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


Maps with extra layers on en-Wikivoyage[edit]

Some cities in India

Thanks to the amazing work by JGirault (WMF) (talk, contribs), the new <mapframe> and <maplink> maps on English Wikivoyage now support external layers and all other wikivoyage article links just like the wmflabs-based maps! I saw some cool maps experiments done by Matroc (talk, contribs) on their page, and copied a portion of it above. I will now try to adapt current community's templates (without modifying the originals just yet), so that the {{see}} and others can be used directly with the new map. As always, feedback is highly welcome. --Yurik (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

CC from previous relevant conversations: AlasdairW, Andrewssi2, Atsirlin, FredTC, Ibaman, JamesA, JuliasTravels, Matroc, MaxSem, Mey2008, Pnorman, Seav, Shaundd, Syced, TheDJ, TheTrolleyPole, Torty3, WhatamIdoing, Wrh2.
Thank you! Yurik - Adding the external layers has made that map look 100% better... - It is also very nice to allow multiple maps on an article page (definitely something various users wanted) - The hard part will be to adapt current templates to go probably through some POI script. - Some of the maps on my home page were created using a Lua Module and data from Wikidata, saved and then edited... I am sure there is more to come that will make life easier and cause little code confusion - again, Thank you for these milestones and your hard work. -- Matroc (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Take a look at the first migration attempt. I only changed the underlying templates, and left the page same as original. Some minor styling is still required, plus at some point I hope it will be possible to add an item from Wikidata. Feel free to modify it if needed. --Yurik (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Some remarks:
  • There seem to be two full screen buttons (one top-right and one below the +/- buttons).
  • The layers-button shows "Mapquest open" and just "MapQuest". This last one displays nothing (when zoomed in).
  • When using the top-right "Full screen" button, the map is displayed full screen. However there is no indication about how to leave the full screen mode.
The close button is behind the layers button - just the edge of it shows for now -- Matroc (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
--FredTC (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
FredTC, we just need to fix the popup text. The button shows nearby wikivoyage articles. --Yurik (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yurik, it's awesome. What is the source for Mapnik and Mapquest? --Alexander (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Alexander, those layers are exactly the same functionality as exists at the moment at Wikivoyage, so it was simply copied from the wmflabs that was created by the community. This data is not under WMF control, and moreover, users have to agree to expose their browsing activity to the 3rd party. --Yurik (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting. Can this display type-specific Aiga restaurant.svg or Aiga bar.svg map symbols for points of interest, like our current fork-plate-knife for eateries, martini glass for drink and house for lodging? Do we have control over what's displayed in the pop-up bubble when the POI's are clicked, perhaps using a template? If a {{listing}} has a corresponding Wikidata item, can clicking the POI marker trigger a lookup to display information extracted from the item? K7L (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Yuri can correct me on this, but I believe that the default icon set we have available at the moment is the public domain licensed Maki icon set made by Mapbox. As for pop-up content, templates can be included (see my goofy mockup), but I'm not sure on the Wikidata part. Yurik! :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
At the moment we can only show pushpins with any of the maki icons as Chris mentioned above, in 3 different sizes and any color. Eventually I hope we will be able to show other marker symbols, but sadly for the moment that's the limitation. --Yurik (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The button called "Show in full screen" actually is a button that shows all POIs, I guess the button's name should be changed to "Show all listings" or something similar? Thanks a lot :-) Syced (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Syced, It does not show all POIs, it shows all Wikivoyage articles. I think we should hide all other layers when the user clicks that button to reduce confusion. --Yurik (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We have fixed a number of internal bugs, and I think it is ready for the roll out. Are there any objections if I switch the marker & map templates to show it like on my test page? (Note that the color of the links does not match the one on the map for the next 12 hours, after which it will be identical). The new map will allow far greater customization by the community, and will allow us to progress further. Obviously I will be listening to any feedback and suggestions. Thanks! :) --Yurik (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I say go ahead. Switching to a new framework with greater support and flexibility should be a win for everyone. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes Done

New map functionality[edit]

Help expand and translate Kartographer help page

  1. Templates like {{see}} and {{eat}} add items to their own separate groups
  2. {{mapmask}} adds data to the "mask" group
  3. Both >maplink< and >mapframe< can be configured to show just selected groups
  4. Each maps on the same page can be configured to show different group(s)
  5. By default, the {{mapframe}} shows these groups: mask, around, buy, city, do, drink, eat, go, listing, other, see, sleep, vicinity, view (in that order)
  6. Setting text="" for <maplink> does not show the link, but still adds link's data to the specified group (this is what's used by mapmask template)
  7. maplink - if you use text="" or text="Click me!" and marker-symbol is -number-xxx you will get back-ground color (marker-color) a small colored space or the text with that back-ground color.
  8. if no text parameter is entered and marker-symbol is -number-xxx then you would get numbered box with back-ground color. (you can use the <sup> before the maplink and </sup> as well is you wish for a different appearance..
  9. maplinks of the same group will appear when you select "Click me!" and not just the single entry. This is one way to have multiple locations shown on a single map when selected that might not be otherwise shown on a visible map or a grouping of significant or special grouping.
  10. if text="" is entered and marker-symbol is not -number-xxx then geographical coordinates will appear as link.
  11. maplink - if you use marker-symbol such as -number-see (used for common listings see,sleep,go etc.) - it will offset all the numbers displayed in those visible listings on a page that use that same group counter. (Be careful)
  12. maplink - if you use a maplink containing the same coordinates and also a member of a common group (or same group ie. see) - it will overlay the symbol on top of the normally numbered one such as created by a listing. (depends on order of listing or maplink entry)
  13. using <mapframe> and <maplink> - if you want a different symbol on a distinct map then that is also possible using maplink. This can be done by using such symbols as a bed for sleep or knife,fork and spoon for eat and a suitcase for next instead of numbers. The basic trick is to keep track of the group name (I prefer a disctinct group name) you want to display on a map and keeping those groups distinct from the normal ones.
  14. maplink - one advantage to using the maplink description is being able to add an image, adding more descriptive text, shutting off the link to commons and use of alt field. - another is to be able to add something to a map that is not normally found in listings. This added information allows for a slightly different, informative and useful map.
  15. maplink - these can be separate by themselves or the same effect can be by using a number of features within a single mapframe.
  16. I have tested several of the items discussed above HERE decided to pass this on. To create all maplinks that are not seen on that page, I ran the page through a module test function looking at listings and created the maplinks. I also did some minor editorial work.
  17. Avoid using double quote marks (") for description etc. as this will result in a JSON error in maplink -- Matroc (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Matroc: double quotes work just fine with geojson, but they do require escaping. The module:Map does that automatically. --Yurik (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Yurik: - But it appears not to be the case if you use <maplink> directly - Kartographer extension -- Matroc (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Matroc: try escaping the double quote, like here: 37°48′5″N 122°23′56″W
    . --Yurik (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Yurik: Tested \" comes out fine in <maplink> description - was just reading up on the escaped characters that JSON uses: \",\b,\f,\\ etc. - Thanks! -- Matroc (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC) - ps Thanks for closing the ticket!
  18. At this time Mapbox icons are available marker symbols and Maki icons have not replaced Mapbox icons yet for <mapframe> & <maplink> - Matroc (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    I presume you mean that Mapbox has released additional maki icons, and the new ones have not yet been made available? --Yurik (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Yurik: - I believe that is correct! -- Matroc (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  19. If you use <maplink> with a description but no image - the text will come out in an ugly narrow width grayed out area... to overcome this use a blank image with a height of 1 px before the description -- Matroc (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Matroc: Please file this as a bug, with the extact geojson or template invocation showing how to produce it. Also, please check if it works if you also set the geojson's "title" value. --Yurik (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    @Yurik: - Can ignore for now -- appears to have cleared up so no ticket needed! -- Matroc (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  20. Be careful, test and enjoy! There should at some point be a good discussion as to when to use <mapframe>, {{mapframe}}, <maplink> and {{marker}} -- Yours Matroc (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) --Yurik (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Matroc: I am a bit worried about too much magic in the params. I think we should change it to a bit more direct and straightforward way, especially with when things get autostyled (colored), hidden, etc. A better design is welcome :) --Yurik (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
      @Yurik: I agree and that is why I thought that we should all discuss and maybe come up with a possible set of polices for wikivoyage - (develop Help pages, dos and donts, and how to keep this as simple as possible for all editors/users). -- Matroc (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  21. {{geo}} was migrated phab:T137364 --Yurik (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • undone until more bugs and regressions in functionality have been addressed. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  22. {{PoiMap2detail}} was migrated phab:T137656 --Yurik (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • undone until gpx is fixed as this is mainly used in itineraries. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  23. {{PoiMap2}} is now obsolete, and should not be used. {{PoiMap2raw}} is used instead in a few places, but even that should be fixed. --Yurik (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • ... (add your own above)

Geoshapes service and other updates[edit]

Dear community, this week we launched geoshapes service. So if Open Street Maps community has defined a region and assigned it a Wikidata ID, you can draw it on the map with that ID. Or you can use Wikidata Query Service (via SPARQL language), to query for those IDs and draw them on the map, coloring them and adding popup information. See documentation.

Governors of US states with their party affiliation

P.S. We also enabled <maplink> support on all Wikipedia and sister projects. Our next big step is to add an informational sidebar to the map, similar to what is being shown on the "geohack" page (map link in the upper right corner of most location articles). Check out proposed screenshots.

--02:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  • GeoShapes service just got support for lines (roads, rivers, and everything else that has been IDed with Wikidata ID). For an example, see help page. --Yurik (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Data visualization hackathon in Seattle[edit]

Happening July 22nd at 10 am [1]. Likely useful for those involved with technical map work. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jmh649: I am a user of Korea interested in data visualization. I think wikivoyage is not perfect for how information is published. Using Data visualization should more clearly and easily deliver the content of wikivoyage.
Can you tell me how was your hackathon? Did you learn something useful? --Kimdon6hee (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Meeting in Tuscany[edit]

Hello. We're organizing a trip to w:Cascina with some wikimedians of Tuscany. See it:Wikipedia:Raduni/WikiGita all'abbazia di San Savino, We will visit a place that is usually closed. It is nothing fancy but we will also show some new tools for image harvesting (wiki needs pictures, we are going soon to update more than 180k entries of building missing an image on wikidata). We have already a Swiss and a de-N user joining us, so it is quite international if you want to join! Also as a member of I will also introduce to money tracking app, so a lot of synergy. Sorry for the spam: We can inform the local users but we have no idea who's a tourist in the area. :D --Alexmar983 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Have fun there! wiki needs pictures is a very promising tool indeed, I also started contributing to that project two days ago. On Android, it makes a good combination with the Commons app :-) Syced (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Syced but the new version of wikishootme is also updated. They all have pros and cons. But feel free to try them all.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mapframe view changes[edit]

Hello, There a small change coming to interactive maps I would like to share with you. Currently maps using <mapframe> are shown without a frame. After an upcoming update maps will appear inside a small frame with the option of a text caption. Similar to how embedded images work.

Frameless maps are good for insertion as part of a template, whereas framed maps are good for insertion directly into the page, either by hand or by using the visual editor.

  • To insert a map without a frame, add the "frameless" attribute: <mapframe frameless ....>
  • To add a caption, use the text="..." attribute.

Note: Adding the text attribute automatically enables a frame.

If you wish to keep existing templates from showing a frame, please add the frameless attribute. You can do this now without waiting for the deployment.

This change should be enabled on Wednesday, August 31st. For more information please see T143734, start a discussion at mw:Maps, or leave a note below. Thank you. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, this change has already deployed this week. Sorry, my mistake. It seems the mapframe tag looks ok, but please let me know if anything should be changed. Also, I will look at updating the Module:Map to support this feature. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I happen to drop by and notice that both Module:Map and {{Mapframe}} still need to be updated to reflect this.. TheDJ (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Help needed: Malformed coordinates, URLs, emails[edit]

Here are a few spooky things that might need to be fixed:

You can uncheck categories at the top, to not show email for instance. This page is updated every 2 weeks.

Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Syced, is it possible to have it for all languages? --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It is also available for Russian, French, German: . If you want to add more languages, please post an issue at thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's not a big effort you can add all the languages, otherwise it doesn't matter. The request is just to give to all the admins or users in general the chance to use a new tool (regardless of the nature of the tool) :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a way to remove or mark those that I have fixed - thus others are going to end up checking them again? -- Matroc (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed that's a known problem with this tool: There is no way to "mark as fixed". On the positive side, the list is shown in random order so that you have less chances of checking the same items as someone else, and it is updated every 2 weeks, which is much more frequent than the previous tool I was maintaining. If the randomization is bothering you, please remove the "this.shuffleIssues();" line from the HTML. Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Job for adventurous travellers[edit]

This Job Will Pay You $39k to Travel the World and Brave Its Most Extreme Conditions for Columbia Sportswear. Would it suit anyone here? Pashley (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Gateway Error 502[edit]

Trying to click on map icon (geo) and getting this error - it may be temporary but thought I would mention it -- Matroc (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the old (more functional) version of the dynamic map was down already yesterday. Are they maybe going to discontinue it now? :( ϒpsilon (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
And the new one has even less functionality, cannot see nearby articles.--Traveler100 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been seeing that error for a few days. Just tested at Xiamen & got it again. Pashley (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Map image request[edit]

Can someone who is familiar with creating region maps create a new one for North Wales with Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham (county) merged. Maybe also new colours that are not so close to each other. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

North Wales Wikivoyage map.png
@Traveler100 I may not be as familiar with creating region maps, but I gave it a shot either way. How's this?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wauteurz, great thanks. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from September 12 to October 11 to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through October 1.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

11 Digit Phones in San Francisco?[edit]

So for some reason, someone went into San Francisco/The_Avenues and changed all the phone numbers to 11-digit numbers. n-nnn-nnn-nnnn. Is this correct? I thought in the US, that this was only done with toll-free numbers. L. Challenger (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's your proof: [2] PerryPlanet (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Challenger l: We should have international dialing codes, which for the United States would have eleven digits. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we should have international numbers, but the change "+1 415 765-0497" → "+1-415-765-0497" would mean, if I read Wikivoyage:Phone numbers correctly, that the international prefix has to be used even for local calls. That seems unlikely, although the "proof" linked above could be interpreted so. --LPfi (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I meant that the numbers were all linked by hyphens - I've been typing out +n nnn nnn-nnnn for phone numbers that weren't the toll-free variety before now. L. Challenger (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
If the locality has ten-digit dialing, I use two hyphens. If it has seven-digit dialing, I use one. And toll-free means three hyphens -- all eleven digits. However, I could be wrong, as it seems even with 10-digit dialing, local callers still need to use the 1 prefix (which, within the U.S., is a long-distance code not a country code; it's apparently a coincidence that they're both '1'). Powers (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Only the largest U.S. markets (LA, NYC, Chicago, and now SF) require 11-digit dialing, due to area code overlays (in fact, the chart of country-specific examples in Wikivoyage:Phone numbers shows the different examples). There is a caveat to this, however, which is that you only need to dial the "1" before the area code if you're on a local landline. On a cell phone, 10 digits is enough (though the call will still go through if you use all 11 digits). However, since we don't know which one a traveler would be using, it makes sense to default to landline format. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There was to be a second area code overlapping +1 415, so the new format should be +1 415-NXX-XXXX with ten digits dialled locally. Eleven digits usually appears in the largest markets, where nothing (including landline calls to the same city) is "free" or flat-rated. K7L (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, the North American Numbering Plan Association maintains a list of area codes that require 10-digit or 11-digit (the latter are listed as "1+10D") dialing for local calls. And yes, area code 415 now requires 11 digits, at least for landlines. Eco84 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

So w:Area codes 415 and 628 got this wrong, they claim w:ten-digit dialing but cite this as w:WP:RS. The original source raises exactly the 1+10D landline issue you mention. K7L (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WT article import[edit]

I managed to get a list of articles on WT that we're missing. There's about 2900 of them. I placed all the red links in my user space for reference.

I also have the XML dumps with full history for those pages. 58 Mb uncompressed. I read the policy pages and I know importing is discouraged for SEO reasons but I'm not sure it's really that relevant at this point. It's a small subset (there's 47000 total on WV) and we're adding new articles much faster than they are. There's about 3500 more articles on WV than WT right now. Since they have those 2900 unique to them that means 6400ish unique articles have been written here since the fork.

I'd also volunteer to curate the material, place them in my userspace at first and check each one individually to see if they're worth keeping. I had been doing similar work on EnWiki with a large list of machine translated pages. WT gets new contributors from time to time, well meaning people who don't know the background story. I dislike the idea that all their work will be wasted when that place gets inevitably overrun by spam bots. It already is to some extent... Is this is something that could be considered? Acer (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the duplicate content penalty is definitely still an issue. We're making headway as the two sites' content diverges, but it's slow going and I would fear that importation would reverse some of those gains. Better to treat that list as a list of requested articles and write them from scratch. Powers (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Acer: @LtPowers: I agree that before we mass add content from Wikitravel we keep it somewhere separate. First off, it would be helpful to do some (semi-)automated replacements just for SEO purposes (like "extremely"->"very" and "tasty"->"delicious") and then have editors who are willing to look through the content individually before uploading. I would be willing to assist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of work to up the quality of content on Wikivoyage, my first reaction would be a negative one to this. However the idea of a list of needed article is not a bad one. Could you remove from the list all the redirect pages and also order by country? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Traveler100: For what it's worth, I am working on redirects and removing them from the userpage now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
...And also deleting items at Wikitravel which should have been gone awhile ago there as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@LtPowers: I just ran a search for #redirect on the XML dump and got 1259 hits. Then there's going to be empty husks, one liners, inadequate/inappropriate/unsuitable articles, spam pages and I even saw a misplaced user page. By the time we finish combing through I reckon there might be less than a thousand pages left. Given the SEO concern we could be even stricter in accepting these than we are with original pages here. And we'll implement Koavfs suggestion to replace words with synonyms. If we end up with a few hundred higher quality pages I feel that's a fair trade for a small penalty, if any. In fact I think our biggest problem is the number of sites that link to us. Per Alexa WT has incoming links from almost 17000 sites, we only have 2000...

@koavf: Yes, I already did some find/replace on the raw XML file. Replaced some templates, added edit comment attribution to each revision and modified usernames to include a WT prefix. While it would be very easy and quite practical to do what you suggest on the XML itself, it would break attribution. But it can be done with a script once the articles are uploaded (if there's agreement for importing)

@Traveler100:I share your concern with article quality, that's why I'm proposing importing all articles into my userspace at first. Then we can work through the list and decide on what's worth keeping. I'll commit to checking each one myself and doing any necessary fixes (see below). I'll see what I can think of to organize the list the way you suggested. I can't do it with simple terminal commands. Will need a script I think.

So, taking everyone's comments into consideration and the concerns about importing, I'll ask just to be allowed to import into my userspace (user talk actually as it's non-indexed) at first so there will be no quality or seo concerns. Me, User:Koavf and anyone else who wants to help would comb through and produce a much smaller list of of higher quality articles to be considered for permanent importation. We'll replace words with synonyms to lessen the SEO impact. We then would submit this refined list for evaluation and acceptance by the community. Nothing gets moved to article space before that. Would that alleviate some of the concerns? Acer (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with importing to your user space as an experiment. I do agree with a "quality" standard, though. Apart from the SEO concerns, there has also been ample discussion about the many very small outlines. Even with a minimal intro and a listing or two, such outlines are not considered a gain by all. While we don't delete the existing ones, it has always been discouraged to mass-create them. The same would be possible by importing from Wikipedia, for example. I do think creating hundreds of such small articles should be avoided in this case too, then. So I think focussing on the larger, higher quality articles is the best way to go. Nice to see that list, though :) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, we're in agreement. Let's see if others are on board. Thanks! Acer (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a number of thoughts about this effort but due to past history would prefer to stay out of this discussion. The only comment I would make is that if this effort does move forward there cannot be any failure whatsoever in ensuring that the imports comply 100% with every line of the CC-SA license - if there is ANY question about whether correct attribution has been provided then the imports should be deleted as quickly as possible. -- Ryan 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I followed the model used when the fork happened, attribution in the edit summary of each revision (Import from I also added a WT prefix to usernames to differentiate them from any possible duplicate here. This was also done back then. A copy of the license is linked to at the bottom of every page here already and any changes we make after importing will be recorded in the history. That I think covers all attribution requirements in the license. The ShareAlike requirements are fully covered also. Did I miss anything? Acer (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
"(WT-en) " is the preferred username prefix; that matches what we used for migration. I guess my main concern is that doing this could lead to WT doing the reverse. Sure, we know they already have the legal right to do it, but why encourage it or tip them off? Powers (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The only reason it was sufficient to attribute imports to a "(WT-en)" user during the initial import is because there is a corresponding user page with proper attribution; if the new import is done without the corresponding user page (and its corresponding references) then the attribution is probably insufficient. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
But we will be providing the name/ pseudonym of the authors and also say that they were active in another website. This actually goes beyond the requirements. I reread the license terms and I can't find any issues. I placed the sections relevant to attribution here and bolded the relevant parts. What part do you think we are failing to comply with? Acer (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Creative Commons has, in the past at least, used the terminology "you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". I believe they've changed this terminology in the human-readable versions of their licenses, but I'm not 100% clear on the history. Anyway, when we migrated, out of an abundance of caution, we interpreted "the manner specified by the author" to include not just the username proper, but a link to the author's user page, as well as attribution in the page footer according to one's preferred display name (as opposed to username). Neither of these can happen without importation of the user pages and preferences as well. Powers (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Let my register my oppose vote on any copying from WT. We might get inspiration what to do articles on, for sure, but they should be bottom up written by us with our own words (and better yet first hand experience) rather than copying a single comma from "that other site". Not only is there the concern with the fork/duplication penalty and the possibility that the three paid admins and five spambot IPs that still remain on that site might get similar ideas in reverse, I just don't think we need to do that. Our new content since the fork/migration is good. Sure, there might be a few nuggets of gold in what has happened over there since almost everybody left, but the main thing to copy are imho the ideas of what to write an article on and not an article itself. Besides, it would be interesting to see a split how many of those articles are destinations, how many are travel topics and so on. Probably a lot of them would just be redundant or have been axed with good reason over here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick sampling of the list and thought about this a little more. I also oppose the idea of importing these articles. There is little point to having article with no listings and a just walking into controversy on copyrights. Maybe use this list to identify needed articles but then just add the location name to Wikivoyage:Requested articles‎ and add a red link to the appropriate region. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not happening. The plan is for nothing to be transferred to article space unless it's of sufficient quality and has been properly formatted. I'm just asking here to have these pages into userspace so I and others can work on them. See these pages here, they are much better than the average article we have.. (hit Random pages a few times) Tychy Cirali Sinj Pian Camuno Luçon Dania beach and they already include information for the listings, just to need to format using the template. There are mony others like this, but not that many, a few hundred maybe. Everything else will be discarded Acer (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the utility of such an import. If I wanted to do import any WT (or other CC licensed content) then I would just create that article directly in WV or in my user space. What do you actually get out of importing all of these articles?
If you know that Dania beach is a really awesome article on WT then just go ahead and build it here. No need to import it it 'to work on' first. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I understood you. You mean copy/paste the text? If we do that then there would need to be an attribution template in the body of the article linking to WT. That's not ideal.. Importing the whole history is safer license wise. Also, I don't know which articles are good and which aren't. That's why I wanted to import into userspace and then do a triage. FInally, importing an XML dump is much simpler/faster than copying hundreds of pages by hand.Acer (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think what was meant was that you can see what is in the WT article, verify it from sources outside WT and upgrade / create our article accordingly. I have to reiterate here that I do not think copying anything from that other site under any circumstances is a wise move. In my opinion we have made a lot of headway by things including random drift at our articles (IP editors or simple wording changes) that google recognizes. Importing or copying from that other site would hurt that more than even the most diligent work over years could help us. I would like a list of genuine travel topics that site has and we don't. Destination articles either come about by people with local knowledge showing up or they don't. Forcing it is not gonna help us. You can get a city article to "usable" without having been there if it is in a country with reasonable "on the internet percentage" for businesses, but those articles do not do much good besides completing regions and whatnot and should not be created just 'cause. The best impetus for new articles is someone with local knowledge starting them. Even if that someone has a limited grasp of English or has touty intentions. So, let's look through the three or four travel topics worth salvaging, create them here from scratch and for the most part forget that other site even exists. I am actually not sure we should even import this stuff to anybody's user page without clear consensus in favor. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ryan, Hobbitschuster, and (particularly) Powers' arguments have convinced me we're playing with fire here. I think it might be useful to retain the list of articles present on WT and absent here, but beyond that I oppose in the strongest possible terms any notion of copying from the other site, and frankly (germane to Powers' comments) would love for this discussion to be brought to a speedy close, in case any prying eyes from over there are watching. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I was trying hard to not give the impression that we would forbid this process, but the benefits are minuscule and we really need to keep away from the IB company if we can possibly help it.
Basically great intention, but there are safer and better ways to achieve new content. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
That's alright. I've been editing wikis for over a decade now. Sometimes you get your way, sometimes you don't. Archive away :) Acer (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WT database / XML dumps[edit]

(related to the above but didn't want it to get lost in the discussions)

This is the complete database dump / back up of WT in all 21 languages. This includes all pages in all namespaces. Download here. The file is compressed using 7zip it's 370 MB in size. XML's are plain text files that can be edited in Notepad, but the uncompressed English language XML reaches 65 GB, so handle with care :) Acer (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if this question is answered somewhere in the discussion above, but what version / date of WT is this dump? How was it created? Thanks. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: They were done between September 3rd and 9th. If you download the file, each language is in a separate folder with the date the archiving was started. Most took a few hours, English a couple days. They were made using Wikiteam's tools, specifically the Dumpgenerator. It's a a script that interfaces with MediaWiki's API. Acer (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Replacing "Autobahn" with the less well known "E" symbol[edit]

Have a look at edits like this one, where the Autobahns in the routebox were replaced by the European routes (symbolized by E). Now, I am not a car person (as might be well known already), but nobody in Germany ever talks about the E whatsitsface. People only ever refer to the Autobahn A something. Often shortened to A something. And the A numbers are ubiquitous in signage whereas the E numbers show up erratically at best. I propose to change those back and if possible formulate / clarify policy on routeboxes in that regard. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For Germany the Autobahn numbers are much more useful for driving, in my experience only in Belgium are they commonly seen on road signs. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There's room for both the Autobahn numbers and European route numbers in the routebox. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree; both would be fine (and is commonly seen on signs in the Netherlands as well), but removing the A-numbers is not a good idea. When asking directions, getting traffic updates or just discussing routes with locals, A-numbers are usually far more useful than E-numbers. I've left User:Iceandsnow, who has been making these changes, a message to draw his attention to this discussion so he can weigh in. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there a policy / information / whatever page on routeboxes? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe it's this one: Wikivoyage:Routebox navigation. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I would like to insert something along the lines of "if possible and practical, use route names and symbols that are used at the destination". Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do. Sweden, Norway and Denmark are as far as I know the only countries where roads can have only the E-number and nothing else. Nevertheless, elsewhere the E-numbers are in general always showed on road signs and maps alongside national route numbers. In Germany I remember them on many (if not necessarily all) Autobahn signs alongside the A-numbers. So, I'd say, let's keep both. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Go next vs see[edit]

I'm still a newbie to this project but I'm keen to give back to it this year so am doing more editing and I'm thinking about ways we could improve the project technically (maybe as part of google summer of code). Disclaimer: I'm building an offline wikivoyage app for my next backpacking trip but more about that later.

One thing that is confusing me is I continually see things in the go next section that I don't feel belong there and are better suited in the see section. One great example is the York article. Castle Howard is a day trip not a destination in itself. As a long time paper guidebook user this distinctions is important to me. Go next sections are used to work out places to go and visit and stay, not simply go to see for a day. As a rule of thumb if a go next destination doesn't have a wikivoyage page I would not expect it to be here. What do others feel about this? Has this been discussed before? Is there some way we could give better guidelines to users when editing on what to put here? Jdlrobson (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

[w:Castle_Howard] is 15 miles from York, but probably not a destination article in itself. Therefore probably best leave as a 'see' listing.
It isn't that unusual to create 'see' listings outside of the immediate destination if they do not constitute an article by themselves or belong to another destination. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
In general, "go next" is a list of articles for adjacent or nearby destinations - most often the next town and next major city on each highway or rail line. Actual listings for attractions and activities belong in "see" and "do" respectively. Wikivoyage:What is an article? indicates a destination meets the "can you sleep there?" test, where to be a possible candidate as a usable destination (and not merely a listing) a place should have some way to get in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep. Merrickville is an easy day trip from Ottawa, but it gets an article as it has enough to stand alone. An individual castle? Probably not, it gets a listing.
The one possible exception to forcing listings into see/do/eat/drink/sleep would be a small city or town separated by miles of pasture land from one (or a handful) of tiny villages with a listing or two each. We list contiguous suburbs as part of the city. A group of rural villages? A rare few small-town destinations have the town itself with see/do/sleep... followed by "Nearby" (with the subsections being the names of individual villages, with a brief description and a listing or two in each) followed by "Go next" with the next destinations to actually have an article. For instance, Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby devotes a subsection to a lead-contaminated ghost town, Picher OK, that's not going to get its own article.
That's rare. In general, "go next" lists destinations with actual articles and roads to those destinations. K7L (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I made this edit based on the above. I've seen many other articles which have the same problem so please shout now if there's any issue with this edit :) Jdlrobson (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Make subway/train lines more prominent in dynamic maps[edit]

No tourists come to Tokyo/Roppongi by car, but the dynamic map only shows roads.

Two subway lines cross at Roppongi station (also serving some neighbouring stations that some might find more convenient) but they are not visible on the map unless you zoom to house-level (and even then, they are masked by any street that happens to run above))

How about making subway/train lines more visible? Tourists tend to use public transport more than the locals. This is especially true for big cities and countries like Japan (but I guess we can't have per-area map styles). Thanks!Syced (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that. I noticed this issue when looking up stuff for a trip to Seoul (Seoul/Jongno) and Busan (Busan/Central) and found it quite annoying to have to switch between the dynamic map with all the sights and the subway map with just the station names. Drat70 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Great idea. Most major Chinese cities would definitely benefit as well. I would still employ the caveat that it should be used on destinations with a well defined metro system (Tokyo, Seoul, London, Shanghai, etc). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea too, but just wanted to raise the potential problem of light rail lines. In Germany and France there are many cities without a subway that have light rail lines that are almost as fast and frequent as subways are in other cities and they are also heavily utilized by tourists. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I would want light rail lines displayed as well (easiest way around Melbourne for sure). What would be the problem? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be good if we had better maps which showed the metro lines and stations clearly. In the meantime, one workaround is to have markers for the stations as in Paris/1st arrondissement#Get_in or Glasgow#Get_in. AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The layer "traffic line network" shows all the public transport lines. Railways, subways and buses, etc. Including line numbers and stops by name. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Syced, sorry for being late to the conversation. I brought this issue up to the Maps team and created a task to track this request. It doesn't sound like something we can get to immediately as there's a sizable amount of technical work involved, but it is on the radar of the team. More examples and feedback are welcome. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cities listed in the Nicaragua article[edit]


I recently started a talk page thread on the Nicaragua page concerning which cities should be listed. Your input - any input - would be very welcome; currently I would have to go ahead unilaterally which is not exactly desirable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a tool to compare the similarity of WV text with the text of other sites?[edit]

I am asking because the search engine rank according to startpage of Nicaragua is quite bad while that for Managua is a lot better, despite what I would perceive more edits to the former than the latter. I would like to see where there is still copied content in those articles to possibly edit it out as best practicable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Copyscape", linked from Wikivoyage:Search Expedition#Tools, is somewhat useful although not superb. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Country codes[edit]


I am not sure whether all who will read this are aware, but all phone numbers are supposed to include country codes preceded by the "+" symbol. (e.g. +49 (area code without zero) (local number) for Germany). While I am trying to fix those where I am able to, it is a task that looks like a bot could better do it.

Are there any possibilities to either create a bot or make it inherent in the listing editor that it adds the country code of the country (as per the breadcrumbs) if no country code is found? With some way to turn it off for false positives?

I am sorry if the question is stupid, I am not exactly a coding expert... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I did create a AutoWikiBrowser script under User:Traveler100bot to do this but was not 100% reliable so had to run in semi-auto mode checking each update. Have not run for a while, maybe time to do another scan through pages (may be a couple of week before can get round to it as on the road at the moment). --Traveler100 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, Traveler100, days ago I've proposed the introduction of this new property in wikidata. It's necessary to clean the data stored in Wikidata and in all the projects that use them. Once implemented, can be easily created a local category to check the correctness of all the numbers stored in the listings. I suggest to support to speed up its implementation (creation & population via bot). --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting book?[edit]

Has anyone here read Overbooked: The Exploding Business of Travel and Tourism? The one review I saw was quite positive. Does it have anything to say that should affect our approach? Pashley (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Saftey on or near bodies of water..[edit]

Do we have a topic on Coastal safety, or Saftey near bodies of water ?

It's been an issue in the UK , in respect of the tragic incident at Camber Sands. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We have at least Beaches, Water sports and Swimming, which all touch the subject in their Stay safe sections, but they are only outlines. --LPfi (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Pagebanner visualization bug[edit]

In diff pages like this one, the pagebanner is not shown. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is charge ti fix issues on this extension? --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The preview page suffer the same bug. It's particularly annoying when an user change the banner imagine, because it's not possible to see it before saving. A Phab bug should be opened. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Preview bug has been solved, but since no one has still corrected the diff one, I've opened a ticket. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

SEO editing[edit]


While I am no SEO expert and don't know whether this is an effective use of our time, I think the following is at least worth a shot:

Search for our page (preferably high profile pages like countries or continents) and the page on that other site and then put their URLs into this tool. Then try to bring the percentage figure down by editing the sections that it says are copied. We can see after a few weeks (using anonymous search via startpage) whether our efforts were worth it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is one good idea. There are others at Wikivoyage:Search_Expedition and more on its talk page, Mentioning WV often on social networking sites also helps; every time a friend mentions someplace he or she is about to visit or is moving to, post a link & suggest they contribute as well. Adding simple things, like more good photos from Commons or more wikilinks, also helps. Pashley (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Automated editing I would additionally support automated or semi-automated editing that changed out many words and phrases for roughly equivalent ones (e.g. "delicious" for "tasty"). —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't change individual words using synonyms - search engines are smart enough to recognize that effort as an attempted SEO cheat and will often penalize the offending site in rankings. When rewriting please rewrite full sections. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wrh2: Thanks--I didn't realize this. Makes sense. If someone made a list in userspace of the most-viewed articles that we have which also have the most similar content to Wikitravel, we could start working on massaging those texts (and updating them as well--it's important that high-traffic pages are up-to-date). —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Commons pictures[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has a rather large list of Featured pictures. Someone might go through them looking at which ones might be used here. Also useful, but less work, would be to just patrol the Main Page with its Picture of the Day to see if those are useful.

I look occasionally but do not have either the time or the visual judgment to take on the whole task. Any volunteers? Is someone perhaps already doing this? Pashley (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Ikan is already updating articles with featured pictures, but more people assisting in that effort would obviously be welcome. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. There are also a lot of good Quality Images which aren't featured but are really useful for our purposes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Pages for Olympics[edit]

So my students have settled on improving pages related to Pyeongchang 2018. Now, looking at pages like Rio 2016 or Sochi 2014, it does seem like they are rather poor. M\Something that struck me is the lack of consistency in the get in/around and eat/drink/buy sections. Rio has no Get in/around/eat/drink/sleep sections at all, and is a sad testatement to the fact that wiki projects rely heavily on someone caring - and clearly, nobody cared to even add pointers "see the Rio de Janeiro page. Sochi 2014 is better, but Get in simply states - read Sochi page. Get around does provide some useful information, through much less then the Sochi page. Still, I think it makes sense to discuss Olympics-only transportation at those pages, and keep regular one at the city pages. But eat and drink are again empty, and stay has a single hotel - once again, a far cry from the useful info at Sochi. Unsurpsingly, London_2012 is better, and can be used as a boilerplate for future events, with a number of generic stuff that should be copied into each future Olympics article. Once again, however, the buy/eat/drink/sleep sections are mostly empty; through I do note that two out of four paragraphs of sleep discuss Olympic specifics. In conclusion, I think that we should formalize some sort of event page guide, in particular - stress that they should only provide event specific info, and otherwise refer readers to pages about relevant cities. Buy, eat and drink and sleep sections shout be empty and probably deleted, and should never list individual locations, only discuss how the event information affects the city pages (see London 2012 last 2 paras for what I mean by that). With that in mind, I'd also propose inserting a standardized text into Pyeongchang 2018, Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022 based on London 2012, i.e. "General information about traveling to/in/shopping locations/drinking/eating establishments/accommodation to/in Foo-placeappears in the Foo-place article." Sounds good? PS. One final thing - there seems to be an overlap between content in Prepare>Accommodations and Sleep sections. Not sure how to fix it, but we should not have two sections about essentially the same topic. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, given that practically nobody of our current contributors seems to be knowledgeable about/interested in the Olympic games, the last few Olympics articles are next to useless (Vancouver 2010 is the last good Winter Olympics article). Great to see that we have some people onboard who'd like to help out with Pyeongchang 2018. By the way, contributions to our articles of other South Korean destinations would also be very welcome. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm interested in the Olympics but not as much from a travel perspective and I've also been busy lately. WV just needs the number of contributors to grow. Otherwise there will always holes like this in the future. Gizza (roam) 09:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Gutenberg books[edit] has over 50,000 free, legally downloadable, books. It is all older material for which copyright has expired, so (at least in the US) legally in the public domain and freely usable.

We already use them some, e.g. On the trail of Marco Polo and On the trail of Kipling's Kim are based on Gutenberg books and quote them extensively. Other articles have links, e.g. Retiring_abroad#Housing links to some 19th century cookbooks for those who might want traditional dishes from home.

There are some Gutenberg bookshelves that look likely to have more things we can use. e.g. Travel Bookshelf and Countries Bookshelf.

I'd say Gutenberg is another resource we should be using much as we do Commons, part of the huge range of sites that are part of the global commons. In fact we should be actively looking for ways to use them more. Pashley (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Other destinations section vs see section[edit]

I was looking at Gangwon and similar pages (Pennsylvania, etc.) - and I have trouble figuring out the difference between the "other destinations" section and "see" section. Both list non-city level attractions like parks, etc. What guides placing them in one or the other? I think they may be better of being merged. Is there a Manual of Style like guide to consult on that? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll let somebody more experienced explain the difference, but as a starter, here is the guide you are probably looking for: Wikivoyage:Article_templates/Sections Drat70 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Usually "other destinations" are destinations, which have or should have articles of their own (non-city areas, parks etc.), which should be mentioned in such a section for them to get into the hierarchy, while the See is about attractions or classes of attractions that could (and should) be in See sections of other articles. I think the articles linked above could be tidied a bit; the parks probably all belong in Other destinations, perhaps See was used to avoid redlinking. --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Align city names with English Wikipedia when straightforward?[edit]

The English Wikipedia uses the name Brasília whereas we use Brasilia (note the accent).

Should we align titles with Wikipedia in simple cases like this one?

I imagine Wikipedia people have pondered the problem for longer than us, so piggy-backing on their policy could save us some time and reduce confusion. What do you think? Cheers! Syced (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clearly a useful resource when deciding on names for new articles, but moving existing articles because the choice of title is different on Wikipedia is not necessarily a good idea. In some cases, especially for more obscure places, a name can have been chosen against policy and remained unnoticed, in other cases we might have some specific reason for our choice. That means "simple cases" are not always simple. A rule like this would just add one more aspect to take into consideration. If the case is simple, then do the move, if there is an argument, then argue about how the move would benefit the traveller. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See also Wikivoyage_talk:Naming_conventions#Commas_instead_of_brackets. Pashley (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Temporary closures[edit]

I've been wondering what to do with listings for places that have closed temporarily, renovations, or any other reasons? The establishments are still there, the contact info remains unchanged, of course. L. Challenger (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

When I encounter this, I usually comment the listing out, then when it's back in action, it's easy to restore. Drat70 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
My preference is generally to note the closure in the listing description, that way readers can see "expected re-opening January 2015" and if they are reading it today they will know that the place is probably open again and the listing is just out of date. Commenting out the listing would also work, although that approach means that if the original editor forgets to uncomment it then it's likely to remain hidden for longer than necessary. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
A note is better than commenting out. Absence of info tells the traveller nothing. A note saying that a place is closed may avoid disappointment, especially for those who would turn up based on info found elsewhere and without booking or enquiring ahead (been there, done that). Nurg (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
On it:voy we are use to insert these kind of "temporary information" through a dedicated template that tracks trough categories all the information that after a certain date should be revised. --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Madrid needs district articles[edit]

So far, Madrid has not been districtified. Just started an outline of Madrid/Centro. If you can contribute to the districts of Madrid, please share your thoughts at Talk:Madrid. /Yvwv (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this kind of section allowed ?[edit]

I am just curious that this kind of section Berlin#Prostitution is allowed ? I know that Prostitution is legal in Germany but Is it good information to tourist? I want to ask your opinion. --Berlinuno (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think so, especially as it's mostly warnings. See Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy. Do you find that the section in question runs afoul of the guidelines laid out there? If so, let's talk about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Issues around this type of content are usually around the premise that Wikivoyage does not advise illegal activities, although in this instance there doesn't seem to be any problem. It can be confusing to apply in places such as Thailand where prostitution is both widespread and (nominally) illegal --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Listing editor testing requested[edit]

There is a longstanding bug in the listing editor where listings can be mangled if any field of the listing contains a pipe character ("|"). In practice this means that many listings containing embedded templates, wikilinks, or images are not editable by the listing editor.

I think I've finally fixed that bug, but the change is not completely straightforward, so I would appreciate help in testing it. For those willing to help, can you install the beta listing editor and report any failures in this thread? To install the beta listing editor:

  1. Go to your user preferences and click on the "Gadgets" tab.
  2. De-select the existing "ListingEditor" in the "General" section (required - both old & new listing editors cannot be active at the same time).
  3. Select "ListingEditor2 (beta)" from the "Experimental" section.
  4. Click "Save" at the bottom of the preferences page.
  5. You may need to wait a several minutes for the change to take effect as there is sometimes a lag in enabling gadgets.

The only difference between the current listing editor and the beta is the change for dealing with pipe characters in listings, so you should not see any changes from the normal listing editor, aside from the fact that a nasty bug should be eliminated. In addition to failure reports, if you use the beta listing editor for a significant number of edits without issue then reporting success would also be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Since no issues have been reported I've pushed the changes live, so everyone using the listing editor should now be able to edit listings containing embedded templates or wikilinks without error. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Stubbed, I would appreciate some suggestions on how to expand it. (and possibly on what other secular festivals could be given a 'travel' article.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which do we have a set of headings/page banner for "festivals"? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Is "festival" the correct term? To me, it conjures up organized (and sometimes contrived) local events like Mardi Gras in New Orleans or the winter carnival in Quebec City. I also see you've listed a paranormal tourism for deletion, as author. Would it be worth combining these somewhat-related topics? K7L (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Halloween, in some places is like a secular festival, albeit one that isn't as such formally organised (but we can discuss this further if needed), and it was intended to use the article as a focus for the largely stage managed special events, and some cultural practices ( like costume wearing, candy collection), that a traveller might want to know about.
The Paranormal tourism article on the other hand was intended (the deletion debate aside) to be for strange (and fringe) phenomena that are of travel interest the whole year, as opposed to the staged special events for Halloween.
There may be some overlap, but there's a different intent of focus.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
So why create an article you are struggling to find content for? The problem I have with this article in its current form is that it is not about travel. I am sure it could be but why start if you have no destinations in mind? We do not have Christmas but we do have Christmas Markets. Carnival/Mardi Gras, would make sense (this year under February) as you would recommend people to visit Venice, Brazil or Cologne so although there are many places around the world that have activities for Halloween, where are the special destinations you would recommend people to visit to experience the festival? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The article needs a good understand section, which should:
  • Give the history of Halloween
  • Explain it to somebody who has never heard of it. This should include a para about how it differs from the events it is "not to be confused with".
  • Say which countries it is celebrated in, and how the customs differ between countries. (Guising and turnip lamps in Scotland, trick or treat and pumpkin lamps in the US...)
  • Anything to be aware of if you "stumble" across a Halloween event. (fruit / sweets for children?)
The Do section needs specific examples of the events in all the countries where it is widely celebrated. I am not sure about the London Dungeon listing, which looks an expensive commercial attraction. AlasdairW (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That was added because of a special event they were running, No objection to it's removal.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, Anyone up for expanding the Understand section? I'm only familiar with my own local area's traditions which are essentially an excuse for local chains to sell costumes/candy, and as such that isn't necessarily appropriate for Wikivoyage. I've commented out the London Dungeons item, pending a further disscussion about scope.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article is of some length, but it would need an expert to unpick key sections of it for Wikivoyage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also if I recall, there are some communities that don't do Halloween, which is something the article should probably mention. Anyone with more specfic information? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
If this article can't be expanded by others, than I've got no objections to it being merged elsewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm - No takers? Perhaps a merge would be better? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Stuff's going to break in 2017[edit]


  1. Someone/some page at this project should probably be subscribed to m:Tech/News.
  2. The announcement in the most recent edition about mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy is going to affect you, but probably not very much.

More details:

w:HTML Tidy is a tool that the devs have been using to silently compensate for some typos in HTML and wikitext code after a page has been saved. Tidy is being removed (but not during 2016) as part of a multi-year plan to update the parsers and improve accessibility.

To give a simple example, </br> is an invalid HTML code (it should be <br> instead). It's easy for editors to get confused about which HTML tags need a slash and which don't, or they saw it somewhere and copied it, so this error happens all the time. This currently displays as if it were correct, but that will not be the case when Tidy is removed. You can see the pages affected by this particular error by searching for insource:/\<\/br\>/ in the regular search box. There are only about 25 pages in the mainspace that have this particular error (and no templates!), but that's only one of the errors.

More information, and a list of the major changes, is available at mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy. In (probably) December, there will be a tool that you can use to visually check previews on pages that you're concerned about (it'll probably be available in Special:Preferences, but turned off by default). In the meantime, there is a list of known errors at mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy that you may want to review and check your wiki for. I also recommend dropping by w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and watch for information about scripts and tools. Much of this work can be handled with scripts or bots, but some of the changes (e.g., where to close a table that is missing the |} code to signal the end of the page) require human judgment.

Most of the information about projects like this is delivered via m:Tech/News. However, nobody at this wiki is subscribed to that weekly newsletter. If you aren't reliably getting this information via another wiki or mailing list, then you may want to subscribe and start watching for announcements like this.

I think that the Wikivoyages are going to be one of the least-affected sets of wikis, because of the decision to use as few templates and as little complicated formatting as possible. However, there are some pages that will be affected. I expect formal announcements to go out later, but I thought you'd want to know about this sooner rather than later. Also, if you work at any other project, please share this information.

If you have questions or information to share with the devs about this project, please feel free to {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Event template not liking paramaters[edit]

Before I get annoyed what's gone wrong ? Halloween#United_Kingdom

I tried adding 2 events, and they refuse to display the location data. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If the event location is a destination page it will display as a link (as long as it is not on that page). The Country does not display. Intention is once we have a good number of event templates across the site we can create an intelligent calendar of events with the data. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0[edit]

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a proposed move from CC BY-SA 3.0 to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license across all Wikimedia projects. The consultation will run from October 5 to November 8, and we hope to receive a wide range of viewpoints and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki.

Apologies that this message is only in English. This message can be read and translated in more languages here. Joe Sutherland (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

mapframe and GPX traces[edit]

I notice a couple of issues with the maps on itineraries, like the Trans-Labrador Highway:

  • GPX traces aren't being displayed. This used to display a line tracing the path of a Bertha Benz Memorial Route, a Trans-Canada Highway/Yellowhead Highway and a few other itineraries.
  • If a static map exists, instead of displaying it as an alternate where dynamic map support isn't available (print? no JS? whatever?) both maps are always being displayed. Trans-Labrador Highway does this when it used to display the dynamic map as primary and hide the alternate (static) map.

Are these bugs? and are they documented anywhere? K7L (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I took up the GPX issue in Template_talk:Mapframe#optional_show_parameter two weeks ago. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe this is being looked into - no permanent solution available yet; as far as I know, hopefully soon. -- Matroc (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Philippines edits[edit]

Some relatively new users have been adding a lot of content to articles about places in the Philippines, and of course that's good. But there are problems with the format and sometimes content of these edits, and I would like you to all know that because my edits tend to get overwritten by them, I've pretty much given up patrolling these articles. The problems include:

(1) The use of bullets throughout the articles, including in the middle of a sentence in "Get in", when it wraps to the next line

(2) The use of lowercase letters at the beginnings of such bullets

(3) The listing of numerous supermarkets and other stores and such purely by name, with no or little other information

(4) A refusal to use the ₱ symbol for costs

(5) The arbitrary use of capital letters in the middles of sentences

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Irregular subheadings, too. See here and here for typical examples of some of the problems. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Another example. Did you know "Fan" and "Private" were proper nouns? On the other hand, "tv" is lowercase... Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've been fixing some of those problems & have dropped some comments on user talk pages, apparently unheeded. Ikan & others have been too. This is getting downright tiresome, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Pashley (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


Any well known ones to mention here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of them. All of them? I think the whatever their name fairies that were endorsed by Arthur Conan Doyle deserve mention... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Cottingley Faries, are infamous. I was however in terms of the article thinking more in terms of scams used to part the traveller from funds ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I introduce other community site or site's article or SNS article about Pyeongchang or Place ?[edit]

I'm interested in Pyeongchang, Pyeongchang 2018 and I want to know about "Can I introduce other community site or site's article or SNS article about Pyeongchang ?"--JongHoon Park (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@JongHoon Park: What is the article? Do you know what kind of license it has? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: As I know, there are lot's of unknown sources in article. And some articles have own their referrence that is individual nickname or name in article. I don't know about license..-- 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@ @JongHoon Park: We don't need citations here--those are only at Wikipedia. We expect that travellers will verify information by going there themselves or possibly calling ahead. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Any information you guys want to know about Pyeongchang, Pyeongchang 2018 in south korea? (the city hold the 2018 winter olympic in Korea)[edit]

Hello. I am a korean student. My team gonna edit some informations for small project about the Pyeongchang, as you know, the host of 2018 winter olympic. And I want to know if there is any information you want or need to know about Pyeongchang. Our team have a plan to edit some informations about the way to get in, sightseeing, famous korean food, hotels and so on. If you think there something should be need to add, let me know.--Jisoo-U (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add any information you think will be useful, and thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I just looked at the Pyeongchang article and was glad to see the information about buckwheat products that was added to "Eat". Some listings for good places to eat these and other products would be great. Another point I want to make is that there are currently too many images, considering the length of the text: On my browser, the last three photos are all below the end of the article. I won't remove them, but I would suggest for no-one to add any more images, but instead to make sure that enough content is added so that the images all end up within the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're welcome to add any information you know of that can be useful to a traveler. For example, Get around only has information about taxis, how about the few bus lines that are mentioned? Maybe there are also more things to see? The Buy section is empty, are there some interesting products or shops in the city? If you know some good restaurants, please add them to Eat. And if you know some good bars, pubs, hofs and so on, they can be added to Drink. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
How is the Seoul KTX train connection coming along? The 'get in' section could use some more detail on this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The Accommodation section of Pyeongchang 2018 could usefully be expanded. What would be very interesting is any slightly off the beaten track places to stay nearby. For example London 2012 has some interesting suggestions in the final paragraph of its accommodation section. I went to the watch the Paralympic Games and stayed in Gillingham where I found a guesthouse near the station, and about 40 minutes from the Olympic Park by train. I stayed less than an hour from the Olympic Park and paid about the same for 1 week as I would have paid in London for 1 night.
The Get around section could be fleshed out with information on public transport in the area. Full details may have to wait until nearer the time (will there be 2 or 4 trains per hour?) but the general routes should be known now. A little bit of information about the area around each venue would also be useful - is there anything to see or do nearby for a few hours before or after an event (see Glasgow_2014#See). Are there any places to eat or drink near the venues, but outside the Olympic fence? AlasdairW (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Way To Make Baicheng Better[edit]

I am from Baicheng. How can I make it better? What should I add? --Mzsamzsa (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! In answer to your questions: Please add any kind of information you think a visitor to your city would find interesting or useful. The thing that really sticks out to me is that most sections are completely empty. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
With the existing listings links to their web pages, location coordiantes and street address as well as a little more description. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between 'See' and 'Do' on the wikivoyage page?[edit]

Actually, I don't know well about the difference between 'See' and 'Do'. sometimes there are some informations of parks or famous mountain on 'See' section. As well there are some information about ocean in 'Do' section. what is the exact difference? and if there are informations about the temple, whick section would be suitable? See or Do?--Jisoo-U (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You're talking about a temple that's an attraction as a sight to see, right? That would belong in "See". I know that which section has which listing isn't always consistent in practice, but there's a handy page that helps answer questions about what belongs in which section: Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jisoo-U. Look at Wikivoyage:Big city article template#See and the 'Do' section that follows it. 'See' is for attractions that don't move much, and there is a list of examples there. 'Do' is for activities and performances, rather than static attractions. Some of the things that go in 'Do' are a bit surprising. For example, movie theatres go in 'Do', because the actors are performing, even though the visitor just sits and watches. Check that page and the one that Ikan gave, and if you are still not sure, just put things where you think is best. Someone else might move it to another section, but at least you will have written the information, which is the most important thing. Nurg (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I add the 'Mascot' and 'Commemorative Coin' of Pyeongchang 2018?[edit]

In Olympic page, it would be better to add some mascot or commemorative coin which represent this big event. It could be interesting for someone who has an interest to Pyeongchang2018 and has a hobby to collect memento. There are some introduction of these on Official Pyeongchang 2018's site. I want to know about other people's thought to this idea.--Oh Joonseok (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the image used complies with creative commons license. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to our Exemption Doctrine Policy, which allows "fair use" of otherwise free photos of some non-free artwork (and architecture). Such images cannot be uploaded to Commons, but have to be uploaded locally on Wikivoyage, unless the mascot or coin is free, which I doubt. --LPfi (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I copy the images from this to wikivoyage? --Oh Joonseok (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That page says "Copyright by The PyeongChang Organizing Committee for the 2018 Olympic & Paralympic Winter Games" so I would assume not. Reading through their brand protection page seems to suggest even fair use is not allowed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair use should be allowed regardless of the copyright owner. The brand protection page seems to be about trademark rights, which are unrelated to copyright. Essentially the law and the linked page want to ensure a page of ours is not mistaken for an official Olympic Games page – and we should anyway not use the symbols in such a way.
However, WMF and our EDP (linked above) require that the photo itself be free, and any material on the official pages are unlikely to be (except possible historic images). Somebody has to take a good photo of the mascot, the coin or whatever symbol we want to use, and publish it under a free licence (and there should be a note about the underlying unfree work).
--LPfi (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
LPfi, thank you for your excellent explanation of our EDP. I was afraid I had written it so poorly no one else could understand it. =) Powers (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Make SEO edits a precondition for featuring[edit]

So I am currently editing Berlin a bit, always copying sections into copyscape to see how much they match a certain other page and then trying to edit accordingly (do look over my language and the general flow of the text and be as strict as you must when excising parts where I got carried away on a tangent) and I found there are some quite large matches, especially in sections like "get in" or "get around" and - most damning of all - the lede. Berlin is not currently scheduled for featuring and I have no intention of nominating it (though Berlin/South is currently rated guide and could in theory be nominated/featured), but this got me thinking; our featured articles are the most visible and high profile articles and featuring (or even a nomination) usually entails a lot of editing at any rate, so how about we try to better our search engine rating by deliberately editing featured articles or articles nominated for featuring with that in mind? In other words, should we ask for editors to do a bit of that before a feature goes live? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

While any divergence from WT content is of course a net gain for WV, this is the kind of thing that happens organically over time regardless of anything we editors may do intentionally to speed that process along. In my estimation, the primary impulse behind any edit to this site, or question an editor should ask himself before clicking the "Save changes" button, should always be "does this constitute an improvement in the content that we offer the reader?" If there's also an incidental SEO benefit to the edit, so much the better, but it strikes me that simply making lateral changes to the content of our articles for no reason other than SEO runs the risk of inadvertently degrading our content. It seems picayune, but word choice, clever turns of phrase, etc. do matter. To a certain degree, they're how we define ourselves relative to other travel guides. Given that SEO edits are merely a way to move us in a direction we're already moving anyway, it seems unnecessary to run that risk, and I'm especially wary of going so far as making them a precondition for featuring DotMs, OtBPs and FTTs (which are supposed to be open to all Guide or better articles, full stop). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you be the judge of my recent edits to Berlin. I do think that some of them improved the content of the article rather than just moving laterally. And furthermore we should take a serious look at section that were not changed at all in years, as they are both the most likely to give us SEO penalties and the most likely to contain outdated information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed We can at least make it a point to have several users pore over the page before featuring. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, I wasn't referring specifically to your edits to Berlin, and I take you at your word when you said they improve the content of the article. I think maybe you and I are talking about two different things here. When I hear about "SEO edits", what that implies to me is a simple, superficial change to the wording of an article such that it says the same thing as before but in different words, which fools search engines into regarding it as original content. If you're talking about adding information to an article that wasn't there before, or updating information that hasn't been edited in years, I'd regard that as an improvement to our content first and foremost, with any attendant SEO benefit secondary. And if you're saying that DotM candidates should be looked over to make sure that all information is up to date and nothing is left out, I'd agree with that too, but I would also say that's something that by and large we already do. Lastly, the mere fact that improvements to our content do necessarily also improve our SEO standing, and the fact that they happen all the time at WV, is precisely what makes me think it's maybe not utterly necessary to make the sort of "lateral SEO edits" I described at the beginning of this comment. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that certain sections - once they are written - do not "move" much in any direction, as evidenced by a cursory glance at the text on that other site and our site. For instance this is quite true for a lot of the "by bus" content in articles about Europe, despite the rather rapid development of this market in recent years (I have tried some stabs at it, but way too many articles still list companies that may or may not still exist) and if I take a look at an article, I tend to skip certain sections (e.g. everything "by car", because cars to me are boring and I just assume there is some street and you just follow the signs). Incidentally, when I then look at the comparison tool, those sections are not unlikely to be those most in need of work. Now I am sure we all have different sections we tend to skip - some of us may not skip anything ever - but using comparison tools could help us identify the areas where work is most needed and beneficial. Frankly, I seem mostly incapable of "lateral edits". When I try to reformulate a text, I usually do it from scratch or from only a list of talking points. But we are all different. And a particularly damning thing is if the lede of an article has not changed since the migration. Some ledes may be unimprovable and the best prose since I don't know when, but the vast majority of our ledes were written by someone who thought "well there needs to be a lede" and not much improved on since. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Those are points well worth pointing out and keeping in mind. I think, though, we should not talk about SEO in any guidelines or feature discussions: that could lead to sections being rewritten by people not too good in writing English, and as you and Andre say, the reason for changing the wording does not matter much for the SEO issue. Using the comparison tool to find possibly outdated or less developed section will help SEO and improve article quality without our saying anything about SEO. --LPfi (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The featured article should showcase the best Wikivoyage has to offer. As such, it should offer the voyager (a) original content which is (b) up to date. I recall the question of whether Internet access should be a featured travel topic (FTT) was raised; my reaction was that it's not ready to be a featured travel topic if it still contains a substantial amount of three-year-old information which was copy-pasted from some other website. If it's not worth the trouble to replace the outdated text with new and original content, it's not worth featuring. K7L (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand the requirement for original content. If some free content found elsewhere makes an article better in other aspects, what is the point of using less good or less complete text instead? In most cases, of course, text from elsewhere needs at least some rewriting to fit our style, but that is a separate consideration. And old content is not necessarily outdated, if it has been checked and updated where needed. I think we should not confuse quality issues with SEO and the wish to cut any connections to that other site. For SEO, I hope Google & co are smart enough for our work to show in search results without efforts on just changing content, which seems to be true. For the other site, a company abusing a community does not mean the community did not produce valuable content before the fork. I hope we could just leave that site to degenerate on its own and concentrate on making this site good. --LPfi (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Idea for an improvement: Show gpx tracks on the maps and be able to download them for usage in map application[edit]

Imagine we were able to show gpx tracks on the mapframe (e.g. a city walking tour, which covers the highlights of Istanbul). Then – with a click of a button, one could download exactly that gpx file to the phone and import it into OsmAnd,, … best with POI pictures and some text. I personally think, that would be a huge improvement for Wikivoyage! --Renek78 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This feature was once introduced to WV, but then reverted with some not very clear reasoning. Check out also the old discussion on this topic. And while this feature keeps being missing from WV, you can anyway download GPX using this external tool. --Kiaora (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Renek78, that feature has been implemented in it:voy as a pilot. You can see for example it:Nelle terre dei Gonzaga. From the GPX indicator icon you can download both the GPX track and all the listing present in the page (provided that they have the coordinates).
Kiaora, the revert has been done for technical reason. If this is the only problem, I can correctly activate it here as well. Let me know. PS The original purpose of the external tool that you have mentioned, is to extract POI from more than one article. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be extremely helpful to have this feature enabled. As it's very unlikely a lot of people know about this tool at all. And yeah, I've seen it's capable of combining POIs from several articles, quite handy. --Kiaora (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Kiaora, I've just activate it the GPX indicator on all the articles that have been associated to a GPX itinerary like London/City of London. To activate it on every article that has a listing I need the support of an en:voy-admin to change MediaWiki files. I'll keep you posted. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Kiaora, Renek78, now from all the articles is possible to download GPX file, with POIs and tracks information ready to be installed on external devices. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, Andyrom75! That's already a big step in the right direction. But somehow I don't fully understand how to add a track to a Wikivoyage article. For example I wanted to upload a gpx file for the "Hike along the coastal path from Monaco to Carnoles". I would create the trace with a tool like GPSies, upload to this place and then somehow link the gpx in the article. But I already fail on the upload part. The wikihelp "Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps" wasn't really helpful. I guess I'm too new to all this...
Renek78, you need to save the mentioned GPX track in Template:GPX/Monaco. Once done, if the syntax do not contain mistakes, the track will be automatically added to the article. Unfortunately the maps used here in en:voy has a bug that do not show the tracks directly in the map. If you want to see it, you can try it first on it:voy where the tracks are visibile (when well written) because we still used the old maps that in general have less problems. Once satisfied with the track, you can copy it here too. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I am going to try it as soon as possible. Means, that my idea is already implemented - you are the man, Andyrom75! --Renek78 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Quick update: I have just created a track now on GPSies and uploaded it to the Monaco gpx template. If I now download the Monaco gpx file the track is included, but I am not able to see the track on the article map - neither on the English version nor on the Italian one with this "Mappa dinamica" element. So not sure now whether more cleaning of the gpx is needed or the mapframe feature just has to be updated.--Renek78(talk) 12:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Another update: The track can be seen when clicking on the button "Full Screen dynamic map". The next step would be to make the mapframe show gpx tracks and to be able to link the "do" map marker "Carnoles hike" with the gpx track. Then it's close to perfection. --Renek78 (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks. --Kiaora (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Renek78, 2 notes.
  1. To see the GPX track in a language version, you must save the track in that specific language version. You have saved it only here in en:voy
  2. You can see the GPX track in the en:voy "big map", because that map is still linked to the old one that is currently in use in it:voy (not only as a "big map" but in every article). It's not a matter of template name. What changes is the content. See the different marker icons for example. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
GPX track shows on the geo map - Work is being done to show the GPX tracks on a mapframe - Though it is possible to do so in a temporary roundabout way - it would be better to wait for a final solution(s)... -- Matroc (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with users making the exact same edit here and on that other site?[edit]

Maybe we should have some guideline for dealing with edits like this. If you look it up on that other website (I was somewhat suspicious due to the amount of redlinks), you see immediately that a user under the same name did the exact same edits over there. Now I have posted a thread on the talk page of the British Virgin Islands article, but this is likely to be a recurring issue and I would like some guideline as to how to deal with it in general. If I understand our current (lack of) policy correctly, we do not prohibit it as there are no things in CC by SA that prohibit it, but we discourage it due to SEO concerns and encourage the authors to instead focus their edits here, correct? Maybe we should write an essay or something to point users to to maybe convince them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should do anything, other than be glad we have a new contributor, welcome him and fix the wikilinks you mentioned on the talk page. Acer (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my earlier comments, this is one case in which I think "lateral SEO edits" may be desirable. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Well it is quite possible that a significant number of the editors to whom this applies are unaware of our history and even some of those who have a passing knowledge of it might not know about the whole SEO thing. Maybe we should have/create something more in depth to link to rather than Wikivoyage and Wikitravel as nowadays the "editor active here and on that other site" is the commonest cause for us to talk about them in the first place and the cases of "someone asks us about that other place of their own volition" have greatly decreased. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We could make a customized welcome template for people coming over from WT with a link to the history. I just don't think we should require any specific behavior from them, such as not making duplicate edits in both sites (since I think being able to do that is an incentive to start editing here. If they have to rewrite they might balk at the extra work and just stay there instead). Acer (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We've had a significant number of negative experiences on this site in the past with editors who were active on both sites stirring up trouble here, so I hope my reaction to this issue is not colored by that. I think it's fine to drop such users a friendly talk page message explaining why we frown on duplicate content from WT, but I don't think we should hesitate to edit the WV text accordingly, and I don't think we should show a whole lot of tolerance towards repeat offenders. Frankly, I'd love for policy to be changed to explicitly prohibit duplicate WT/WV content (except insofar as there remains some pre-fork material on our site), but given the amount of mountain-moving that's necessary to gain consensus on policy changes here, I think that may be a bit too much to hope for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that while it is seemingly logical that the same text on both sites will penalize our SEO rankings, there is no concrete evidence to suggest this actually happens. It probably does, but no way to know for sure. Additionally, I assume (not knowing for sure) that a high proportion of text on WV is still the same as WT, and therefore a few paragraphs of similar content, although possibly unhelpful, is not likely to do much harm by itself.
Also should we get new contributors to 'buy in' to our historical dislike of WT? It probably isn't a good first impression.
I would go with the principle that 'anyone can edit', and if someone does add similar content then other contributors can enhance by adapting i so that it becomes sufficiently different. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Not to hijack this thread, but regarding the statement that "there is no concrete evidence" that duplicate content affects search engine rankings, that is not true. Duplicate content issues are a well-known challenge in search engine optimization and indisputably affect how a site is ranked - there are reams of articles describing the issue online, and they explain why it may cause a site to be filtered out of search results or rank lower. For just one example, see this page from Google, which explicitly states that Google excludes results when content is too similar to another result. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the last paragraph of Andrewssi2's comment, that's precisely what I suggested doing in the first place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Ryan , I was saying that duplication probably does cause a SEO issue, but it is not possible to determine the impact of one new article of duplicated content except to say that reading Google's guidance it would likely lower our ranking score. I'm thinking how this might be explained to a new contributor. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

SEO again[edit]

Outreach Has anyone tried directly contacting search engines? I have done so with DuckDuckGo and unless I am just remembering myself as a free culture hero, I think they actually changed their results to favor Wikivoyage. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Many have thought about it, but no-one knows how to go about it in a way that might be effective, given that the webmasters of nearly every website in the world want to do the same. Here's a thought: Let's draft and polish an open letter to search engine companies describing why WV's situation is different from nearly all other websites, due to the fork etc, etc. Then, as well as having it on the site, we could try to identify a key person in search engine companies, reformat the letter for print, and post it off to them. Nurg (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I doubt an open letter would have any effect on SEO rankings. It might create some media or blogosphere talk if we are lucky, but that's about it. Google's algorithms mostly do what they do "automatically" with little input from management. And if anything google would actually have a (minor) incentive for us to go down in flames, as they cannot sell us any ads. In other words: Why would they even want to help us? The poor kindness of their hards just cannot be assumed. Free content advocates are of course another thing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Does Google show bias in order to give a higher ranking to sites with ads on them? I didn't think that was the case. Also many search terms in Google actually show the Wikipedia article as the first result. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not saying they have an agenda against us (and they are unlikely to have one), but there is no reason they would bend over backwards to accommodate us. What potential gain could it bring them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately their goal is to get the most relevant search results to their users. It is likely that they are fully indifferent to us (and to WT), and will just give us higher rankings the more relevant we become. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A million edits[edit]


From November 2012 to May 2016, we've racked up a million edits. Not bad at all. :) K7L (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Is that accurate? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Maintenance panel % to be fixed[edit]

Hard to believe that a percentage can be higher than 100% :-) (see standard template column) --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have been trying to track these rough pages down. Found a few pages with double ispartof and status templates and a few with manually added category statements, but it is not easy to find them all. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't analyzed the formulas, but maybe the solution could be on defining more suitable categories, maybe all the ones involved in one single formula created by a single template. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links to printable PDF maps[edit]

I would like to add links to printable maps I created on Inkatlas (example), but it seems like this is against the current External Links policy. I think a free, detailed, up to date printable atlas is something that's very useful to travellers. There is no way to include this external content in Wikivoyage itself. Are such links, in fact, against the policy? If so, can an exception/change be made? Full disclosure: is a project I'm working on in my spare time. Kontextify (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

We have the ability to include a map directly on a Wikivoyage destination page; our dynamic maps are based on OpenStreetMap with markers added to indicate the Wikivoyage article's POI's. K7L (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a really nice tool! But the maps aren't particularly oriented to travel; we try to make our guides as self-contained as possible, with maps printed right in-line as part of the articles. And our maps have markers showing points of interest, and are customized to be useful to travelers. It might be worth adding Inkatlas to our list of related projects, though. Powers (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about the related project page! I do appreciate the static and interactive maps already embedded in articles, but I find they're often too small or not detailed enough to replace a proper map of a place (or not printable at all). Would it not be useful to link to such a map in addition to having the embedded ones that show POI's? FYI: Inkatlas uses OpenStreetMap data as well. Additionally, public domain terrain data is used for "outdoor" maps, useful for hiking and other activities. I was thinking of including these in articles about national parks, for example. Kontextify (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT travel#Is this really a Guide article? -and- FTT for May/June 2017?[edit]

Fellow Wikivoyagers: please share your opinions on the issue raised here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Profile of Roland Unger (German WV)[edit]

For your interest. Profile of Roland Unger (German WV) on Wikimedia blog. Nurg (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Consumerist Tourists vs Vagabonds[edit]

Why is wikivoyage so pro-consumerism? I feel like almost all of the articles are dominated by where to spend money (where to shop, where to buy a beer, where to pay for a bed (only $15/night! /s), where to pay for camping).

Long-term travelers are more likely to hitch-hike, dumpster for food, and setup their tent in the woods. But where is the information for these vagabonds? Is wikivoyage's articles specifically opposed to supplying information to us long-term travelers/vagabonds?

When I was en-route to Vancouver, I learned from a fellow traveler that the local police permitted setting up a tent on public property. I spent a lot of time researching this to confirm that the BC Supreme Court permitted setting up erecting a structure for shelter overnight. Once I was sure it was legal (and I did it for about a month), I added a section about camping in Stanley Park to the Vancouver article. I included a link showing the legality, but it was removed. The next edit, the rest of my addition was removed.

I'm relatively new (as a contributor) here, so I'm not going to undo the removal. Instead, I'm here in the pub, trying to learn the intention of this wiki. Is Wikivoyage intentionally providing information geared toward yuppie travelers looking to fly to a city, spend a week shopping, and fly back home? Or are we a wiki for serious, long-term travelers/vagabonds? Do we deamonize such behaviour as busking? spanging? dumpstering? train hopping? stealth camping? Where is this line drawn?

If wikivoyage is intentionally opposed to vagabonds, can you please point me to a wiki that is not?

—The preceding comment was added by Fedcba098 (talkcontribs)

I think vagabonding might make for a valid travel topic, but frankly any claims that "long-term travelers are more likely to hitch-hike, dumpster for food, and setup their tent in the woods", or that "yuppie travelers looking to fly to a city, spend a week shopping, and fly back home" are somehow not "serious", are ridiculous on their face, so much so that I have to somewhat doubt the seriousness of this question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That all being said, I don't support the reversion of the OP's edit. If that information is relevant to travellers (even a certain subset thereof) and accurate (on the Talk page he provided a link to the BC Supreme Court ruling confirming his claim), then I don't see any argument against including the information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of what you mention may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. Hence as per our WV:illegal activities policy we do not give advice on how to best break the law, even if some might consider the laws stupid or unjust. That said, we do have an article on the right to access and there should be an article on hitchhiking. If not, plunge forward. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the specific edit he made focused on a single jurisdiction Vancouver where what he mentioned is indeed legal - in fact, his edit consisted of saying precisely that camping in tents on public land is something that the law allows. I think the edit should stand. Zooming out a bit, where other destinations are concerned I think we should handle this on a case by case basis. Where such things are legal, this is information we should include; where it's not, we should stay silent (beyond perhaps mentioning that it is illegal). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast responses! To clarify, it's legal not only in Vancouver, but in all of BC. As AndreCarrotflower recommended, I did some plunging into the Budget travel. It appears that supplying information geared towards budget/free travelers/vagabonds *is* part of the mission of wikivoyage, so long as it does not violate the law. I think this information is dwarfed by the consumerist nature of the articles, so I will continue to add useful information for fellow vagabonds to the Budget sections of cities as I go along. Looks like the opinion so far is that I should revert my post; I'll do that (thanks for the input!). Also, there's a section of "Sleep" section in Budget travel that links to a sleep rough, which is roughly equivalent to "camping for free." I did a lot of legal camping in parks in the NorthEast US while bikepacking, and it seems that I should compile these places (as well as Vancouver) in both the Sleep sections of the relevant cities/states/regions and fill-out this empty travel topic. -Fedcba098
@Fedcba098: Info on squatting, hitching, etc. is extremely valuable, especially if it keeps someone safe. I can't recommend this enough. I agree with our policy on not recommending illegal activity as such but precisely because some of this is a grey area or something that changes by jurisdiction, having accurate info is vital. For instance, hitching is federal illegal in the States but legal in Indiana, so we can (should!) advise travellers on how/where to hitch in my home state but also caution them against it on federal highways. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as a "federal highway" in the US? I know it exists in México, but w:AASHTO is a group of state government officials, with no federal voting presence. K7L (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@K7L: Roads in the United States Numbered Highways are administered by the federal Department of Transportation, even though maintenance is the responsibility of individual states (there are even "interstate highways" in Hawai'i!) —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There absolutely is such a thing as a Federal highway in the U.S., and Federal routes are distinct from Interstates. The Federal system predates the Interstate system. Route 66 was a Federal highway. On the Eastern Seaboard, we have Federal Route 1, which goes from Key West, Florida all the way up to Maine. Federal routes are at least fairly often multiple lanes (such as 2 each way), but only intermittently limited access, and they typically go through the centers of numerous towns. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, here. I have not seen any legal opinion or source other than the odd post in a travel forum that says it is legal to camp overnight in parks and public places across BC (including the link provided by User:Fedcba098, which was to a newspaper article and not the Supreme Court decision). This situation is far more nuanced than is being discussed. Here are some relevant links:
First of all, neither of those Court cases made it legal to erect a shelter overnight across BC. The decisions only struck down the by-laws in the respective municipalities (Victoria and Abbotsford). As far as I know, the by-laws in other communities are still valid until they are successfully challenged in Court.
Secondly, both Court cases were argued on the basis that the by-laws infringed on the rights of homeless people under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In handing down the decisions, the judges explicitly made reference to rights of the homeless under the Charter and stated the by-laws are invalid to the extent they prohibit homeless people from sleeping in a city park overnight. It seems questionable to me that a traveller vagabonding is a homeless person of the city. It also seems questionable whether an out of country visitor can rely on the same provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were used in these Court cases.
Thirdly, the City of Vancouver’s by-laws prohibit people from camping overnight in parks and public spaces unless they get prior permission. I’m not aware of any Court case that has ruled Vancouver’s by-law is invalid. If it is, I’m happy to retreat from my position if you can provide proof.
Collectively, these Court decisions seem to have stopped by-law officers from enforcing the no camping by-laws in most circumstances. However, this is not the same thing as saying “It is legal to camp overnight on public property in Vancouver” (or anywhere in BC). The situation seems to be similar to smoking weed in BC: many people say it’s legal because enforcement turns a blind eye to it, but the rule is still there. I think a more accurate statement would be “Travellers pitching tents in city parks is not permitted according to Vancouver laws. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have made this a legal grey area so by-law officers generally won’t disturb you unless you are being disruptive or don’t take your tent down in the morning.
My other concern with the original and reinstated comments is the tone, particularly relating to safety. I just don’t think it provides enough context to enable an audience as wide as ours to make an informed decision on whether or not this is something they want to do. Doing a quick Google search on Stanley Park, comments ranged from “Don’t walk in Stanley Park at night” to “Best to avoid the wooded areas” to “Stay close to English Bay or Third Beach” to “It’s fine to walk in Stanley Park at night”. I think a more a balanced statement would be along the lines of “If you decide to camp in a park, stay safe. Travellers find Stanley Park to be a beautiful spot, but be aware there are no facilities and some people may not feel safe, particularly in wooded or secluded areas.
To me, this isn’t about vagabonding vs consumerism. This issue isn’t black and white and it is contentious in some areas (Victoria more than Vancouver), so I'd prefer not to list it. However, if we do think it's worthwhile, I think the words we use need to be carefully chosen to accurately portray the legal situation and the fact that it’s not the same as going to your local KOA. -Shaundd (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
There are some things here that are definitely not oriented to tourists, though I'm not certain many of them would fit your definition of "vagabond". See for example Digital nomad, Hitchhiking, Teaching English, Volunteer, & Retiring abroad. Pashley (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

San Juan (Puerto Rico)[edit]

So I stumbled upon the article on San Juan (Puerto Rico) and it seems clear to me that this article needs work. A city of roughly 300 000 it has been "districtified", but there is no district map and half the "districts" are just redlinks. And this is just where problems begin. A debate on this was raised on the talk page about a year ago - but - as so often happens - went nowhere. What should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone familiar with Ohio?[edit]

A similar thing to the thread right above. Ohio is probably the record holder for number of nearly-empty subarticles in the form of counties. In Talk:Ohio#Counties_-_still_a_good_idea.3F a new division of the state was thought out and at least partially agreed upon a year and a half ago but that was pretty much it. Someone (or preferably more than one :)) here who's familiar with that part of the US and would like to continue the merging project? ϒpsilon (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Have been working in other areas of Wikivoyage but can get back to this topic if people are fine with the proposed restructure. I am familiar with the towns along the I75 but have no personal experience of other areas of the state. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Ryan and LtPowers who participated in the earlier discussion. Andre and Justin also hail from nearby. Anyone else? ϒpsilon (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ypsilon: Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you: I'm too ignorant of Ohio to help. I haven't spent much time there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
No problems. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have created some new sub-regions but not yet started expanding them. Have also added merge tags to county pages so people can see and comment on changes. Also started Wikivoyage:Ohio Expedition, which does show the number of regions is excessive for the number of city articles in the state. Hopefully provide place to discuss issues on individual articles as well a showing the to-do list. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ypsi - about the most I can say is that individual counties definitely aren't the way to go. But I'm not familiar enough with Ohio to be any more specific than that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm monitoring the discussion on Talk:Ohio but I don't have any further input beyond what I've already contributed there. Powers (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Even if people are not familiar with the area it would be good to get some assistance moving listing currently at county level down into the relevant city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggested change to DotM[edit]

Carrying on from this conversation at Wikitravel (external link removed), would it be wise to have multiple destinations per month? That is, one in the Northern and one in the Southern Hemispheres, since their climates will be opposite? Or simply have a more frequent rotation (maybe fortnightly)? Having just 12 places in the world every year seems like too few to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, we don't link to WT on this site.
Secondly, we actually feature 24 places in the world every year, plus 12 travel topics, itineraries, phrasebooks, airports, etc.
Thirdly, the answer to your question would be a firm "no". It's a tall enough order already filling all the slots with three features that change monthly.
If WT - a site whose content has already been degraded by spam, touting, and other such problems that they don't have the manpower to bring under control - has seen fit to further debase the standards of what they allow on their Main Page by forcing themselves to make space for more feature articles, that's their problem. It's certainly not something we should ape here. It would be completely and totally counterproductive especially given that we're trying to play up the superiority of our content and the differences between us and them.
Frankly, the fact that you're even suggesting we do this raises red flags for me.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Well, that was rude. Wikitravel is not suggesting on having two DotMs. You are mistaken. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, this suggestion does not fly. Pashley (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll defer to the opinions on DOTM issues to those who are more involved with that feature (sounds like the preference is to maintain the status quo), but given the fact that any mention of WT raises people's ire, I'd ask everyone to please be extra-careful to keep comments civil, and to ensure that you are assuming good faith. In addition, unlike at WT, I'm not aware that we have any policy against linking to them, although it's something Wikivoyage would prefer to discourage as much as possible for various reasons. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I know of no such policy. I also think that Justin has earned a presumption of good faith. Suggesting that perhaps WT might have a good idea about something is no red flag to me, though I fully agree that in this case, our way is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I just find it amazing that someone who's a fairly active contributor to our site could be so heedless of our checkered history with WT, ignorant of the SEO problems we've been having vis-à-vis the old site (especially since Justin admits to occasionally adding duplicate content to both sites), and forgetful of the pattern of behavior we've often seen with several other users who contributed to both sites. It may not be bad faith and it may not be against policy in a strict sense, but the suggestion does demonstrate an astonishing tone-deafness (in addition to being a bad idea to begin with). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
We need to differentiate ourselves from the old site, not imitate them. However the suggestion above that featured articles ought to be rewritten first for SEO purposes is I think just a horrifying lot of extra work and little bang for the buck. If something needs to be done vis-à-vis SEO and our featured articles right now, we could rename "Destination of the Month" for instance "Recommended Destination Article" and "Off the Beaten Path" for instance "Less Visited Destinations" (or something else).
Also, it would be great if more people would help out with fixing issues in articles rather than just pointing them out, let alone inventing new requirements. It's already — or should I say, in the last half year it has become — hard finding articles satisfying everyone. Just my 2 cents. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well right now Feature discussions don't involve the participation of all that many editors (I am only half active there myself) and increasing the number of slots would certainly not decrease this problem. I also do not consider SEO edits - or rather, edits that keep SEO in mind - a waste of time or little bang for the buck. My anecdotal evidence may not count for much, but surprisingly little effort has sometimes cause articles to rise a lot in the duckduckgo rankings (which I think are independent of who is doing the searching, but I may be wrong in that). There is a general tendency - at the very least on this wiki, maybe on all wikis - not to remove old text in most reversions, so that oftentimes our text is longer than the one on that other site and contains more accurate information, but there is still a huge duplicate penalty because so much old text just sits there unchanged. Having a look at Copyscape has often helped me identify outdated information, or stuff that is contradicted in other parts of the article. Often the previous wordings were clunky and unwieldy but had just stayed due to inertia. Copyscape has also often alerted me to parts of the article I normally do not focus on. If we want to polish our feature nominations prior to featuring them, looking which content has not been looked at and/or changed in years is not wasted time imho. And it does have SEO benefits. Also, but this does not seem to be a major problem, if you dislike my SEO edits, tell me and please don't just reinstate what was there before but try and come up with something else. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course there's nothing bad with updating the articles, and I would be surprised to learn that anyone would have reverted your or other people's edits of such kind. Nevertheless, I don't think we have the manpower for systematic SEO edits of all articles that are about to go up on the Main Page. While they might help the site as a whole (regardless if they are done on a specific article that soon is featured or not), adding this as an extra requirement for nominated articles is certainly not going to make it easier for people who are actively working to prevent there from being months without articles like myself. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we have the editor power to increase the number of DOTMs in the foreseeable future. This will be a good discussion to have once the community grows. Gizza (roam) 08:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Maps broken when there are no listings with coordinates[edit]

@RolandUnger, Yurik, Andyrom75: Recently I've noticed that maps render as an empty frame on articles where there are no listings with lat/long coordinates - see for example Marshfield (Massachusetts). I'm using Chrome 53.0.2785.143 on Windows 7, and the error in the Javascript console does not seem particularly informative: "Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token u in JSON at position 0". I've disabled all code in User:Wrh2/common.js and still see the problem, so I don't think it's due to any customizations, but it would be helpful if someone else could check the Marshfield article and indicate whether the map renders for them or not. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We have seen this problem too (in Russian Wikivoyage). I think it is browser-independent, or at least appears in both Chrome and Firefox. --Alexander (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
In it:voy we do not use the new map because of the limitation on the number of POI showable in one map (on top on others bugs), so I haven't experienced before this issue. By the way, I confirm you that I cannot see that map in my browsers. I haven't tried with iPad, but I think that the problem will occur there as well. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This behavior is due to a bug in the Kartographer extension. All the marker data are stored after code parsing in the document head in the wgKartographerLiveData variable. If there are no marker data senseless data were stored which are no valid JSON code. That's why you get the "Unexpected token" error message. To solve this problem I opened a phabricator task and attributed it to Yurik and JGirault. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, we had no deployments last week, but were very actively working on the code and fixed a number of data bugs. I tried to replicate phab:T148971 on this page at beta cluster and it seems to be working, so I suspect we have already fixed it, and it should be deployed to all Wikivoyage servers on Wednesday. Beta cluster always contains the latest version of the code, making it a good place to experiment. --Yurik (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Corsican regions[edit]

Apparently the topic of merging Corsica's regions into the main article was raised as early as 2014 with no conclusive result. If nobody objects, can I merge them in one week's time? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How about tomorrow? I wouldn't wait more than about 24 hours. I can't see a good reason not to merge. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)