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:

  • 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 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


Manchester's boundary in Wikivoyage seems to be wrong[edit]

The area of the city of Manchester as it appears in Wikivoyage
The area of the city of Manchester in reality (within Greater Manchester)

Should this be fixed in your opinion? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Before we start a long list of these, be aware that Wikivoyage does not always strictly follow government boundaries. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
In fact, there have been cases where we took the official government boundaries and threw them out the window when it made more sense from a traveler's perspective. Los Angeles was a notable example of this. PerryPlanet (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's any city where we haven't changed at least some small detail from the official boundaries, because they may not always be logical to a visitor. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
In this specific case though, the editorial decisions seems to be very confusing for the travelers, because (1) large portions of the city do not appear to belong to the city in our map (instead of having the more boring parts of the city be hidden, we could have resolved that by having those sections greyed out like in the regions map of Cairo), while (2) the Manchester Wikivoyagve regions map includes a completely different city - Salford - and presents it as if it was part of the city of Manchester (why only adding that city and not add other cities from the Greater Manchester area as well?). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, this discussion belongs on Talk:Manchester, but just to address the second point very quickly, it looks like an argument was made when establishing Manchester's current district system that Salford, despite being technically a separate city, is very closely linked to Manchester and that, from a traveler's perspective, it would be preferable that it be linked from the main Manchester page for ease of finding (see Talk:Manchester#Redefining districts). Personally, I don't know anything about Manchester, so I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but that's the discussion that will have to be revisited if you want to change the current districts layout. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
As a local resident, the local tourism board treats Salford and other areas as being part of a greater (little 'g') Manchester, despite their technical independence. The centres of both cities essentially run into each other, and it would unhelpful to users to split them up. --Nick talk 01:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we have an instructions page for creating / using GPX?[edit]

I noticed that the German WIkivoyage uses them a lot, storing them at ArticleName\Gpx. I noticed that the dynamic maps in all Wikivoyage editions are capable of reading those routes when one stores the GPX data that way (instead of within the actual article. Is it possible to store the GPX data elsewhere (storing that data in locations such as ArticleName\Gpx causes the system to think it is an actual article, and count those pages in the total articles count). Is the GPX format a standard common format used to add custom made maps in modern GPSs? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Another question - what software do you recommend using to create GPX file/content? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Here are some instructions.
And here's how I do. For routes, like in Trans-Siberian_Railway#Go I use the GNUHER tool mentioned, then create a new page called Template:GPX/[The exact name of the article] and copypaste the code there together with the Wikivoyage header (Example). If you have a mapframe in the article, the route should now be visible there.
Borders for areas can be made with some similar tools. But if you're lazy and untechnical as I, click on a dynamic map where you want to have each waypoint and copypaste the coordinates to a text editor. Replace the lat= long= things with | and commas, wrap it in to a mapmask tag and just put it in the article like here and then the map should look something (like this) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
ϒpsilon, is the GPX format a standard common format used to add custom made maps to modern GPSs? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, GPX seems to be the main standard for GPS devices so I assume it'll work. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Convincing people at that other site to edit here[edit]

It appears that that other side still has a handful of actual contributors that are neither touts nor spambots and it may well be that some are aware of the fork/migration and deliberately chose not to edit here for whichsoever reason. However, due to the google rank problem it may well be that some people edit there due to complete unawareness about WV. What can and should we possibly do about that? Nothing? Hope they find us on their own (And figure out the how and why of it all?) 22:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Email this user" link is the best bet. They're pretty diligent about scrubbing any reference to Wikivoyage from the site. And "Email this user" will only work if a) you're a registered user who isn't blocked and has an e-mail address in your Preferences; and b) the other user has "email this user" enabled. Powers (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia, which has a far stronger trademark and larger community than Wikivoyage, should be more actively used to promote Wikivoyage. Put a {{Wikivoyage}} template on every relevant Wikipedia article. /Yvwv (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
For that matter, if someone is actively editing WP and WT, it would be a good idea to contact them on WP to introduce them to Wikivoyage. K7L (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we or shouldn't we avoid having duplicated points of interests in both the region articles + articles about the cities within those regions?[edit]

Although I have been editing content here for several years... it isn't quite clear to me yet what the consensus is among the English Wikivoyage community about having or avoiding having duplicated points of interests in both the region articles + articles about the cities within those regions.

On the one hand, logically I tend to prefer having a "See section" within articles about regions contain only THE most prominent attractions in that part of the country ... for example, having the Île-de-France article contain an Eiffel Tower listing in it's "See" section even though it is already mentioned in the Paris Paris/7th arrondissement article (I assume that most of you tend to intuitively think that this would be the ideal thing to do at first too).... NEVERTHELESS, from my experience there are two additional important factors that should be taken into account as well:

  • There are many many many tourist attractions outside of the cities which have their own articles (you'll be able to easily locate many of them using TripAdvisor or Google Earth/Maps), and in many instances the region articles are the only place in Wikivoyage in which we could mention the tourist attractions which aren't located within the cities that have their own articles and sub articles. If we won't insist that the "See" sections of the region articles would ONLY contain points of interest that AREN'T already presented in the city article, there is a good chance that a lot of interesting places outside of the cities would either not make the cut (because there are a lot more prominent places within the cities than outside of the cities) or otherwise, most people might overlook good points of interest outside of the cities if the "See" section of the region article would be "flooded" with A LOT of points of interests that include both places within the cities and outside of the cities.
  • it seems redundant to me to have duplicated points of interests in both the region articles + articles about the cities within those regions.

In order to better understand the consensus about this issue, please indicate which of the following two options you prefer:

  1. Ideally, we should have the "See" section in the region articles contain around 10 to 15 of the most visited, popular and prominent points of interest within that region WHICH IN MANY INSTANCES MIGHT ALREADY BE MENTIONED in the articles about the prominent cities within those regions.
  2. Ideally, we should have the "See" section in the region articles contain around 10 to 15 of the most visited, popular and prominent points of interest within that region WHICH AREN'T ALREADY MENTIONED in the articles about the prominent cities within those regions?

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The "See" section of region articles should briefly mention the most prominent attractions within that region — but, and this is the most important part, not in the form of listings. Additionally, if there are any prominent attractions mentioned in this way that are located in cities that don't yet have their own articles, we should consider those city articles to be a high priority for creation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, so if there is a certain prominent tourist attraction, shopping center, night club, restaurant, etc which aren't located within the articles of the cities with their own articles, where would those places be mentioned if not as a listing in the region article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
In all cases, the region article should briefly mention the prominent destinations within the region, but again, not as listings. There obviously should be a proper listing for each destination in the city it belongs whenever we have an article for that city. If we don't, we should prioritize the creation of that city article, but in the meantime we should follow the same procedure for the region article - give it no more than a brief mention in non-listingified prose. (See Gaspé Peninsula#See for an example - only about two-thirds of the attractions mentioned there are located in cities for which we have an article; I'm hard at work on the remainder.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
In a few cases, an article about a town or small city - something like Miami (Oklahoma) or Napanee or Cobourg - contains not only the town itself but a wide rural area ending where the next city with an article begins (so Cobourg ends where Port Hope or Trenton (Ontario) begin). Anticosti is an example of this, one pop-250 village and a hundred miles of provincial parkland. Thousand Islands is also about fifty miles and two countries with only a couple of pop-1000 villages at most on the actual islands. K7L (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower and K7L - if for example, I want to add a certain prominent tourist attraction, shopping center, night club, restaurant, etc that is located in the region of the Galilee in Israel, but which isn't located in or near any city that got an article.... where would you suggest that information should be stored? would I only be allowed to add that information if I create a relevant city/village article for that establishment? (this is very confusing to me, I guess because I originate from a rural area, so I know that many popular attractions in the world aren't anywhere near cities). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You can create a city article (do not take the name too literally) for a rural area. Maybe in Israel use a local council or regional council as a definition of a rural area. City article just means it is bottom level article. Alternatively place the listing in the closest city/town article; think would people drive from that town to visit the attraction or restaurant (if not maybe it is not worth listing). --Traveler100 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Traveler100, Okay... I understand now that what you all are trying to explain to me is that the existence of a "bottom level article" is necessary for additional non-city attractions or businesses to be added to WV (and I guess, that if there aren't a lot of places to write about in a certain non-city region, one isn't allowed to create the "bottom level article" for only several prominent places. If that's the case, I guess that in addition to the bottom level city articles you can say that Region articles, and Park articles can also serve for this purpose as "bottom level articles", right? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you adding a location (city article) for a rural area with only a few listings. In fact some argue it is fine to create a page with no listings. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #1—2016[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings[edit]

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is what the posters looked like at 2014 Wikimania
I think that the posters idea is a good idea (which is based off an idea from the 2014 Wikimania), especially for the Wikivoyage community, what does everyone else think? I personally think that this could really benefit us, to help raise awareness about the project and maybe get some new members, and all we have to do is leave a request and someone else will make the poster for us.  Seagull123  Φ  16:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Powers (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
A poster would also be useful to have for other publicity. If there was a suitable poster or leaflet, I might print a few copies to take with me when travelling - to hand to other travellers or put on hostel noticeboards. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking further down the list at the Posters page on the 2014 Wikimania site, I just saw Wikivoyage's poster from then, here (although it's not on Commons) requested by LtPowers. Do we still need to request another poster for this year's Wikimania or not, and if so, should it be the same as in 2014 or different?  Seagull123  Φ  17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, how about that. I thought that initiative looked familiar. We're up to 17 languages now, so that part of the poster should be updated. And I think I'd like my e-mail off of there; at the time I must have thought it was an e-mail contact for the poster project, not to be printed on the poster itself. Powers (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Should we put a request in then? I'm happy to put in the request if needed, I'll base it on the request Powers put in before (removing his email of course), unless anyone else wants to do it?  Seagull123  Φ  18:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just made a request for a poster at the Wikimania 2016 site.  Seagull123  Φ  13:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The bodies of water policy[edit]

I guess I have brought this up previously, but I still can't see a resolution to it that really satisfies me... Currently the bodies of water policy roughly says we doN#t have articles on bodies of water, but...

But if you have a look at Mississippi River (recently created as an itinerary after having been a redirect to USA) Bodensee Region and Lake Constance as well as Rhine and Danube not to mention Mediterranean Sea, I think we should ask ourselves whether we want or need articles on bodies of water and if yes what the criteria should be. The current policy in its current wording is not helpful - at least for me. And if an argument is SEO, I certainly see the value in that, but we should also try to avoid empty outlines and/or duplicated content... Oh and if this is the wrong place to raise said issue, I apologize, but I wanted to reach all interested or potentially interested parties... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Bodies_of_water . I actually wonder if we need a specific policy for this anymore? If an article is a valid itinerary or an extra-region then I don't see why additional guidelines are needed just because a fair amount of H2O is involved... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm supportive of any attempt to consolidate site guidelines, and the current guidance on bodies of water could be easily covered in a paragraph within WV:What is an article?. I disagree that we don't need guidance somewhere for bodies of water, however, as in the early days there were many attempts made to create articles about lakes or rivers simply because they were geographic features, so I think it remains important to note that articles about bodies of water should only be created when they are about the region surrounding the body of water, an itinerary for traveling on a river, or an extraregion article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I agree with Ryan about this. And Hobbitschuster, current policy doesn't actually say that we don't create articles about bodies of water, but instead, explains when it's OK to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

List for mountain range articles?[edit]

There are a good number of extra-region mountain ranges (such as Appalachian Mountains) in WV, and as far as I can tell they do not fall into any common category. Is this something best solved by a category of just an Article of some type? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If you mean category in the Wiki sense then no, we do not categories pages in Wikivoyage like in Wikipedia. If however you think there is a use to group together articles about mountain ranges then maybe create a travel topic along the lines of Waterways. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Mountain_ranges --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything is probably going to "break" for 10 or 15 minutes later this month[edit]

This is early notice for everyone, and a request to share the news:

The Ops team is planning a major change to the servers, (very) tenatively scheduled for Tuesday, 22 March 2016. One probable result is that when this happens, all wikis will be in read-only mode for a short time, likely less than 15 minutes for all editors. You will be able to read pages, but not edit them. "All wikis" means all of the WMF wikis, including Meta, Commons, the Wikipedias, and all the sister projects, including all of the Wikivoyages. It may affect some related sites, such as mw:Wikimedia Labs (including the Tool Labs). There will also be no non-emergency updates to MediaWiki software around that time.

Many details are still being sorted out. I am asking you to please share the word with your friends and fellow contributors now. This will be mentioned in m:Tech/News (subscribe now! ;-) and through all the other usual channels for Ops, but 99% of contributors don't follow those pages. If you are active in other projects or speak other languages, then please share the news with your fellow contributors at other projects, so that whenever it happens, most people will know that everything should be back online in 10 or 15 minutes.

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Technical Operations department is planning an important test of the new "full" data center in Texas. The test will result in about 30 minutes of downtime for all the wikis, including all Wikivoyages, on two days that week. This work was originally scheduled for this coming week, but has been postponed until the week of 18 April 2016. The official schedule is kept on Wikitech; more information is at m:Tech/Server switch 2016. More announcements and notifications for editors are planned.

If you experienced problems with the five-minute read-only test on Tuesday, 15 March around 07:05 UTC, or if you have suggestions for places to announce this, then please contact me directly at w:en:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

IEG proposal: Improve Upload to Commons Android app[edit]

Hi folks,

I've been working on the Upload to Commons Android app for the past few months as an Outreachy project (which was recently completed successfully :)). A few changes were made to the app to make categorization of pictures easier, via suggestion of nearby categories and more flexible category search. However, there are lots of improvements (documented on our GitHub page) that we couldn't fit into the scope of the Outreachy project. I would love to be able to continue working on the app to improve it further - hence an IEG proposal.

My IEG proposal for the app involves:

  • Fixing long-standing bugs and looking into old crash reports to try and prevent them from recurring, to provide a smoother user experience
  • Making several enhancements to the app to make it more user-friendly and newbie-friendly, new location-based features (e.g. a list of nearby articles lacking pictures), and further enhancing categorization.
  • Increasing awareness of non-Wikimedians about this app to grow the contributor base

Several of the proposed features are based on previous suggestions by users, and I would very much appreciate more feedback and suggestions! If you are interested, please do take a look at the current proposal, feel free to ask questions and make new suggestions on the Discussion page, and review/endorse it as you see fit. If you would like to be part of the project, volunteers and additional advisors are always welcome.

Thank you so much! Misaochan (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems on big screens[edit]

Main page
Article with too small banner

I've just set my new screen up. Now I have noticed that your pages does not look very nice on my screen. The main page as well as the normal articles. Everything is too small. Especially the main page looks really strange. I am not sure whether you have discussed this already. I have added tweo screenshots. Centering the content could be a first solution, I think. I have a 27" screen (2550 pixelks width). Meanwhile these screen are not that exotic any longer and people will use it at home as well (like me). So we should consider such screens as well. -- DerFussi 09:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also something I noticed on my 24 inch screen. The first one is down to our banner templates which scale images down to 2100 pixels no matter the source resolution (I upload banners in as high a resolution as possible in anticipation that this will be increased). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I usually just enlarge the browser scale with 'ctrl +' or ctrl mouse scroll wheel (or in your case maybe (Strg +). Not sure with web browsers but I have other applications that have a HD screen menu customisation option to make icons larger pixel sizes, also useful on high pixel count tablets. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit tricky trying to find a balance between supporting very hi-res screens and not forcing users on smaller screens to download huge images. At the moment the DOTM/OTBP/Featured banner images are limited to 1700px width but they are still 230kb for Hilo, 284kb for the phrasebook, and 496kb for Kyoto, which is way too much for someone on a small screen. It's probably worth looking at how the pagebanner code sends different sized images to different users and seeing if that can be leveraged for the main page.
For now, those with a large screen can add the following to your User:UserPage/common.css file, which I think will allow page banners and everything but the map on the main page to stretch to larger sizes:
.banner-image {
    max-width: 100%; 
#mainpage-map {
        max-width: 100%;
.wpb-topbanner, .wpb-topbanner img {
        max-width: 100%;
.jcarousel-wrapper {
        max-width: 100%;
Fixing the map requires getting rid of the 1125px limit in Template:Mapbanner, but since doing so will add to the page size for users on small screens I haven't changed it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is not my own screen. I can live with that (WV is part of my life). The problem are our readers and visitors that come over here by using search engines. Or journalists or blogger who want to write about us. They don't know about personal css files. And we can not expect that they create personal css files befor using WV. They also dont want to use browser magnifying shortcuts. They look at it and think: Oops, it looks quite nonprofessional - and go. And the article banner in Phnom Penh on the screenshot looks nonprofessional. In worst case we get bad advertising. We do not make this website for us, we make it for them. We should not forget that. The website should look acceptable (not perfect) on all screens and devices (desktop, table, phone). WV/it at least centers the content on main page. Look more acceptable to me than left aligned. -- DerFussi 07:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not suggesting personal CSS as a long-term fix, I'm suggesting it is something you can try for now to see if it helps to resolve the problem until we can find a long-term fix. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
So if I understand correctly it is not the size of the image that has been uploaded but a restriction of what the pagebanner downloads to the viewer? Can it not be smart enough to know what screen size it should build too? People who are on wide screens generally do not have a bandwidth issue. On the usability side though, I think it would be good to download large images to high definition medium sized screens for better quality but I question the usefulness for large screens. It really is not good to have such a wide page to read paragraphs of text, it is difficult for the eye to trace back to the start of the next line when more than about 15 words per line. Generally I either set browsers to large zoom, or not the whole width of screen or move to second or third screen which is in portrait position (as people still insist on publishing documents that are portrait not landscape format). --Traveler100 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
If the pagebanner adjusts the download based on viewer width, it should use the width of the browser window, not that of the screen. I for one only at rare occasions maximize the browser window. --LPfi (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point, window width is the deciding factor not screen width. Due to reading line length I also tend not to do full screen. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it depends on the browser width. Nobody doubts about it. But i think its not useful (and shortsighted) to base a web design on the own browsing behaviour. A website should at least show not any glitch on all screen sizes. Thats what I wanted to point out. I think its very useful to use some time to set some css for @media (min-width: 1900px) {}up. -- DerFussi 05:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Note many sites limit a column max width on the content area. There are good reasons behind this, even if it seems counterintuitive - readability improves. It's dangerous and unfair to assume "People who are on wide screens generally do not have a bandwidth issue". A large image could be loaded on a large screen but this means a user on a slow/expensive connection may be punished simply for having a large monitor. The site gets slower and user engagement may drop/ I'd strongly urge the community to limit the entire content area rather than thinking about loading larger banners. Jdlrobson (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is every permutation of user here I guess, from a massively wide monitor on a low bandwidth connection to an iPhone on 4G. There isn't 'one size fits all'.
I would urge however against being too precious about this point. The obvious trend over the past 10 years has been ever increasing bandwidth in all parts of the world and it will continue to be the case. If we extend the banner across the width of the browser window it is not going to exclude anyone. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I would urge you to read this report. 2G and slower connections are much more important than you might think. "The majority of the mobile users in the world uses a 2G connection, the growth will happen in the countries where the 2G usage is highest. And proxy browsers usage is low so it doesn't solve the problem. We need to have a site that is fast on 2G." Jdlrobson (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement whatsoever for the site to be 'fast on 2G'. The banner is basically another image on the article, no more and no less. It is distasteful to suggest people with 2G connections want to have a low quality experience, especially since most of those 2G connections will upgrade rapidly over the next 10 years. In any case there is a separate template used for mobile devices, and the banner is scaled down accordingly for that. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not just a 2G question; voyagers relying on mobile data are likely to be either roaming at some inflated price or using a local pre-paid SIM with relatively limited data support. A dime a megabyte is typical for those sort of plans here, with wide variation in the number of megabytes in the bundle. K7L (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi, shortly we plan to enable the new maps support for several WikiVoyage languages. See documentation, or you can try it here (especially the Visual Editor). This is the alpha version, so it has bugs and missing functionality, and some behavior might change as we get feedback, but it will give you an opportunity to play with the early release and steer our development efforts towards what you really need. If you have any requests, please create them here (use your wiki login by clicking the MediaWiki button at the bottom of the login form).
CC from previous maps discussions: AlasdairW, Andrewssi2, Atsirlin, Ibaman, JamesA, JuliasTravels, Matroc, MaxSem, Mey2008, Pnorman, Shaundd, Sumit.iitp, Syced, TheTrolleyPole, Torty3, WhatamIdoing, Wrh2.
--Yurik (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Yurik: Will anything change when this new extension is enabled, or will it merely be an available option that we can test out while still using the existing maps implementation? Is there anything in particular that won't be supported anymore, or any new features that will be available (for example, an easier way to create a map mask for city borders)? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Wrh2: nothing will change at this point, just a new feature to play with. The demo should give you a good feel for it. You will be able to:
  • add markers and polygons visually
  • edit geojson and see how it changes the map on each keystroke
  • add auto-numbered markers (either numbers or letters), and have multiple counters
  • have multiple "groups" of markers/polygons and showing them on the same map or on separate maps (e.g. all food and all drink maps and one combined map)
  • markers and polygons can be of any color
  • markers and polygons can be clicked and will show popups with wiki text and images
  • very fast full screen popup map
  • NOT available: multiple map layers

--Yurik (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'ts live now. Please play with it and tell us if there's something wrong/missing! Using it in articles right now would be slightly premature though:) MaxSem (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Many listings have a image= attribute linking to a file's name on Commons, for instance image=21 21 DESIGN SIGHT - Tokyo, Japan - DSC06710.JPG. This image is shown in the pop-up by the current map system, but not by the demo you linked to. Also, the description should probably be on the same line as the listing's name? (I guess we can fix that by ourselves, together with the other text-type parameters). Cheers! Syced (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Syced, in the demo on the right hand side, if you click the marker, it shows an image. The templates you currently use for the links can be changed to use the <maplink> tag, which will add extra data to the marker, so the image=... template parameter would turn into {"description":"[[File:Image.jpeg|250px|Image description]]", ...}. Is that what you are asking? --Yurik (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see this discussion by the WikiVoyage community. Add your suggestions there. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Speling and travel topics[edit]

Do we really need this sort of edit? This is a travel topic with no clear reason to favour or favor one regional spelling over another, yet someone keeps changing spellings in valid articles just to edit-war specific English language varieties into pages. K7L (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing is a distraction and doesn't advance our goals in any way, but there isn't any policy as such that prevents it. I would just urge our regular contributors to not change spellings unless it is to pursue consistency in an article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
We should avoid having travel topics that freely mix American and British spellings. Something like that just looks hodgepodge and does us a disservice. If I am not mistaken the article was a mix of British and American spellings before that edit. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
(reply to Andrewssi2) WV:Spelling and WV:Welcome, copyeditors are the two guidelines that are relevant, and both have sections about changing spelling variants that suggest leaving things alone in most (but not all) cases. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
They do not say many words on this (i.e. what a slight preference means remains unclear). The practice on sw-wp is to do such changes (e.g. get rid of archaic phrases) only when doing more extensive copyediting. Searching for some such specific "error" and fixing it in a batch of articles is frowned upon. I think that practice should be followed also here. Unless the language otherwise is near perfect in some article, mixing variants is no big deal. I have the impression Americanization is done also in articles without variant consistency, when a non-American edit is seen on the last changes or watchlist, which is quite irritating. Whether allowed or not, irritating other users is hardly good for the site. There are many less well written articles out there, which really need copyediting. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Article skeleton help pages[edit]

Hi. I am working on Esperanto Wikivoyage and I catch some problem which seems to appear also here. Here are 2 pages with same content: Wikivoyage:Quick phrasebook article template and Template:Phrasebook skeleton. I want that on Esperanto Wikivoyage would be only one such page and it would be usable for both user's copy-and-paste (like Wikivoyage:Quick phrasebook article template) and for new page creation preloading (like Template:Phrasebook skeleton). The reason is clear: updating only on one place so everything is always up-to-date.

The problem is formatting. My 2 most successful options are:

  1. <noinclude>Information about using<pre><nowiki></noinclude> Content <noinclude></nowiki></pre>category</noinclude>
    • works well for preloading, sucks in user-view
  2. <noinclude>Information about using</noinclude><pre><nowiki> Content </nowiki></pre><noinclude>category</noinclude>
    • works well in user-view, sucks for preloading

I have also tried to put content in subpage and include it by < pre >{{/content}}< /pre > but it show only


 :) It basically works same (similar?) like preloading.

Some advices? --KuboF (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Parser overload! Ok, when previewing the above message, it looks OK, by after saving it's mish-mash. So, please, check it in preview (or fix it for others) :) --

Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress[edit]

There's an important new thread there. A filter is urgently needed against a dynamic IP edit warrior/block evader/vandal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

OMFG. Ryan and Powers, have a look at Recent changes. Is there something bureaucrats can do about the nutjob who's been creating "Ikan" accounts for the last half hour? Perhaps completely block creation of new accounts for an hour or so? ϒpsilon (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I suspect he'll just get bored and wander off, but if not add ".*Ikan.*" to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I kind of doubt this user will get bored and wander off. I think this is the same dynamic IP user who for a couple of years or more been making some good wikignoming edits, combined with trivial edits to eliminate everything conceivably imaginable as an Americanism in articles about "highly British" places like Laos and Thailand, while also eliminating all kinds of nice writing style and introducing typos. The style of edit summaries and the resolute refusal to sign comments on talk pages are consistent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Working holiday visas?[edit]

w:Working holiday visa has much detail on these visas & I've met a fair number of travellers who have used them, mostly people from North America or Europe visiting Australia. We have no article on them. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been on a Working Holiday Visa before and am happy to help if I can, however I'm fairly new to Wikivoyage and am not sure what is needed. How will the Wikivoyage article need to differ from the Wikipedia article? Misaochan (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article covers the technicalities of the visa well, but doesn't say much about actually going on a working holiday. Things like how to get a good balance between work and travel, maybe suggestions about when to go (before university, between university and your first job etc). Any preparation worth doing before setting off (e.g. getting experience or qualifications at home first), and whether it is good to get a job or interviews arranged in advance. Some stuff is country specific, and there was a discussion a while back about having articles on "Countryname for a longer stay", which might be the best way of handling that kind of specific information. AlasdairW (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
You might get some ideas by looking at somewhat related articles: Working abroad, Gap year travel, Volunteer, Teaching English, maybe even Retiring abroad. Pashley (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Travelling the Darien Gap overland article - where to stick it?[edit]

Hi everyone, my travel buddy Nivspektor recently created an article on the various ways to cross the Darien Gap (i.e. get from Panama to Colombia or vice versa). My question is, where does it belong? --Justvagabonding (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Itineraries with the itinerary article template comes to mind? K7L (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks K7L! So once we correct the template and complete the info we just insert a link on the itineraries page? --Justvagabonding (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Itineraries#Intercontinental, I suppose, as it's crossing between North America and South America. K7L (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Pagebanner - why cannot it not be fixed[edit]

So do we give up on the new Pagebanner syntax. Would be a shame to lose the drop-down of sub-sections but maybe it is the price to pay for not having the contents section keep randomly appearing on pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone working with the Pagebanner reading this? (I've already got so used to the problem being there that I seldom notice it any longer) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
On it:voy I haven't implemented the extension but I've add some code in the templates. Basically the benefit of the extension are two:
  1. fixed mobile visualization: already implemented
  2. drop down menu: on this topic I'm half way.
Unfortunately my real job has reduced dramatically my available time for voy, but if someone would like to support me on the finalization of this coding, we could rid off this extension with all the relevant bugs that time by time occurs here on en:voy. I'll be more than glad to explain where I've arrived and what is still missing. PS In case ping me on it:voy. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Andyrom75, that sounds promising. I don't think that my coding skills will be sufficient to contribute (and I don't have much time either), but on a longer run this may be a good solution.
In the meantime, I can only ping @Jdlrobson: The Pagebanner extension does not work properly, and we need a developer who can fix it. --Alexander (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. First I've heard of this. What issue are you seeing? Is there a phabricator task open? The best way to reach developers is to write a task or poke us on existing tasks there (watching every single projects Village pump sadly doesn't scale) - we're pretty respondent there I promise! What does "price to pay for not having the contents section keep randomly appearing on pages." mean? The only table of contents related bug I've seen was big caching issue that hit the entire cluster (and was unrelated to WikidataPageBanner) and got fixed Tue, Mar 8. In practice, many less frequently edited pages would have still been impacted by that bug up to April 8th due to the 30 day cache window in place. If you're still seeing issues that sound familiar to that, there may be something else going on that I'll happily personally look into for you. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken the issue is phabricator:T121135 (TOC appears in the article instead of the banner) which has been ongoing for several months. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I see the problem moderately often. Lapu-Lapu is a current example. Pashley (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I will be deploying a fix within the next hour that will hopefully resolve this. I may need to touch the pagebanner template to verify. Will update you soon! Jdlrobson (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems simply editing the template with a null edit or purging doesn't propagate to the pages that use it. Could someone edit the template to include a comment e.g.
<!-- cacheversion 1-->
and let me know when that's been done? Ping Ryan. Make sure this is in the output HTML - this will also help us with future debugging if people update it :) Jdlrobson (talk)
I've made the requested edit, but I'm not sure you will see it in source - doesn't MediaWiki strip HTML comments from the generated HTML output? -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes you are right. HTML comments are stripped so that's no good. That said if you view the source of a page impacts by the table of contents bug e.g. Monmouth_(Oregon) you'll see "Cached time: 20160328210714" - a time before this fix went live - it seems editing a template is not enough to force a re-render of pages that use that template. We may need to manually purge any troublesome articles and wait 30 days for this problem to fully go away. We could ask the Wikimedia operations to do a cache flush but I'm not sure this is advisable or allowed given the non-unbreak now nature of this problem. :/ Jdlrobson (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Editing the template will force pages using that template to update in the cache, but unless things have changed it's done via a work queue so it takes a while for all pages to be updated, depending on server load and current queue size. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems like you are right. Yay I learnt something! Looks like the issue has disappeared from Wikivoyage. After hitting random several times I have not hit a single page with the issue. Can you confirm you see the same? Jdlrobson (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
First, thanks for your efforts in trying to solve this issue. Note, however, that forcing a cache purge by editing Template:Pagebanner has been our workaround for the issue over the past several months - doing so always "fixes" the articles for a few days, but then in-article TOCs start building up again. I think we'll need to wait a couple of weeks to see if the issue occurs again before it will be safe to declare that the latest code change fully resolves the issue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems like the changes User:Jdlrobson made may have fixed this issue - I haven't seen the problem re-occur in the two weeks since his change went live. If anyone else comes across an in-article TOC please add a comment with a link to the article on phabricator:T121135. Many, many thanks to Jdlrobson for tracking down a difficult problem. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Pre-fill templates[edit]

Hello, how have you made the pre fill templates ? With an extension ? A script ? Thank you Archi38 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What templates are you looking for? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Generally the approach to templates on WV has been to reduce their number if possible and practicable in order to make editing easier. However, I don't know what pre-fill templates are and they may indeed justify addition to the limited list of templates in use on WV Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)s
@Ikan Kekek: @Hobbitschuster: On this wiki you call it "standart section". I'm talking about "City • City District • Region • National Park • Phrasebook • Huge airport • Dive site • Disambiguation • Redirect" when you create a new page. Archi38 (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh. Yes, we do. Go to Wikivoyage:Article templates and press "quick version" on any of the templates. The other way to do it is by searching for the title you want to create and then choosing the template when you are asked whether you want to create an article on that title. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Archi38: See MediaWiki:Newarticletext. That is the message displayed when creating new articles, and is how the option to pre-populate the new article window with an existing template is generated. For each template type we have created a template (for example {{Smallcity skeleton}} which you will see used in the calls from that MediaWiki: message (for example // -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Wrh2: I already did it but how do you remove the little blue icon at right of the template's link ? Archi38 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The following CSS will do it:
.mw-newarticletext a.external {
    background: none !important;
-- Ryan • (talk) • 16:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to all ! You helped me a lot ! Archi38 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Montreal districts[edit]

There is a district discussion tag and a discussion that seems to have become dormant two years ago. Any of you know about the city enough to help make districts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I put in my two cents on the talk page. If anyone who's familiar with the city would like to critique my proposal, please do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, and please, do participate in the debate... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking for comments on Phoenix district proposal[edit]

Currently, I have a proposal at Talk:Phoenix#Consolidation? that would eliminate Phoenix's current district pages and revert the guide back to a standard big city template. The proposal has been up for over a couple of months now with only one other person weighing in, so if anyone here would be willing to go take a look and leave their thoughts it would be much appreciated. :) PerryPlanet (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Please help fix the NOCC[edit]

Search Wikivoyage for "NOCC" and you will find many articles that contain phone number missing a country code. You can easily find the country's calling code (look at other articles of the same country) and fix them. Thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oui, mais on a une catégorie pour ça: Category:Listing with phone format issue should be the easiest way to find these. :) K7L (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
As noted in an earlier discussion, there is now also a gadget that can be enabled that will highlight listings containing bad syntax to make it easier to see what needs fixing - see #New functionality for finding bad syntax on pages - Error highlighter. -- Ryan • (talk) •
I've also noticed that adding the maintenance category to Special:Watchlist will now notify every time a badly-formatted listing is added to a previously-valid page. That seems to catch a lot of "new" contributions, including the hôteliers who pop up once to add a listing praising their own hotel and then vanish. The "no country code" thing is a common mistake for those unfamiliar with Wikivoyage? K7L (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

NOCC on domestic-only freephone numbers[edit]

Wikivoyage:Phone numbers says to omit the country code if a number isn't dialable from abroad at all, usually as a toll-free or freephone number in a format like Jenny's, toll-free: 01 800 8675309. . That's triggering the "NOCC" warnings. Is this a bug? K7L (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

To K7L:  It shouldn't be. There are exceptions in place for tollfree numbers beginning with: 0508, 0800, 1300 & 1800. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
From Wikivoyage talk:Phone numbers#Mexican toll-free numbers it looks like 01 800 is was the culprit? K7L (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


Any objection to changing Îles-de-la-Madeleine (Magdalen Islands, Quebec - population 12781, on 79 square miles and seven inhabited islands) from a région to a bottom-level rural destination to match fr:Îles-de-la-Madeleine? It looks to be one town (Cap aux Meules) and a few tiny villages; both languages are tagged as "outline", each listing some venues missing from the other. There are no lower-level articles under this one in either language. K7L (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm astonished that it wasn't already. Please do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Listing in Kassel doesn't format right[edit]

Can you have a look at the listing for "Grimmwelt museum" in our Kassel article? It seems to not format correctly for some reason... Also, what's up with the italics in the main body of the listing text? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I managed to fix it somehow. Side note: italicizing the description and adding a public transportation icon like that isn't, I believe, really in line with our manual of style. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a known bug with the listing editor that triggers when the "content" section of a listing contains brackets, pipes, and equal signs (Wikivoyage:Listing editor#Bugs and feedback). It's unusual for listings to have those values, but it looks like several museum listings in the Kassel article meet that criteria and thus will break when edited. Removing the icons from the listings ([[File:Zeichen 224.svg|15px]]) or else moving them to a template (like Template:Food-icon) should be viable workarounds until the listing editor is updated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
On another note, the user in question wants to get Kassel featured in time for the next documenta (which I think is a good idea, though unfortunately the only thing I know about Kassel is traffic jams and ICE delays passing through), but it seems that a native speaker would have to look over (some of) the language, as there seem to be some mistakes and I am not always sure what the right way of putting it is... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider posting this information at appropriate places in Wikivoyage[edit]

YELLOW FEVER - COUNTRIES WITH DENGUE: ALERT ‪#‎YFASIA. Re-emphasize the importance of YF vaccination. ‬ Jtamad (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We have an article about dengue fever and infectious diseases. K7L (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
And yellow fever. And, if needed, country and destination articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately those are rarely linked to - I only found them by using the search and then added links to pages I was working on anyway. Jlg23 (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Video on the new map feature[edit]

Tomasz is doing a live demo of the new map feature in the Metrics and Activities meeting – look about 45 minutes into the video. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree really cool stuff. Very useful for WV. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Interactive maps. Excellent! How do we make all the dynamic maps on Wikivoyage interactive like that? Are they already? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It's definitely got potential. To Ikan's question, no, our dynamic maps don't work like that. It's a different tag (<mapframe>) with different functionality. I'm not sure how we'd switch it over, but I don't think we're there yet.
If you're interested, I've been playing with the maps a bit -- User:Shaundd/Maps Demo and User:Shaundd/Dynamic_Region_Map. In addition to the stuff in the video, it can do some things that our current dynamic maps can't, like creating clickable dynamic maps and creating shaded polygons (useful if you want to highlight a particular neighbourhood in a city map). On the downside, I think there are still some Wikivoyage-specific quirks that should be worked out. For example, I haven't figured out how to get our existing listings to show in one of these maps, although I assume that's a fairly easy technical fix for someone who's good with those things. Those points they add in the video don't link with our listings tags so we could end up with two sets of coordinates for the same listing. Maps currently only has one layer, so we'd lose the GPX tracks, cycle maps, hill shading, OSM view (mapnik), MapQuest layer, etc, that our current dynamic maps have. The Visual Editor interface makes it really easy to set up a map and add points of interest and polygons, but to make them useful (e.g., change their colour, size, marker style, create a mapmask, add a name) you need to edit the GeoJSON that underlies the map. My understanding is Yurik and the Maps team would like to go in these directions, it's a work-in-progress.
It'd be great if more people played with/tested the Maps/mapframe feature so there's more diversity in the feedback. There's a discussion at Meta and so far it's mostly Yurik and the developers, me and some folks from Dutch WV. More opinions would be helpful! -Shaundd (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I made test implementation of the new maps for Wikivoyage: city article and country article with a fully dynamic(!) map of regions. The map of regions is embedded into the article just like static maps. Other dynamic maps can be opened (unfolded) by clicking on the map icon next to "Открыть карту" on the right side of the page. A few things remain to be polished, but in general the new maps are fully operational, and importing map masks from OSM turned out to be surprisingly easy. Not to mention the cool feature of drawing masks (polygons) using Visual Editor. Many thanks to Yurik and his team! --Alexander (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It will be awesome if we can easily utilize city borders and other data from OSM with the new map framework, and I'm excited by the potential applications. Many thanks to those who have been providing feedback and figuring out how to integrate these new maps with the existing templates and listing data. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Alexander, could you edit the map mask with the Visual Editor after importing the data from OSM? I imported some data (not from OSM) and it displays OK when reading the page but I can't edit it in the Visual Editor. -Shaundd (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I could not. But I also stored all masks on separate page(s) so that they do not clutter the article. --Alexander (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Being able to use two maps per article sounds great! (for instance town center + suburbs) Syced (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Trans-Canada Highway links to multiple dynamic maps, splitting the 8000+ km route into multiple regional segments. Will the new implementation display these inline? K7L (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Question about pageview statistics[edit]

Why, in your opinion, have the Hebrew Wikivoyage articles got more views in the recent days than all of the other Wikivoyage editions? This clearly can't be correct. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Another question: How have edits and active users developed in recent years? Is there a usable statistic on this? Pageview statistics don't seem to be all that accurate... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
We haven't had many active users beside myself. probably around 5 more semi-active users. I myself though have focused a lot on building up the core foundation of the website (I think I have done the work of circa 10 people so far), so this might have some impact on the readership (see my theory below). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

My suspicion on this matter, is that that once in a while (maybe once a year?), Google would test the relevancy + popularity of the content in specific websites by sending A LOT more people to the pages of specific websites which it suspects might be of higher interest to the general public. For example, I won't be surprised if the Hebvoy articles were higher in for about 24 or 48 hours, and that after this test the page views return to normal again while Google adjusts the amount of people they send to the content on a daily basis based on how they automatically measured the relevancy each page has to the users (maybe, among other things, based on the amount of time each user spent reading the page before returning to Google). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw, my question above was also targeted towards this language version. I am not quite sure if we are declining, growing or holding steady... However, I do know that de-WT [sic!] is dead. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, what in the world happened at de:? Not even a year ago they were routinely getting twice the number of pageviews as en:, but they cratered last summer and they haven't even cleared the million mark in any month after September 2015. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not talking about German Wikivoyage, I was talking about that other site's German edition, which is so dead in the water it is almost funny. As for what happened with de-WV, I cannot quite tell. Call it a cliché, but I have sometimes perceived their style of dealing with things a bit more bureaucratic and cumbersome than here, on the other hand their coverage is quite good for some areas and almost nonexistent elsewhere. But pageview statistics are quite likely not the gospel truth.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you think my theory above is the real reason for such a sharp increase in pageviews? or do you have an alternative explanation? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

w:Slashdot effect can cause a short-term spike fairly easily if a usually-quiet wiki gets mentioned at a higher-traffic site or in a media report. K7L (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Our policy on galleries[edit]

I have forgotten what our policy on galleries is. In recent edits to Kassel, quite a few of them were added. IIRC we do have a policy of "there is such a thing as too many images", but I have forgotten the details. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Check this out. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. So what should be done in the concrete example? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I think they need to be removed. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you do that? I am weary of klutzing up the formatting Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe we should communicate with the user who inserted the galleries why our policy exists. I think it has to do with bandwidth considerations, but apparently de-WV has drawn different conclusions... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Help wanted - fix broken links[edit]

I've written a bot that will flag broken URLs with {{dead link}}, which will print a very noticeable warning next to broken links for people who have enabled the ErrorHighlighter gadget from Special:Preferences (for those who haven't enabled the gadget the warning is invisible). Articles with broken links will also appear in Category:Articles with dead external links. I'm still validating that the bot won't break anything and have thus only run it against Category:Star articles and a handful of other articles, but at present that still leaves over 50 articles needing links fixed (or removed, in cases where the associated business has closed). Please help out by reviewing/fixing broken links in Category:Articles with dead external links, and if you would like to see the bot run against a specific article or group of articles please let me know and I will do so. Feedback appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could somehow mention the exact link that is dead. Preferably on the talk page in question. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
What does it mean that a link is dead, in this context? A website can be temporarily down or unavailable. Even HTTP 404 responses may be due to a temporary malconfiguration. --LPfi (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: if you enable the ErrorHighlighter gadget then you will see a very noticeable "dead link" message right next to the broken link. @LPfi: right now the bot flags links that return 404 errors (page not found) and DNS lookup errors (site not found) as dead links. I've set the bot up so that when it is re-run it will first delete all instances of {{dead link}} in the article, so if a link that was broken somehow comes back to life it would no longer be flagged as dead. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Where do you activate that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
In Preferences / Gadgets / Experimental, tick ErrorHighlighter. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. I suppose those errors should not occur on well maintained sites. It would probably still be good to include a timestamp in the template, so that a link that has been dead a long time and those recently marked could be told apart. Then the old templates should also not be removed, but left alone, unless the link has come live again (or the error has become a transient one). --LPfi (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The timestamp is already being added - see Special:Diff/2966265/2969005 which added {{dead link|April 2016}} to nine links. The current implementation uses month and year, which matches w:Template:Dead link, but I would need to modify the bot to leave old template timestamps in place when the bot is re-run. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes, a link looks to have "come live again" but is actually being cybersquatted - the original venue is still dead and some unsavoury characters registered the name the moment the original legitimate registration expired. The site then returns advertising, linkspam or a listing of the domain name for sale at some extortionate price. Often, it merely redirects traffic to some other domain. If we link to that sort of domain, it makes us look spammy. K7L (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The bot is admittedly much more limited than a human editor - for example, there is no way for a bot to accurately determine if a link is to a site that is being cybersquatted, and as noted previously I'm not flagging sites that timeout or have other potentially temporary issues. That said, I think there is significant value in flagging links that are clearly dead, both to ensure we are linking to accurate information and as a way to more easily find listings for places that might have gone out of business. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The bot will not find all links that need updating but it is finding enough for now. Looks like there is much work to do, is going to take a concerted effort to fix them all but this will improve the site for readers and its search engine ranking. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Two updates: first, I've been running the bot in batches against Category:Guide articles, but it's slow going since I want to review all changes to catch any bad edits - examples of bad edits include this one to the "Humphrey's" listings that require fixes to the bot code to handle unexpected characters like a semicolon in a URL. Second, for some reason I am occasionally seeing DNS lookup failures for valid sites, which the bot then flags incorrectly. I switched to Google Public DNS, but I've still seen a couple of false positives; I'd like to get that issue resolved before having the bot run against too many articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


As of 17-April the bot has now run against all star & guide articles, so any dead links in those articles should now be tagged with {{dead link}}. While the vast majority of tagging was done without issue, there are a tiny number of edge cases that aren't handled properly and require updates to the code before the bot can be run without supervision. In the mean time, if anyone wants to see the bot run against a specific article or group of articles please let me know. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Until now I've been running the bot in batches and manually reviewing changes in order to catch any problems. Issues that I've fixed include problems with URLs ending in ")", issues with w:Internationalized domain names, occasional DNS lookup failures for valid URLs (I've switched to Google DNS to resolve that one), etc. Since things look fairly good at this point I'm going to let the bot run unsupervised, but if anyone notices any links flagged incorrectly please let me know so I can fix the code. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for Twitter - quick and easy fix (I guess)[edit]

Our Twitter seems to have become largely dormant. I suggest the following Quick and easy fix in absence of anything more elaborate that would need more resources. Let's just have it tweet our "discovers" with links once they enter the discover main page. Thus far we have always produced enough discover sniplets and it may be able to be implemented with an automated system. What do you think? I think it's better than nothing, absent an enthusiastic user manning our Twitter handle... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: This idea sounds good, as it only needs someone to copy and paste the sniplets (I like that word) into Twitter, and having just checked, most of the ones at the bottom of WV:Discover are under 140 characters.  Seagull123  Φ  21:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: @Seagull123: I usually tweet using the italian Wikivoyage Twitter account (with only few followers). I can suggest to schedule tweet using tweetdeck: in an hour it's possible to schedule many tweets (especially if you already have the text to copy and paste) and then you don't have to remember daily/weekly to post a new tweet. I hope to have been useful. --Lkcl it (Talk) 18:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Anybody else got an opinion on that? Ikan? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion, except that if you'd like to handle the Twitter account, great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Lkcl_it, Hobbitschuster: The idea of scheduling tweets sounds good, as then it lessens the workload of anyone using the account even more than just copy and pasting from Discover daily.  Seagull123  Φ  21:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Should airport articles require eat listings for usable status?[edit]

I have been to my fair share of airports and generally the availability of overpriced chain food is the default assumption, hence it is not as essential for navigating the airport for there to be a dedicated listing as it is for cities (Does Traben Trarbach have good restaurants? Well, the WV site should say so if it does!). I think other things are more important for airports. And as airport articles do not list hotels outside of the immediate airport property, sleep listings can also be problematic, as some airports do not have any accommodation on their own grounds. So maybe the focus on eat sleep x which makes sense for destination articles does not make as much sense for airports? Thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In an airport a traveller is generally confined to a particular zone. It is useful to know what is available in each zone, even if this is not the detail of eat listings. I want to know if there is only a small cafe in international departures, particularly if there is more before security. In a city I am less bothered, as it is usually easy to eat in a neighbouring area if the choice of restaurants is poor. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Airports normally don't get their own articles. An exception was only made for the largest ones, like Heathrow Airport, because they had town-like levels of complexity (restaurants, hotels, shops, connections to surface transport) that made them too big to simply include in the "By air" section of their primary host city. If the only food is a pair of vending machines, does the airport really need its own article? K7L (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't know, you tell me in the case of airports like London Stansted Airport, you could certainly argue either way, it certainly does not mention anything about eating stuff there. It also does not particularly strike me as "town like complexity". However, Benito Juárez International Airport also lacks eat listings, but it tells me that I can in fact eat stuff there.... And I think MEX is certainly an airport worth having an article on.... Due most of the things we usually put into listings actually make sense for airport eateries? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm rather pro airport articles. Mainly because there is a lot of useful traveler content that I don't want to see in the city article itself. Additionally an airport such as Heathrow or JFK will service travelers who are not visiting London or New York. London Stansted Airport is useful because it is actually a large airport and nowhere near London. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not arguing against airport articles, I am arguing for tweaks to their status ratings. As airports have places to eat generic overpriced fastfood as per the default I don't know whether eat listings should be given undue weight... Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
For airports, I think it would suffice to have some general text mentioning the eating options. The same would go for Sleep, at least in the cases where the closest hotel is several kms away. On the other hand, during an hour on an airport I think you're more likely to want to Buy something or Connect to the Internet than during an hour in a city, so perhaps it would be good to require something in these sections too/instead for an article to be usable. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That's probably a good direction to start. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Should be fine. What I want to know about an airport is whether I can spend some hours relaxing there (cinemas, restaurants, etc) or should I avoid it for as long as possible and stay in the city? Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So... Are we getting any closer to actually changing anything? I have yet to hear a voice dissenting from the "something needs to be done" consensus... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I would plunge forward and propose a specific change to the criteria at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition or Wikivoyage talk:Airport guide status. Powers (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Interview for a WMDE Podcast (in english) about Wikivoyage[edit]

Hi all -- I produce a podcast for Wikimedia Deutschland in English about interesting projects, community initiatives, open source, you name it.. and currently we're working on an episode on Wikivoyage. Would any of you experienced members of the community be available to speak, say via skype, and share your interest and explain what excites you about this resource? 5 to 10 minutes? If so please get in touch, we're trying to put these audio bits together in the coming days. Send me a message, here or perhaps best via email mark at citizenreporter dot org. Bicyclemark (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We were in touch earlier about this. I reiterate my interest and have already sent you an email to that effect. Eagerly awaiting further information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there a technology available to ban invite links for e.g. uber?[edit]

Seeing this edit (unfortunately it's nontrivial to revert, as it is "buried" under somewhat useful edits), I am wondering, is there a way to ban such "invite" links before they happen? I know they are against policy, but so is touting and it never kept anybody from trying... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: If this is still an issue: there is a thing called AbuseFilter. Commons admins seem to use it quite frequently for similar tasks … --El Grafo (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This is over. If you found any problems, please let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
And it's all been switched back to the Virginia servers, somewhat faster and definitely with fewer surprises. Again, if you see any problems, please {{ping}} me. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Couple of things about the visual editor[edit]

Hi, everyone. I've got a couple of things that I want to run past you.

First: if you haven't looked in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures for a while, then you might want to turn on the visual editor, and if you work on multiple wikis, then try "enhanced notifications", too. (That's the "let me know here, if someone pings me at Commons" tool.)

Next: The visual editor is pretty awesome for some kinds of editing (especially tables), and I think you should consider getting it turned on by default, rather than in Beta Features. On average, half of the new editors are using it by preference, and people running edit-a-thons and training programs tell me that it is far and away the preference among new editors there. It pretty much works like a rich-text e-mail editor, or editing a word processing document. This means that "improve the article" involves "clicking Edit and editing" rather than "clicking Edit and trying to learn wikitext". I think you'll be happy with the results.

Related to that: mw:Design Research is looking for experienced editors (hundreds or thousands of edits to any project, probably more than a year old) who haven't used the visual editor before (or at least not much/not recently). The usual setup is a scheduled video chat via Google Hangout on Air (or maybe Skype?) for 30 to 60 minutes, in English. To run the visual editor, you'll need to have a reasonably modern web browser (>95% of you already do) and to have Javascript turned on. They're mostly focused on the Wikipedias, but it might be good to broaden their horizons. 😉 If anyone's interested, please let me know. A note on my talk page or an e-mail message would be great. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What needs to be done to "get the visual editor turned on by default"? I assumed Wikimedia would do that when they felt it was ready - is there something each wiki is expected to do? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
When the Visual Editor was initially introduced, it was turned on by default on various wikis (Wikipedia in particular). At the time it was quite clearly not ready for the world - very slow, not able to edit one section without editing the entire page, rather braindead in its handling of tables and templates. The backlash to that move left us with the odd "edit" and "edit source" links as damage control. I'm not sure I want to revisit this? K7L (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, only users with the beta "visual editor" feature enabled see "edit / edit source". If I view a page anonymously I just see "edit" and it uses the wiki source editor, not the visual editor. Ideally it should not be necessary to enable a beta feature in order to give users the choice between editing wiki text or using the visual editor. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just used the visual editor to make a couple of edits to Wrocław, fixing broken links. The editor looks better than it did a year or so ago when I tried it on WP, but needs some work before being good for WV. It needs some customisation, like we have for the regular editor, to remove cite and add buttons for inserting listings. Clicking on a listing brings up a template editor which is poor compared to our listing editor. AlasdairW (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It also screwed up the ordering and positioning of the fields in the listing templates: for example look for "Museum of Architecture" or "Novocaina" (see diff). 11:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I have also used it to edit Aberdeen and Kilcreggan, and when I reviewed the differences I noticed what looked like extra changes. Although it is a nice feature to have, and is good for fixing dead links because the template's message appears in yellow, I do think that some work is needed before it is turned on my default. It is not available for articles in the Wikivoyage space, so I couldn't use the Wikivoyage:Graffiti wall to try things, and this edit had to be made using the source editor. AlasdairW (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Issues with Visual Editor[edit]

I thought that I would start a list of issues with the visual editor on Wikivoyage, beginning with those that I have seen in the past couple of days. Don't take the length of the list as an overall comment on the editor. Please add to the list as you find things. AlasdairW (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. Customisation for Wikivoyage as needed, similar to that in place for the source editor, removing features rarely used like cite and adding listing template buttons for See etc.
  2. The order of entries in a listing is sometimes changed when that field is unchanged, showing spurious differences.
  3. There is no obvious way of cancelling an edit.
  4. When edit is selected for a section, the complete article is opened for editing. Edit summaries may give the wrong section for the edit as a result (e.g. an edit may start in the Eat section, but also make changes to Sleep, and by default the summary would be Eat).
  5. Editing listings is awkward - maybe it could use our normal listings editor.
  6. The table of contents links in the pagebanner appear during edits, but don't do anything.


Ryan, yes, the basic process is that the WMF turns it on. However, they don't want to just surprise everyone, and they definitely want to know whether it works well first. For example, I tend to agree with the suggestion above to kill the Cite button. The automagic mw:Citoid service is awesome, but it's not relevant. Changing the "default" means that you don't have to personally opt-in to it in your preferences. (All logged-in editors would still be able to opt out.) Also, although it's probably not necessary for a smaller wiki like this, it's possible to change the default for logged-in editors and IPs on different dates. They've done that at most of the large Wikipedias, to give editors a chance to get used to it.

K7L, there's a new feature that lets you choose whether to have two tabs ("Edit" and "Edit source") or just one ("Edit") that does whatever you want it to do. It's currently visible at the Wikisources, Wiktionaries, and three Wikipedias: hywiki, plwiki, and enwiki. Most existing editors are leaving the default setting, which is a single tab that opens whichever editing environment they used last – which, for most of them, is the wikitext editor. At the Hungarian and Polish Wikipedias, the visual editor is the primary editing environment, so IPs get that first (with a button to switch to wikitext). At the English Wikipedia, the wikitext editor is primary, so IPs get that.

AlasdairW, I really appreciate your testing and starting this list, and I hope that you and others will expand it. The template editor depends upon TemplateData, which half the listing templates don't have yet. It strictly follows the order of the parameters in the TemplateData, so if the order isn't what you want, it will definitely get it wrong. (I assume the order should be what the current listing editor does). Given how few templates we have here, and how frequently the listing templates are used, I do not believe that VisualEditor should be offered to by default unless and until that has been fixed.

I can ask to have it turned on for the [[Wikivoyage:]] namespace if you would like to use it in the sandbox. This could probably be done as soon as next week, if we make the request (in Phab:) soon. It's not really designed for comments on pages like this (e.g., no support for association lists, and therefore no ability to use half of that listing style to indent comments), but it's possible to add a normal signature, and you could edit any page in the namespace. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've got two requests in the system now.
The first is about getting quicker access to the listing templates. A Wikipedia editor suggested a drop-down menu on the toolbar; what do you think of that idea?
The second is to move the Cite button out of the main toolbar, and into the "Insert" menu (just in case anyone wants to edit the Dutch phrasebook, which currently uses two ref tags). There are a couple of other Wikivoyages that seem to use footnotes more often. If anyone knows a bit more about those Wikiovoyages, I'd be happy to hear whether this will work for you, too.
I haven't filed a request to have the visual editor enabled for the [[Wikivoyage:]] namespace yet (it'd let you edit the sandbox, among other pages). I thought I should wait until someone actually agreed to that idea. We can't enable it for the sandbox alone; it's everything in a namespace, or nothing. It is available in the User: namespace, so you could always use User:Whatamidoing (WMF)/sandbox as a place for testing. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

DotM attention banner?[edit]

Again many of the articles nominated for a month on the Main Page could use more voyagers to check them through/support them on the nominations page, in particular five out of six upcoming travel topics would need some more support votes.

However, this is not the first time this happens, we seem to have the same problem every couple of months. When the issue is brought up here in the pub voyagers do come and help out with the nominated articles, but 2-3 months later we are back at square one as the next bunch of articles are in need of more attention…

To avoid having to start a thread here in the pub every time this problem arises, I suggest putting a banner on the top of the pages (along the lines of the "We will be performing server maintenance..." banner that's up as I'm writing this) whenever, say, more than half of the articles in the table need more support. What do you think? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


Sealand was recently merged to Felixstowe by User:Traveler100, but I'm not sure it was the right move. The listed reason for a merge was "no place to stay", but that's simply not true. Sealand is a place, where people sleep. Just because there are no commercial hotels doesn't mean it fails the "sleep there" test. Sealand is likely more well-known than Felixstowe, and in fact I'm not even sure why Felixstowe is even involved; is it the nearest settlement? It just seems odd to redirect a place that people might actually search for to a place most people have never heard of. Powers (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A merge is certainly not appropriate in this case. Furthermore, given how often the sleep test is misapplied, I think it may be time to look at making some edits to wiaa to really drive the point home that the lack of any hotels, etc. doesn't actually preclude a place from getting its own article. Frankly, I'd go so far as to ask whether the sleep test muddies the waters too much to be worthwhile and whether maybe we should look at other analogies for the dividing like between what kind of place does/does not get its own article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
People sleep at my house and yours I would assume, but I see nothing on the Sealand web site to say members of the public and stay there or even visit the platform and no places to buy food. The web site just appears to be a fund raising and merchandising site so that the current occupiers can maintain it and live there. Did not appear to me to be a place for travellers to stay. Yes it deserves an article on Wikipedia, but on Wikivoyage is it more than a See attraction? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to support dropping the sleep test or at least fixing wiaa. It only seems to create ambiguity as it stands.
Sealand is a unique destination, and not (in a simple sense) part of the British mainland and so should not have been merged. I'd say that it should be created again. The article is only as tenuous as the place itself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Would this not just open up the flood gates for articles on places such as Freistaat Flaschenhals (which does have places to stay and eat), and a number of forts and castles in Europe (which can be visited), as well as privately owned plots of land and islands around the world? I think these are better handled as See listings or mentioned in Other destinations in the appropriate region article. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Check out Bir Tawil , an interesting travel location with no infrastructure whatsoever :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Well if you are intrepid enough, and not risk averse, you can camp in Bir Tawil. My point with Sealand is that it is just a structure with now (Bates dies in 2012) some private individuals trying to earn money from a website. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sealand is a former offshore fort, similar to a small offshore oil platform. It was occupied in the 1960s, and has made claims of being a country, but this has not been seriously recognised by any other country or the UN (there are some claims of recognition). It appears that when the article was created, visits were possible (visits may have stopped before the article date), but the website now says that visas are not issued. I recently saw a report about it on TV, and they did allow a journalist to visit, but there appeared to be only one occupant, and there were clearly no facilities for visitors. I think that merging it was probably not a good idea, and either delete or leave as a "can't visit at the moment" outline. AlasdairW (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
So with respect to [wiaa], basically I would like to make a distinction between destinations that are better merged up to the nearest town to help the traveler (i.e. Hamlet X should be merged into nearby Town Y), and unique destinations such as Sealand that are obviously not general travel destinations and also do not fall under an obvious hierarchy. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, Hamlet X. "To be or not to be, that is the question..." K7L (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I chuckled. Though this does seem to be a serious issue... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that we should not usually try to merge islands (which Sealand is ignoring the "country" issue). It is usually straightforward to sleep in Town Y and visit the sights in Hamlet X or vice versa. Unless there is a bridge between them staying in one island and visiting another can be difficult and require planning of ferry times, even if the two islands are yards apart. AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
So what if we stumble across a thousand islands, do we write an article for each? Some of them are only reachable by cruising on small craft and quite a few hold little more than an individual cottage. Montréal or Manhattan, on the other hand... K7L (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This is where the 'can you sleep there' test really helps. If you're going to stay there a few days, then you'd like an article on the island. If you're going to stay in a nearby town, and just visit the islands, then we don't give them an article. Sealand is a very special case. There may be a good reason for doing away with the 'can you sleep there' test after all this time, but this shouldn't be it. --Inas (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

How to kindly request to consider merging existing article to new article of larger scope?[edit]

Archipelago Sea should IMO be merged to Sailing in Finland. but {{merge}} doesn't seem the right template to give people time to digest this move. --Jukeboksi (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is with the merge tag. Would place the merge tag on the Archipelago Sea and the {{Merge from}} on the Sailing in Finland page. On the first page's talk page please explain why you think they should be merged and not kept separate, as it does on first inspection not make sense to me? Then leave it a few week if you think people need time to digest. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A podcast about Wikivoyage[edit]

For those of you who enjoy listening to podcasts, AndreCarrotflower and I both took part in an episode about Wikivoyage and travel writing for the Source Code Berlin podcast (associated with Wikimedia Deutschland). I invite you guys to listen, maybe leave some feedback, and enjoy! PerryPlanet (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! - Matroc (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Good podcast. Maybe it will even draw an eyeball or two to our project... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Listening to it right now. It's good advertising for WV, so let's hope as many people as possible stumble upon it. Thumbs up to Andre and Perry. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
When listening, please bear in mind that I don't lisp like that in real life. It was a bad Skype connection. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, it's so much fun listening to you ;) Thanks! Danapit (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, frequently do sound that hyper and stuttering, especially when I start getting enthusiastic about something. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to Andre and Perry for contributing, and the producers for a very polished podcast. Nicely done, hopefully it garners some attention for the project. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Jinotega lost a lot of pictures[edit]

Besides the problems with this guide we had discussed earlier, it has now lost a lot of pictures due to copyright issues. What should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There's not much you can do other than find additional photos on Commons, search Flickr for CC-compatible images to upload to Commons, or physically go there to take photos. Anyway, even as it is now the article still contains three photos, which is less than it might have but not problematic per se. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd definitely spread out those pictures we still have within the article. Powers (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The article also seems to confuse the city itself and the "departamento" Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding traveller routers and carsharing and ridesharing services information from Consum(er)ium[edit]

How would one go about the task of incorporating this content?

--Jukeboksi (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want Wikivoyage turned into this sort of link farm? We link to the official site for each individual {{listing}} but otherwise links tend to be used sparingly or not at all. Hotel price aggregators in particular is just one long list of links to travel middlemen or encyclopaedia articles, which looks ugly and not very useful. If a hotel or venue is worth listing, we list it here ourselves. K7L (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Need for "connection" and "event" item types in Wikivoyage + semantic wikivoyage[edit]

For Wikivoyage in general I totally recommend using new items:

  1. Connection describes the two locations and the properties of the connection. Makes sense to link 2x instructions on "get to the port/station" and "get from the port/station but write these only once and maintain the master link at Municipality#Getting to and from the bus/train station Can be natural connection i.e. border crossing to neighboring entity via road or highway in car or man made: airplane, ferry, train, bus etc.
  2. Event describes a thing to do with a start timedate and end timedate plus the rest of {{do}}, {{eat}} and {{buy}} have. Then when added Semantic database consisting among other thigns of subject-predicate-object w:Triplestore would be possible to compile calendars like
  • "Get all me events sorted chronologically form this and all neighboring entities (and optionally also their neighbours) for some timeframe."
  • "Find me all the events in places east of 24° 00,0’E that are in Finland and have a guest marina."
  • "Make me a calendar of events in Finland where type=Film festival."
  • etc.etc.

Read more:

ps. Coming up is a post on description of transport networks as directed graph networks derived from sets of semantic descriptions. Instead of mentioning a permutation of times "there is bus/train/air/sea/road link to Y" in X and likewise. You just define possible nodes in (navigator that is road intersections) and make a linked list which is then incorporated into the directed graph network representation. Jukeboksi (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit sceptical about the Connection type of item. (Although I'm not quite sure I understand correctly what you describe) This presumes that the information on both article is identical, but this is not always the case. For instance let's say we have a connection between a big city Paris#By_train and a small city Rennes. In the Paris article, there are so many connection, that it would be bothersome to have details to all of them, it would make the section very long and hard to navigate. On the Rennes article however you would have more space and it would make sense to put in things like travel time, ticket prices etc. Drat70 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
To show how to get from A to B in article B, which I think you are trying to address with the connect idea, then consider the {{Routebox}} template which is near the bottom of many pages. Can show not just roads but also bus, train and ship routes. Advantage is that in one line it show next and previous destination and first and last destination on a route, which is more useful than just A to B. As for {{event}}, the template already exists. At the moment only a couple of hundred pages use this, would be great if you could expand its uses. My intention was that once widely used we could investigate how to make a database from the content and create calendar and search tools. If you know some good ways to achieve that please set up some test pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:User en-5 of babel combinations missing[edit]

Seems [[Template:User en-5]] is missing of the [[Template:Babel]] combinations. Somebody forget to import it form the 'pedia? Jukeboksi (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't use -5 babel templates. You can see the full list at Wikivoyage:Babel. We already have six levels for each language (0-4, plus native); is that not enough? Powers (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Template:User en-4 works. Jukeboksi (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we please address our "bodies of water" policy one way or the other?[edit]

I know I am kind of droning on about this and it may even be getting on the nerves of some editors, but please have a look at this issue that is still not resolved (there is a dormant vfd on one of the involved parts). I really do not care either way how this is resolved, I would even be fine with the policy being gutted entirely and both articles being kept, but the current situation is confusing, illogical and just too complicated for anybody to understand. I would really like to hear your opinions what we should do. The status quo is - in my humble opinion - not sustainable. It will by no means break the wiki, but it does not help her. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There is the Wikivoyage:Cruising Expedition. I do not know how relevant that is for the Bodensee dilemma. The project page is dormant, but there is some development e.g. through Cruising on small craft, Sailing in Finland and Archipelago Sea. Information on cruising on small (and large) craft can be and is included in many destination articles (Get in and Get around By boat) and travel topics about bodies of water are allowed. If we get enough momentum to attract boaters, we probably need a change in policy. How to change it is unclear until we get some best practices. For now, having the bodies of water described as (extra)regions, travel topics and itineraries is no real problem, I think, as long as this route is clearly pointed out to newcomers. --LPfi (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quy Nhon, Vietnam: Star Nomination[edit]

I'd like to nominate the article Quy Nhon for a star. I think it's an amazing article. Fun, lively, and very, very informative. It exceeds all the star criteria and compares very favorably to star articles we've read and used.

It has two wonderfully-detailed maps, both of which are better than anything on the internet (it's crazy, but as the article itself says, all the other maps are just wrong, including Google maps). The prose is effective and enjoyable (trust me, it hooked us into driving hundreds of miles out of our way to visit; now THAT's effectiveness!). The prose is effective, well-written and easy to read, and the grammar seems very good to me. The photos are informative and quite beautiful.

Having just visited the city, I can confirm that the listings are spot-on. And the history section gives context which is unavailable elsewhere; it's the best and only good source on the internet about Quy Nhon's history.

I posted more on the Quy Nhon talk page and the star nomination page. I also put a nomination on the article's banner. Please tell me if I should do anything else. Thank you. Linda Beth 123 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)