains#Rideable_Minature_Railways as it seemed the most appropriate place.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There's also the Legoland parks, which feature a variety of minituare worlds.--Fuaran buidhe (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Mobile mode[edit]

As mentioned above most web interaction is now by smart phone. To get more visitors to this site we need to get the mobile app more useful for users and easier to use. Do we have a forum page to discuss ideas and suggest improvement? If not how should this be structured? Would this be a Wikivoyage Expedition page? Sort of ideas I am thinking about see User:Traveler100/mobile, where should I copy/move this to? I have no idea how the mobile app is managed and who controls it. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Christmas and New Year travel[edit]

A bit late, the Christmas and New Year travel article has been started. Please contribute. /Yvwv (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Standing Rock#The direction of this article[edit]

Wikivoyagers, your opinions and comments please. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Updating Wikivoyage:Categories It seems like discussion on revising this policy petered out about 18 months ago. This came to my attention because I was reverted by Traveler100, which is consistent with the current policy and the trend since 2003 but which I find illogical. Category:Benelux contains all of the child articles on the region but not Benelux itself. Surely that is a problem, even if we don't generally use categories here. Similarly Category:Topics in Benelux is also not navigable from Category:Benelux. It's one thing to not use categories as the primary means of navigation but it's another for them to have patently illogical scenarios like this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories are not used like on Wikipedia to categories articles, but used as an administrative tool. In the case of destination categories for running bots and status generating reports and tables. In addition Topic categories are used in the index page to auto generate content list. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
If one does not want the main article in the category, it can still be mentioned on the category page, by editing the page itself (e.g. inserting a {{main}}). That way it is easily reached also via the category. --LPfi (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to do that systematically.
The theory on the Wikipedias has been that readers will use categories for navigation. I don't recall having seen any research that indicates that this happens. But if the categories are visible, then perhaps some readers will click on the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
We have breadcrumbs for that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)\
I don't see any harm in making the main article at least accessible in the category. I do think our breadcrumb navigation is much more user friendly than categories would be. The use of categories on Commons as the sole means of navigation -without proper accessibility from the topic page- has always been one of the very worst features of the entire Wikimedia cluster. The lack of recognition for this usability issue from both the community there and Wikimedia as an organisation has always amazed me. At a conference, I once tried convincing journalists from a few national papers here to make more use of Commons but they argued that there were hardly any images available. The topic then was Rotterdam. They just never thought to click the category at the bottom of the page. After all these years, the issue seems the same. Anyway, that's off topic - sorry. :) JuliasTravels (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
A region category contains locations that are "part of" that region, the region article itself "is part of" the region above. For images categories makes total sense as a picture can have multiple classifications. You can say that about locations to some degree but on the whole the hierarchy method works quite well. Having previously worked on maintenance tasks on Wikipedia I have to say allowing free categorisation of articles eventually creates a system that is unusable. On Wikipedia you cannot traverse logically up or down and not guarantee you will find yourself back in the same category or you end up with the strangest connections. All of which makes automatic and semi-automatic bot maintenance very difficult and much more time consuming to set up a new program. Also gathering statistic would be difficult. Having categories only created by templates keeps this site manageable. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, I must not have been clear: Once the reader has accidentally ended up on a cat page, there are no breadcrumbs visible. Therefore, IMO it'd be good to systematically add a link to the main article at the top of the cat page (as has been done at Category:Benelux). This way, the lost reader has a better chance of getting where s/he wants to go, rather than staying lost in the cat tree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

Why does the dynamic map in the Pasadena article have the borders of the city marked on the dynamic map in that article, even though template:Mapmask is not used in that specific article? where is the data about the border located? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at {{mapshape}}, which is what's used in the Pasadena article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
So mapshape calls it from Wikidata? is there any easy way for me to copy the actual code of the border to Hebvoy to be used there with template:Mapmask, or do I have to create {{mapshape}} on hebvoy as well? (If I am not mistaken, I tried to import {{mapshape}} to hebvoy but it didn't work. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Creating the mapshape template (along with its dependencies) on Hebrew Wikivoyage would be the easiest solution. You should only need {{mapshape}} and {{mapshape/Inner}} to make it work - everything else is handled by mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Does mapshape call this information from Wikidata? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I just tried to see if it would work on Hebvoy ... and it gave me the following error (which I translated, so it might not be exact to the English written error) - "<Maplink>: it was impossible to decode JSON due to: syntax error". ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to implement {{mapshape}} on Hebrew Wikivoyage, but the version of {{mapframe}} being used there does not use mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer, so until that is changed you won't be able to use the latest functionality. You can revert any of the changes I just made on your site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried import the new {{mapframe}} but now all the articles that use this template give the following error: "<Mapframe>: "show" has non-valid value <Maplink>: it was impossible to decode JSON due to: syntax error"
User:Wrh2, how do I fix that? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to fix it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Functionality Could it be a rtl text problem? @ויקיג'אנקי:, have you posted anything to mw:Maps or phab:? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

How to abbreviate e.g. the Nicaraguan Cordoba[edit]

Now I am not exactly sure what our policy on that issue says, but User:Ground Zero has been quite busy in edits like this one to change all instances of "NIO" to "C$" and even changing some instances of the word "Cordoba" into "C$". I know common currencies like € or US$ are sufficiently abbreviated by their symbol, but what about a bit more obscure currencies or instances where more than one currency might be of relevance (e.g. Mexico where both the peso and the dollar are abbreviated by the Peso-symbol) Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dunno. I see C$ and expect Canadian dollars. K7L (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Our articles use a variety of ways to denote the same currency - NIO, C$, cordobas - often in the same article. I think that being consistent makes things easier for the reader, and make the guide look less, well, random. I am using the Wikivoyage:Currency policy as my guide, which says to use the most commonly recognizable symbol, and not to use the ISO code unless there is ambiguity. Before I start on a country, I check what Wikipedia says about its currency, and what its central bank uses. And I make sure that it is clear in the currency section of the main article for the country. Anyone unclear on what the symbols mean in new a local article will want to check the main article for an expansion of the currency and recent exchange rates, which I update for US$ and €.
For Nicaragua, C$ seems to be standard. I haven't been there, so I don't actually know, but I don't think it is ambiguous. Because prices are often shown in US$ in Central America, using C$ or US$ every time seems necessary. Often I'm finding that someone has listed a price in "$", which I think will be confusing. Where it is obvious based on the value of the transaction, I will choose a currency. (A hostel is not going to charge C$10/US$0.40 for a bed, so it is safe to assume that the editor meant US$10.) I don't need think many readers will be thinking of Canadian dollars when reading an article on a Nicaragua.
For Mexico, the central bank does not use Mex$ or M$ or Mx$; it always uses "pesos". I checked a few online newspapers in Spanish and English and found them also using "pesos". I was in Mexico a couple of years ago, but really don't remember what symbols are used.
I am also editing as I go along to remove obvious advertising, first-person narratives, typos, etc. If my approach to fixing the currencies could be better, I'd be happy to discuss. I know that WV:$ says "don't knock yourself or changing the currency symbols", but I'm sitting at home nursing a broken ankle, so I can't go out and do research on the road, where I really want to be. Ground Zero (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem, but I seem to recall some other editor (frankly I have forgotten the name) who introduced a lot of "NIO" in the past. I am not sure, however, when it comes to some of your "shortenings" (for lack of a better term), but that may be because I tend towards (over)long sentences. For example, you tend to replace almost any instance of "as well as" with "and" as well as other things. I hope there won't be a conflict in the future about this. I am not married to my wordings (and often they frankly merit improvement), but I think it is more worthwhile to edit the text that is still largely the same as over on that site using Copyscape's comparison tool. At any rate, I hope your ankle heals soon and that you'll have a great 2017. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Thinking about the currency issue some more, I think would be useful for the reader would be to provide some clarity about currency the first time it is used in each article and link to the currency section of the main country article, e.g., "C$5000 (córdobas)". I'll wait to see if anyone else has ideas on this, then start adding this to the main city articles. People probably don't start reading about a country with articles about small towns.
I do favour shorter, simpler sentences that are easier to read, especially for people reading in their second language. I would expect that Wikivoyage attracts a lot of non-native language readers. Best wishes to you for 2017, and I hope you find yourself some place you haven't be to yet. Ground Zero (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Have a great 2017 - goals and projects for the new year[edit]

So this year is invariably drawing to a close and while we have had some successes here at WV, we are far from finished with anything (no wiki ever truly is). I think the past year has been mostly positive for the community (I neither recall any high profile conflicts nor anybody of note leaving, but I may have overlooked something), although it was not a good year for people interested in travel as a whole. War zones seem to be getting worse, not better, and the calls for ever tighter "security", especially in the context of borders bear ill for the future. Brexit may well mean travel between the UK and the EU becoming more difficult. But at any rate our community here can do nothing about those developments and I hope we can keep discussions as apolitical as possible, even if some users might be able to guess the political biases of some others.

So, let us not further focus on what was in 2016, but rather what we want to do in 2017. I think there are some ongoing projects as well as some new ones to keep us busy starting tomorrow.

  1. Develop at least one of American football, Intercity buses in Germany or rail travel in Germany to be ready to be featured
  2. Continue SEO edits, especially to high profile articles (countries, continent(al section)s, major cities) in order to hopefully draw more eyeballs our way
  3. Reduce the number of bare outlines through mergers, deletions and more content, promoting them if possible to usable
  4. Hopefully do some on the ground research for articles on Nicaragua
  5. If possible do some on the ground research on other destinations as well

At any rate, I hope you have a safe and pleasant New Year's Eve (take a piece of advice from a New York Giants fan: Be careful around fireworks) and a good 2017. I would love to hear your plans on wiki, and if you want to share them off-wiki. Guten Rutsch Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: My only big goal is really perfecting Indianapolis and building on all of the hard work that Sarah did and that I have done since. I wish I could have found the time to polish it up as featured for the Indy 500 but it wasn't going to happen with my schedule. I will be more free this year which is exciting. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Most viewed articles[edit]

Not sure if people have seen this new list of most viewed articles?

[7]

Best Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Travel Doc. Really interesting list! A lot of the rankings seem counter-intuitive to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Travelling with a criminal history both here and on WT are top results for related Google searches. Apparently there aren't a lot of resources out there on that topic. Powers (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't the result that surprised me most. Why is Deauville the #1 destination guide? Why is Tianjin the 2nd-most-viewed city article? Why is Bikol phrasebook the top phrasebook, and viewed more than any city guide other than the two already mentioned? Why is Al Khor more popular than China and London? Etc. There's a lot to wonder at, but that's what makes the results interesting. And perhaps the list might impel us to improve some of the most viewed articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering about the popularity of the Tswana_phrasebook , which is rather niche. A quick google search shows that we are 5th ranked for that, which unfortunately goes to show how important SEO is. Still it should inspire us to develop new niche (and valid travel!) articles that will gain higher SEO ratings and help the site's overall traffic. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew. The popularity of our obscure topics is because we're the only online travel guide that has written about these things. I also wonder if social media played a role. A few of those niche articles may have been shared on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. and they may have gone moderately viral. Gizza (roam) 23:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Where to stick content (re Grand Scale/Miniature/Park/narrow Gauge) railways?[edit]

I have this quandary because depending on their nature they could go in:-

  1. Miniatures,_dioramas_and_scale_models#United_Kingdom, where I've put in some 5 inch gauge (Model Engineering) Club circuits that are effectively used for showing scale (working) model displays. The section concerned was originally going to be for things like G-Scale displays, but "-5 inch lines seemed to be a better fit. The parent section is Model Railways and Garden Short Lines, but this could be split if needed, or re-titled.
  2. Tourist_trains#Rideable_Minature_and_Park_Railways which so far in respect of my additions have been the longer lines, or those og 10.25 inch guage or above, or which are closer to being (in some cases very) narrow gauge lines as opposed to 'large-scale-models'.
  3. Heritage_railways which is where I put the obviously narrow-guage lines of wales.

I'd appreciate some feedback on this, as I know of some modern narrow gauge lines in the UK, that aren't miniature, are slightly longer than what would be called a park railway, but are not a heritage line in the strictest sense, like the Teffi Valley, or Launceston Steam Railway.

All three sections could be greatly expanded, but I'm only aware of a few lines in the UK (and there are many.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I also note Travel_for_rail_enthusiasts, but this I assumed would be for the must see national level stuff like the NRM in York, not attraction railways. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Airport wifi passwords[edit]

Just found this article: https://www.indy100.com/article/passwords-airports-around-world-travel-holiday-smartphone-7501036

It's an article which gives wifi details for lots of airports around the world, including wifi passwords for some lounges in these airports. Would this be useful for some of the airport article on this site? Don't know whether it would be or not? Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  21:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Publishing passwords for private lounges would run afoul of the WV:Illegal activities policy. It's fine to include information about connectivity in airports, just not things like passwords that would only be given to users with lounge access. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wrh2: Ok, thanks for your reply. I just didn't know whether it would be useful or not.  Seagull123  Φ  13:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

New template to replace magic words[edit]

Template:ISBN I have ported over w:Template:ISBN and w:Module:Check isxn from en.wp. Magic words as links are being phased out and although we don't have to replace all instances of them now, they will all be removed from MediaWiki in 2017. See mw:Requests_for_comment/Future_of_magic_links. We have about 50 entries in Category:Pages using ISBN magic links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but they should be marked experimental and discussed before widespread deployment, per our Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates policy. Powers (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Currencies, again[edit]

Happy 2017. Since we usually display prices in the local currency, exchange rates are pretty important. I have found that that inflation is usually not that easy to find in the country articles as it usually appears as text in a paragraph. I propose to highlight this key info by putting an infobox at the top of the currency section of each country article like this:

Exchange rates for Nicaraguan córdobas (C$)

As of January 2017,

  • US$1 = C$29.3
  • €1 = C$30.6
  • UK£1 = C$36.2

I propose to use these three currencies as the most commonly understood by travellers. The "=" symbol seems to screw up the formatting. I don't like "buys" and would welcome other suggestions.

Comments? Is this a good or bad idea? Ground Zero (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC) (I was able to fix the = problem.) Ground Zero (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If there was a way to have the rates updated automatically it would be useful, otherwise it will just quickly become an out of date information box as it will be too much effort to maintain. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, currency exchange rates were at one point (maybe half a year ago, but not any longer) updated to the country infoboxes from Wikidata. If currency rates are still available at WD, the infobox could perhaps be linked to them. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses this template: [8] which provides links to external exchange rates sites. It doesn't show the rates themselves, so I think it is pretty clunky as it makes the reader click through to get the information. If there is a way to draw current rates right onto the page, I'd be happy with that.
Our prices are not updated often either, so I don't think we should be too worried about not having the most up-to-date exchange rates. Our prices and rates are just an approximation for the reader of be what they will experience.
My proposal upgrades what we have now by making the rates easier to find. I'd rather have recent-ish rates right on the page than a link to today's rate. Or maybe we provide both. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ypsilon: Exchange rates were recently disabled in infoboxes due to technical problems - see #Wikidata issue for currency exchange rate in country summary box. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. The rates are still there, for instance HKD which was mentioned in the thread Ryan just linked to has about one month old rates on WD. I guess someone familiar with WD and templates could use the data and create infoboxes. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A hybrid approach would be to include the above info box, and this template below. Ground Zero (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Exchange rates for {{{currency}}} ({{{currencyCode}}})

As of {{{date}}}: Exchange rates fluctuate. Current rates for these and other currencies are available from {{{source}}}

Exchange rates can have pretty extreme fluctuations in pretty short timeframes. Hotel rates and the prices of at the very least commonly ordered meals in restaurants enjoy much more stability. It's what economists half-jokingly refer to the "shoesole-costs" of inflation - the costs of replacing shoesoles earlier from having to go to the ATM more often for new money. Because inflation is continues, but due to marketing and psychological reasons prices are increasing in discrete and concrete increments (or have you ever seen a 6.33€ steak become a 6.34€ steak the next week?) Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If people are interested in automated conversions my preference would be to fix Wikidata rather than linking to external finance sites. If {{exchange rates}} is going to be kept it should be deleted and re-imported so that it provides proper attribution to the Wikipedia authors. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Fixing Wikidata sounds lie the best option, but I know I don't have the skills for it. My hybrid proposal is based on what I know I'd be capable of doing.
I sampled a bunch of articles to see what is the norm now. Articles usually have in text form exchanges rates as of a certain date, between 2014 and 2016. This is useful for providing a general idea of the rate. I find that useful when I am casually reading articles out of interest, but I think the information can be better presented, as I've suggested. Some articles provide no exchange rate info at all, which I don't think is useful. In preparing for a trip, I want to know the current rate, so I usually Google it. I think that Wikivoyage could be improved by also providing a better version of the experimental automated template I stole from Wikipedia without proper attribution (I'll be looking for advice on how to import correctly), information would be available in whichever form the reader wants it. Ground Zero (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion: template (e.g. {{amount|50|GTQ}} ) to place around reference to a value, show symbol and number, on mouse over shows name of currently and value in a number of other currencies such as $US and Euro.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Formatting One solution to the equals sign problem above is to use "" since these currencies exchanges will probably not be perfect and will fluctuate with time anyway. It's probably just better form even if we can get a "=" to display. I agree that Wikidata is the correct approach, since this is a problem that will impact several projects in addition to this one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not display currency values and rather links to external sources for that. There must be a reason for that. Does that reason apply to us as well? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The value of a currency, even approximate, is of great interest to a traveller. I think it is worth including. Does anyone have any idea when our the Wikidata thing will be fixed? It was before my time here, so I don't know how it worked before. If it is not imminent, the I would suggest, as an interim solution, including the box at the top of the thread with a caveat the "currency exchange rates fluctuate, be sure to check for the current exchange rate" and then we could include a couple of external links to current rates. And make the change Traveler100 proposes. If Wikidata is fixed, then we would switch to that. Does v that sound like a reasonable approach? Ground Zero (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Exchange rates for Nicaraguan córdobas (C$)

As of January 2017,

  • US$1 ≈ C$29.3
  • €1 ≈ C$30.6
  • UK£1 ≈ C$36.2

Note that currency exchange rates fluctuate. Check the current rates at [xe.com XE] or [oanda.com Oanda]

@Hobbitschuster: I would reckon that's because it is more trouble than it is worth to include it directly into the articles on en.wp and it's not a problem to link to an external source there. On the other hand, here we prefer to have really accurate and up-to-the-minute info if we can plus we don't want to encourage outbound traffic (in part because one of the goals here is to make a printable guide). —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It would be good if everyone interested in this thread could review past discussions on the subject, including Wikivoyage talk:Currency#Currencies. I'm supportive of any proposal that is easy to maintain, but if an infobox is being proposed that would need to be regularly updated in hundreds of articles then I have some reservations, and would prefer to see a limited trial (perhaps in 3-5 country articles) and more discussion about how to simplify or automate maintenance. The recently disabled approach of using Wikidata for currency conversion remains the preferred option for me, although I think it would be an improvement to also present that info as User:Ground Zero has proposed in the "Buy" section of country articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. I've taken a look at the previous threads - this issue has been around for quite a while. It's disappointing that there doesn't to be a resolution for this key information. I don't think many that a template for prices is really something we should pursue. First, it would be a tonne of work applying it to existing prices in WV, and secondly, getting contributors to use it for new content would be better an ongoing battle. I've attempted a second template to try to combine the static exchange rateses and the links, but the coding is beyond me. I would be grateful if someone could take a look at it. And help me understand how to import these things from Wikipedia correctly. If we can get some sort of consensus on this, I will undertake to do a few test cases, and then if they work, begin to apply it across countries. Thanks, Ground Zero (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Template:Exchange rates 2
@Ground Zero: The info wouldn't/shouldn't be imported from Wikipedia (since they would be getting it from an outside source anyway) but from Wikidata. Having centralized data as a repository for other projects is exactly what d: is for anyway. I will post a thread over there on the Project Chat. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Koavf, I was referring to importing a template from Wikipedia, which apparently I've done incorrectly. I am hoping for some guidance on how to do it correctly. Ground Zero (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Admins can pull in Wikipedia content with full edit history (including authors) using Special:Import, which satisfies attribution requirements. If content is copied and pasted, see Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikipedia for details about providing attribution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a new proposal:

Exchange rates for Nicaraguan córdobas (C$)

As of January 2017,

  • US$1 ≈ C$29.3
  • €1 ≈ C$30.6
  • UK£1 ≈ C$36.2

Note: exchange rates fluctuate. Please verify current rates.

Current exchange rates from XE.com: [9]

This requires periodic updating, as our current approach of including the info in the text in most articles does, but provides a link to current rates. It is not as easy to implement as a template, but I cannot get templates to work. Any further thoughts or comments? Ground Zero (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Also noting the Wikivoyage:Country article template says "Include here information on the currency and rough conversion rates for major currencies used by English-speaking travelers (US, Australian, Canadian dollars, euros, British pounds)", I think that my proposal is consistent with existing policy. I don't intend to add Aus and Cdn $, for the sake of brevity and ease of updating. US$, £ and € are widely used and understood by travellers. I'll start on this project in the coming days. Ground Zero (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've updated {{exchange rates‎‎}} to generate the same output as the proposed infobox to simplify implementation and allow these infoboxes to be tracked and updated en masse. Note that this was a quick-and-dirty update - if the template is going to be used widely then it can be cleaned up to handle missing arguments, additional currencies, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been thinking that a single table with US dollar rate for each currency and perform arithmetic based upon that for other currencies. ie. 1 US dollar ='s 29.34 NIU ... 1 Euro = 1.0533 US then 1.0533 x 29.34 = 30.9 NIU etc. Though the pennies might be off a bit but close enough I would think. This single table could be in a Module by itself and another Module is used to read in the table and perform the calculations. Template would call the Module and output the infobox. That might work. Concerns - how to update the table and how often as there are about 180 currencies in the world and approximately 168 of these are fairly active. The single table itself would be fairly simple and elements can be added to it for other uses as well. Just a thought in passing... -- Matroc (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I must first say I haven't read this whole discussion, but on wikioverland.org, they have the ability to have a drop down menu at the top of their pages where users can choose which currency the article displays in (for example, see here and look in the top right of the desktop article). This is a site we're cooperating with (Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikioverland). Also, go onto that linked cooperation page, then go down to the section "currency conversion" - apparently they use a "custom MediaWiki extension to convert prices to any currency the reader wishes to use". Wikioverland has a page about this extension here. I don't know if this is any help or not, but the idea does look at least interesting.  Seagull123  Φ  00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017[edit]

I wish the WV community a happy and peaceful new year 2017. After the presentation together with Doc James in 2013 I decided to attend the Wikimania 2017 (if I will be one of the happy ones with a scholarship granted). After bad experiences at the WikiCon (denied submissions). I think about a lightning talk and a poster or WV booth. Maybe I will present some of our Wikidata features together with the Wikidata guys. Will some of you guys be around there?

What feature should be presented and talked about? I have the map features and our full automatic infoboxes and Wikidata features on the list. How about you? I think about your banners, listings but I am not 100 per cent up-to-date. I would be happy for some information and suggestions? -- DerFussi 07:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Look forwards to seeing you there :-) Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I think features that distinguish Wikivoyage from other Wikimedia wikis include the breadcrumbs, the use of dynamic maps (Wikivoyage seems to be an early adopter of changes including the new OpenStreetMap integration via {{mapshape}}), the listing editor (particularly the new integration with wikidata), and the banners. There will probably be presentations at Wikimania about plans for better utilizing Wikidata as well as using structured data on commons for map shapes and tabular data like climate tables, both of which would be of huge benefit here, so any news you hear would be great to share. Enjoy the conference! -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks I will keep that in mind. We have talked with Wikidata project manager about climate data at our association birthday in Berlin. We think only a bot should transfer the huge amount of data to WD. Do you know any free source for such data? Or a project that would provide the data under a free license. We have somebody here in Berlin for official communication. But currently we have no ides where we should the data get from.
Wikimedia Germany would like to have some little items made for us, like WV pens WV leaflets. Do you have any ideas what kind of items would be good to be spread out on meetings or at tourist information offices? Any ideas are welcome. I'll keep you up-to-date. -- DerFussi 06:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about non-US sources for climate data, but for the US the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides public domain data. I built a climate table generator that can be accessed at [10]. I would expect that Wikipedia may eventually transfer their climate data to Commons in order to take advantage of the new shared data capabilities, at which time Wikivoyage could then make use of the data as well. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Just because I don't see it mentioned above, Montreal will be the location this year. I still feel bad that I didn't get to visit the one in Hong Kong a few years back because of a crazy work deadline Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Dates are August 9-13th. Details at [11].
Lots of WV folk are nearby. I will be by then, User:AndreCarrotflower is not far, the original WT founders User:EvanProdromou and User:(WT-en)_Maj live in Montreal, and there are others. Pashley (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to mention the venue for Wikimania. @Andrewssi2. Yeah. Would had been great to meet in Hong Kong. That was the Wikimania when I did the presentation with James. Nice to hear that some of you guys will be nearby then. -- DerFussi 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
User:DerFussi, I think that a travel-related gift might be appropriate. A luggage tag or a pair of disposable foam earplugs (in a box with the Wikivoyage logo) could be relatively inexpensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing. Both ideas are really great. I'll put it on my list when I talk with the WMDE guy. Thanks. -- DerFussi 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Montreal as DotM[edit]

I've suggested on WV/de to improve the Montreal article and present it as a Dotm in August during Wikimania. We can also have it linked it on the Wikimania websites. What do you think? -- DerFussi 08:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's currently Usable and therefore ineligible for consideration at en.voy. Improvements would have to take place before it can be nominated here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought we had that debate before and ultimately concluded that the mere fact of Wikimania is not by itself enough reason to feature a certain city? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Your memory is correct. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
It might still be interesting to upgrade that article and link it from the Wikimania page, if we have a few people with knowledge of the area willing to join the effort. The reality is that featuring an article typically generates between 1000 and 2000 extra page views for that articles in a month. Wikimania had 1200 attendees last year. The chances of a good number of those Wikimedia enthusiasts checking out the page would be relatively good, and the changes of any of them joining the editing process are much better than with a regular feature. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I definitely believe that the page should be linked on multiple Wikimania-related pages.
I think that there are practical reasons to coordinate with Wikimania, even if that doesn't lead to a DotM. Last year's Wikimania organizers did a major expansion on the article about Esino Lario. Attendees should be encouraged to expand and improve the article for the city they're visiting and well as the article from their home city. It'd be interesting to see a mini edit-a-thon for Wikivoyage, or stickers to reward Wikimania attendees who edit here, perhaps saying something like "I improved Wikivoyage" or (if you want to be a little funny) "I told Wikivoyage where to go". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I vividly remember the edits related to Esino Lario, and while many of them definitely helped, it would be great if Wikipedians were referred to Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians and especially Wikivoyage:What is an article? and asked to please focus on updating and adding content to existing Montreal district articles, and the main Montreal article as appropriate. Anyone is welcome to create itineraries or travel topics that aren't easily covered as part of single listings, introductions to sections or the "Understand" section of a destination article, but we had problems with people creating encyclopedia-style articles about things like how to use a scholarly archive in Esino Lario that was specially open to Wikimania members for only one day. See Talk:Esino Lario#Unhelpful though well-intentioned articles for some background on some of the problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it would be wise to write a bit especially for Wikimania about what we do and who we are and how to avoid common pitfalls as seen last year? This way we might reduce frustration on all sides and get more out of it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a great idea. Where would you suggest we put the Introduction to Wikivoyage for Wikimedians, and should it be in one place in its early stages and copied to another place later? If it's a good enough article, we could ultimately include it in our links for new users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not to sidetrack the discussion too much, but ever since the initial launch as a Wikimedia project I've been thinking we need a better way to handle "unwanted" edits. Editorial consistency is important, but it's also true that this project desperately needs a larger, healthier editor community. Perhaps the solution is to revisit the WV:Article status system to make it more granular and not solely focused on formatting - for example, allowing a range of status to indicate whether an article meets WV:WIAA or might be a merge candidate, to reflect the quality of the article's formatting, the quality of the travel content, etc. Or maybe there is another solution that would allow easier integration of what are today "unwanted" edits. In any case, it seems that a fear of edits from well-meaning contributors indicates a potential problem in how Wikivoyage is set up to handle those sorts of contributions. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimania site might be a good place to start. We could start with a few hints, links to all the language editions, and an invitation to attendees who are familiar with Montreal to help out the people who've never been there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
A guideline for Wikipedians would be nice. Should be part of a poster presented in Montreal. We presented a kind of poster with differences between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. It depicted a Wikipedia article and a Wikivoyage article on each side and explained the differences.
Besides I would like to improve our article about Montreal. Is there any chance to resolve your district discussion concerning the Montreal article in a short time? The districts are the first parts I would start with. And import and translate some district articles. -- DerFussi 06:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians seems to be the central source of information about differences between Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I am a long-term Wikipedia editor, and a relatively new Wikivoyage contributor. I have poked around and learned about the differences, and am still learning, but I think a guide for Wikipedians would be very useful. In Wikipedia there is a "welcome" template that an editor can post on a new contributor's talk page that (a) welcomes and encourages them, and (b) introduces them to the five pillars of editing in Wikipedia (with links they can follow). This is a useful tool for teaching and retaining new editors, especially if you've had to revert their first edit, which can be discouraging. Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
As WhatamIdoing said, the page you're looking for is Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians. If you believe it can be improved, please post your thoughts on that article's talk page or just plunge forward and make any presumably non-controversial changes yourself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Somehow I missed his post, and now I see it right there above mine. I'll check it out. Ground Zero (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict, and I believe WhatamIdoing is a woman, but I could be wrong]: Just to follow up on this, I think a separate brochure-style article specifically directed at the Wikimania participants is a good idea, but that's not because there is no page currently directed toward Wikipedians on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. My apologies to Ms WhatamIdoing, if appropriate. I do know better than to assume things like that, but I slip up occasionally. I found the "welcome message" for Wikivoyage here. It can be copied and pasted easily. Ground Zero (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I am a woman. There are a couple of scripts around if you want to make a habit of checking for disclosed gender, but I think that most people don't mind the occasional wrong guess. (In addition to userinfo, I can also recommend Hoo man's scripts, which make it easy to see which wikis another editor is active at; see m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js for the exact code needed to import them into all your accounts.)
Perhaps of more immediate use, there is also Template:Welcome here. It's short, simple, and includes a link to this page and to the information page for Wikipedians. If you wanted to make it sweet as well, then you could insert an image of your favorite dessert along with it.  :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Coming from Wikipedia, which is plagued by a lack of female contributors, I am aware of the problems that are created when a project lacks gender balance. Thank you for pointing me to the template. That will be easier to use. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Unwanted" edits (for lack of a better term)[edit]

Now I think what Ryan says above is actually quite a longstanding issue/conflict here. How broad do we want to be. In the relatively short time since I joined a whole bunch of travel topics have been created and many of them had a lot of buzz for about a month or so before being mostly forgotten in a state that cannot be called "finished". I am not sure we are overextending our relatively small community, but on the other hand, I love going on a tangent of a tangent and many of our travel topics are good places to draw new contributors and keep them motivated. So yes, having "unwanted" edits in any form might indicate a design flaw, but being an overbroad "wiki of everything" is also unwise. First we do not have the resources for that and second, Wikipedia is much better at that. Now there are some fields we currently do not cover but conceivably could or should in the future, but I fear there will always be well-meaning newbies who try to add content which just does not belong here. Similarly, there are WP articles that are much too focused on tourism. Better cooperation across projects certainly seems a good area to work in and should be raised at Wikimania by those who'll be there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't exactly cost-free (in terms of our time), but I think we should consider these two things as priorities:
  • Making sure people know where to ask for help: One key way to keep contributors is to make sure that they can find a friendly human when they don't know what's going on. We're small enough that we probably don't need a w:WP:Teahouse, but we could perhaps make it clear that this page is a great place to ask for help. Do we have enough redirects pointing here, from the usual "Village pump" names for the major wikis? Are editors from other wikis consistently getting {{welcome}} messages (which has a link to this page)?
  • Trying to expand/build upon whatever's done. If they add something perhaps "unwanted" but not actually dreadful or spammy, then can we leave it for a bit? Can we trim it, re-arrange it, split it to a different article (with a clear edit summary/note on the editor's talk page), or do something that looks collaborative? For example, if someone adds information that's Wikimania-specific shortly before Wikimania, does it really urgently need to be removed before the event's over? Or the point made above about the archives: Perhaps could it have been moved (at least temporarily) to something like Historical travel as an example of something that sometimes happens. People do check back to see whether their edits "stuck", and if they don't, then they give up (and complain to their friends). So to the extent that we can reasonably preserve or collaborate with their first efforts, we may convert a one-time give-it-a-try editor into a long-term contributor.
I don't want to suggest that these will always work. I don't even want to suggest that these would be radical changes to normal behavior. But they're two of the most successful ways to retain editors, so I think we should practice them deliberately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

PDF download, include map and place button centrally[edit]

Dear fellow enthusiasts

I was wondering whether it might be worth a discussion for the future of WikiVoyage to also add maps from the GPS points of a place to the beginning or end of an article when downloading it as PDF, like Lonely Planet and others are doing(?) I know it is possible to download the GPS marker file, however, I believe, not many people are firm with this kind of thing.

At the same time, could it also be meaningful to have a more direct download icon to each article (maybe together with the GPX download icon). I believe many people have problems finding/noticing the PDF link on the left side and might just print out each page, which add a lot of burden on the environment.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of usability improvements but I'm having trouble visualizing what you're suggesting. Can you give examples, perhaps with screenshots? Powers (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
1) Here is an example of a Lonely Planet page: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/2055215075_3d17498971_b.jpg They always got an overview map with listings for each place. It would be meaningful to have something similar produced automatically for the PDF or Book download you can do with WikiVoyage, now that many places include GPS tags for their sights. 2) Furthermore, for each WikiVoyage page there are two icons in the upper right corner above the page title, one for GPX download, and one for OpenStreetMap view. I believe it would help to also have the PDF download link here, instead in the left sections of numerous links. Maybe also combining it with the book creation opportunity.Ceever (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
We definitely could improve our print options. We don't maintain the PDF feature, however, so I'm not sure how much control we have. It might be worth putting a feature request in. Powers (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyagers in Brazil[edit]

Hi, do we have Wikivoyagers here from Brazil who would be interested to meet-up? I will be in Brazil for few weeks and would be interested to meet Wikivoyagers. --Saqib (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles without Wikidata page[edit]

The articles in this Category:Banner missing from Wikidata don't have a page in Wikidata. If anyone has time to fix it will be appreciated. --Kizar (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Venue info in travel topic articles[edit]

Many attraction-themed travel topics such as those found among historical travel and fiction tourism have a list of venues, such as museums. These are also listed in the geographic article hierarchy; for instance both York and Industrial Britain list the National Railway Museum.

The question is: How detailed should the venue info be? Should both the travel topic and the city article have phone number, fees, opening hours, etc? These are subject to change, and inclusion in more than one article would require more effort to keep Wikivoyage up to date. Too many articles have obsolete information.

A future solution would be compilation of Wikidata objects. But until then? /Yvwv (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there should be equal standards for detail in both travel topic listings and destination article listings, and I think the argument about the effort required in keeping things up to date is a pretty weak one. (Ideally, a traveller planning to visit different venues listed in a travel topic article would also refer to the respective destination article[s], anyway.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. Which is why details such as opening hours and admission prices can be kept in those destination guides. I see no reason to duplicate that content elsewhere and have been operating on the belief that such specifics should normally be omitted in travel topic and itinerary articles. The "content" line could be the same in both articles, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Note if you do not want to put all the detail in the travel topic article when the link is created to the location page add # and the wikidata Qnumber to the end of the city page name. If the listing has the wikidata entered the link will jump to that part of the page. Saves the reading searching a whole page for the information. Created example for the National Railway Museum in Industrial Britain. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that travel topics should only have brief details of the detailed information on visiting a museum. Hours should just deal with a broad sense of the days it is open ("Jun-Sep: Mon-Sat; Oct-May only Tue"). Address can usually just be a link to the city, and directions are only needed only if they would impact advance planning ("allow two days to walk to the castle"). I would omit prices unless they were high (more than an average dinner), but would say if advance purchase was required. The description may be quite different in the travel topic from the city article, as the travel topic should focus on how the museum addresses the particular topic. AlasdairW (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Please also have a look at last week's discussion about the same topic. As I've said there; a big downside of limiting the information in travel topics is that those articles are then no longer usable nor printable on their own. We would force users to comb through all the destination articles to find the specific attraction and then write that information down somewhere else, to use alongside our itinerary article. That's not very traveller friendly. And why would we do that? Only because it's slightly harder to update the information and because in principle we don't want double listings? Of course, it also completely depends on the topic. Note that some of our best itineraries with attractions rather than cities do include address information. Have a look at El Camino Real, for example, which also includes opening hours, or Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side - which doesn't use listings, but does include addresses. I don't think those articles are crowded by information, and would be strongly against removing it. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important for us to agree on the best policy in this regard and include the specific advice where it's most relevant (presumably, in the articles about itineraries and, well, I'm not sure where would be best in regard to travel topics, because as I recall, the "article" about them is really only a repository of annotated links to existing travel topic articles). Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying now.. are you suggesting that itineraries are only ever supposed to be a repository of annotated links to existing travel topics? Did you mean destination articles? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Nope. I'm describing the Travel topics "article", which is just a repository of collated, annotated links to existing travel topic articles, with a 1-sentence description of what a travel topic article is. I'm not sure where we would put an instruction to include or exclude details like hours and admission prices to attractions in travel topics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify I was talking about Travel Topics with a global (or at least country level) scope like Botanical tourism. Topics and itineraries that cover a single city may be different. I would expect somebody reading a global topic to also look at (and maybe print) the relevant city articles, which would be needed for all the other info (Get in, Eat, Sleep etc). It is unlikely that somebody with a print copy is going to visit the museums in both London and Sydney, so reducing the number of pages of printout helps the printout carrying traveller. AlasdairW (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with Julias, but I think that Alasdair's point is critical. Botanical tourism, which has information from multiple countries but no places to sleep, isn't going to be printed out and used as-is (which means that we need some duplicate listings between that article and the destinations). But other travel topics (and ideally all itineraries) could be used that way, and in that case, they should be more self-contained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

I'd prefer not to see strict rules put in place on this subject, but instead encourage common sense. Something like: "A rule of thumb for Wikivoyage is that a listing for a business or attraction should only appear in a single article, but particularly in the case of travel topics and itineraries editors should not be dogmatic in applying this guideline. In many cases it is preferable to avoid duplication by pointing readers to the appropriate city article for an attraction, but use common sense and remember that the goal is to produce the best travel guide possible; a topic article about Industrial Britain benefits from having details about places that were an important part of Britain's Industrial Revolution, and an itinerary about El Camino Real is a vastly better article if it includes details about each of the Spanish Missions along the route". -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree that we shouldn't aim for a strict one-size-fits-all policy. For globally focussed articles, it indeed makes sense to not include the small details. For more regional ones, information to make the article stand alone are of real value. We're talking about a relatively small group of articles anyway, so common sense and consensus discussion when needed is perfectly manageable. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Ryan's guidance would go in Wikivoyage:Listings and could be cross referenced from Wikivoyage:Itineraries and Wikivoyage:Travel topics (which we probably should create). I would be opposed to placing editor guidance of any sort in the mainspace Itineraries and Travel topics articles. Powers (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What does our manual of style say on "Anno Domini" or its shorthand AD?[edit]

I think we should try to avoid such overtly sectarian language, even though everybody knows what our calendar tries to date itself after (failing miserably, by the way - there is a better chance Rome was founded 0 a.u.c. than that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem at the supposed time - much less during a time when Quirinus was proconsul in Syria and Herod the Great was alive and ruling Judea). Is there any reason to not make it clear in our MoS that dates should be used without AD or CE when there is no chance for ambiguity and when ambiguities may arise CE and BCE are to be preferred over openly Christian terms? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd vote for that proposal. Makes sense to me. Ground Zero (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed, but I think there are more important things to focus on. AD and BC are probably more widely known about and used. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed with ThunderingTyphoons!, and I also don't think AD and BC really qualify as "openly Christian terms" - at least not any more than the days of the week Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday qualify as "openly Norse Pagan terms" (look up their etymology if you don't get the reference). There's no question that they're Christian-derived, but I think overwhelming popular usage has effectively leached out any bona fide religiosity from the terms. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well AD should actually be placed before the year, which is done wrong so often that it seems conceivable most people don't actually know what AD means. At any rate, where would such a recommendation be placed if it were placed? If I for example correctly recall the policy on spelling we do not ask for people to do nothing but change spelling but we nonetheless give recommendations. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wikivoyage:Time and date formats is the page with guidelines about dates; see Wikivoyage talk:Time and date formats#BCE and CE for the last time this issue was discussed. I agree with User:ThunderingTyphoons! and User:AndreCarrotflower that this is not an issue that currently is in need of a solution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be here: WV:Time and date formats, but it isn't, presumably because those who wrote that guide didn't think it was important. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Any opposition to having a line to that effect in "dates"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like three of us are opposed, mate. Not to the idea in principle, just to the perceived need to 'legislate' on something which isn't much of a problem. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest avoiding BC and AD in articles about lands that are not primarily Christian, such as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel. For places with Christian majorities, who cares? And in the case of the Vatican, it would be absurd to use any other dating system. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm also not seeing a need to have an official rule about this. It doesn't seem "overtly Christian" to me, either. (Perhaps "subtly Christian", but not overtly – and CE/BCE just becomes "hiddenly Christian".) Overall, my preference is to avoid using either AD or CE, unless the article also contains information about a BC/BCE event (e.g., "This castle was built in 1252", not "AD 1252". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
My proposed wording would be something like the following: "Unless it would be ambiguous otherwise, years and centuries can be given without AD/CE. For dates before the death of emperor Augustus or which would be otherwise ambiguous in other ways CE/BCE is the preferred form. If you have to use AD (e.g. for overtly Christian events) recall that Anno Domini (meaning "in the year of (our) lord") has to be placed before the year". And yes, you can change the Augustus thing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In the U.S., xxxx AD or xxxx BC are the usual forms. I don't think we should be requiring people to do things that, while used in Latin, are by now counter-intuitive in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Like everything in our style guide, no-one is required to follow it. The advantage of having a rule is that it seems disputes that people wouldn't be wasting their time on, e.g., where one editor revises a section of an article and in so doing, changes from one notation to then other, and the original editor objects and changes it back. Let's pick a lane on this to avoid future disputes. In the end, contributors will use whichever system they prefer while they are writing, and that notation will remain until someone decides to change it. Ground Zero (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. I consider it wrong for people to change 2017 AD to AD 2017, and I'd rather not have arguments about this, but since it was suggested as a site-wide policy or guideline, I engaged with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm all in favor of having the discussion here, and settling it, however it turns out rather than having the same discussion on various article talk pages over the next bunch of years. There are elements of WV style that I do not like, the preference for American spelling, for example, but I am glad that the guide gives us direction to settle disputes quickly and easily. Using the style guide as the arbiter is efficient, I think. So I think you've identified that there are two issues: (1) should the style guide take a position on era notation, and (2) if so, then which style? I would rather have it reflect the style I don't prefer than have it not prescribe at all. Ground Zero (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Not everything has to be micro-managed, and there are quite arguably more productive uses of our time than to specify everything in the Manual of style. That said, the only thing I consider important is not to use "AD" and "BC" in articles about non-Christian religions or majority non-Christian lands, and to use "AD" and "BC" in articles about Rome, Christianity, etc. A lot of this is really straightforwardly intuitive and logical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

(reindent) Going back to Hobbitschuster's proposal above, it seems as if other sources generally use AD/CE/etc. to refer to dates before and including 1000 AD when it's not otherwise completely clear that the number refers to a year, and of course BC/BCE/etc. is always used to refer to all dates before 1 AD. I think that's a good policy for us to follow. As for the terms themselves, I have a slight personal preference for AD and BC over CE and BCE simply because those are the formats that are most popularly used (and are used the overwhelming majority of the time in nontechnical, nonencyclopedic literature, as Wikivoyage aims to be. But like most people in this discussion, I don't really think it's worth policing that too strictly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Euros[edit]

I have created a template to add to the "Buy" section of articles for countries that use the euro to show the exchange rates for USD, GBP, and Canadian and Australian dollars. If you have comments or suggestions, please join the discussion here: Template talk:Exchange rate euros. Ground Zero (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: - I'm going to move the discussion to Template talk:Exchange rate euros so that it can all be one place. Ground Zero (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Time to clean up Guide articles[edit]

Having just gone though two guide status articles and removed a number of closed pubs and clubs, and updated hotels and restaurants that have changed ownership it looks like it is time to clean up Guide city articles with broken links. Would help our readers as well as SEO. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Traveler100: Do you think it would be worthwhile to add a tracking category to {{Dead link}} to keep from running PetScan? —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Category:Articles with dead external links‎ is a category; the scan is to find "guide"-level articles specifically with broken links. K7L (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Offline Wikivoyage based web app tool for you to play with[edit]

Happy 2017 all! I wanted to start the new year by sharing a side project I've been working on in my evening hours for personal purposes. In the interests of sharing, I wanted to show you all what I've built and give an insight into why in the hope this may be useful feedback and get a sense of whether there are any ideas that are interesting to fold into future versions of Wikivoyage.

I've been a little tired of traveling without data plans and carrying thick Lonely Planets with me and for the past few years I've told myself I'll build a web app to solve this issue for me. I finally got round to that and built a proof of concept based on some work I've been doing on a Trending website for Wikipedia. The tool is called someday and currently also hosted on labs. I've written up some notes about my ideas here User:Jdlrobson/Someday along with thought process. If anyone's interested in any of those ideas or sees problems with them or can point me at previously failed experiments - please post on the talk page.

If you're tired of reading but just want to play around have a play with the home page - and click the map (and pan around it to find locations) or scroll the list (like the random list can be scrolled ad infinitum and I've discovered quite a few interesting places/articles on the site using it. There's some awesome content on Wikivoyage!

I'm happy to report through playing with the tool and planning and taking my trip I've edited a lot of content I wouldn't normally have done so if nothing else I'm happy I've found a way to contribute more!

Apologies in advance for bugs :)

Jdlrobson (talk)

Jdlrobson, is it intentional that your app does not use geographical coordinates of the listings? --Alexander (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
you. I did in an early version but I found many pages did not have listings and mixing the concepts of exploring a map for cities and exploring a map for hotels was confusing. When travelling I'm not sure it would have been useful. On the occasions I did want to visit a listing I used google maps to navigate. Still very much on the fence about how to include these better. Jdlrobson (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you have a typo or some missing text at the start of your reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cannabis article[edit]

Wikivoyage now has an article about use of cannabis in territories where it is legal. Please provide your opinions for whether the article goes in line with Wikivoyage policies and guidelines. /Yvwv (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any point where it might go against policy. We have an article on LGBT travel even though some (ehem) "regimes" still find it necessary or proper to legislate against consensual activities between adults. The fact that more jurisdictions currently prohibit cannabis consumption should not have any bearing on whether or not we have this article. Our aim is to serve the voyager and a certain number of them may be interested in the topic of cannabis abroad as it may well figure into their travel plans. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Alcohol is illegal in some countries, too. I'd note that we've had an article about Coca for some time, and if there's been much controversy about it, I missed it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty clearly in line with policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Drug policy This was written by the OP, so I think this is also a tacit referendum on this document as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Modify standard welcome message to include a note where to ask questions[edit]

When I post the welcome template I have sometimes added by hand that the user in question may use their talk page or contact me with any questions they have, do you think we should include this in the standard boilerplate text? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: Or alternately create a second template like {{Welcometalk}} that has an explicit to post to your talk? Or maybe {{Welcomementor}} if you are offering to be a kind of one-on-one helper? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There used to be a generally agreed upon rule/guideline to keep this site light on wikimedia templates. I am not sure whether that has changed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The Wikivoyage:Mediawiki templates restrictions were intended to keep mainspace destination pages to a consistent format. It would be unfortunate to extend this bit of inflexibility to userspace. K7L (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That was one intention. I think another intention was to ease site maintenance and usability for newbies. Powers (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you recommend telling new users whom try to add external links to non significant travel websites?[edit]

At the Hebrew Wikivoyage, once in a while we'll get a new editor, whom usually would be an expat that is trying to promote their own non significant travel website as THE place Hebrew speakers should go to in order to get more information about a specific foreign country/city. In some instances these people would first add some actual content to the article and afterward would try adding their link, and in other instances they will only add the external link.

Self promotion of non-significant travel websites has never been welcomed at Hebvoy (usually those links would be removed sooner or later)... nevertheless, since we are always looking for new active editors, I feel especially bad telling the new editors whom actually took the time to add good new content that their link can not be included on the site.

What do you recommend doing in order to encourage such editors to contribute more good content, yet understand that only the most significant relevant travel websites are included in the external links section? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You allow "External Links" sections in hebvoy? That's the difficulty you're dealing with. Maybe you'll conclude it's too much trouble to police 3rd-party links and will impose en.voy's external links policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you may of course decide on your own policies, but I think not having an external link section is a wise idea. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Reverting people does discourage contributions, so I can see your dilemma. You might consider waiting a week before removing it. That might give you a better idea about whether the person might turn into a frequent contributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
You can also add a nice note on their talk page welcoming them to the project, thanking them for contributing, and explaining why you reverted their work and crushed their hopes and dreams. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I just did that, as I can't simply ignore their question (the user actually asked why his addition of his link didn't show up). Although I know this would probably end further contributions from that user, it was necessary.
As Hebvoy gains more readers/visibility I suspect this would be a more serious issue as there might be a lot more users whom might try and add a lot of useless external links for the purpose of financial gain. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Country article length/when to fork[edit]

Can anyone direct me to a guideline on how much or little detail should go into a country article? The Switzerland article had a lengthy driving section, including an infobox with a long list of traffic fines. I branched that off into a new Driving in Switzerland article, which i think works well. Looking at United Kingdom, I see long sections on getting around by car and by train, and think they might be branched off, but I want to see what the policy is on doing so before I go ahead. Is there one? I would also discuss on the article talk page before doing anything radical. Ground Zero (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There are already articles for Driving in the UK and Rail travel in Britain, and I have already been cutting down the corresponding in the UK article itself (per this talk page discussion), but if there are other bits of info you feel are superfluous go ahead and get chopping ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That's helpful. I would like still like to know if there is general guidance, if anyone knows. Ground Zero (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are already articles for Driving in the UK and Rail travel in Great Britain, both already referenced from the United Kingdom article, so can you clarify what would be "branched off"? Typically popular articles tend to accumulate excessive amounts of detail and require some trimming from time-to-time, so rather than creating new articles, in this instance it would be best to just reduce the amount of detail in the country article and ensure that anything removed is covered in the existing topic articles. For the official guidance on when to consider splitting content out into separate articles see Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions ("A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered."). -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(all the edit conflicts) I realised I didn't answer that part of your question. We have templates for every kind of destination article. The exact specification for a 'Get around' section of a country article reads: "This is a spot to give general information about how to get around the country once you are there. An overview of domestic travel possibilities: air, train, and bus travel, long-distance taxis, ferries, etc. Try to keep the information general, with specifics on distances and schedules between cities in the country left to the city articles." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is not a bad idea at all to have a more focused section in the country guide and if people want to go into details have more detailed articles. This also serves our readers - if someone for instance does not own a driver's license, they would want to skip the "by car" section entirely, and similarly there are people who won't consider e.g. buses or trains for their travel plans. So for each of them, not having to print all of that (to them) superfluous information out is a plus. And if someone knows that they - for example - want to make good use of the superb Swiss train system they have heard so much about, giving them a detailed article with all the information they could ever want also makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind that there is another factor with mobile use as you can collapse two deep headlines (those with == at both sides of the headline title) but you cannot collapse three deep headlines and all the subsections of "get in" and "get around" are three deep, so you'd have to read or scroll through them on mobile. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
(unindent) Just to answer the original question, I don't believe that there are any guidelines on detail level or article length. I guess The Traveler comes first would apply, but that is so broad in interpretation that it could be taken either for more or less detail.
If moving the text to another articles improves both articles then it should be done. I moved a large amount of text in United States about study to Studying_abroad#United_States which worked well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had overlooked that there were already articles on driving and trains in the UK. I had moved a fair bit of text from the article that was duplicated in the branch articles, and moved some that was not. I am glad to get a sense of agreement that keeping the country article as an overview is desirable. Ground Zero (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear to everyone, I do not support keeping country articles as 'overviews' as such, but rather move excessive detail that is better addressed in specific articles is sometimes desirable. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sorry if I created the wrong impression. I gather I inadvertently reopened an old debate of which I was unaware by choosing my words badly. Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

More templates[edit]

I know templates are a touchy subject, but at Wikivoyage_talk:Currency#More_templates I am proposing creating three new templates, but I believe I have a good argument for doing so. Comments are welcome. Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Bouncers for churches?[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-38611900

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

what do u guys think about revamping the listing editor design?[edit]

here it is

I've created a new css for the listing editor, it is still in draft stage so I would like to know if any of you have any opinion on how to improve it or maybe what do you want to add etc. Thanks! Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gabrielchihonglee, welcome to Wikivoyage. Perhaps you'd like to explain what changes you've made, and how your version is better than the current listing editor we have? Best wishes, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, ThunderingTyphoons!, thank you for replying. What I've done is i've updated the colors and made some changes to the layout. As you can see, mediawiki is actually trying to develop a standardized design guidelines, here are some samples: https://trello.com/b/EXtVT....... So, my design have adapted their style. For input boxes, I've changed their look to make sure that it matches the simple and plain feel of the whole form. Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please also have a look at this: THISSSSSS Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome, Gabrielchihonglee! Thanks for taking an interest. In principle, I like clean and standardized designs. In this particular case, however, I can't say your suggested version seems better than the current one. Tastes in colour may differ, but the oversized, bright blue banner at the top is more distracting than modern, to me. The font seems less easy to read and in this draft, the "cleaner" feel through the single lines instead of the boxes seems less clear, especially for the "content" part. It should be obvious to new users that content can (and often should) be more than just one line. Also the explanation of the content field ("description of place") is not obvious enough now, as it's stuck to the line above while all the other explanations are on the lines of the relevant fields. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I see, I'll explore how to improve that then, thanks for your opinion :) Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Gabriel. If I were to change one aspect of both the current design and your version, it would be to increase the size of some of the boxes. Directions, hours and prices in particular can contain a lot of information and it's often necessary to write more than can fit into view at any one time, which (for me at least) make the whole process of transcribing complex opening times and tariff boards longer and more frustrating than it need be. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Got it, thank you! :) Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
As the primary maintainer of the listing editor I'd love to see more discussion about improving usability, although I'm wary of a UI revamp simply for the sake of doing something different. My concerns about the proposed UI is that it uses different styles and colors than the rest of the site, and increases the header height for an interface that is already limited by the vertical space available, without providing obvious usability improvements. It may make more sense to focus on specific usability and related issues like those that ThunderingTyphoons! has described, and then figure out what UI changes would best address those problems. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the current advice on interface design (e.g., use of colors, etc.)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Gambia[edit]

Add a warning box... Apparently there's some political instablity in Gambia right now.

I tried to use a concise wording, but would appreciate a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the official name of the country "The Gambia"? The article should be a bit more consistent about this. --Fuaran buidhe (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion about this at the Wikipedia article on the Gambia. If you want to propose a change in Wikivoyage, I suggest you do it at Talk:Gambia. Ground Zero (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oddly, the Beeb raises this point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38675804 K7L (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto#Public transit[edit]

Wikivoyagers, your opinions are needed on this brewing talk page discussion. User:Ground Zero feels that Toronto#Public transit is too long, and would rather merge the detailed information into a new Public transit in Toronto travel topic rather than streamline away any excessively fine-grained detail. This pretty much flies directly in the face of wiaa, but I have to admit he's making some good points. What do you all think - should we change policy, or at least make an exception for this particular case?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would raise a similar point about the relevant portion of the London, England article.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I would welcome travel topics on large complex public transport systems. In some cases the system covers a wider area than just a city, and so a separate article would be particularly good. Like with airports, this should be restricted to the really large systems. I would also prefer that we had Toronto public transit, as I think that it would be easier for readers to find the article than Public transit in Toronto. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think that public transit systems in certain cities or metro areas (especially when there are many overlapping systems and jurisdictions or tariff zones to contend with) are a worthwhile topic for standalone travel topics. With the caveat that much of this information is liable to become outdated through yearly fare adjustments, new construction or service cancellations and it would be nice (in general, but for this as well) to have some template or something telling us from when a piece of data is and when it has become (likely) outdated. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. We should be able to get transport content simple and short enough so that it fits into a city article. What extra information is really needed beyond what we currently have in London#London Underground (for example) that would warrant a separate article? It's a practical level of detail and scope (if anything, some of it is too much detail - looking at you, 'Photography'), and anything more than that is already much better covered by Wikipedia. The tourist elements (interesting architecture, notable journeys, rail aficionado stuff) of such transport systems should largely go in Urban rail adventures.
Furthermore, if we create an article that just focuses on public (rail?) transport in a given place, there's either going to be lots of duplicate information between the new and existing article, or any reader who wants to get a full picture of how to 'get around' will have to look at two completely different articles. All the road, taxi, biking (buses, boats...?) will be in the main destination article, with the metro, train and tram stuff elsewhere. I don't see how it serves the traveller to have to read something that could turn into the War and Peace of the Underground, just to figure out how to use it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a lot of these points would apply to any branched article, whether it's a "Rail travel" article, or an airport article, or a neighbourhood article. We could always include less, there will always be overlap or duplication, and it could always become out of date. Readers who don't want to read a War and Peace about the Underground don't have to - and it is best if they don't have to scroll past it in the London article. The difference between a WV transit article and a Wikipedia one is that the WV article has to focus on getting around and points of interest, and not include details on history, rolling stock, rail gauge, planning, which would be appropriate for a WP article. Finally, what information isn't useful to or of interest to you may be to someone else. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just done a print preview of the London article, and "Get around" takes up just over 20 pages (of a 67 page article). I think that it could usefully be condensed to 5-10 pages, and have a 30 page London public transport article, but it should be about all public transport, not just the underground. It may also be appropriate to include private transport (car, bike, foot) as well, but that is a detail to consider later. AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Points taken, but I still don't buy it. There has to be a bare minimum of detail in the destination article so that a person with no prior experience of public transport in a city can still use just the destination article's 'get around' section in order to understand how to get around by Tube. They should not have to consult an entirely separate article just to get up and running with the system. Currently, I would say they can do that, with the caveat that some sections are already overlong or unnecessary so that they detract from usability.
What's more, it is for district articles to tell people which Tube stations are nearby to which attractions, and our district articles also have the routes each line takes through and beyond the district at the bottom of the page. What I would support is expanding the 'get in' sections of the district articles, where more detail about a specific station or route is necessary.
I'm a transport nerd, and I would probably enjoy helping to write articles on different transport systems around the world, but looking at it from the perspective of a travel guide writer and not a trainfan, I (a) don't see the need, and (b) think such an article would damage usability for travellers.
Things would be a lot simpler if on desktop you could expand / collapse individual sections of the page like on the mobile version. That would solve the annoyance of scrolling past walls of text to get to the bit you're interested in. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(reindent) Speaking of not redirecting users to separate pages, I wish we could have funneled all our comments to Talk:Toronto#Public transit rather than having half of them here, because if you look over on that other page you'll see a specific proposal that I came up with that wpuld preserve the vast majority of the information Ground Zero doesn't want to see deleted, and would work very much like what ThunderingTyphoons! proposed in his most recent comment for London. Specific information about streetcar lines (cf. the Tube) belongs in the district articles, while information about regional commuter rail (i.e. GO Transit) belongs in Greater Toronto Area#Get around and whichever other region articles apply, with perhaps a brief summary in Toronto#Get in (not "Get around" - very few people use the GO train to get from place to place within Toronto; it's mostly used to get to Toronto from the suburbs and nearby satellite cities like Hamilton, Barrie, and Kitchener/Waterloo), and of course it should be mentioned in the "Get in" section of any articles for said suburbs and satellite cities. Information about suburban transit systems (MiWay, YRT, Viva et al.) doesn't belong in the Toronto article at all, but again in the articles for the respective subregions and/or suburban communities. As far as overly detailed transit information, then, all that's left is the "Fares" and "Transfers and proof of payment" sections, which can be safely streamlined or omitted as information that a) is susceptible to becoming outdated quickly and/or b) that travelers will eventually find out on their own anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I frankly fail to see how spinning of the likes of Rail travel in Switzerland (for which there seems to be ample consensus to do that) is different from spinning of complicated public transit systems of certain metro areas. There are several reasons why our readers might not want to read through pages and pages of that in our main article on a city (e.g. someone who is just convinced that they will take a car everywhere advice to the contrary be damned), but some public transit systems are really that complicated/interesting/extensive that more than would reasonably fit into a single city article can and should be said about them in a travel guide. For instance the way tickets work is not at all self-evident. In some systems you have to swype/insert at a fare gate. In some systems you get it back and have to insert it again in another fare gate upon leaving. In some systems you only have to present them during spot checks, but they are not valid unless stamped, some machines in such systems sell pre-stamped tickets but not necessarily of all types. Day tickets may be valid a precise 24 hours, from the date of the timestamp to the next day x AM (e.g. a day ticket stamped at 0:10 in Berlin on the fifth of January is valid until the early morning hours of the sixth of January) or from the "business day" (which ends at say 5 AM in the logic of the transit provider). And then there are cities where tickets are not integrated or only partially integrated and you will for example need a different ticket for the commuter rail system and the subway (which would surprise very close to every German who take U-Bahn and S-Bahn working on the same ticket system as a matter of course). And that does not even get into where which line goes and how useful a commuter rail system is to visitors who are unlikely to want to use a system that only does commuter runs during rush hour. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You fail to see how the railway system of an entire country (which in Switzerland's case, can be considered a tourist attraction in its own right) is different to that of a city? Nobody is denying that ticketing can be complicated, but it is not ordinarily so complicated that it cannot be summed up in a couple of paragraphs in our 'get around' / 'get in' sections. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That article looks shorter than the London ==Get around== section, and contains similar information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It also depends upon your audience. Are you writing for people who are transit savvy (e.g., most Germans)? Or for people who've never used any mass transit system at all (most Americans)? Sometimes, it's quite simple ("Every single time you get on a bus, put US $1 cash in the box by the driver. Make sure that you have exact change."). Other times, it's quite complex: you buy the tickets from newsstands, but don't forget to get it stamped on the bus and then keep it with you at all times, and a standard ticket is good for this or any other bus for a total of four stops, but only in the same direction and during the two hours after you stamped it, and if you transfer to the subway, then you have to re-stamp, but you can do two subway stops or two bus stops plus one subway stop – in short, it's a complicated system that even locals sometimes have to think about, and someone who's completely unfamiliar with mass transit (much less the mass transit system for this country) is going to need a lot more help just to be able to manage a simple bus ride.
Overall, I'm in favor of articles that explain large systems. The main article should contain the basics (and specifically enough detail about price and how to handle tickets to get you from the airport to a hotel area by mass transit), but if there's a lot to say, then a very detailed sub-article that explains it for neophytes would be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether the size comparison is accurate but someone once told me Dallas/Fort Worth is as big in area as Switzerland. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If transportation-fans really wish to write separate, detailed and extensive articles about public transportation, I have no strong objections. We should keep in mind, however, that for many average travellers such articles will seem terribly boring and will not be what they are looking for. Whatever we do, the primary information should always stay available in the actual travel guide for a city or country. I've travelled extensively and all over the world - always making extensive use of local transportation. I've NEVER had to read 25 pages of information on how it works in any given place, as other travel guides simply have more concise information. If we have excessive sections, we should trim them. I'm pretty sure even average Americans can find their way around public transportation with an overview of the most relevant information ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#DotM voting participation: at an all-time low?[edit]

Same old story over at DotM - not enough votes. Please check out the linked talk page discussion.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)