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


Outdated East Africa regions map[edit]

Well and good that we now treat Somaliland as an independent country and the East African islands as a separate region. Can someone please update the East Africa regions map to reflect that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Require coordinates in addition to contact details for listings to consider promotion to "usable"[edit]

The current criteria for usable status demand at least one listing each with contact details in "eat" and "sleep" as the sine qua non for usable status. I think coordinates are almost as important as some form of contact details and they are quite easy to "mine" when there is a street address. What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this already required for the higher ratings? If not, then we should start there... WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it should not need coordinates for usable. If you have a street address and a phone number you can use those, as everybody did before there were satellite navigators in mobile phones. Thus the article is very much usable with them only. --LPfi (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In the days before satellite navigation, basically every guidebook came with printed maps for the major cities showing all attractions. Getting the coordinates is not rocket science if you have a street address already. And having coordinates and the listing showing up on a map enables everyone to see the lay of the land at a glance. Which is also very helpful in district or merger discussions Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you add coordinates to all the listings in the 500 or so Guide and Star articles first then come back and discuss this further. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's so easy, then can we have a bot do it? Seriously: when I've done it, it's been a pretty mechanical process. Even a semi-automated script would be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The bot would need a data source. Would OpenStreetMap's "Nominatim" be suitable?

That said, the closest thing which currently exists to a requirement for co-ordinates in articles is the ill-defined requirement that Wikivoyage:Star articles have "a map". Back in the old, dark WT days a map invariably meant a static map due to technical limitations - so it's not clear whether a dynamic map (which implicitly needs the co-ordinates) fills the bill for a star. Certainly, if a star needs a map and a map needs co-ordinates, then indirectly it creates a requirement for the data. By contrast, Wikivoyage:Guide articles "aren't necessarily perfect... just very close. For example, a city guide might not have a map, some of the listings might not exactly match our manual of style."

I'm all for setting the bar for "guide" relatively high. A guide, while not perfect, is good enough for nomination to be featured. I'd like to think that means something more than just a long list of multiple restaurants and hotels. For instance, I'd like to propose making "Understand" a required section for guide or star articles.

By contrast, we set the "usable" bar low for a bottom-level destination, Some way in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep with contact info. (Countries and regions are another matter, as articles below them in the hierarchy can readily hold them back.) Requiring co-ordinates would be basically equivalent to requiring a dynamic map, as the co-ordinates are all the data we need to generate that map. K7L (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So you propose to make the climb from usable to guide even steeper? I agree that as long as a significant portion of those active on DotM and OtbP nominations insist that every guide can be featured, guide criteria have to be tighter, but an article being guide has not kept us from voting "not yet" on featuring. Anyway, maybe it is time to look at the status ratings with fresh eyes altogether, including re-raising the question of an additional category between usable and guide. And as for the proposal to geotag all listings in our guides and stars; that's not as easy to do as doing that for one listing each in eat and sleep for usable articles... Guide and star have dozens of listings at the very least. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's harder to fix coordinates for any given guide than for any given usable article, but we have 10 times as many usable city articles. Also, just the fact that it would be easier doesn't make it more logical. As long as we don't require coordinates for listings in general, we would end up requiring them for the first 2 listings, to make an article usable, but then all the other listings that would be added later would not require them. That seems pointless. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It is easy in some cases to add co-ordinates to a listing, but not in others. In many parts of the world we have good maps here, and major museums and hotels may be shown on the map, usually on the Mapnik layer. Other attractions can often be found from other online maps. But I have found that in some countries the map support is much poorer. I do think that a guide article should have a number of listings with lat/longs, unless it has a good static map. It is also something I look for in articles being featured on the main page. But I think that it is totally unreasonable to expect them on usable articles. I expect that adding lat/longs is a difficult thing for some new users to do. (In the UK I would never quote a lat/long to somebody wanting directions - I would give the postcode.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The real-world use of co-ordinates seems to be tied fairly closely to mapmaking or satellite navigation. I can't imagine directing the system to put a local hotel's POI marker at "13601" on the map as that's simply too vague. The idea is to uniquely identify a specific building (or a city park), not an entire postcode - which might be a whole village in some countries. K7L (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
In the UK postcodes typically are for about 10 buildings. So if I was meeting a friend in a cafe, I might give the postcode when phoning to arrange. If I was driving I would type the postcode into my GPS. For a rural location, I might give an OS grid reference. Lat/longs would be my third choice, and then I would use degrees, minutes and seconds not the decimal format we use here. My point was that new editors may be unfamiliar with lat/longs, not that we should use something else. In the US the 9 digit zip+4 code may give enough resolution, but doesn't seem to be widely used. AlasdairW (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
OS grid might be a wee bit country-specific? Postcodes internationally are hit and miss; they're typically one side of one Canadian city block, but elsewhere one postcode could well be one entire village. We would hold an article back from 'star' status for want of a locator map, we wouldn't hold a page back for want of a postcode as the idea is for the voyager to visit these places, not send postal mail. K7L (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I have not been clear. I think that a new editor should be able to create a usable article, without spending much time figuring out things specific to WV. If the last time that the editor used lat/longs was in a school geography class, then they are going to be a barrier. In the same way we should not insist on banner photos for usable articles. If people think that we are making too big a step from "usable" to "guide", then it would be better to introduce an intermediate "good usable" or "nearly guide" standard. AlasdairW (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I have rarely seen drive-by editors or absolute newbies create new articles from scratch. Yes, getting coordinates is something that can seem difficult at first (I basically had to teach it myself for those places not having a WP article), but that means we should have a page that explains it in more detail and it doesn't necessarily mean we should not consider it in our standards. Furthermore a more experienced user can probably get the geo coordinates of a listing if a street address is mentioned (except for some countries where street addresses are imprecise). Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of how useful coordinates are in general, and how hard it is to add them, it just makes no sense to have requirements for usable articles that we don't even have for guides. In the case of coordinates specifically it would also not be in line with what a usable article is in the first place. An adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources. For most articles, this means they could probably get to the destination, eat, and sleep with just this information. It would probably enable them to find at least the most prominent attraction there. For that standard, coordinates are simply not a requirement. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Require a static or dynamic map to consider promotion to "guide" or "star"[edit]

The current Wikivoyage:City guide status criteria were written in the dark WT days before destination articles had (lat, long) co-ordinates in listings or any dynamic map capability. There is currently no requirement at all that a guide article have a map or co-ordinates, although lack of a map will hold an article back from 'star' status.

The definition of a star city or district is currently:

Has a tourist-style map, in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source, showing how to get around the destination, with major attractions, restaurants, etc. that match the listings in the guide. Layout and listing formats either match the manual of style exactly or are the exception that proves the rule. Any district articles are at least "guide" status. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. At least one good-quality photo accompanies the article; preferably 2-3 showing famous or important attractions.

The bit about "modifiable vector source" is specific to Wikivoyage:How to draw static maps. At the moment, static maps do still make sense for upper-level region articles, but do we want this inherent bias toward static maps in bottom-level destination articles?

I'm tempted to propose the following two changes: 1) State that the use of maps or co-ordinates is "encouraged" in guide articles 2) Accept either a static or dynamic map for star, removing the implementation-specific bit about a "Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source"

This is specific to bottom-level articles. We're not quite at the point where a dynamic map makes sense for a country or upper-level region. K7L (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the static map bias is outdated, but IIRC this was a longstanding issue with a significant minority or even majority unwilling to change the requirement for static maps for star articles. But I haven't gotten into the why and ins and outs, so I may be wrong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the advantages of custom, drawn maps have been well discussed over the years. An article that lacks a map with carefully placed labels is simply unusable in printed form and therefore can never be considered exemplary of our best work. Powers (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I am of the same opinion. I feel that dynamic maps are not yet at a level where I would call them usable even in digital format. I feel that that one of the major downsides is that they don't show transport lines (especially train lines and station) clearly. Drat70 (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if this is Wikivoyage:City guide status, the underlying list of POI's is itself rather dynamic - as they're individual local businesses which come and go at an alarming rate. Which ones would you put on your static map? Everything that's on the dynamic map, or just a few "star attractions" (so Paris is the Louvre and the Tour Eiffel, but doesn't get map markers for every bistro). The static maps make sense for regions, but are not easy to keep updated for cities and districts. K7L (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see that dynamic maps are the way to go in the future, they are definitely much easier to maintain and also more versatile. All I'm saying is that at the current state a static map with some outdated markers or markers missing is still way more useful on the road as compared to the dynamic maps which are sometimes hard to read (IMO especially hard to differentiate train lines etc) and noisy. I feel that the way to go here is to find a way to improve the dynamic map, so that it can indeed replace the static one, maybe by creating an appropriate rendering layer. I think that a map is a very central element to any travel guide and I don't think articles with a suboptimal map should be upgraded to star articles. Just as an illustration, I went to Seoul last year and even though I had mobile data, every time I wanted to take the subway, I had to refer to a paper map or google maps, because it's just impossible to see where the stations are and to which lines they belong on the current dynamic map. (Also see this recent discussion on this here: Wikivoyage_talk:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Maps_and_Stars. Drat70 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should accept a "dynamic or static map" for "guide" instead of the current stance of guide being somewhere to which to 'hold back' otherwise good articles with no map? That would leave the "star" criteria unchanged but raise the bar slightly for "guide". K7L (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I could support this, but I'd like to know more about the effects. I wouldn't want someone to go around and downgrade most of the current guides over this. OTOH, if it's just a few (and if we have a sensible grace period), then perhaps it could work out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with this. I think a dynamic map would be fine for a guide article. (As it's still a major improvement over no map at all). There is currently 222 out of 483 city articles with guide status which don't have a mapframe (and some of those have a static map), so it should be possible to fix this if a grace period is given as mentioned by WhatamIdoing. Drat70 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Requiring a map (either dynamic or static) for guides sounds good. About stars, we first need to improve dynamic maps: Show rail/subway more clearly, show in print and when JavaScript is disabled. Syced (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Require an 'Understand' section to consider promotion to "guide" or "star"[edit]

The current requirement in Wikivoyage:City guide status for "guide" status is:

Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking (if applicable) and information on multiple attractions and things to do. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. For huge city articles, all district articles are at least "usable" status. There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in, clear information on getting around, and suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions.

There's currently no requirement for an "Understand" section (just "at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing where it is located)" to reach outline status). An article which is a fine yellow-page directory listing of many restaurants, hotels and tourist traps is a "guide" or maybe even a "star", even if it says nothing to educate the voyager about why historically, geographically or culturally this place is different enough from a thousand others to be worth a visit?

The bar for "usable" cities and districts is deliberately low, but I propose a "guide" should have an 'Understand' section with at least a paragraph to explain what makes this destination unique. K7L (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree, a workable "understand" section should certainly be a requirement for an article to be promoted to guide. Especially when a significant minority holds the view that all guide articles by virtue of being guide articles can be featured. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree; some locations simply don't have enough information to require a separate Understand section. A section containing only a single paragraph is too short; that single paragraph should just be moved to the lede. Powers (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If a place has nothing that could be put into its understand section, why have an article on it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say "nothing"; I was talking about a single paragraph of information as K7L had suggested. Some destinations are fairly mundane but have notable attractions; there may be no reason to expand the description of the place beyond what would fit in a long lede. Powers (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
But why would we put in the lede what could be put in the understand section? Besides, even if there is just a single attraction making the town worthwhile, the understand section could elaborate a bit on how that attraction came to be in such a godforsaken place and so on and so forth. Personally "understand" sections are easy to write if I know the place from first hand observation... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The lede is usually fairly short, "Apple Valley (Minnesota) is an outer suburb in the south end of Minnesota's Twin Cities." The bit about it being named for Apple Valley (California) and still being semi-rural when the 485-acre zoo was built in 1978" fits best as a paragraph in "Understand". For that matter, one could write an article for a ghost town and "Understand" would explain the history and why the town died. A place can be tiny and still have something notable historically or geographically to merit a paragraph, for instance every one of our destination articles in Labrador has this. Some speck on the Atlantic coast with one hotel (if it hasn't burned down) and fewer than a thousand people? Surely, it has a history - why on earth was a settlement established here? Subsistence fishery? Trading post? Seaport to reach some even more remote point? And then there's the geography. I can't imagine ever having a 'guide' article to Blumenort, for instance, without mentioning that speck on a map's place in Manitoba's Mennonite community. Then again, it'd be a stretch to ever have a 'guide' article to Blumenort as there's not much there - one restaurant, no hotel, an airsoft (paintball) field.
If something's so trivial that there's truly nothing to "understand" about it, is it an article? Is it usable? Is it even worth visiting? We might end up "understanding" that Relais-Gabriel is a tiny outfitter's camp which is only worth a mention as the last food, fuel or lodging on the road to Fermont. So be it. The voyager needs to know. K7L (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it that important whether the info is in a lede section or a dedicated "Understand" section, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
imho the lede should be short(er) and crisp(er) whereas "understand" is where we go more in depth. Ideally understand should always be longer than the lede. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. But there may be some places perfectly worth visiting that don't require more than a very short introduction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The current requirement is just "at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing where it is located)" for outline status. That bar is set no higher for "guide" or "star" articles. "X is in Y". OK. That's nice, but it should take a bit more for a guide to explain why a place is "perfectly worth visiting". Most of these places already have WP articles with a lot more background than "X is in Y". We don't need the whole thing, but a brief summary of the geography and history might be useful. K7L (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Some examples of current ledes for tiny places that are improvable and how you'd improve and enlarge them would be helpful, since you're quite familiar with outports and even taught me that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Since this is a question of whether "guide" and "star" articles should be expected to have an "Understand" section, shouldn't any example be something that's otherwise promotable to guide - and not merely "any tiny place"? Do you have a destination in mind which is worthwhile enough to be a possible "guide" candidate but which is currently "X is in Y" followed by a list of tourist traps, restaurants and hotels? K7L (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The current Wikivoyage:City guide status wording for "outline" is "Has at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing where it is located) and a template..." with the higher levels (usable, guide, star) only requiring more in the way of listings and maybe a map. Yes, it has hundreds of hotels, but why is this particular place worth a visit?

I propose to add this to the beginning of "guide":

A brief general overview allows the voyager to understand why this destination is of historic, geographic or cultural interest. The article...

followed by what's there now:

...Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking (if applicable) and information on multiple attractions and things to do. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. For huge city articles, all district articles are at least "usable" status. There are clear explanations of multiple ways to get in, clear information on getting around, and suggestions for where to go next, with one-liner descriptions.

Is this reasonable? K7L (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Browse to a specific destination" map broken?[edit]

The map in the "Browse to a specific destination" section at the bottom of Destinations does not show any markers. Dynamic maps in individual articles work though. I use Firefox 52.0 on Ubuntu. Is it a known bug, or just me? Syced (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I usually click on Explore Nearby Destinations Symbol to get markers and then zoom in. -- Matroc (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Destinations has "mapframe|25|6|zoom=1|layer=D|width=600|align=center". I think that a change a few months ago resulted in the layer parameter being ignored in mapframe. This also impacts some itineraries where the Hiking layer had been selected to show the route. It may have been done to ensure that articles always used the Wikimedia layer as the default base map. AlasdairW (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
As it doesn't look like anybody is fixing mapframe for this, I have added some instructions to Destinations. AlasdairW (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes[edit]

There are a lot of small changes happening in the next couple of weeks, and I wanted to give you all a quick heads-up about them. Please share this information with other people/languages/projects that will be interested:

  • There's a change to how columns in reference lists are handled, at the request of the German Wikipedia. This change will improve accessibility by automatically formatting long lists of <ref>s into columns, based on each reader's screen width.
    • What you need to do: Nothing visible is happening now. If your project uses the normal <references /> tag (or doesn't really use refs at all), then file a Phabricator task or just tell me, and I'll get your wiki on the list for the next config change. If your project uses a "reflist" template to create columns, then please consider deprecating it, or update the template to work with the new feature.
  • The label on the Save changes" button will change on most projects tomorrow (Wednesday) to say "Publish page". This has been discussed for years, is supported by user research, and is meant to be clearer for new contributors. (Most of us who have been editing for years don't even look at the button any more, and we all already know that all of our changes can be seen by anyone on the internet, so this doesn't really affect us.)
    • If you have questions or encounter problems (e.g., a bad translation, problems fixing the documentation, etc.), then please tell me as soon as possible.
    • When we split "Save page" into "Save page" and "Save changes" last August, a couple of communities wondered whether a local label would be possible. (For example, the Chinese Wikipedia has some extra language on their "Save page" button; I think it's about the importance of previewing.) Whether the Legal team can agree to a change may depend upon the language/country involved, so please ask me first.
  • As part of the ongoing, years-long user-interface standardization project, the color and shape of the "Save changes" (or now "Publish page"), "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons on some desktop wikitext editors will change. The buttons will be bigger and easier to find, and the "Save" button will be bright blue. (phab:T111088) Unfortunately, it is not technically possible to completely override this change and restore the appearance of the old buttons for either your account or an entire site.
  • Do you remember last April, when nobody could edit for about 30 minutes twice, because of some work that Technical Ops was doing on the servers? The same kind of planned maintenance is happening again. It's currently scheduled for Wednesday, April 19th and Wednesday, May 3rd.  The time of day is unknown, but it will probably afternoon in Europe and morning in North America. This will be announced repeatedly, but please mark your calendars now.

That's everything on my mind at the moment, but I may have forgotten something. If you have questions (about this or any other WMF work), then please {{ping}} me, and I'll see what I can find out for you. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The time for the server switch project has been confirmed. All of the wikis will be in read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on two days soon:
  • Wednesday, 19 April 2017, starting at 14:00 UTC
  • Wednesday, 3 May 2017 (two weeks later), starting at 14:00 UTC
If you are a MediaWiki hacker, then please note that the normal deployment schedule has been canceled during both of those weeks.
There is more information at m:Tech/Server switch 2017, including a link to the official schedule. Please leave a message on my user talk page or "ping" me if you have any questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


The RelatedSites extension is being removed in no small part due to DMOZ being closed today. That community is discussing how to continue the project with mirrors and forks springing up now but none of them are really ready to deploy nor are any of them as active as DMOZ was. We will probably need to delete Category:Articles without DMOZ links (via Wikidata). —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we really need DMOZ or anything like it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: There was discussion here a couple of years ago about it (initiated by me) with a weak resolve to keep it. Evidently, it's more popular on de.voy. I can pull up the Phabricator tickets if you really want but it's basically a done deal now. The Related Sites will just be Commons and Wikipedia which are sisters sites anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
So will there be any replacement now or at any foreseeable point in the future? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: is a static mirror, is a dynamic fork, and there are community discussions at a few message boards (, Curlz, and Resource-Zone if you want to follow up with them). I've basically told the community that I can ask WMF wikis to use the dmoztools mirror for a brief period until a dynamic fork is really going. But yes, DMOZ editors have every intention on having something going ASAP. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the wikidata dmoz function from the pagebanner template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Efforts are underway to get DMOZ up and running again. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"recommend listing" function[edit]

Would you think it a good idea to give signed in users (we might want to request autoconfirmed or something, but that's details) the ability to "recommend" any given listing and that to then show up (with some hover-over or whatnot) when people read the article? Of course sad recommendation can always be withdrawn by the initial recommender and we might also wish to timestamp it.

What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This is similar to a suggestion made in February that went nowhere. See Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Is there a way to demarcate "special" listings?. Ground Zero (talk)
It's not. I know of this discussion, but we would not do an "editorial" thing á la "Wikivoyage thinks this is the best pizza place in New York" but rather a "Wikivoyage User A, B and C think this is a pretty decent place to go". I think that makes a world of difference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that what Tripadvisor is for? I can't help thinking an article could get jumbled with recommendations pretty fast. Also, the very fact that we list places is itself a recommendation, since we don't list every single possible listing in a given location, and the 'avoid negative listings' guideline pretty much precludes us from listing something we wouldn't personally recommend. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Why would we want our readers to any other site? And why would something like "3 recommendations" behind the "last edited" clutter up the site? You can then make the three clickable where it says which users and when... Or something. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: at the Hebrew Wikivoyage we have discussed the issues related to letting anyone include random listings to the Wikivoyage articles quite a lot, and we have tried to find an ideal solution to overcome the inherent flaws. The main problem as we see it, is that any collection of listings might eventually be flawed and it is hard to determine if it is, unless one unaffiliated person we trust actually goes to all places and rates them all (what I hope is indeed what happens in the case of Lonely Planet recommendations). The worst case scenario with this flaw could even be that some businesses which give really bad services and charge too much would add listings of their "tourist traps" to our articles, presenting themselves in a positive light, for the purpose of increasing profits (and in the example given above, the tourist trap business owner could for example try to get in our favor so that he/she would be considered the Wikivoyage "local ambassador" of his/her region, in order for him/her to make sure his/her business remains the one that seems like the ideal choice to the Wikivoyage readers).

The only solution we have found so far is that each article with listings would also have little Thumbs Up icons in it, and each one of those icons would appear in the top TripAdvisor listing of each category (sleep, eat, drink, etc) so that at the very least our readers would be able to immediately identify which listing in each category is the top recommended one by a wide group of people/opinions (would adding indicators that shows only what the the top listings on TripAdvisor are be allowed in regards to copyrights?). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Although in principle I like the idea, in fact I use it on Trip Advisor and Google Maps, I do not think there is the volume of traffic on this site for it to work correctly. Better to concentrate first on improving the mobile user input to get contributions up. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think if we always assume there to be few contributors, we might just create a self-fulfilling prophecy on that one... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That worries me, too. Some sort of very simple contribution system could be a way to get someone started. "Thumbs up" or "I've been there!" might be viable options.
ויקיג'אנקי, I'd worry about one person rating everything. The restaurant closest to me at the moment is a great place if you like beef or pork, but AFAICT its four-page menu contains exactly one vegetarian entree and one fish entree. Sincere, unbiased people on different diets would probably come to very different conclusions about whether to rate that restaurant favorably. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, it seems you misunderstood me... my main point was that just like you, I too think that we can't eventually determine quality based on one person's preference (although, in the case of professional widely publicized travel book guides I really hope that they base their recommendation on the opinion/s of their employees actually going to all those businesses) AND therefore, in my opinion, the only option that seems to makes sense for Wikivoyage is to at the very least include "Thumbs Up" icons next to the top sleep/eat/etc locations according to a reliable external source that takes into account the opinions of many people. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A local page for this at Wikivoyage:Wikimedia Strategy 2017 has been created, if you'd prefer to participate here instead of on Metawiki. Looking forward to your input! :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year[edit]

The annual Commons Picture of the Year competition has started, and I think that it may be good to see if there are any pictures there that could be put in the articles here, they are all high quality pictures.  Seagull123  Φ  16:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory and unhelpful policies regarding airport articles and their status ratings[edit]

So I have a hunch this issue has been brought up before - potentially by me, maybe by others - but airport status rankings currently place a lot of emphasis on eat and sleep listings. As the requirements for an airport to be ranked usable show: "Has at least a Ground transportation section and one Eat and Sleep listing each with contact information. There is at least a basic list of terminals and some airline information." The requirements to be ranked "guide" meanwhile say the following: "Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking, and information on flights, airlines and terminals. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. There will be multiple ways to get in, some suggestions for moving out, and information on getting around." Now as per the letter of policy LAX would have to be reassessed as "outline" because it currently says ""he stretch of West Century Boulevard leading into the airport from I-405 is lined with hotels. Additionally, you can find many airport hotels south of the airport in El Segundo or east of I-405 in Inglewood." in the sleep section and there is not a listing to be found. Similar things apply for other airports.

However, we have an established consensus (don't ask me where) to only list hotels physically attached to the airport in order to discourage location touting. This however, will in some cases mean that there is no hotel that can legally be listed, which would raise both "can you sleep there" questions (though I have never heard of airports throwing out people with a ticket sleeping there) and condemn the airport article to perpetual outline status.

But that's not all. As can be seen, there also need to be eat listings. Now I understand that in the era of surcharges on everything many a hungry traveler will pass through airports hungry and they might be enticed to use a layover for some fine or not so fine dining. However as per WV:Boring, we have a policy not to list Fast Food places that are figuratively a tenth of a dollar for twelve pieces. So what now to do about an airport that only has chain restaurants of the Dull and Boring categories? Should they be listed - even several of them - in contravention for our policy on boring places just to have grounds for promotion to guide and thus eligibility to be FTT? (btw of the six guide airport articles, three have already been featured, one is currently nominated and of the other two one is in England and one in the US which might raise geographic issues down the line)

Now I can only speak for myself, but I would not consider the availability of hotels or the exact names and locations of the generic fast food franchises my primary concerns when reading up about an airport. Yet our status criteria make that the most important yardstick. Should that be changed, if so, how? Keep in mind that travel topics have criteria different from those for destination style articles and airports are arguably somewhere in the middle between those two. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody have any opinion on this? @Traveler100: any opinion? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Airport places to eat tend all to be chains. If you are lucky then it will be a local chain of 10 restaurants. The quickest way of telling the reader that the only place to eat in zone X is a run-of-the-mill burger chain is to just give its name. "It's often useful to briefly mention what major popular chains are in the area, and to note where they are, but avoid spending too much time on them" comes from WV:Boring. The only airports I can think of that have good independent cafes are the tiny ones with 3 flights per day that we won't have articles on.
I think that we should be a bit more flexible on sleep, and include any hotels that are within 2km of the airport (i.e. a reasonable walk) even if they are not on the airport campus. Sleep could also include suggestions of the best places to sleep rough - "There are comfortable full length benches without arms by gate 50". AlasdairW (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that policy as written and the helpful tool now displayed at the Airport Expedition suggest we should have eat listings. I tend to agree on your point regarding sleep (and look at Frankfurt airport for one approach to this) but see the potential of this being abused by location touters or leading to needless discussions, especially if an airport is close to communities that predate it or have other functions besides serving the airport. I'm not an expert on all the things New York (that would be, I guess User:Ikan Kekek) but my understanding is that JFK airport is - at one side at least - rather close to a NYC neighborhood of the name of Jamaica, which has a lot of hotels which may or may not have anything to do with the airport. Which of those should be listed if we loosen the "physically attached to the airport" requirements? Furthermore, I do not think an airport article that has ten listings each in eat and sleep but a badly formatted and outdated list of flights is better than one where sleep consist of "there are no hotels at the airports but places X, Y and Z have plenty of hotels so see those articles" and eat says "If boring chain food is what you crave, the world is your oyster at this airport with establishments of Burger Kong, Slurm and Soylent Green at your disposal." as long as the other sections contain information and it enables me to not get lost at the airport. Or am I seeing this wrong? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) AlasdairW, I think that's taking WV:Boring a bit out of context. We avoid detailing chain restaurants when there are other options, but in an airport there might not be. (I wonder if that's even the case, particularly in the large airports that most of our airport articles are about, but certainly most of the restaurants are still chains, so I'll stop nit-picking.) Airports are also places people go because they have to, not because the airport itself is the destination. And airport restaurants, even if they are chains, may need a bit more explanation than normal; the whole world knows McDonald's, but even people from just the other side of the country may not know Chick-fil-A or In-N-Out Burger. That by itself seems like enough reason to list a chain restaurant: it may be a good opportunity to eat someplace new to you. Airport restaurants can also be very hit-or-miss, so some reviews about which restaurants are consistently (or inconsistently) fast or slow, good or bad, etc., would be useful. (I'd prefer a guidebook that did list McDonald's in order to tell me "it's the only restaurant that isn't overpriced" or "horrendous wait times" or "open later than the other restaurants" or "it's the only restaurant in this terminal, we just saved you the trouble of looking".)
I agree with AlasdairW about Sleep. Giving details about sleeping inside the airport is definitely very useful advice (see And yes, including nearby hotels makes a lot of sense; I never liked that we excluded them, because that rule just doesn't make sense at some airports. However, every city and airport is different, so while we might offer a guideline (e.g. "a reasonable walk"), each airport/city should have its own definition of what constitutes a "nearby" hotel. At LAX you can walk from the airport right onto an urban street, but at ATL I'm not even sure if there's any legal way to walk to the airport, however there are free shuttles to dozens of nearby hotels. To Hobbitschuster's point, in some cities it probably does make sense to link to the adjacent districts for hotel listings, but I don't think that works in every case. Some airports are so isolated that there isn't a nearby district to point to. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In the case of JFK, there's absolutely no reason to list any hotel in Jamaica. Instead, readers should be suggested to look at Queens/Jamaica if they're not staying at a hotel in the airport (I forget whether there is one) and place a huge premium on being as close as possible to the airport. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I still have mixed feelings about airport articles. But I'm thinking about this discussion today from the POV of an inexperienced traveler (e.g., a university student taking his first solo flight), and here's what I think that kind of traveler would like:
  • Some information about how this airport functions. What do you need to do first? Are security lines long or confusing? Will you have to trek from one end to the other? Are there stores or services that are only available if you leave the secured areas? Is the signage worse than usual? How many flights of stairs are between your gate and the airplane, and will you get rained on in between the four (permanent) flights down to the tarmac and the one (portable) flight up the side of the airplane? What's the likelihood of weather-related delays, and why exactly did anyone think it was a good idea to build an airport this big in a place that gets this much snow?
  • Some information about sleep. This doesn't necessarily mean "listings". It could be "There's a hotel here, but you could also check our article on the Boondocks neighborhood for a hotel with a shuttle" and "If you need a nap, then your best bet is the benches in Gate 22".
  • Some information about food. Again, this doesn't necessarily need to be listings. "There's lots of chain restaurants if you're hungry; expect it to cost 25% more than usual. The lines can be long and slow, especially if you want a pizza, so if you're in a hurry, skip that and grab some fruit and yogurt from one of the kiosks. The price for bottled water is the same at all of the stores."
  • Some information about how to cope. Basic things, like where to go for lost or damaged luggage, missed connections, or other things. Bonus points for identifying wheelchair-accessible toilets (if they're not everywhere), rooms for nursing mothers, play areas for children, or other special features.
  • Some information about how to arrive and depart. This could mean suggesting an easily identified place to get dropped off or picked up, hours and prices for the city bus service, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Excellent points, and many of these are useful for experienced travelers who don't know a particular airport well, too. I guess this thread will eventually be moved to Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition, where it will serve as a good reference for people who are starting or editing airport articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
To add to that, there are several ranges of travelers to consider: inexperienced vs experienced, pleasure (may prefer cheap food) vs business (may prefer expensive food since it's paid for by their company), domestic vs foreign (may not be familiar with the country's chain restaurants or even their cuisine).
The Eat and Sleep sections may not need to have listings, but I think in most cases it would improve the quality of articles substantially, and make them more useful for a wide variety of travelers. Someone with a short connection might want to know the fastest restaurant (or the fastest one that's close to their gates), while someone with a long connection may want a slow but nicer restaurant to kill time. Listings can provide that kind of information. Someone who's making an overnight connection just wants any hotel to sleep in; if there's a nearby district to point to, that's fine, but if there are 4 hotels directly adjacent to the airport, wouldn't it be nice to just list them? We can even do both: list a few hotels, and also point to nearby districts. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
One thing that makes airports somewhat unique among our articles is that the airports themselves often maintain web sites with more complete and up-to-date information on traveler amenities than we could ever hope to have. With that in mind, perhaps we should focus our articles on the sort of thing that isn't covered on airport web sites: which restaurants to avoid, tips and tricks, places to 'park your carcasses' within the terminal, etc. Powers (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Small Towns & Boring Places[edit]

(New member) but I was wondering about small towns & villages and boring places (like a supermarket). Looked at from a e.g. backpackers they would be dull and useless entries. But looked at from e.g. somebody on a (bi)cycle or walking tour and they are just what you need; does that village have any bars for lunch (and where) or when I arrive at a town, is there a supermarket I can quickly stock-up at. An e.g. bicycle tourist or walker at the end of a long day does not want to be hunting round a town for a supermarket.

Not suggesting the destination pages should become a listing of shops, bars, etc., but maybe at least a couple of convenient bars and a significant supermarket - which ones not important, just one (or maybe one each side of a larger town) and knowing where it is can be a massive help.

I've added a coupe of places that I thought would be useful but probably meet the "boring places" definition's I've read but would be useful to some types of traveller. So am I interpreting the guidelines correctly as most destinations (I've seen) are major cities or tourism centres and there are other types of traveller? Or do the guidelines include for they e.g. significant supermarket, bars, etc. (not as a listings site but for somebody that wants anywhere without hunting around). —The preceding comment was added by PsamatheM (talkcontribs)

On the face of it, it sounds like you are doing exactly the right thing. In a small town, where the supermarket is and what products they carry can be important; in a big city, there are likely to be dozens of supermarkets and convenience stores, so it's unnecessary to list them. (Also, please sign your posts on talk pages - type 4 tildes [~] in a row at the end of each post.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome, PsamatheM! We're glad to have you. I really appreciate you updating those listings.
I like the idea of a supermarket (or similar place). IMO the best choice would be either a convenient store (e.g., near a bike trail or just off the highway) or something characteristic of the area (e.g., a locally owned grocery store or an open-air market).
I could also see some value in a brief mention of such places as part of another listing:
  • Local Restaurant, 100 Main Street, +1 555 555-1234. Open for breakfast and lunch. Be sure to ask for the cinnamon bread at breakfast. There's a laundromat next door, and you can leave your clothes in the washing machine while you eat.
  • Farmer's Market, corner of Main and Maple Streets. Open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday mornings. Bakery, drug store, and bank with 24-hour ATM access across the street.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say as a rule of thumb the smaller the amount of choice becomes the more places we wouldn't otherwise list should we list. For example a town the size of San Carlos (Nicaragua) did not have a supermarket until quite recently, so it becomes rather important to mention whether it now has one and where the next one would be in such a case. And we have had a lot of talk about Outports with only one hotel that we would otherwise not list, but it being the only option what are we going to do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
An article on Cooking while traveling might be a fun travel topic, too. We have Outdoor cooking but nothing for cooking in a hotel room. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Is there so much to say that isn't WV:Obvious about cooking while traveling that is unrelated or not analoguous to either outdoor cooking or cooking at home? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hobbischuster, you seem to discount the possibilities of cooking over a lightbulb or on a hotel iron -- things you wouldn't normally do at home. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Who does that? Oh and I am sure there are celebrity chefs who know 100 stunning recipes with electric kettles ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if a steak can be cooked on an iron, I have doubts about the safety etc. I have used a kettle to made noodles in a hotel room, but I wouldn't go any further. A more likely form of Cooking while traveling is in a Hostel, and I have just added an eat section to that article - please expand this. AlasdairW (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
When I posted that idea, I was mostly thinking about regional issues with ingredients. I have a recipe allegedly from Yehudi Menhuin for a one-pot pasta dish that he could make almost anywhere in the world (pasta, broccoli, tomatoes, and Parmesan cheese, if memory serves). Cheese and flour vary significantly by country, then there are the odd things: it's easier to find fruit than vegetables in Colombia, don't even bother looking for pre-made salad dressing in Italy, some Germans find themselves on a holy quest to locate the one American grocery store that carries soured butter, and German grocery stores don't sell unsweetened chocolate, molasses (aka dark treacle), or four of the nine ingredients for American-style chocolate chip cookies, but you can get really large jars of Nutella at a great (by US standards) price.
There are some planning considerations: if you are cooking for yourself for a week, then you can plan a menu to work together: eggs at breakfast and also in pasta carbonara; ham on a sandwich and also in an omelette, etc. Surely I am not the only person who has packed a spoonful of a favorite spice rather than buying a whole jar at my destination (and a wooden spoon, which "fully equipped kitchens" never seem to have).
I've nothing against a suggestion about how to make a simple quesadilla with a hotel iron or to boil water in a coffee pot, but there are many people traveling in RVs, renting homes, or staying in hotel suites that include a kitchenette and who will therefore have refrigerators, stoves, ovens, and/or microwaves available to them.
Also, I added a paragraph about engine block cooking to Outdoor cooking yesterday, but it's not really an "outdoor" form of cooking. It would be better off in a more generic article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

National Geographic[edit]

Free Website for Printing Detailed Topographical Maps, for the US only. We almost certainly cannot use their material here for copyright reasons, but it seems like a resource we should link to. Pashley (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good resource. Some maps have a rather nostalgic feel, reminding me what this or that place looked like 10-15 years ago... -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
NGS is claiming copyright on their modified maps but the original USGS maps should be public domain. (They're also way out of date in my local case; about 40 years so.) Powers (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet another piece of questionable security theater[edit]

So according to several media outlets the US and the still United Kingdom plan to introduce a ban on laptops or any sort of electronic devices bigger than x for all flights originating out of certain countries/airports; apparently most of them in the general Middle East / Turkey / North Africa region. Now we may debate whether this is for security reasons, "security reasons" or a pretty blatant to force an economic and competitive disadvantage on the Gulf Carriers, but which articles should we mention this in and how? Middle East? USA? Air travel in the US? Avoiding travel through the US? business travel? United Kingdom? Where else? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If it is a long lasting ban, rather than a brief panic, then I think that it should go in the "Get in" sections of the relevant countries. I notice that the UK and US have different lists of countries that you can't carry laptops from. Are the airlines going to stop insisting that you don't check inyour laptop in case the battery catches fire (on a recent flight I was told at check-in that even my torch has to be carried on)? AlasdairW (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way this sounded it is intended to be a permanent thing. And yes the point you are making has been made by others. I find it weird that suddenly a laptop battery has become "safe" in the cargo hold when it hasn't been for years... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-standard use of "Cope" in West Bank and Israel[edit]

Have a look at the mentioned articles. There "talk", "respect" and "connect" are treated as three dep subsections of "cope" instead of two deep section headings of their own. This goes against the current standard layout. I previously changed this for Israel but was reverted, so I'm bringing this up here. Do we change the articles in question or our standard layout for country articles? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Change the articles, of course. Why would we change the standard layout, which would then necessitate changing the other 180-some country articles? These two articles are the ones that are wrong. Obviously whoever reverted it isn't familiar with WV policy, so point them to it. Also, I see in your edit that you just changed the levels of the headers, but didn't rearrange them to be in the standard place in the article; doing the more thorough fix might draw more attention to the fact that those sections were wrongly placed to begin with. --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ceever: this is what I alluded to at Talk:Israel. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Weather radio[edit]

An edit to Syracuse (New York) reverted the inclusion of one station in the 162.4-162.55MHz band which broadcasts continuous weather. See User talk:AndreCarrotflower#NOAA Weather Radio deletionism. Syracuse isn't infamous as tornado country, but it is snow belt. If NOAA is broadcasting information on when to build an ark, isn't that something the voyager would want to know? K7L (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The 162.4-162.55MHz band can't be picked up by most standard AM/FM radios - specialty equipment is required. Most of our readers don't own that equipment, and Syracuse (New York)#Radio isn't the proper place to inform them of where to procure it. Given the multiplicity of other ways of finding out the weather forecast (even in emergencies), it's questionable whether such a little-known information source, that such a tiny fraction of our readers would even be able to access, warrants inclusion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added a mention of weather radio and VHF marine radio to the severe weather article, but no, these aren't specialised equipment. A quick web search finds them being listed by everyone from Best Buy and Amazon to Walmart or Walgreen's (and I'm sure in 1985 you can buy plutonium in any corner drug store, but...). K7L (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
By virtue of having to seek out equipment that will allow you to specifically pick up VHF bands is basically.. well... the definition of specialized.
If only there was some other real time communication mechanism that most most travelers could pick up important notifications on any mobile device. Yep, definitely invest in VHF equipment to lug around on your next visit to New York. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
That depends on your audience; voyagers cruising on small craft may well be carrying a boatload of this stuff already and they are travellers. K7L (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Places straddling (open) borders[edit]

So we have had an issue with places that are to be found on both sides of an open border. Should two separate articles be created for towns the size of Rheinfelden even if the border has little to no effect on travelers or should the smaller be redirected to the larger part? What about breadcrumbs? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The same question is already open at Talk:Laufenburg (Germany). If the place is really tiny, one Glenrio-sized article could cover both sides. K7L (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
If the border has no discernible effect on the travel experience, there's no reason to have two articles when one would suffice (unless both sides of the border has a metropolis that just happens to share a name, though I don't know of any examples). The breadcrumb trail could be via the country with more of the town's territory; e.g. the Netherlands seem to have slightly more of the frankly ridiculous Baarle than Belgium. But there's no reason why the region articles on both side of the border can't link to the towns in question. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Kansas City (Kansas) and Kansas City, Missouri have the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
So they do. I quite like the Mexicali / Calexico approach, even though it's such a New World approach. Maybe Kansas City, KS should be called Missouri City. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the breadcrumbs issue needs to be addressed properly. It has been handled very inconsistently and there seems to be no clear consensus on what to do about it. See for instance this discussion I tried to start a while ago: Geographical_hierarchy#Breadcrumbs_.28isPartOf.29_for_destinations_covering_two_regions Drat70 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What sort of breadcrumbs go well with Thousand Islands dressing? I've been using croutons. :) K7L (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Units of measurement policy[edit]

Does Wikivoyage have a policy for how to use measurement units? It becomes an issue in articles about flying, as metric units are de facto standard in all countries except the USA, though international aviation uses American units for many purposes. We should also consider where knots, km/h and m/s should be used for speed. /Yvwv (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Found it: Wikivoyage:Measurements. /Yvwv (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If you write a section that is specifically directed towards pilots, using nautical (!) miles, knots etc. makes a lot of sense. But I guess that would be a pretty rare thing to do here, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have created a few templates to help with formatting of distance and height. See Wikivoyage:Measurements#Examples how to show length. If people think this is useful we can create for other units of measure. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Should get rid of those odd syntax characters --Traveler100 (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Page views[edit]

Just out of interest, does anyone know why there was a huge, sudden spike in page views for E11 hiking trail on 18 March? (see here)? 162 on that day, compared to about 8-10 on most other days. No real reason in asking, just curiosity. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have long since ceased taking those pageview numbers for gospel truth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the news, and there's no matching spike at the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's currently on the main page under 'Discover', but that wouldn't have affected as far back as the 18th March. It could just be as simple as a couple of people sharing the article on social media, and loads of their friends being interested. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Habemus Road Toll[edit]

So today the news report that after long delays and false starts, the law establishing a road toll for cars has just passed the Bundesrat after it was approved by the Bundestag. Unless something weird happens and the President withholds his signature or the constitutional court stops the law on constitutional grounds it will soon enter into effect. If I read the news correctly, the toll will only become operational in 2019 and it is to be modeled after the Austrian and Swiss system of - basically - a "flat rate", where you pay once for a vignette valid for x amount of time and can use all public highways during that period of time. Rates have obviously not been set yet (and there is an election coming up in September), but it's supposed to be a few Euros at most, depending on the type of car. Now I won't comment on the toll or its implementation, but quite a few of our articles, besides Driving in Germany mention there being no toll, so we'll need to update them sooner or later. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Boxes not rendered well by pdf export?[edit]

Apparently cautionboxes, infoboxes and the likes are not rendered well when users create "books" by converting articles into pdfs. I'd be loath to see them go. How do we fix this? Edited to add: User:Ceever has been converting such boxes as are not rendered correctly in pdf form into flowing text. I have asked he not do that until we address the issue here. He's of course very invited to weigh in here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What's the status of the changes to the pdf-rendering tool? Did it change recently, or is it going to change soon? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the issue is that it doesn't render boxes correctly now I know neither whether that problem has always existed nor what causes it. I also only know it through description by User:Ceever, among them edit summaries. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Johan, do you know anything about this issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The new renderer might not solve the problem either, or are we certain about that? Couldn't we have a look into the definition of the boxes? It seems like all kind of have the problem, so maybe a simple fix will do. I have created boxes made of html myself without the templates and their content is not lost during the rendering. Ceever (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

cut-and-paste move[edit]

It looks like someone did a cut-and-paste move of User:Hobbitschuster/East Berlin to East Berlin? This breaks the page history, as part of the recent history is in main space while the greatest efforts of the proletariat to build a new worker's republic are only recorded in userspace. It is possible to fix this but requires administrator intervention. K7L (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Done. As Maxwell Smart used to say: "Sorry about that, Chief." -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

National Park covering two different countries[edit]

Iguaçu_Falls is a national park on both sides of the Brazil-Argentinian border, and the article covers both in high detail. Since the detail given to Brazil is not applicable to Argentina and vice-versa, should it not better be a disambiguation page and content merged to Iguaçu_National_Park on the Brazilian side and a new article on the Argentina side? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we potentially want individual answers for individual parks here. Sometimes the park is really different from country to country or even sub-national entities really matter, but sometimes there is an open border within the park and the administrative line in the whatever does no really correspond to what the visitor experiences... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not a disambiguation as that infers multiple unrelated entities with the same name. The {{extraregion}} model might apply (as was used for Niagara Falls) but it's a judgement call... how much information is there and how much is duplicated across both sides? If there isn't enough here for two articles worth of text, it may be best to leave it together. I think Waterton Glacier International Peace Park is taking this too far – everything is split out and duplicated, including the climate and the wildlife? K7L (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably Niagara_Falls works best. The border is not as open as (say) Germany-Poland, but not incredibly tight either. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing our policy on directions[edit]

Have a look at Villingen-Schwenningen - the hotel listings were copied out of de-WV where the name of the town and the ZIP code is commonly included. As you can see there, some articles are by nature and necessity consolidated over quite some large areas (as is the town V-S itself) and thus the postcode which is finer grained can give a good first idea where exactly a place is, even in the absence of geo-coordinates. Plus, when has allowing more information last harmed us?

It's just a thought, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a European "ZIP code" as ZIP, ZIP+4 and "Zone Improvement Program" are/were US Postal Service trademarks.
We seem to treat postcodes as useful in London (where SW19 is Wimbledon, for instance) but a US-sized ZIP code can be an entire pop-25000 city.
There are plenty of municipalities where governments have arbitrarily, haphazardly consolidated multiple distinct communities for administrative purposes. Kenora (Keewatin, Norman, Rat Portage), Miramichi (Chatham, Newcastle) are a few; many others come to mind. For these, we would prefer to know which of the individual communities contains each listing. Telling someone "Gatineau" for something that's actually in Aylmer is imprecise and confusing, even if a 2002 forced municipal amalgamation lumped them together arbitrarily.
We're a travel guide. We can't presume the reader knows the area or is familiar with the local postal code system. 75 is Paris, 90210 is Beverly Hills but does anyone know where in Hull to look for J8X unless they're from Ottawa? K7L (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we want to consider exceptions to the general rule on a country-by-country basis. "More information" is clutter if it's not useful. Readers don't want to wade through clutter to get to the info they are looking for. US ZIP codes and Canadian postal codes do not provide useful directions. UK postcodes, on the other hand, do seem to, at least in London. Do people in Germany refer to parts of a municipality by the postcode? If so, maybe we want to make an explicit exception to the general rule. For my part, I'd purge fax numbers from our listings. It's 2017. Even if a traveller were to want to make bookings by fax, I would bet that a lot of them have been disconnected, and I wouldn't volunteer to test all of our fax numbers to see what bounces back. Ground Zero (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I find postcodes, PLZ or what ever each country calls the code useful when entering in addresses in a SatNav and sometimes into Google Maps. It saves a lot a typing, removes mistakes with language spellings I am not familiar with and makes sure you drive to the correct Newport in the UK or the right Neustadt or Rüdesheim in Germany. (A mistake I know some people have made, trusting too much to computers without double checking the map). --Traveler100 (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well at the very least in Berlin-Kreuzberg people to this day still use four digit post codes to refer to the two parts of the old district (it's now merged with Friedrichshain, east of the former wall) that haven't been official in over two decades. And yes, I have seen stuff like "pick up xyz in 12345" in Facebook "for sale" groups or the likes. And for cities like Wuppertal or Villingen-Schwenningen the names of former communities that were merged are still often used and are sometimes the basis for post code boundaries, so locals and (some) visitors will be familiar with them and after all, it's useful to be able to ask locals where something is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, in Brazil the zip codes, which we call CEP (Postal Addressing Code) have not-so-recently been upgraded to eight digits; speaking about Brasília where I live, the accuracy is consistently about one apartment block inside a supersquare - thus VERY accurate. They have, after this upgrade, become very popular and useful, on Google Maps and navigation systems, and I can testify on their usefulness when road-tripping on my region with Google Maps navigation; postal codes maybe deserve to be recorded and featured on every Brazilian listing whatsoever. Perhaps the case is to become so in France - last week on copyediting on Lhomme I got complains when deleting the postal codes, for this very reason. Having said all that, I believe that, at this moment of the development of the whole shabang, geocoords are the most useful and important parameters on a listing for localization purposes. Ibaman (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
To give a bit of an idea about the size of PLZ (the German shorthand for postal code) areas, here is a map of Dresden, a city of some 500 000, and here is one of Frankfurt am Main. Another idea we might wish to explore (but this might be less useful and more controversial) is to give a "district/town" field with the information ("when different from article name") for cases when our article covers more than one settlement and/or pre-annexation names are still used and/or when people commonly say stuff like "Kreuzberg" instead of "Berlin" when asked where something is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
A lot would depend not only on the size of the postcode area but on street naming practice. For example, pl de la Republique in France or "The Street" or "Brick Kiln Lane" in Norfolk, UK and whatever postcode areas you can quickly get ambiguity and need postcodes to create a usable address. A practice of specifying a town/district "where it is different from the article name" would quickly create further ambiguity as exactly what district somewhere might be in could be subject to opinion or common use often wrong. e.g. a given listing may be considered by many to be in Chateau du Loir, Vouvray sur Loir or Montval sur Loir and all are "correct" and often people will just use "Chateau du Loir" as it is the common use (though maybe not 100% correct).
Then add a complexity where two town lie adjacent and are covered by a single destination page (as they are effectively one town) but later split into two pages (or two pages merged into one when both look a bit empty).
And these days people often want to cut and paste and address from e.g. WV in their web browser into their mapping/directions app. Removing address elements means they cannot do this and/or have to start cutting and pasting the listing address, then cutting and pasting the destination page title into the correct bit of the address or try and manually edit and type the address without spelling errors ... a complete mess. To same a few characters you are losing a lot of usefulness of the whole project. Maybe in the past where all people would do is read the address it was an OK practice but these days with sophisticated mapping and routing on even low end smartphones listing information will be used beyond the WV database. Lat and long is NOT enough (and does not export easily anyway). PsamatheM (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Idea: Make postal code an opt-in feature[edit]

Now the following comes with the explicit disclaimer that I do not know the technological details behind my proposal.

That said, what about the following: We add "postal code" as a field for listings, which can be filled out and is only displayed if the user explicitly opts in in the "gadget" tab (similar to how we currently do for NOCC and "dead link"). That way people who consider postal codes, ZIP codes and whatnot clutter won't have to see them (and in fact IP users and "greenhorns" who don't know about the "gadgets" tab aren't bothered at all by them) but users who think of them as a useful tool can have them.

What do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's overkill. I'm in the US, home of a ZIP code that is significantly larger than Israel, and a couple whose population exceeds that of several other countries. So I get the "uselessness" argument, but I don't think that we should over-engineer this. It should always be okay to include postal codes (sometimes it helps a lot, even in the US, especially if city streets are confusingly named), and it should be encouraged when the postal code is a common way for locals to identify the correct location. I suspect that the number of people who are actively annoyed by postal codes these days is very small. (Also, I've had to complete reservations by mailing a paper check to my destination, so a true, complete mailing address may actually be necessary in a few cases.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should retain postal codes and encourage their use--this will be extremely valuable in machine reading for making a Wikivoyage app. (E.g. it can run queries like "cheap restaurants in within [x] km of [location]" or help plan an itinerary--food at this ZIP code, rest stop in between this one and this one, cheap hotel in this one, etc.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Well the argument that postal codes add clutter was specifically mentioned, so having them not visible by default would reduce the clutter (it would however, arguably, still induce a level of clutter when editing) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
If we decide to make postal codes the default everywhere, are we also going to stop editing out repetitive, superfluous default info like City, State/Province? It would save a lot of editors' time, but it arguably looks silly to include that. On the other hand, those things are often included in addresses in articles about places in the UK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel postcodes can be critical even in areas where postcode areas are large. e.g. in France, in some cities give an address without a postcode and it can be ambiguous (due to common street names). Also, e.g. use of SatNavs and similar routing or mapping apps (on GPS or SmartPhone) the postcode can become critical. To do anything to avoid collecting the postcode would severely limit the usefulness of the wiki. In fact I consider the common practice of abbreviating addresses can cause ambiguity and is not "good practice". I've written (a probably too long) thoughts as to why addresses should never be abbreviated User_talk:PsamatheM#Listings_and_postal_codes. The practice is made worse because the original author might enter all necessary details yet others without local knowledge come along and edit-out crucial elements to the information! Best time to collect complete information is when it is 1st entered by the author with the local knowledge - losing it them might mean it never gets completed as needed. Far better to have a full address with maybe an extra few characters than a worthless unusable address that is a few characters shorter.PsamatheM (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Policy against using images with watermarks, etc.[edit]

Hi, everyone. I know that Wikivoyage has a policy against using as thumbnails photos with watermarks or other writing added to the image. Where is the policy mentioned? I'd like to give a link to Renek78 in reference to the Hpa-an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

At a stretch it could be argued that a watermark constitutes a montage which is against Wikivoyage:Image_policy. There seems to be an overall lack of guidance around image quality in our policies however. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Image quality? Yeah. Not sure we need to add guidance, because "don't add terrible photos" is common sense and deleting such photos when they're added can be explained simply as a matter of logic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think photos with watermarks often can be deleted by the same logic: it is a disturbing element in the photo. The reason to accept them would be that watermarks are common, but they are not here at Wikivoyage. --LPfi (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another important thing to consider... many watermarks can be removed with Photoshop. I could help with that if there is a specific photo on WikiCommons that needs such a fix (and that you think would be a great addition to Wikivoyage if the watermark is removed). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at my uploads on commons. A bunch of them still have a timestamp, I fear. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am against allowing images with watermarks, especially if they have been removed via photoshop. A watermark was placed on the image for a reason, usually to denote ownership. If the creator of the image wants others to know that it is theirs, why would we remove their mark of ownership? Additionally, watermarks are usually used to prevent people from "stealing" the image, so I would assume they don't want it used elsewhere. I think the argument against watermarked pictures shouldn't come from photo quality guidelines, but rather guidelines about fair use / open source / commons guidelines. Obviously, this is about watermarks of ownership/branding/etc, not things like timestamps. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Buy" section of Germany[edit]

I have previously raised this at Talk:Germany but to no avail. I have now begun to edit a bit, but I think a lot of work still remains. If you have any questions about the facts such as they are, I am probably a good source for most of them. Please also keep in mind that run-on sentences are sort of "my thing" (I am trying to reduce it, really) so on that in particular I'd ask for your help. Other than that, some images would be nice, wouldn't they? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Für deutsche Muttersprachler mag es verständlich sein, zu viele Kommas in einem Satz zu verwenden, wenn sie auf Englisch schreiben. No big deal. Luckily, copyediting is my thing, so I'll likely pitch in to help. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Danke sehr. I have cut some things from the section which to me seem of scant relevance, like prices of cigarettes or what to do with old DM (the Euro was introduced in 2002 - 15 years ago - and by now DM have more collector's value than face value). Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The districts of Buenos Aires[edit]

Simply put, those articles that exist are not in a good state overall, some districts simply redlink and the map has a lot of gray. I think a tabula rasa approach makes the most sense, but I fear there is nobody here with enough local knowledge to draw new districts from scratch... Does anybody have another idea? Maybe geotag the listings and go from there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There are information on Wikipedia for each district, if we choose to wait with redistricting then I could take upon me to add basic information and geotagging to redlinked districts over the next week . --Jonte-- (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
There certainly is no rush and geotagging can do no harm. Remember that our districts have to cover everything and have no overlap. We are not bound by any administrative borders however, and may draw districts that make sense from a travel standpoint. Personally I know too little about Buenos Aires to draw districts myself, but I much appreciate you helping out with coordinates and the likes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Excited customers - treat the same way as touts?[edit]

Okay, doing recent changes patrol and looking at this edit, which seems to be of an excited customer (notice the third person pronouns and lack of some other features of "classical" touting), I am wondering how to treat those. On the one hand we want positive, lively prose, on the other hand every restaurant being praised as the best and stuff does not help our case either. And lastly there is a very serious risk of biting newbies (I for one think we might have chased away the person who created Villingen-Schwenningen simply by flooding it with edits shortly after its creation) if we edit around in their recently added listings or worse yet, revert on sight. What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No. There are fundamental differences, and indeed only superficial similarities, between touts and excited customers. The entire crux of the reason why we don't like touts on this site is because their vested interests in making their businesses appear to be great and wonderful prevent us from considering their point of view to be objective. Excited customers, on the other hand, are some of the most desirable people we want contributing to Wikivoyage - not only because we can presume them to be objective, but also because the logical flipside of our desire to avoid negative reviews is to encourage (objective) positive reviews; the more positive the better. Of course superlatives like "perfect" and "best" are to be avoided, as well as empty flowery language, but that's already covered in Wikivoyage:Words to avoid. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That looks like a perfect Wikivoyage eat listing, from someone who's been to Big D's and clearly loved it. I don't even think "best" is a problem when used in a clearly idiomatic phrase such as the "best around", "best in town". It certainly makes me want to pay Big D a visit. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
In light of that what should we say about this edit by User:Ibaman? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted Ibaman's edit in question, but would like for more discussion about this. @Ikan Kekek: @Wrh2: what do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a more moderate edit would be OK, but in my opinion, the edit you reverted went further than necessary, particularly the listing that ended up with nothing but "BBQ, ribs and chicken." Calling breakfasts "large and satisfying" is perfectly fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Speaking for my actions, edits such as "directions=follow your nose", in my opinion, cross the line between lively and flowery promotional writing. Looking at it at the first time, I had the solid gut feeling that mr. Big D himself wrote it, and acted accordingly. However, I see and respect the point, and will abide Ikan's opinion that my edit should be more moderate. Ibaman (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree on "follow your nose". That's no kind of direction. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
If Mr. Big himself wrote that, he is more competent than about 90% of our touts. Just saying. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Featuring Kassel for w:documenta, striking Wernigerrode from the list for now?[edit]

I am not sure whether I raised this issue in Dotm already, but it is getting closer and closer. I think my objections to Wernigerrode are rather known (it is by far not the best guide article about a German city to not yet have been featured) and the documenta is not a common occurence (and really; if we are going to feature Kassel, it'd better be during documenta). I want some input from the community as the decision will have to be made rather quickly, because we will likely not feature two German cities in one year, especially with potential FTTs down the line in Rail travel in Germany and Intercity buses in Germany. Keep in mind that the documenta will be from June to September of this year and will most likely only happen again five years later - and I don't think we should be reserving featured spots five years in advance, which I think would be the consequence of ignoring Kassel this time around. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of the Kassel page. There are a lot of broken links on the page, looks like the Kassel Museum English pages have gone. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Kassel article needs some work. It has more content than the Wernigerrode article and more pictures. I also like the idea of promoting a city if it has such a unique and "rare" event going on. I definitely think there is a strong case for featuring Kassel over Wernigerrode, so it should be added as a candidate on the DotM page with all these points brought up. There's definitely a fair amount of work to be done on Kassel though. Lots of "empty" listings (have no description) and those funny green icons that I'm not sure the purpose of. It would be a mad dash to finish it up nice before featuring, but I think it might be feasible. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The funny green icons are German tram/bus stop signs ("H" for "Haltestelle"). They are supposed to indicate the closest tram or bus stop for the respective sight or other listing. --RJFF (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a pretty useful thing to have. It's a bit unintuitive for English speakers (who haven't been informed about the meaning) so I wonder if there would be a way of making it more so. My initial thought, as someone who hasn't been to Germany, was that it was a copy + paste mistake from the de.wikivoyage article since I haven't seen it (or at least haven't noticed it) on the German destinations I've seen here. Maybe it's not a big deal and only uncultured American swine such as myself have difficulty with it. All things to discuss on the DotM nomination page, if Hobbitschuster decides to go ahead with suggesting it there. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that Kassel isn't even at Guide level yet and slushing Wernigerode at this time would be extremely premature, the mere fact that we sometimes like to time DotMs to coincide with timely events doesn't mean we need to stop the presses every time we hear about some random event that happens to be planned for some place for which we have a Guide-level article. Pretty much every city worthy of tourist interest has a full calendar of such events every year, probably including Wernigerode. In a larger sense, I can't for the life of me figure out what huge problem you have with Wernigerode that you are so hellbent on finding a reason why it shouldn't be featured, but please either come up with policy-based arguments why it should be scuttled or else drop the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. So first of all the "H" symbol is pretty close to the sign you'd see on the street for a tram/bus stop. I am not married to it, but it's certainly not a bad idea, even though it is not as people over on de-WV are maybe more justified in thinking immediately obvious to most readers. I think the case for not featuring Wernigerode is mostly because it is not really a great article. There is no reason why we should feature that place now instead of a year or two or three from now, whereas Kassel has an event every five years that makes it relevant whereas the rest of the year people are just wondering why the ICE had to make a stop at that godforsaken village (scnr). And with Kassel we have a huge benefit that we do not have for Wernigerode. We have a local who has expressed interest in keeping / making the article up to date and answering our questions. I think we should chose local knowledge over "hey we just chose any guide article at random" every time and twice on Sundays. Does any of our editors have local knowledge on Wernigerode? And remember, according to the expedition, there are 32 guide articles for Germany. I am not opposed to featuring Wernigerode in principle, but it would take up a "Germany slot" that we can fill with a much more timely candidate and I think ceteris paribus we should go with the more timely candidate. Wernigerode contains a lot of stuff written five years ago or earlier. Some users here say that shouldn't be a criterion to withhold featuring now, so surely this won't be a criterion if featuring comes up a year or two from now. And while I am not quite sure of the importance of documenta, apparently the last edition drew almost a million visitors and it is commonly mentioned on the fifteen minute national 8pm news, which as cultural events go is a pretty huge deal. I have never once heard of Wernigerode in the news. But this is not primarily to bash Wernigerode. This is simply asking the question: Why should we feature a shoddy article with a lot of outdated or potentially outdated content over one with a local who can help us, a timely event of international renown and an ICE stop? I mean there are at the very least two considerations behind dotm nominations, one being the "timely event" or at the very least "feature warm weather destinations in the local summer" consideration and the other is "show our best work". And what is WV about if not locals writing about their town? Oh and btw, de-WV even says that they have more editors from North Hesse than mere chance would explain. My reasoning for not featuring Wernigerode at this time is in short that it uses up space we can be filling with much more worthy German destinations and topics like the three mentioned (Intercity buses in Germany, rail travel in Germany and Kassel). And once those have been featured, we might well wish to fill the "German slot" with Wernigerode. Who knows, maybe we'll have gotten a local by then. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for answering your question with a question, but why does a five-year event that you openly admit not knowing the importance of make a town that's otherwise so unimportant that people wonder why the train stops there, one whose article requires a great deal of improvement before it's technically even eligible to be featured, a better OtBP nominee than one that's already at Guide status, that's of interest to visitors on its own merits, and on a year-round basis, rather than merely as the site of an obscure art exhibition that takes place once every five years, and that already has banners made for it? I don't buy the argument that because documenta is only held every five years, there's some greater sense of urgency to feature Kassel now - there are plenty of events that occur as infrequently or more infrequently than that, most of which Wikivoyage will never get around to acknowledging on its Main Page, and that's not the end of the world. And as I have already said at dotm#Wernigerode, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the outdated information in Wernigerode. Since Ypsilon has seemingly dropped off the face of the Earth, I've taken up the role of making sure upcoming articles that are "pending fixes" get looked after before featuring, and I don't see why Wernigerode would be any different. And furthermore, if it's only a matter of verifying whether places are still open, and confirming opening hours, phone numbers, and website URLs, I don't know why we would consider it particularly advantageous to have a local editor on the ground to verify that, rather than someone like me verifying the information via Google from far away. That's another question I asked already on the nominations page and never got an answer to. It's not as if Germany is some remote Third World country where most businesses don't have a presence on the Internet or social media. It doesn't require intimate local knowledge or an on-the-ground presence in a particular place to look up a restaurant's opening hours, or a hotel's phone number. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
If all you need for an article of ours is google, why should anybody use an article of ours instead of google? Also, my badmouthing Kassel is an old bad habit many Germans exhibit: Give me the name of pretty much any German town and I can say negative stuff about it. Except maybe for my home town and even then, there are annoying things about it, I am just a little more reluctant to blurt them out. And the fact that I, a total know-nothing when it comes to art (especially contemporary art) have heard of documenta should tell you all you need to know about its importance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC) - for some days during the documenta, Kassel is the most important town in germany ;) -- Feuermond16 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I can assure you that documenta is not some "obscure art exhibition", but a major contemporary art festival of international renown that attracted nearly a million visitors last time. It is not only about the exhibition itself, but also special events surrounding it. And saying that Kassel were bland during the rest of the year is simply untenable. It may not be the hippest of German cities, but at least the Wilhelmshöhe park is a UNESCO World Heritage site! Also, I do not really see what keeps Kassel from being upgraded to guide status. While the Wernigerode article is OK, it is certainly not among the best Wikivoyage has to offer that should absolutely be showcased. Kassel is certainly more presentable. --RJFF (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel there is one person here who feels strongly - or seems to feel strongly - about sticking to featuring Wernigerode in 2017. There seems to be an opinion held by more than one participant in this discussion that documenta is a good reason to feature Kassel and the article is quite good as it stands. I would like more people to weigh in, but at which point can we say that such a change to the schedule can be made, even if the objections of one user (and if I mischaracterize anything or anybody here, please let me know) are still there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It's perhaps noteworthy that at least two, and possibly all three, of the people who swear documenta is an event of towering importance in the world of modern art come from Germany themselves. I can imagine that an event like that might get its share of local coverage, but I would characterize myself as somewhat more attuned to the world of art than Hobbitschuster claims to be, and as an American, I have never in my life heard of documenta. And the one million visitors per year that it attracts does not seem like an especially impressive statistic to me - the Erie County Fair takes place in Hamburg, New York, a rinkydink midsize suburb of a rinkydink midsize American city, and no one would ever call it the preeminent anything, yet it attracted nearly 1.2 million attendees over twelve days in 2015, compared to the 100-day duration of documenta. (However, since the proposal is to run Kassel as OtBP and not DotM, perhaps that doesn't matter.)
Most of all, I find it annoying and disruptive that the suggestion of replacing Wernigerode on the schedule is being made with such short notice. Wernigerode, or whatever replaces it, is due to go up on the Main Page in only a little more than a month. We already have DotM banners made up for it.
That all having been said: in the abstract, I am not dead-set against the idea of running Kassel as a feature. But I do think the flaws that are keeping the article from reaching Guide status are much greater than they're characterized on this thread as being. For starters, the "documenta-artworks" section - in other words, the marquee attraction that we're using to sell the idea Kassel as a worthwhile destination - consists only of naked bullet-point listings, with no descriptive blurbs in the "content=" argument to give the reader any context. The same is true of literally every listing in "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep", and those sections also could benefit from introductory ledes. These are just the things that caught my eye from skimming the article briefly; there are surely other problems as well. If you're absolutely positive that in the space of five weeks, you can make all these improvements, get a nomination for Kassel up on the dotm page and accrue four Support votes, and get DotM banners made, then I won't stand in the way of Kassel being featured as OtBP if you succeed. But for the time being, color me skeptical.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I have raised the issue of featuring Kassel more than once, at the earliest I think in April 2016. So please don't characterize this as a last minute thing. I just saw that the only way to keep the imho unfortunate result of Wernigerode edging out more deserving nominees from happening was to raise this here and now. I also though that Feuermond16 himself (I'm assuming male, please correct me if I'm wrong here) would do the nominating and didn't want to take that away from him. Also, I think the comparison between a County Fair and an art exhibition is not entirely fair. County Fairs tend to attract people from the regional area only. Art stuff tends to attract people globally. Also, I am not sure we are counting the same numbers here. If somebody goes to the County Fair twice in the same year, is that one visitor or two? What about documenta? And at any rate, which are the art exhibitions that beat documenta? I will also see how much stuff we could translate from the de-WV edition on stuff you mentioned. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
1) "I have raised the issue of featuring Kassel more than once, at the earliest I think in April 2016. So please don't characterize this as a last minute thing." - There are dozens of articles that we've "raised the issue of featuring" but never got around to actually improving or nominating: off the top of my head, Albany (New York), Denpasar, and Barentsburg are a few examples. You can't equate simply broaching the subject of Kassel being featured to Wernigerode having been a formal nominee for six months already. That's doubly true since Kassel isn't even eligible to be nominated yet, being only at Usable status, which leads into my second point...
2) Several times now, you've mentioned that Wernigerode is "not really a great article" and "not our best work", but for all its outdated information and other flaws, at least it's currently at Guide status. You argue that there are "more deserving nominees", which may be true, but with a great deal of improvement necessary before Kassel is even eligible to be upgraded from Usable, your contention that it's a superior choice to Wernigerode on the basis of article quality makes no sense.
3) "County Fairs tend to attract people from the regional area only. Art stuff tends to attract people globally." - If the Erie County Fair managed to draw 1.2 million visitors over 12 days from within a region that's no great shakes in terms of population yet still "no one would ever call it the preeminent anything", while documenta drew fewer people over 100 days from among a global attendance base, does that not strengthen my original argument about respective attendance figures? Also, to your point about repeat attendees: between admission fees, parking fees, wristbands and/or tickets for carnival rides, not to mention food, your average family of four will spend something like $150 all told for a day at the Fair. If you can afford to do that more than once a season, you can probably afford a trip to Walt Disney World or some other theme park where you can have real fun. So I doubt 1.2 million paid admissions translates to much fewer than that number of individual attendees.
Again, I'm more than willing to give Kassel a fair consideration on its own merits if and when it gets formally nominated. It hasn't been, though, and for now it can't be. Until it's brought up to Guide status, it's pointless for us to be arguing about it here. Why don't you set about improving the article, prepare a nomination once it's a Guide, and for the question of what to feature for OtBP in May, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed - bring it up to Guide status, then nominate it. If it can't be featured during documenta, the next best thing is to mention documenta in WV:Discover. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism filter for invite links?[edit]

So given that some just tried to put an invite link into the article on Prague again can we have some sort of vandalism filter or highlighter for invite links same as we do for the Telstra edit patterns? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you want an abuse filter, or an entry in the spam blacklist? It's possible to blacklist "uber/invite" links but permit plain "uber" links with the blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatever works. We can block them (but then we'd have to make sure there are no false positives) or we could make the recent changes highlight them similar to edits by the Telstra person. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The last week of the 1st cycle of Wikimedia strategy conversation[edit]

Hi, I'm Szymon, a MetaWiki Strategy Coordinator. 3 weeks ago, we invited you to join a broad discussion about Wikimedia's future role in the world. The discussion is divided into 3 cycles, and the first one ends on April, 15. So far, Wikimedians have been discussing mainly about technological improvements, multilingual support, friendly environment, cooperation with other organizations and networks.

I'm pinging a few recently active admins. I hope you'll help me with passing along the news, maybe even join the discussion. @AndreCarrotflower, Andrewssi2, ‎Ikan Kekek, WOSlinker, ‎Shaundd:.

Looking forward to your input. Thank you in advance! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Szymon's "real" name is Tar Lócesilion, and I suspect that some of you have encountered him under that name. I encourage you all to take him up on the invitation to talk about what you'd like to see happen during the next 10–20 years. Better mobile experience? Easier cross-language or cross-project integration? Efforts to engage potential editors, maybe with something that uses smartphone-based geolocation to request specific updates and edits? Whatever's on your mind, especially if it's a big idea, it should be proposed now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a big idea by any means, but today I found myself copying geo-coordinates by hand from de-WV Herzogenaurach to the en-WV equivalent and was thinking to myself: There's gotta be a better way. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF), WhatamIdoing: in Russian Wikivoyage, we came up with a rather long list of thoughts and ideas concerning the strategy and the strategy-building process itself. We have a short English summary toward the end of this page and plan on translating the rest later this week.
As a side note, the Russian-speaking strategy coordinator, who promised to make the translation for us, already disappeared, which kind of tells us what to expect from this strategy in the future. --Alexander (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Now we have a full English translation for our vision of the strategy. A significant part of it describes the development of Wikivoyage. Any comments are welcome. --Alexander (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Rethinking "Recent Changes Patrol"[edit]

I've had several conversations with new or relatively new users who were more or less freaked out by "stalking" — that is, reading their changes in Special:RecentChanges and making small edits to their work and/or preexisting text in the article(s) they've just been editing. Some have reacted very negatively to this, and we may even have lost some editors permanently over this. I'm not talking about spambots, touters or vandals but good-faith editors who may be a bit sensitive and perhaps quickly frustrated, especially if some of the edits after them are in some way wrong (as is bound to happen at times, given that all editors are human).

So here's the problem: Given that "out of sight is out of mind" and that many small and not-so-small faults in articles have escaped the notice of editors for years, it's very tempting to fix them when "Recent changes" brings them to our attention. The risk if we wait some set period of time before attending to them is that we will get distracted and never go back to those articles. So what to do? Should we risk leaving minor to moderate faults alone, with the possible attendant erosion of the site's quality considered to be a reasonable risk, given the improvements to content from new editors? Or is there even a single, one-size-fits-all answer to this question? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not an easy topic. Is part of the nature of a Wiki collaborative site. Also with Wikivoyage consisting of a small active group of regular contributor, it can be a bit intimidating for a new user that maybe more use to blog type web pages than wiki style authoring. I think it is fine to make minor corrections to entries of new users but as for content topics it is always worth talking over entries first with the new user. For more established users I do not think we need to be so cautious (I notice that at least half of edits I make to a long ignored page are followed quickly by other edits), we are more used to this, sometimes harsh, collaborative environment.
On recent cases I know I swooped on a couple of new pages, but in my defence I have worked for some time to get every UK and Germany city page with at least one See and one Sleep on them. If I see a new page in these regions without such listing I feel a need to add an entry. As for other edits I am not totally in agreement with I try and start a conversation first and make edits once the page edits have settled down.
For those long term contributors maybe instead of concentrating on recent edits how about working on the to-dos of a Geographic Expedition or one of the Maintenance categories. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
The short answer to your question is that in any wiki, the content is always more important than preserving the contributors' feelings. Wikipedia is especially explicit about where they stand on the matter - w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you, w:Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable, and so on - and, while I've always felt their bluntness to be unnecessarily harsh, in the end that's how it has to be for Wikivoyage too.
However, there are ways to do it more tactfully. For instance, when I find myself "stalking" a new editor on Recent Changes patrol, I usually drop him or her a welcome message on their talk page - not just the standard boilerplate text in Template:Welcome, but something more personalized, such as "Thank you for your contributions on (insert article here). I had to tweak it a little bit because of (insert reason here), but overall you're doing good work, keep it up!" 99% of the time, the message is received positively, and I can mark the whole thing down as a success at both 1) introducing a new user to the collaborative, give-and-take nature of editing Wikivoyage and 2) making him or her feel like a valued contributor to the site. And for that small minority of users who are so thin-skinned that even a friendly explanation like that can't make up for the indignity of being cleaned up after, then as far as I'm concerned we can absolutely throw up our hands and say maybe editing wikis isn't their thing.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. We shouldn't lose sight of the issue that Wikipedia has lots of editors and that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include original research, but we rely on a relatively small number of content-providers who personally know things. So maybe we need to be more careful to try to avoid repelling them and effectively chasing them from the site.
One issue is that some of the changes I like to make are not huge and policy-driven in a major way but have to do with things like capitalization, punctuation, syntax and usage, and some users who are in the process of making edits get annoyed by those. But there's no clear way for me to know when they are pausing or finished with editing a particular article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
As a new contributor myself (and somebody who has felt stalked) a few initial thoughts (sorry for the length of my response):
  • My impression is that there are a fair number of destination pages that "require work" and that if contributors have time to do work, maybe focus on the bigger issues rather than spending time moving a colon or changing a double space to a single space. It is the out-of-date listings, major omissions, etc. (the "biggies") the "erode the quality" more than the minor niceties. By analogy, when you want a beautiful garden but only have 1 hour a day to work on it, do you spend every hour going over the flower beds somebody else has just weeded or do you spend your limited resource addressing the totally overgrown areas ...
  • When considering leaping on a "Recent Changes" maybe there should be a distinction between adding new or additional content and tweaking phraseology. Distinguish between proof correcting a "work in progress" and a (mostly) complete addition or update (I guess I am not alone in "publishing" a page before I have finished changes.
  • When focusing on "Recent Changes" to make corrections it would seem to erode the quality when the original author (who has local knowledge or done research) has their true and accurate contribution modified to be untrue or have errors all because a subsequent editor wanted it phrased differently.
  • I am unaware of technical implementation details and appreciate that changes can require significant effort (and maybe such a process already exists) but one thought might be a modification to the page status (e.g. outline city tag thingy) where a page can be scheduled for review. Maybe a new page (in the template) defaults to "reviewin:2 weeks" and maybe longer established pages default to "reviewin:1 year". I would guess aspects to WikiVoyage subject coverage are more prone to change or that change happens outside the authors control than would be the case in Wikipedia. For example, restaurants/hotels/etc. open and close, transport services change, etc. affecting WikiVoyage whereas maybe other Wikis the initiator of the change is also a contributor (or has interest in having the Wiki updated). So longer term editors would then focus more on the "Scheduled for Review" lists rather than "Recent Changes". (Any page provided to a user might then also include a warning box "This page is overdue for review", similar to the "outlinecity" info box)
  • Maybe WikiVoyage needs a different type of contributor from other Wikis. Many years ago I used to contribute to the South American Handbook and such resources need a large number of non-specialists updating and maintaining information rather than specialists in specific fields. As people travel they find useful information and maybe errors of changes in e.g. WikiVoyage and provide additions or updates.
  • Of course with any new contributor it needs to be remembered that they only see "where things are" rather than the reasons as to why things got there. But, as I'm new and unknown, I should add that I firmly believe that any idea (however good or bad) can be improved through discussion and input from others. PsamatheM (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Very much agreed on the value of discussion. Thanks for giving us some things to think about. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: It is tempting to quickly edit a recent change as "out of sight is out of mind" tends to happen after a few days. We did look at an articles needing attention {{Needsimprovement}} tag a while ago but I think this is a too loud a solution in the cases we are currently discussing. I suggest that people create a folder in the Bookmark function of their web browser, something like "Wikivoyage - articles to revisit". Bookmark the recent change you think needs some attention but leave it a week before going back to it, making any changes and removing from your bookmark list. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
When I first started as an IP editor way back when, I found that my edits would "bring back" long forgotten articles to the attention of more established users. I must say I was actually delighted by that and didn't feel stalked (though I guess I had at least a hunch what recent change patrol might entail). It's also a thing that edits by "not established" editors are marked with a small red exclamation point that "more established" editors can remove if they find the edit free of spam or egregious abuse of the English language (sadly quite common here) - it is of course tempting to not only get rid of the exclamation point but fix whichever minor faults one stumbles across. But yeah, I feel we overwhelmed - for example - the person who created Villingen-Schwenningen Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, this problem is handled by putting new articles in the "draft" namespace. Before an article is moved to the main namespace, it must be reviewed by several editors. --FriedhelmW (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't thatscare away even more newbies even quicker? I always find that WP is way to quick with the "revert on sight" - it's rather hard to get any thing - even a true or plausible thing - to "stick" in WP. This is and should be different here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I would take any suggestion to encourage new users very seriously, and it is probably accurate to say that you need a thick skin if a seasoned editor starts aggressively jumping on an article you are working on. That said, surely that is how a Wiki works? If anyone doesn't want someone to edit at the same time then they can always create their content in a sandbox int heir namespace and no-one will touch... Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but most new users wouldn't know about the sandbox! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't. The mention above made me try but I'm still not sure I have not created some duff page somewhere maybe related to my username. I did search the help and experimented. I probably got it wrong because I have noticed on another user they have a "sandbox" link top of user page (between username and logout) but I've not got one so I probably messed-up - and I consider myself quite technically oriented (having been a software developer for over 30 years). Good idea though (but maybe needs a bit more in help pages and for new users to be pointed towards it? That said, I think it would help but not solve the issue in that it would allow a new user not to have the initial "work in progress" main space page "descended on" - less of a negative if "Change Patrol" changes were made as one or two blocks rather than many different tweaks. Maybe it's the "History" that can make a few changes look worse (each done individually) or lots of changes look better (done as a single "publish"). PsamatheM (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Why keep articles for long dead expeditions around?[edit]

If anything they discourage people starting said expedition anew. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that the moribund expeditions do not have a good look for the momentum of WV, but does it really so much that it discourages people?
I did create a section for Wikivoyage:Expeditions#Archived_Expeditions along with assigning the {{historical}} template for those expeditions that really looked completely abandoned, since that strategy at least gave the option for someone to pick up an old exhibition in the future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it more likely that a new expedition be created from scratch (as has happened e.g. for Wales or Scotland) than one of the archived ones be revived. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
So what are you proposing? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleting at the very least some of them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest archiving somehow. You surely know the general sentiment towards deleting articles here :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I fear that archiving reduces the already slim chance of someone getting the initiative towards a new expedition even further. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You really think the existence of an expedition in some corner of the site inhibits anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
From my side, the single greatest inhibitor is the likely lack of collaborators. The existence of an abandoned expedition doesn't actually discourage me in any way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If anything, I'd think that someone proposing to launch (or re-launch) an expedition should have every right to know the project history and have access to the previous data as a starting point. Some of these are on valid topics (much like Wikipedia's moribund w:WP:TRAVEL and w:WP:HOTEL are potentially-valid topics), were there interested editors to pick these up and run with them. In some cases, something might be dead for valid technical reasons (such as RDF, if we ultimately went with hCard or some other format) or refer to a task already completed (like adding "See" sections to countries or replacing all the WT templates on Wikipedia articles with WV templates or Wikidata links). In others, the idea is valid but we don't have the people (an LGBT expedition would be one example, valid topic but only one or two articles focus on LGBT topics and we don't have the users to justify an expedition, so it rests inactive without prejudice to being reopened if interested users join in future). K7L (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
True, why would we want to lose forever the thinking and discussions that went into (for example) LGBT, just because it is not being actively worked on today? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Free places to sleep[edit]

Moved from Wikivoyage talk:Requests for comment:

I want to ask that i add somany thing if i add budgetery stay on sleep safe point of vrindavan then what wrong if a traveller that doesn't have money then he can get stay on that ashram if it is for promotion purpose then it is fine. I have to say that i explaining everything that have historically near by places and Ashram having Sidh Bholenath temples. Girriraj Bhawan Bengali Ashram (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Girriraj Bhawan Bengali Ashram: This is a good point. If you can find places to add these ashrams to Wikivoyage, that would be very helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It's perfectly OK to list ashrams, anyway. Just put each listing in the article for the nearest town. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It is possible that I was the one who reverted it because it sounded touty and contained a smiley. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates (GPS) from Wikidata ?[edit]

Come and join this conversation: Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Wikidata#coordinates ?. TaBaZzz (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fare hike for buses in Nicaragua[edit]

The semi regular fare hike is upon us again. La Prensa (the main opposition newspaper) has a handy graphic as well showing which buses cost how much under the new prices. We should update articles accordingly if possible. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Promote some more users to whatever the status is called that allows you to remove th red exclamation points[edit]

When I do recent change patrol, I sometimes find it cluttered with red exclamation points for edits by users whom I know to be trustworthy (or at the very least as trustworthy as the "regulars") whose edits may sometimes contain typos or the likes, but who certainly do not warrant as much attention as other red exclamation point edits. Can we please move some of those from one category to the other? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Admins have the power to do that. Would you like to be nominated to serve as an admin? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing Editor in other languages[edit]

So I have been looking around other language editions recently. Is it true that de-WV is the only other language edition not to have the listing editor? An editor at de-WV recently posted to my talk page that he does not intend to implement the listing editor because he considers it the technologically wrong thing to do and he does not want to saddle the community with a maintenance task that might prove untenable. Why is it then used on so many other wikis? Are there good reasons for not having the listing editor (please keep in mind that I know nothing about the technology and code behind all this)? Is the basic code behind it the same for all language editions or does it have to be ported locally every single time? Would it be feasible to have one for all language editions? Is that what is already happening? I just find the vcards on de-WV way too complicated and surely not what I want to have to contend with when I just want to add a restaurant I like. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I am the editor at WV/de who was mentioned above. And I want to point out, that its just a very personal opinion, not the opinion of the WV/de community. I think that local software developments are the wrong way to become a stable feature in future. I think the listing editor has two big problems. It is just useful for the "WV freaks" like us (I am not a fluent speaker - can I use it that way?) - users who edit at home and on their desktop computers. But we need information from travellers around the world, travellers who sit in a cafe in Bangkok or Pretoria and want to add the cafe they currently sit in. But the listing editor does not work in the visual editor and on any smartphone or tablet computer - it's a feature for "us" not a feature for "them" to attract all the travellers on their way around the world. I think we should focus on a better solution that works properly on all devices - and it should fetch data from WD directly, like our listing template. I am want to talk with the WD guys to get a feature to edit WD directly from the local wiki without being directed to WD. .... just talking about editing WV when sitting in a pub in..... Montreal.... any chance for a WV-meeting in Montreal?
Sorry for being silent. I am going to drop a message about the Wikimania here at Easter weekend and ask for needs, wishes, ideas... Hopefully some of your wishes will come true... see ya soon.. -- DerFussi 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@DerFussi: Your perspective is valuable and your English is perfectly fine. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to ask, what is the purpose of discussing this here on the English WV pub? Surely this only impacts German WV? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: If there are good reasons to not use the Listing Editor then it is certainly worth thinking about that here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Koavf - if there is any suggestion that we may remove the listing editor on English WV then frankly you need to make this topic explicit. You can probably expect a strong reaction though. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: Okay. I am not suggesting that. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I can appreciate the limitations of the Listings Editor raised. Useful on large screen devices and I've not tried it on small screens but I can appreciate the value of having somebody sitting at a bar submitting new listings through their Smartphone. And it made me wonder about the potential for a vCard interface. New functionality (and I've no idea what de-WV do) but a means/button to add a listing through uploading a vCard AND, an option for a reader to export a listing as a vCard (and download it to their computer in a similar manner to the .gpx export for destination pages that have geo coordinates. i.e. each listing has a vCard button at the end and user clicks it and listing exported and downloads a vCard they can save/add to their contacts/whatever. Authors/users would not need to know technical details of a vCard, just export and submit from their contacts or export and download from WV. vCards are a well established standard and most contact system recognise and import and export them. PsamatheM (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
So how does the VCARD work on the German page? I am not seeing any icons to help input the format (not even the icons we have here for see and sleep) apart from by hand in my browser. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
We have no different listings for see and sleep. They are similar anyway. We just choose a type as an additional parameter. Check Nanxun. Maybe the section sleep ("Unterkunft") is a good example. No phone number, coordinates, Chinese names and adress in the listing. All fetched from directly Wikidata. The Infobox is empty as well, even the tourist information is on WD. Everything is delivered from WD there. In the edit window just put your cursor into the vcard template and press {T}. This button opens the template in the "Template Master" - works with all templates, not only the vcard. An empty vcard can by added via the edit tools. Can you see it? Not as comfortable as your listing editor. We have some tools but and maybe that's why we were too lazy to setup your listing editor (and due to my limited time I have no time for feature requests after starting it). If somebody else want to add it WV/de, just do it. And i still hope for a better solution as part of the VE and mobile editor. -- DerFussi 10:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that the listing editor doesn't work "in" the visual editor, but it also doesn't work "in" any of the old wikitext editors, either. The visual editor should not interfere with using the listing editor (and vice versa). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well the upsides of vcards and the listing editor are relatively independent of the language edition, aren't they? and if de-WV has good reasons for doing what they do, we should at least hear them. As a writer, I think the listing editor is far superior to vcards, but they do seem to have some functions our listing editor currently doesn't have. Of course we'll always have to weigh functions on one hand and usability on the other. Very often some gimicky function makes stuff needlessly complicated and discourages editing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't compare the listing editor and the vcard. You can't do. One is an edit feature the other one is a mediawiki template. You can compare your listings (see, do, eat...) with our VCard (they work similar, there is almost no difference, we just fetch information from Wikidata, and we even intentionally use the same parameters as you). And you can compare your listing editor with our template master to get a form to fill out the template (do not forget, we had the vcard and the old template master for six years already when you joined Wikivoyage in 2012). So i do not understand the importance of the discussion here and on WV/de. Both edit features work in the "classic wiki" only. Thats the issue. And thats why my intention is to focus on talks with Wikidata and VE guys to get easy to use features. Maybe a template favourite list of templates (not called "template favourites") that can easily added when editing an article ("add sight"). The template list could be setup in every local wiki. Travellers sitting in a cafe and not knowing about wikis, don't know abut the existence of templates, and even if they don't know the name of the suitable template. Thats the disadvantage of the VE and template master but the huge advantage of your listing editor. And thats why I will be in Montreal, also for technical talks (what is possible, what not). Maybe we can draft a proper long term feature request for the developing team. I am going to write down some thoughts on meta this weekend and send a mass message to the lounges to join the discussion. -- DerFussi 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I repeat: The listing editor does not use "the classic editor". Click here to see what the listing editor looks like. It does not look like a regular wikitext editing window. The listing editor calls the API directly (as far as I can tell from the documentation, anyway). You reach the listing editor by clicking the link that says [Add listing]. If you click an 'Edit' button first, then you are not using the listing editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, I am aware of that. Thats why I wrote above "classic wiki", not classic wiki editor. Maybe i did not talk clearly. Maybe I should have said desktop version. -- DerFussi 17:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
But something like the listing editor should become a part of the VE and mobile editor. This would be really cool. -- DerFussi 17:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
When phab:T96710 is addressed, then we might get fairly close to that. (However, right now, the visual editor on mobile is rather limited. For example, it can't insert templates unless you have memorized the keyboard shortcut.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a mobile compliant listing editor would be a great idea for the future. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Airline terminology[edit]

In the Planning your flight#Airlines article, I have tried to describe different categories of airlines. The international market is dominated by two categories: the first one being called major airline, legacy carrier, full-service carrier etc, the other one being called low-cost carrier, budget airline, startup airline, no-frills carrier etc. Which of these terms would be most practical to use on Wikivoyage? Should they be used universally? /Yvwv (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Or should this distinction be used at all? /Yvwv (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
IMHO these are seven distinct categories. --FriedhelmW (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No they're not. Those are broadly speaking two categories that are a bit fuzzy on the edges. One is the "Ryanair-model" where you pay extra for everything, and the other is the "Lufthansa-model" that still seems to think flying is for business and rich people but they still give away free newspapers and the likes. Imho we should avoid both "full service" and "low cost" as they are more advertising than purely descriptive. "Startup" is not an analytical term, especially given the fact that Ryanair is actually older than e.g. Swiss Airlines or Brussel Airlines. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Israel needs a new region map[edit]

Quietly and slowly without many here noticing - or so it seems - the regions of Israel have been changed. However, the map hasn't. I think we should remedy this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

borked "go" listings[edit]

I have been trying to add a listing for the railway station of Romanshorn which includes the Wikipedia link. However, this only seems to work when I make it a "listing" type listing and changing it - even manually - to a "go" listing borks up the stuff somehow and the Wikipedia icon disappears. What gives? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    • Works as a listing -- as a listing with type=go -- and as a go template listing for me. -- Matroc (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, why are there more listing types than can be found in the editing shortcuts and why does "do" use a bicycle as a symbol (for me at least, getting on my bike is about getting from A to B and not about sport or entertainment) Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiData wiping out excellent GPS tags and no one cares?[edit]

Hi there again
I mentioned this topic already in the WikiData section, and I would really like to have some input and opinions from others here.
I am not OK with the straight forward usage of WikiData connections to WikiVoyage listing when this wipes out the excellent work that users put into the GPS-tagging of WikiVoyage listings. There is no consensus on which data is better quality- and travelling-wise, and also there have certainly been some mess ups due to the flighty referencing of WikiData contents, like for Mt. Hermon and Wadi Daliyot.
Who guarantees that WikiData users put the same amount of effort into their data creation? Who guarantees the WD and WV listings are even referring to the same? Who guarantees the usefulness of the WD GPS-tags for the travellers?
So, can we please stop with the WikiData tagging of WikiVoyage listings as long as we have no agreement regarding this topic?
Ceever (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with placing a wikidata tag into a listing. This issue is about being selective on which values to copy over. In fact I have a number of times corrected wikidata to what is at Wikivoyage, particularly web url and sometimes coordinates. Agree however it would be useful to have some form of compare or selective copy option when transferring information. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This is precisely why I've urged caution regarding ceding too much control over the site to Wikidata. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this is an issue. One problem I encounter is that when clicking link to take data over from wikidata (usually to get the Wikipedia page and the website), there is no way I can do this without copying over the coordinates as well. It would be great if that could be done only for selected field, so that we can take advantage of the benefits of having the wikipedia page and other information from wikidata but not wipe out coordinates which have been previously added. Maybe a way of getting around this would be to give priority to already present coordinates when data is copied over. Drat70 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This is precisely why we need better integration with Wikidata. I know I am asking a lot, but here is what I think we should have ideally: I would click "Merge values with Wikidata", and if there is a conflict (Wikidata and Wikivoyage both have a value, and the value is different), the dialog should show me both and ask me which one to use (overwriting either Wikidata or Wikivoyage), or whether to let them as-is, while giving me all of the info I need to decide. In case of an image I would be shown both images side-by-side in high resolution. In case of coordinates I would be show the two points on a map. Would that be difficult to implement? That would eliminate the present problem, and indeed benefit both Wikivoyage and Wikidata. Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing Berlin for clarity, flow, tone and lack of duplications[edit]

So I have written quite a bit of what are currently the top sections of Berlin (i.e. understand and so on). However, it has some problems with mentioning similar things more than once and some others. If you feel like doing some copy-editing for flow and whatnot and trying to expunge some crypto-Germanisms, be my guest. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No takers? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites[edit]

Supposedly UNESCO is releasing a few thousand images of World Heritage Sites. They will be going here Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

TIME magazine: "The World's Street-Food Capital Is Banning Street Food"[edit]

I imagine we have our work cut out for us now updating Bangkok and its districts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I very much hope protests will make them back down, but we might end up with {{Warningbox|street food riots|Due to a controversial law banning street food, it is absolutely not advised to go anywhere near Bangkok at the moment as government forces and protestors frequently clash}} on all our articles. I cannot imagine the people (not to mention those whose income depends on this line of work) will take this without so much as a letter to their representative. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That didn't take long. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I started Avoiding travel through Canada[edit]

And will probably be bombarded by notifications that someone somewhere made a link to it for the next months, but I'd be much delighted if the article were to grow and flourish. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it common for airlines or agents to route traffic from (some random out-of-region non-Canadian point) to (some other equally random non-Canadian point) through Soviet Canuckistan? I'd think the fares would be higher in Canada than the US, so they'd be more likely to err on the side of "we've got this cheap flight through Chicago if you don't mind a concussion, a couple of broken teeth... and that pesky detail that United Breaks Guitars." K7L (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Just anecdotal evidence, but when looking for flights MGA-FRA or MGA-BER or similar, there are often a handful via the US and (slightly more expensive) a handful of flights via the country with all the Ys and Zs in its IATA codes. Of course there are also quite often quite some good deals for MGA-PTY-MAD-FRA or SJO-SDQ-FRA or the likes (with really baffling airline acrobatic as to the price logic on occasion; AMS-PTY-MGA being more expensive than FRA-AMS-PTY-MGA being just one of them). Thankfully the still pretty awful but apparently slightly less awful than United Delta is the one that flies to both Europe and Nicaragua among the US carriers Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, this is a tough one. My first instinct would be to simply expand the scope of Avoiding travel through the United States and rename it Avoiding travel through the U.S. and Canada, but on closer inspection that's a less ideal solution than I had originally thought: while most of the reasons one would want to avoid travel through Canada apply equally to the U.S. (no sterile transit; uncommonly stringent entry restrictions for those with criminal records, even including minor offenses committed many years ago), the reverse is not necessarily true: there are a good many concerns that are specific to the U.S., with the potential for even more down the line e.g. if Trump tries again to resurrect the Muslim ban. I'm still concerned, though, that if we keep the articles separate there will be a ton of redundant information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Just an aside point, if you only read the edit summary of this title, it sounds as if I somehow commenced a travel boycott of Canada (which I haven't and don't intend to, for the record).
Anyhoo... I think there are a couple of countries that get relatively easier access to Canada than the US, and the current political leaders are rather different and so may be the inclination of certain groups of people to visit said country. Also, are the US as strict when it comes to past drunk driving convictions? (For the record, I consider drunk driving a serious offense and much more worthy of persecution than a bunch of other offenses, but that's neither here nor there). Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
God, why do you hate Canada so much, Hobbit? :P
Although I am ignorant of the specific laws, my first intuition is that since the U.S. and Canada are two separate legal jurisdictions and not in a customs union, it's best to keep the articles separate. On the other hand, I expect most of the non-legal stuff (i.e. the actual flight routes) would just be copied directly from one article to another, so there would be quite a lot of content overlap. All the same, for clarity's sake, it is probably best to not jumble up two countries' laws in one article. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am innocent. Evil new media made me do it! Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Use new modernised version of Extension:RelatedArticles[edit]

Wikivoyage currently shows related articles on a handful of pages where editors have added them for example on the New_York_City page New_York_City_with_children appears in the sidebar (Although it's rather hidden away!) of the desktop skin and does not work on mobile.

It uses the mw:Extension:RelatedArticles extension.

Wikimedia recently enabled a much more visual form of the related pages feature on a variety of projects. I was curious if Wikivoyage were interested in switching from the sidebar view to the footer view?


  • More visual and discoverable
  • It can be configured to algorithmly suggest related pages (you can see how this would look by scrolling to the bottom and clicking on links in )
  • It works on mobile

An illustration can be seen here:

and you can see what it looks like on Vector by looking at Haitian Wikipedia:

No pressure!

If you are interested I can enable it at a time of your choosing, and revert back to the old view if you decide you do not like it. Let me know! Jdlrobson (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am in favour of having trying this :-) I often fail to discover relevant articles when preparing a trip, and learn about them only after my trip is over. Syced (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Jdlrobson, that sounds interesting. Could you elaborate on how this system chooses related pages? I read the descriptions but did not understand much. Thanks! --Alexander (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this looks cool! --ButteBag (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The algorithm version uses a CirrusSearch feature which relates pages with similar text. For instance if the phrase "Roman architecture" appears in two articles frequently they would be judged similar. All results can be overriden by editors using
magic word. The results are not always great as with any algorithm. Some pages, especially smaller articled may spit out strange related articles but it's a great way to encourage exploration and create editing opportunities IMO. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I've had it turned on at a couple of wikis, and overall I like it. The last time I checked, the three articles it selects were usually next three articles that you'd find if you did a regular search on the current article's title. So for New York City, I'd expect it to list New York (state), Metro New York, and New York City with children, because those are the next in the normal list of search results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally I don't generally like sidebars (though some for apps they are appropriate). The problem with them is that the sidebar content is invariably a different length from the main content so you invariably end-up with a column (normally in the sidebar) of blank space wasting screen space (many users will probably be on netbooks of small laptops with limited screen space). And on mobile where I don't get a sidebar I also lose the related Wikipedia link from the sidebar. So I think reducing the sidebar is a good thing, moving related links to the bottom is a good idea (including any wikipedia link). Unsure about algorithmically doing it through making "Read More" more prominent (as in the linked example) looks good and may encourage contributors to use it more (which must be a good thing). So I like the proposed change (even though I realise it will not get rid of the sidebar) PsamatheM (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Would the Read More be limited to internal WV pages or external web sites and Wikipedia articles also be allowed. I can think of at least one example page I've contributed to where is more than one relevant (non-duplicate, non-overlapping wikipedia article thinking of Blakeney (Norfolk) where Wikipedia has seperate pages on Blakeney and Blakeney Point but WV only really warrants a single page for the two destinations). PsamatheM (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not keen on a text based search that takes no account of geography. If I am reading York, I have no interest in New York City, or other random towns that have a York Hotel or York Road. What would be useful is automatic suggestions of places within 100 miles that had the matching text. AlasdairW (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Cost subsection for huge cities?[edit]


I just noticed there is no one place to put generalized information about costs in huge city articles. Is this by design? I was thinking about adding a "Costs" subheader within the "Understand" section? Costs in cities can be significantly higher than surrounding areas. It could be a very brief overview of what things cost in the city, specific local taxes, etc. I could instead put slices of the info in the Eat, Drink, Sleep, etc sections... but it feels like collecting this info in one spot would be more helpful for the traveller? Is there a preferred way to handle this? I couldn't find any good examples in the Chicago/DC/SFO articles. In my specific case, Boston is a very expensive city and I'd like to mention something about that towards the top of the article.

Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I should think an infobox showing very rough average minimum prices for a limited number of things (hotel room, 2 course meal, pint / glass of the local tipple, most common transport pass / single fare, local tourist taxes like you said) would be very helpful indeed. The natural place for it would be the 'understand' section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think in general we are a bit light on generalized "what does stuff cost" info compared to dead trees guides that usually have a "if your style of traveling is x expect to pay y for z" in the front cover. For example it would be great to give a general range of - say - hotels in Germany or domestic flights in the US to give people a hint at what to expect. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

New "flag" for certain edits?[edit]

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

Works set in Berlin[edit]

I opened a debate on Talk:Berlin regarding this addition to the "works set in Berlin" list. I would very much like your input. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of Wikivoyage articles sorted by the amount of articles that exists for each destination in each wikivoyage edition?[edit]

Does such a list exist already or is there any way to generate such a list?

Such a list would be very handy for each Wikivoyage edition (including the English Wikivoyage) to get some more insight into which of the most popular travel destinations around the globe world didn't get yet their own articles (and by focusing on creating those articles, instead of articles of less popular destinations, eventually increasing the web traffic much more significantly for the same amount of work). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this is that most editors are unable to churn out article level prose in more than one to three languages. And even those that can may not want to spend their time writing about New York in Swahili, when they'd much rather cover stuff they personally know and care more about. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand that eventually each editor can only produce so much articles, and usually one would prefer to focus on what interests them. I myself have written articles in the Hebrew Wikivoyage for 4 years and 3 months (I mostly translate content from the English Wikivoyage), and I also follow closely after the page view statistics of the articles I have put most work into. Although up until today I have written mostly outline articles on Hebvoy, I have created probably close to a 100 expanded well written articles (some of which took me weeks to finish). Nevertheless, based on the page view statistics... some of them are only read by a few people each month even though a lot of work was put into creating them... simply because people don't necessarily care for well expanded articles if the destination isn't interesting enough to many people (even the Israel article in Hebvoy gets relatively few views every month, probably since most Hebrew speakers aren't interested in reading about their own country when they research travel options/ideas). Because of that, at this point, in order that the the amount of work I put into Hebvoy would eventually yield more interest among potential readers, I tend to prefer focusing on creating the content which is most sought after (rather then guessing what it is). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think most potential users of hebvoy are more likely to use engvoy. First of all because many Hebrew speakers also speak at least passable English and secondly because for travel outside Israel, English is vastly more useful than Hebrew. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly... but that doesn't mean that I should give up on Hebvoy. On the contrary, I believe that eventually the English Wikivoyage and the rest of the Wikivoyage editions are going to be a lot more popular, have a lot more writers whom speak many languages, and that even though the English Wikivoyage would probably always remain the biggest edition of Wikivoyage, the existence of the other editions would help us over time produce much more quality content collaboratively, and have many more people around the world involved in this process (and eventually, just like in the case of Wikipedia, in many instances you'll eventually see a lot of content being translated back to the English Wikivoyage as a result). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Instead, why not translating the articles with the largest number of views (you can get them here for the languages with the largest audience; you can get a rough idea of the audience of each Wikivoyage edition here? I translated pages about Japan from English to French based on both the page size and the audience, but the number of views stay quite limited (though Japan pages in French Wikivoyage have now the second largest audience and pages sizes, after France) so I am afraid that your efforts will only bring limited results. — Fabimaru (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it is possible to produce a list of Wikivoyage articles sorted by the amount of articles that exists for each destination in each wikivoyage edition? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The relationship are stored in Wikidata, and it may be possible to do a SPARQL query, but after a quick attempt I could not find how to do such a query. — Fabimaru (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pedantic analysis tools....[edit]

As you know Mediawiki is to get a new parser. I've been over the past few days (in good faith), been trying to repair some of the templates/pages it's flagged up as having problems.

However, in some cases I've been unable to find a 'stable' fix for many of the errors.

I'm thus coming to the conclusion that I am either too stupid to actually understand what's going on, or that the analysis tool is being pedantic about something that's not techincally broken.

As such I've had enough of trying to work around an analysis tool that is being pedantic about precise nesting, matching of tags etc., Please either take the time to PROPERLY fix the relevant templates once and for all, or make very strong representations to the Mediawiki developers responsible for the new parser/Linter extension about it's inability to recognise otherwise valid situations, so that I'm not wasting my time apparently "breaking" templates, that did not need to repaired in the first place ...

The pages with "apparent errors" are here: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, some I cannot see what is wrong, others are very subtle. These got rid of errors markings: italics inside italics not sure maybe the web address in content or is there a spellchecker. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

GPX track not showing up on article[edit]

Hi all, I have created a gpx-track for a sightseeing tour around Hpa-An in Myanmar and uploaded it to the template page. But shomehow when I try to download the gpx for Hpa-An the track is not included. Do I have to be more patient or is there a technical problem? Thanks. -- User:Renek78 10:31, 23 April 2017

phab:T154908 and phab:T137677 indicate this issue was raised at Wikivoyage talk:How to use dynamic maps#mapframe and GPX traces half a year ago. Template:GPX/...whatever... is broken with no clear, documented procedure for replacing these. I would've liked to fix Trans-Labrador Highway (preferably in a way that doesn't rely on Commons or other external resources) before Labrador is featured as one of this summer's OtBP articles. User:Yurik/Sandbox/Gpx1 and User:Yurik/Sandbox/Gpx2 look promising, if the maps were zoomed out to some reasonable scale. Pity there's no help page to explain where these came from. K7L (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)