Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


Country specific readership[edit]

For Wikivoyage now available.[1]

Also Alexa says there has been a significant increase in readership in the last few weeks[2]

Best Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The increase in the last few weeks is presumably due to the links from other Wikimedia projects for the Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018. So we can expect it to drop off somewhat after February, but hopefully some of the new readers and editors will keep coming back. Nurg (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Alexa's ranking is based on a 90-day cycle so it will probably drop off in May this year. Is it possible to see pageviews by country for previous months? Gizza (roam) 23:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Not seeing the ability to look at other months for the breakdown by country.
This graph shows the big jump in readership.[3]
A more than doubling. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If you don't see the big jump, then click over to "3-Month" view below the graph. Some views stop at the end of last calendar year. The biggest increase was in people on the mobile site (who tend not to be editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James, WhatamIdoing, DaGizza, Atsirlin: How would people feel about running a very low level awareness campaign to follow up, running at like 5%. Just pointing to the Wikivoyage main pages? To keep up a little momentum from it in terms of traffic to wikivoyage. I've long been a fan of low level campaigns since they could have huge impact with much less disruption compared with a massive campaign. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Seddon (WMF), that's a great idea! However, we probably need to change the banner, because edit-a-thon can't run forever. Regarding the link, I would prefer to point to a dedicated landing page, which is adapted to newcomers. The main page is just the main page. It says "OK, now you are at Wikivoyage" without explaining what it is and how to contribute. --Alexander (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Alexander and think it is a good idea. The best general landing page on English Wikivoyage would probably be Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians or Wikivoyage:Welcome, newcomers. I don't know if the other languages have equivalent pages. It would be good to bring more languages in the awareness campaign too. I remember a Dutch-speaking editor finding out about the edit-a-thon too late. Gizza (roam) 22:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I think your idea is a fine one, but we'd need to decide whether the goal was readers or editors. If we're interested in "page views", then it might be worth running it only for logged-out users, maybe even only on mobile (and sending people to the main page is probably fine). If we're interested in "edits", then we could significantly reduce the potential for spam by only displaying it to logged-in editors on desktop only (and people should be sent to an onboarding page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it sounds like a good idea too, and I think it's probably better to restrict it to logged-in editors for the reasons you describe. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point @WhatamIdoing:. Edits are more important than views, especially since productive edits will improve SEO and bring views in the long term anyway. Focusing on logged-in editors is a good way to go. Gizza (roam) 23:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, DaGizza: - my proposal is to help bring awareness for readership to expose the projects to new readers. A separate campaign would then run alongside on Wikivoyage itself to encourage individuals to become editors. The two should occur in parallel. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Seddon_(WMF): that sounds like a great proposal. Continuing the momentum created by the edit-a-thon is crucial. We could make the main page the landing page for the readers, which explains what Wikivoyage is and showcases our featured content. Gizza (roam) 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
@DaGizza: - Timing wise do you think the community would be up for trialing something in the next couple of months? Seddon (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For sure. And thanks for proposing this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
...but if the main page is the landing page, then maybe it shouldn't be displayed to folks on mobile, since there are problems/limitations reported with that page. Seddon, could we maybe get three campaigns, so that mobile and desktop can go to different pages? (Or maybe delay the reader-focused on until the mobile site's page has been improved?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Are there any ongoing discussions regarding the mobile page? With templatestyles being enabled soonish will that help? Seddon (WMF) (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"And much more"[edit]

Hi, everyone. I deleted or edited out a lot of instances of "and much more" at the ends of lists, but it's quite a common cliche/promotional phrase, so I could really use some help if anyone would like to take up where I left off. Of course we have to be careful when using search results for "and much more" because it can be part of meaningful phrases like "and much more interesting" or "and much more expensive", but as a phrase at the end of a list, it's gotta go. And once we banish it, continued vigilance will be needed to revert or edit out new instances of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. There are variations of this like "and so much more", "and much, much more" and other similar touty phrases that we need to delete too. Gizza (roam) 00:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. The end of this task is in sight, but this is still a big job. Anyone who would like to help would be doing a good service and saving me from feeling impelled to do the rest of this by myself. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Just "and+much+much+more"&title=Special:Search 16 left for "and much, much more". I got most of them but need to get offline for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect pages on Wikipedia to Wikivoyage[edit]

Came across the article w:Ice hockey in North America which is in w:Category:Redirects to Wikivoyage. Not sure what to make of this. What do people think, good or bad idea? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea if done judiciously. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

RINT, Routeboxes and more[edit]

I was hoping to be able to report on the progress by Sunday, but the sooner, the better:

As many of you most likely will know, I have been improving {{Rail-interchange}} (or RINT for short) and {{Routebox entry}} over the past few days to make these local templates, rather than being dependent on Wikipedia's RINT template, having to import many small templates in the process. Thus far, I've achieved the following:

  • I have created User:Wauteurz/RINT, which is a local version of {{Rail-interchange}}, which mostly uses {{Routebox entry}} to produce a result like so:  U4 .
  • I've adapted {{Routebox entry}} to accept more customisation. Right now, the additions are limited to roundovers, with the option to add no, somewhat or fully rounded corners. Examples:  L4   SPR   7bis .
  • I've written documentation, along with all symbols used for European networks for as far as these were present in the original RINT template link. Please note that round-overs may not have been added everywhere, and that some cities may not be complete yet. Colours or images may also be off or not working, as the template is very much still in development.

The following additions and/or changes are planned:

  • Andree has shown interest in merging {{station}} and {{rint}}, but cannot do so so long as this possible replacement for RINT is still in the works.
  • More options are planned for Routebox entry, most notably the option to output diamond shapes (Used on the New York Subway among others).
  • A full coverage of the new RINT for all of Asia, Africa (currently lacking from RINT), Oceania and North and South America.
  • Conditional markup for RINT, as currently exists for Germany: {{User:Wauteurz/RINT|de|s|[№]}} with any number for [№] gives  S41 ,  S56 ,  S357  or many others.
  • Optional: Compatibility between {{Routebox}} and {{Routebox entry}} leaves a lot to be desired. This can be changed to where Routebox entries (which will also be made via RINT) can be used in {{Routebox}}.

The goal of these changes is to give Wikivoyage a universal look to lines, rather than using thousands of PNG and SVG files from Commons rendered at different widths from 11 to 60px. I'd like you to answer the following questions:

  1. Are you in favor of replacing {{rint}} as it stands currently?
  2. If so, are you interested in replacing it with User:Wauteurz/RINT? (It will of course be renamed to "rint" once it is at a point where it can be replaced).
  3. Are you interested in more options to {{Routebox entry}}, and if so, what options would you like to see? I cannot guarantee that they can be achieved, but I can try.
  4. While I'm already at it, is there anything you would want RINT to do or support that it currently doesn't?

I'll continue working on the template for a while, as I would be very much in favor of using it for RINT (and not only because I have invested half of my week into the template). Anything in the template is subject to change if there is a desire for it. I'll be awaiting your answers and will be able to answer any of your questions or explain anything that may not be clear. Thank you in advance.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that people have opinions on the matter. I'd like some confirmation before I plunge forward and replace templates. Speaking of: User:Wauteurz/RINT/box (the improved {{Routebox entry}} has had its functionalities expanded with customisation of border colours, rounded edges and mouse-over texts/tooltips. This is everything that I wanted to add to it. Since it is a non-destructive change, I'll plunge forward and update Routebox entry sometime soon unless anyone that wouldn't agree steps forward in the upcoming week. Furthermore, Andree has managed to make {{station}} call RINT without having to enter two templates (which can in circumstances break listings). We're rapidly approaching the goal and I for one would like to hear from the rest of Wikivoyage, so please, let your voice be heard!
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Played with RINT and having fun with it... The images appear for the most part to link to a Wikipedia article - if not in Wikipedia they will link to Create a Wikivoyage page. (looks ok now) - thought I would mention that. Instead of linking to Wikipedia for U-Bahn (Berlin) I created maplinks instead or no link if OSM data not available (the listing or marker icons still go to their specific locations on a map). I didn't try mapshapes but managed to create the U-Bohn routes on a test map. Others such as S-Bohn etc. did not appear to have any OSM linkage (I may be incorrect on that note). Also, if Wikidata etc. were in sync, would it have been possible to use the image field found there instead. (probably not since not all are in wikidata or have some other image present). Other concern would be the size of the template and whether or not it may need to interact (using a case or switch statement) with another set of templates. (also just wondering if it can be done with a module and tables or not?) Anyhow; looks nice and hope users will find it useful. Best wishes! -- Matroc (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to mention - S-Bahn station Lichtenberg example - when one clicks on the Go icon - a map pops up - click on that icon on the map - the title box with image of station - the title S-Bahn station Lichtenberg followed by images for S5, S7, S75 and U5 bleeds over the edge of the box -- Matroc (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Lifehacker: Wikivoyage Is the Travel Guide to Everywhere[edit] (koavf)TCM 18:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the comments, some are only now jumping from the sinking ship of that other site to our site. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to find the lifehacker article mentioned above yesterday while reading Jalopnik, an automobile blog. Their link was posted on 13 March 2018 at 10:39. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

second opinion request on block or not[edit]

Should we block this user or not? User talk: could be working for Hyatt or could just be a traveller that uses this brand of hotel (I know I often enter the chains I use on pages). Has in the past added other hotel chains. Just the text is often a little touty or copy of website. Either way considering forcing the issue of them creating a user account declaring if any business interest or not. —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)

This user was already warned, so if they have touted again in any way, they should have been blocked for 24 hours. Continually warning with no block isn't going to produce any good results, especially in cases in which the user in question has never replied to any message to their user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A quick note about a new maps project[edit]

Over the next four months, the WMF Collaboration team will be making improvements to the mapping program Kartographer and related functions. The team’s engagement with maps was prompted in part by the overwhelming support the maps community gave the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal "Kartographer Improvements". The project, which we’re calling Map Improvements 2018, is focused mainly on making mapping software easier to maintain and, of course, on the main "wishes" in the Wishlist proposal. Please visit the project page on to learn more and share your ideas or questions. JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Hey all. Our main page for mobile sucks.[4] Not sure what we can do about that?

Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One thing that might be helpful is a feature called TemplateStyles. It's something the Readers Infrastructure team is working on at the foundation. It allows templates to have custom CSS styles without having to place them in MediaWiki:Common.css. This means that non-admins can update the CSS for templates used on the Main Page (and anywhere else) that can use more CSS rules and be responsive to any device - like mobile).
We have some help documentation if folks are interested in learning more. We have deployed to a few wikis and are looking for more communities to adopt and advocate. I'd be happy to help put English Wikivoyage on the list if there is community consensus (and folks interested in helping to implement). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Surpassing WT as of Feb 2018[edit]

Per similarweb WV received 7.63M visits (2.55 pages each)[5]

While WT received 5.91 M visits (1.66 pages each)[6]

Congrats... Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This will probably be one of the last things we hear of The Other Site. The wreck is sinking, and they had it coming to them. See also Wikivoyage and Wikitravel for a comparison of Alexa rankings. /Yvwv (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that Internet Brands has come out with a net win of their attempt to shut down the fork or all discussion of it... Let's see when they pull the plug. At some point in time the servers will become more expensive than the advertising revenue... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Note that 2.8M views went to the edit-a-thon page alone. Looking at the Alexa and similarweb analyses, even though we are making progress and they are declining, they still have a much stronger SEO and social media presence than us. Gizza (roam) 22:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Name of Packed food article?[edit]

The article which describes food to bring for outdoor expeditions beyond a casual picnic is named packed food. Would camping food, outdoor food or some other name be better? Give your opinion on Talk:Packed food. /Yvwv (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Proliferation of airport articles[edit]

In those last few months or so, quite a few new airport articles have been created, some of them with significant empty sections. Now that may just be something that can easily be filled in or those airport articles should never have been created in the first place. What should we do about those existing articles and might it be wise to have a moratorium on the creation of new ones? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... TBH I think the number of airport articles has gotten out of hand. I'm afraid we'll need to delete some airport articles, perhaps even half of them.
When the airport expedition was started some people were concerned that we'd end up with a ton of half-empty articles of airport that really do not need to be described in detail, and while the number of airport articles was fairly stable until last summer or so, if the current trend goes on we'll at some point add up with articles like in the German version. de:Flughafen Heringsdorf, anyone? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think in general, we're starting to go overboard. Airport articles are supposed to be reserved for the world's most complicated and busiest airports, where travellers are likely to spend a significant amount of time. Some of the recent additions to the list don't qualify by that criterion.
I would be reluctant to push for the deletion of articles, but would appreciate if users would work on existing airport articles (especially the newer ones) rather than creating new ones. Not to point fingers, but User:MSG17, you have created many of the new pages, but haven't done much to develop each one before moving on. Would you mind improving the dozen or so you've already created before you consider making any more? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Not deletion: Merge and redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I will start a thread at Wikivoyage talk:Airport Expedition to propose the merging/redirecting of specific articles and link it here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I can assure you, you are not "pointing fingers". It is true that I have created a lot of new articles, often with nearly half the sections having no or one-line content. While I could add some personal research with planned travels in the summer, you are right that I should turn my focus on looking at adding research of my own to the articles, especially since that is planned, not absolute.
I will back up all the airport articles that I have created somewhere for any future use, and then focus on pruning them - deletion might be possible. I did overestimate the "bar" for airports, and should probably focus more on the busiest airports list from Hobbitschuster (talk) (and even then - some of those may not have enough notability or content for an article) than going off of what I considered "enough international connections" or "too much content on the main page".
Apologies for the inconvenience. MSG17 (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There are quite few fairly significant airports that are currently only redirects, eg. Mactan-Cebu International Airport or Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport, & that seems fine to me. I think the main rule is the same as for deciding if a suburb gets its own article, separate from the city: only if there is already enough text to be unwieldy if kept in the main article. Pashley (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
New thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
MSG17, there's no reason to apologize. The content is useful; the only question is where it's best placed. Some airports can be covered very effectively in the "Get in/By plane" section of the article for the city most served by the airport, while others are humongous, complex, not straightforward to get to and/or full of amenities worth listing, such that an article about them would become way too long to fit well in the article for that city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this completely. Never apologise for adding useful content to Wikivoyage. Speaking of which, I regret that I'm a lot less active at the moment. Life getting in the way. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Change the district layout of San Diego[edit]

I have proposed here to eliminate the current discontinuity in the district layout of San Diego either by making San Ysidro a city article independent of San Diego or by making two city articles districts of San Diego. I don't know what the administrative borders in the area are, but we have ample precedent to ignore them when they don't serve the traveler Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Though Wikivoyage policy allows for a great deal of leeway in this regard, I have always been of the opinion that we should follow administrative boundaries unless there's a pretty compelling argument to the contrary. I think treating San Ysidro as an independent city is preferable to expanding the scope of San Diego's districts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yet another discussion that has not resulted on any action being taken... How should we proceed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Markers to listings[edit]

Although I totally supported adding Wikipedia links to See, Do listings, not sure I like the look of adding Wikipedia and Wikidata link icons to city region lists. See Baden-Württemberg for example. But before I start undoing all the work done by another user, would like to hear others opinions.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your reluctance, though not just for aesthetic reasons. Why would we want to funnel readers away to WP at such an early stage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, both for aesthetic reasons and because I don't see why users need links to the Wikipedia and Wikidata pages for a city right next to the link to the Wikivoyage page (basically what ThunderingTyphoons! said). I've been changing "listing" templates to "marker" templates when I see them in city lists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the other side - for having the links, definitely at least to wikidata. We can do it either via listings, or by moving wikidata into markers. The latter is what's done in de:Vorlage:Marker (it seems) - and thus what likely will be done also here, eventually...
  • In any case, having the wikidata references has number of benefits - if nothing else, easily accessible URL/picture and also lat/long data. For sure the processing would be simpler for bots. E.g. in case we decide to have some nice overview maps in the future (like "biggest cities in the Alps"), having the wikidata IDs in place would help grouping acc. to regions etc. In short - all the wikidata links help automated processing.
  • As for the wikipedia links - it probably is a good idea at least for the articles we don't have yet? Like here it'd help, IMO.
  • I'm actually half-way of having User:AndreeBot ready to convert the current outline region articles into having at least listings out of the cities (and probably also 'other destinations', if it's easy to do). Markers are possible too, in the end. But using listings sounds more logical. Also, should we change our minds, converting to listings to markers is easier than the other way around... (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the functionality perspective yet but in terms of aesthetics, I think it's looks uglier in the City section compared to See and Do because the WP and WD links are at the start of the listing instead of at the end. Also the city descriptions are usually one-liners so the WP and WD logos stand out more compared to a listing with say, 3 lines of content. Gizza (roam) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I believe that we don't need a WP link for cities at least with a blue link. The whole point of see listings being linked to WP is because we don't have an article for sights themselves here. We don't have articles on museums so we link to WP if someone wants to read about the museum in detail. That's not the case with cities. And I don't think Wikipedia should get a preference when other WMF wikis have content about that city. Looking at the sidebar of Los Angeles for example, there is a Wikimedia Commons page, Wikinews page, WP page and Wikiquote page. A traveller reading the California guide and seeing Los Angleles in the list may want to see a gallery of images showing the city instead of encyclopedic information (making Commons if anything a more suitable link) or they may want to read current news or quotes about the city. Also I wonder if there's a way to add the Wikidata link but make it not show up in the article (so we can obtain lat/long information from it but the reader can't see it on the region page unless they click on the city link and then see it in the sidebar of the city article). Gizza (roam) 22:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If we want to add the Wikidata IDs to city lists for bots without making them show up in the article for readers, we can just add "wikidata=Q12345" to the "marker" template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For the most part, India articles with Cities or Other Destinations were entered via marker templates. These are generally linked to a corresponding article page from which you can get to Wikipedia and Wikidata. Yes you can add "wikidata=Q12345" to the "marker" template without issue; however, I wouldn't advocate it (Using the same idea, you can enter a parameter description which is also not a listed parameter but will show up when you click on a map icon - just being cautious about adding parameters). -- Matroc (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) - If wanted, I would add valid parameters for wikidata and wikipedia in the marker template and not have the icons with links show up on a page - simpler and to the point I think.
We should have links to Wikipedia and Wikidata for Stuttgart in the side menu of the "Stuttgart" page, but not in the higher level article Baden-Württemberg. I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!'s comment above. Nurg (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

...I mostly agree with the points above - it's hardly useful to have wikipedia links e.g. in the top-most region articles. However I'd argue it's a good thing to use listing for whatever resembles "* Place palace. Short description". IMO markers should be only used e.g. for waypoints, locations of metro stations, locating parts of listings (e.g. interesting statues in a park) and such. Listings could be exported into gpx/kml, or put on the dynamic map including the description (compared to when the description is outside content=)... Additionally, routinely I find "listings created using marker", where the descriptions are slightly different on each level of regions, mostly typo fixes etc. This is hard to maintain via bot reliably, but could be easily cross-checked if we used listing+content+wikidata...

So instead of extending {{marker}}, I'd suggest to use the more logical/structured way - and instead add something like no-wiki-icons into {{listing}}...? Or perhaps we can somehow make this default behavior - if {{listing}} is used in a region article, don't show icons, unless force-wiki-icons is specified in the listing? (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand. First, it sounds to me like you're saying that when "listing" templates are used, the descriptions are included in the dynamic map—is that true? If so, where are they? I've never noticed them. Second, it sounds like you're saying you want to use a bot to edit cities' one-liner descriptions to make them the same at every level of the region hierarchy. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me—I think that, for instance, it's appropriate for the one-liner description of Denver to be different in Colorado and Rocky Mountains (United States of America). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Both were just theoretical possibilities, of course... I like cross-referenced stuff, because you can do interesting things with that (I like to do technical stuff around here more, than writing prose - if it wasn't obvious yet :)). The bottom line was - if we go with {{marker}}, it's not only semantically weird, but also cuts us from possible improvements in the future - or at least we'd have to write a non-trivial conversion bot. Within few seconds, I found this sample article - to me, such usage of markers is completely weird. Instead of using {{listing}} (possibly with recently introduced inline=yes, to get rid of the dot), {{marker}} is used and manual markup to format alt and content. Superfluous work... And if we want to keep consistent style, it's also bad, if each region has different style of listings ("xxx. A big city." vs. "xxx - is a big city" vs. "xxx (a big city)"). (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Quickbar location[edit]

According to the Quickbar template, the Quickbar "should go at the top of the Understand section in every country article." Yesterday I moved the Quickbar in the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article to the Understand section, but this morning I find the edit has been reverted by user:ThunderingTyphoons!.

I checked several other articles, and it seems that the Quickbar is at the top of each article instead of in the Understand section. So are we ignoring the template requirements, has a change been made to the template and the change is not showing, or has something else happened? The last update to the Quickbar template was in June 2016. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. Is it perhaps a typo? The quickbars have never gone anywhere but alongside the lead for the whole time I've been on Wikivoyage. A quick look back on Template talk:Quickbar reveals that a move to the 'Understand' section has been proposed in the past, but never agreed upon, so in that case the information that you point out is written in the template is likely there in error. Thanks for raising this; now hopefully someone with more knowledge of the template's history can weigh in. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Quickbars[edit]

Should the Template:Quickbar Quickbar template be removed from the following articles? These are mostly uninhabited islands that are not sovereign nations or are micronations where the Quickbar fields will never be completed. For instance Baker Island will never have a capital city, and since there are no cars, driving on the left or right hand side is superfluous. Other fields such as the currency, their population, what electrical plug-in type they use, etc. is essentially meaningless.

  • 1. Baker Island
  • 2. Coral Sea Islands
  • 3. Europa Island
  • 4. Glorioso Islands
  • 5. Howland Island
  • 6. Jarvis Island
  • 7. Johnston Atoll
  • 8. Juan de Nova Island
  • 9. Kanoya
  • 10. Midway Islands
  • 11. Navassa Island
  • 12. Palmyra Atoll
  • 13. Paracel Islands
  • 14. Spratly Islands
  • 15. Tromelin Island
  • 16. Liberland
  • 17. Republic of Molossia

Similarly, most of these locations do not have country codes (ISO 3166-1), or if they do, because they lack a capital city, and most of the other other information that is mentioned above, the Quickbar will never contain complete information. You can see the full list of articles missing Quickbar information at Category:Quickbar with missing information. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"I recommend"[edit]

I've done a lot of work on eliminating "and much more" from Wikivoyage articles. There are 25 search results for "I recommend". Of course that's a phrase that should never be used in articlespace per Wikivoyage:Pronouns. Your mission, if you choose to take it on, is to delete these phrases and any associated 1st-person language you see when you open the articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mission accomplished, captain. I hereby pass on the baton to another Wikivoyager to eliminate the 20 "we recommend"s still clinging on for survival in the darkest recesses of the wiki. Forth now, and fear no darkness! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Agent DethDestroyerOfWords reporting mission success! All "we recommend"s have been removed. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks, guys! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's not forget the conditional "(I / we) would recommend". 25 results for that too. Anymore variations we can think of? Do not / would not recommend? :S --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I went through a search of "would recommend" and removed the I's and we's. I left some they's and he's. If I have time, I'll go through the "I/We suggest", etc. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Other phrases I can think of - "I suggest", "We suggest", "We would suggest" and "We believe". Most sentences containing "I" or "We". Gizza (roam) 21:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Some of these ones I've been removing are ancient though, been around since the early days of Wikitravel. So it does seem to be a winnable battle, because we can get rid of the wordings and they're not being reproduced elsewhere. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
A few months ago, I went on a personal campaign to remove as many misspellings and grammatical errors on Wikivoyage as possible, using Wikivoyage:List of common misspellings and the Wikipedia version which is longer and more sophisticated. Many (as a rough guess I'd say around 50%) of the errors were from the pre-fork days. Gizza (roam) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
On a related point, I'd love to see User:Giraffedata look over the "comprised of" grammar problem here. It looks like we've got a couple hundred. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
"Comprised of" is perfectly OK. Please don't mess with that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to address the "comprised of" grammar problem, the problem being that many people who will read Wikivoyage consider it poor usage. The fact that it doesn't bother other people, or even that it's perfectly OK, shouldn't be an issue, since there are perfectly OK alternatives that satisfy more readers and I'm willing to do the work. But if the edits would cause some kind of offense, and especially if someone would just end up undoing them, I don't want to get involved. I know when this is discussed on Wikipedia, the consensus is always that there's no reason to keep the phrase, but I don't know anything about Wikivoyage. Giraffedata (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Count me as firmly in the anti-anti-"comprised of" crowd, but I'd be remiss if I didn't say I have a ton of respect for Giraffedata's above-demonstrated regard for cross-wiki cultural differences. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Andre in all respects. There are so many actual problems on Wikivoyage; no reason to spend time changing something that's OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed there are several types of grammatical errors present in our articles that are not controversial at all. As a matter of priority, we should focus on fixing them rather than phrases which at least some people consider to be correct usage. Gizza (roam) 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This comedy sketch show clip just reminded me (oops, I mean it reminded this wikivoyager. Or rather, he means it reminded this wikivoyager...) of our recent endeavour to eliminate the first person from as many articles as possible. Had me in stitches. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Funny stuff! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Airport information in district articles[edit]

So this edit removed information about how to get from SXF IATA to Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln and as keen eyes might notice, the information provided there differed in wording and detail from the one still provided in Berlin and there was notably no mention of TXL IATA, because its location with regards to that district is beyond awkward. I think airports should be listed in district articles if they are a)contained within said district or b)if their access is particularly notable to/from that district. The information should be there if it serves our readers and particularly in multi airport cities. We should of course tailor our information. If there is a "stupid rich people with more money than time shuttle" that costs 40€ and makes no stops other than downtown and the airport and a local train, we should list only the local train in the district article through which the shuttle passes without stopping. What do you think? Is there a policy on this issue, should there be? And if so what should it be? Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
A similar edit also occurred here removing info on SXF from Berlin/Treptow Köpenick. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure there needs to be a full listing in every district article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should mention details about airports on each district page. This will be hard to maintain because people will forget to adjust details on every district page, and readers will be left with confusing and inconsistent information. By the way, I didn't remove all of the information how to get from the airport to the district. However, I'm not sure to what degree it is useful to mention each public transport line that will bring you from the airport to the district (and whether it should be in a "By plane" or "By tram/..." section). Maybe this should only be listed if there is a special bus/... that a traveler new to the city won't find right away.
Regarding the removed information in particular, I don't think it is important to the traveler to be reminded on each district page that the BER airport is not yet open, and that certain tunnels are not yet built or planned for.
Also relevant for this discussion is Berlin/Reinickendorf and Spandau, where I would remove the airport details just in the same way as in the previously mentioned districts. Xsobev (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Tegel is literally inside the district of Reinickendorf. If it isn't listed there, where should it be listed? I mean we list the former THF airport in Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln and we should sure do the same for TXL once it shuts down. And the two mentioned articles are with regards to SXF the one it is physically closest to (hence why mentioning U7 there is germane) and the one to which it is best connected (hence why the S-Bahn should be dealt with in more detail there). Neither airport is mentioned or should be mentioned in any of the other district articles Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Tegel Airport - as part of Berlin's infrastructure - is covered in detail on the main Berlin#Tegel_International_Airport page, and I think that's the only appropriate location. The former THF airport in Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln is no longer part of the infrastructure, but became a sight/park itself (that's why it's listed as a "see" listing). Once Tegel is shut down and proves to be a sight relevant for the traveler, then of course it can be mentioned as a "see" listing (but then certainly not as part of "Get in"). Xsobev (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You'll perhaps notice that Berlin#Get in also mentions a bunch of train stations and the likes that are mentioned again in the district articles wherein they are contained. Should we remove them too? TXL certainly is a way to get into Reinickendorf, just the same as Spandau station is a way to get into Spandau. And SXF is a way to get into the two districts we have covering the Southeast of Berlin. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding of the "Get in" section in district pages is that they provide information of the sort: "I'm in Berlin, how do I get to Reinickendorf", but not "I'm in Paris, how do I get to Reinickendorf". Therefore, airports should be covered in the main city page, and not on the district pages. I'm not sure about train stations, but no matter how they are handled, details should only be at one location (either at the main city page or at the appropriate district page) in the same way that detailed listings are only on the district pages, and on the main city page there are only pointers to the most important ones. My reason for that is maintainability and consistent information for the traveler as pointed out earlier. No matter how this issue is resolved, a good place to document it would be in Wikivoyage:District_article_template#Get_in I guess. Xsobev (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. A district's "Get in" section is taken in the context of its city, and explains how to get into that district given that you're already in the city. It would be fine for Manhattan/Financial District and Manhattan/Midtown East to mention that there's helicopter service between helipads in those districts to/from JFK. But an airport that serves the whole city belongs in the city's article. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Some Berliners are petty and provincial enough to say SXF and the future BER don't serve the entire city. As evidenced by some of the 2017 referendum results. Anyway I think there is different information about the same place that can go into district and city articles. Like in the city article I'd focus in the ICE to Hauptbahnhof in the district article I'd mention the S-Bahn and U-Bahn in greater detail. Having however the airport not show up on the map of a district even if it is contained therein seems to me to not help the traveler. And as I said airports can have unwieldy access if there is one local line that gets you right to adjacent district (s) but doesn't reach downtown either at all or fast enough that one clearly is more relevant to the visitors of one part of the city. In addition some airports are architectural or cultural or shopping attractions that visitors might want to go to even if not flying. And furthermore the sight and noise are potential concerns in choosing accommodation. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
[edit conflict] (Detailed) Airport information belongs in the main city article, the same goes for other stations that serve as a main entry points to the city as a whole.
That said, I very much agree such airports/stations can also be mentioned in the Get in section of the districts they're located in, especially if getting from the airport to hotels etc. in that district (e.g. 10 minutes walk or a few stops by local bus) differs from getting from the airport to elsewhere in the city (e.g. half an hour to downtown by shuttle bus/train or taxi, and from there onwards by some other transportation). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Airports absolutely should be mentioned in districts where they're located. Full listings may not be necessary, but not mentioning the airport would be weird and unhelpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: I'm not quite convinced by some of your reasons, or perhaps by the conclusions.
"Airports can have unwieldy access if there is one local line that gets you right to adjacent district (s) but doesn't reach downtown either at all or fast enough that one clearly is more relevant to the visitors of one part of the city." That may be true in some cases, but it doesn't seem to apply in the edit you linked. (The district's Get in section is quite clear that you should use U7, and the airport's description in the city article explains how to use bus X7 to connect to U7. Why should this district article merit an explanation of how to make a simple public transit connection, and not the 3 other districts that also mention U7?)
"Some airports are architectural or cultural or shopping attractions that visitors might want to go to even if not flying." I question whether any of this is true. But if it were, then the appropriate place to mention it in a district article would be under See or Buy.
"And furthermore the sight and noise are potential concerns in choosing accommodation." The appropriate place to mention this in a district article would be under Sleep. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Bigpeteb, that's exactly how I would do it as well. Regarding the other issues, I still don't have a good idea: a) Should airports near or in a district get a (geo) marker so that it shows up on the dynamic map; b) should airport-related public transport that fits into the districts "Get in" section according to your mentioned scenario be under "By plane" or "By metro/subway/..."; c) how do we handle train stations. @Hobbitschuster, did I miss any of your objections? Xsobev (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I also think each and every WV guide should - at least to some extent - work on its own. And thus not mentioning an airport contained in a district makes no sense. Furthermore, some airports are also transportation hubs for local transport (though that's more common for train stations). Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Airports and stations should definitely be mentioned in the district in which they are in. However this can just be one or two lines, focussing on the local transport to the airport, and leaving another (linked) article to describe the flights. In the unlikely event that the airport has no public access from the district it is still worth mentioning. AlasdairW (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me (and I believe that I made the edit(s) that triggered the whole discussion along those lines). I just didn't want to have duplicate information in both the district page and the main page, which will quickly get out of sync (links and details change, airports close).Xsobev (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nordic countries Expedition?[edit]

Wikivoyage is fortunate to have a large numer of active and capable contributors writing from and about the Nordic countries. I find editing to be most fun when done together, and not merely in parallel. For example I enjoyed a common effort to promote the Nordic countries to usable status a few months back. I am now wondering whether it is a good idea to create an expedition as a more permanent Nordic countries-cooperation? Is there any interest in joining such an effort? What is the experience from previous geographical expeditions?

By the way, what do you think about creating 'local' cotms within expeditions, as a way of keeping them active and coordinating efforts? Best, MartinJacobson (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Getting articles to usable is always a worthwhile and achievable (see Wales) task. I would recommend doing this per country, do not try and do it all in one go. We can set up an expedition page like Wikivoyage:Germany Expedition, this provides a number of tools to aid in cleaning up pages. But take a look at the dates at the bottom of this and other Geographic Expeditions pages; it takes time. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I usually take part in such cooperation behind the scenes, not liking to commit, but I think there is a lot to do, which might benefit from an expedition. For the too big a bite thing, I think trying to get Nordic countries to guide status by improving country, region and destination articles can be a working strategy, if one identifies individual bits that are missing and concentrate on one bundle at a time (and yes, the goal is nowhere near). --LPfi (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is a start Wikivoyage:Sweden Expedition. Some work to do. Should I create this for the other Nordic countries? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses! I thought of an expedition more as a forum for editors interested in a given topic, rather than a project striving towards one specific goal. Hence I thought that it doesn't matter too much if we bite of a large chunk or even have an expedition going indefinitely. Is there any good reason for not using expeditions in this way? From that perspective I believe that there might be some advantages with having one Nordic countries Expedition, rather than one expedition for every Nordic country. There is just a bit too few editors actively writing about each region for them to have active sub-forums of their own. What's more, editors who are interested in one Nordic country are often able to write about others (If you understand one Continental Scandinavian language you understand them all, and they share a lot of features like history and cuisine.) MartinJacobson (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I think a Nordic countries expedition could work. The all have a shared history and culture. The population of the Nordic countries combined, even if you define it broadly and include Greenland is much, much lower than say, Germany. Working on the region as a whole will be a good way to improve the articles instead of potentially 6 or 7 small expeditions. Gizza (roam) 05:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with a Nordic expedition making more sense than ones with 0-3 contributors each, or the same team working across five expeditions. There will not be so much activity that some country is buried in the discussions and forgotten. On the contrary: when assessing what to do next the country that would have been forgotten will stand out. (And yes, the Nordic countries have some 25 million inhabitants, the Greenlandic 50,000 not making much of a difference – except if we get somebody there, who knows the local things.) --LPfi (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Traveler100 for creating Wikivoyage:Nordic countries Expedition! Should Wikivoyage:Sweden Expedition be merged into Wikivoyage:Nordic countries Expedition to keep all discussions in one place? MartinJacobson (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

World Cup 2018[edit]

I have created an article for this event, and welcome contributions. In particular, I would appreciate help on creating a map of the 11 host cities in Russia. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting[edit]

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

In the aftermath of the Wikivoyage month edit-a-thon, a WMF representative got in touch with me and suggested that we make a short presentation (5-10 min) at the next Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting (March 29, UTC 19:00) to tell about the current status of Wikivoyage projects and community wishes. To prepare this presentation, I would be grateful for your feedback on the following:

  • How do you rate the results of the edit-a-thon?
  • What are the most important community goals and wishes that should be communicated to the WMF?

If you want to share something, please, do it ASAP, as there is only one week to prepare this presentation. Thanks for your participation! --Alexander (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The editathon was great! Sure, it brought a few vandals, but it was an overwhelmingly positive event for en.voy. There was a very great amount of excellent new content added - new articles, a lot of content filled into previously sparse articles and major updates to very old information. And some of the users who participated have continued contributing since then.
For me, the goal is to make this the best travel guide it can be. And for that, more content contributors are essential, and people who edit out incorrect spelling, grammar and the like and make articles more readable are also really helpful.
We have other important goals like making the mobile version of Wikivoyage excellent. As subsidiary goals, we could consider ways to present policies and guidelines more clearly and visibly and work on how best to work with new users to help them conform to Wikivoyage style and format without alienating them. Part of that just requires continued efforts to put ourselves in the shoes of new users who sometimes feel confronted and annoyed by reverts and efforts at corrective advice, but part of it is just making sure our policies are clear, consistent and widely understood, such as our policy on links to Wikipedia, which was finally cleaned up as a result of confusion among long-time users during the editathon. (Of course, some of this is really my reminding myself of things, but I still think this was worth posting.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
one of the current goals for which we might need help from other projects is the better integration of public transportation maps into our articles. In that field there is still some work ahead. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the first time that the Chinese Wikivoyage organizes this event and many contributors have edit during the event. I think this event is feasible.
About community goals and wishes, as Hobbitschuster puts it, the better integration of public transportation maps into our articles. --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yuriy kosygin, do your new contributors continue editing after the edit-a-thon? --Alexander (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Alexander, Mmmm... No, I think new contributors should only come for event...--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
In Ukrainian edition we achieves 123 new articles and 32 improved (+4 articles about Ukraine in other languages according to the rules of the contest). As for today we have 768 articles in Ukrainian. 45 participants took part in the contest, most of edited articles are about Ukraine, but also there are articles about other countries and general topics. --Visem (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

See this now: The Wikivoyage section starts about three minutes into the recording, so we've got top billing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Alexander, sorry about the eleventh-hour reply. Ultimately, the goal was not so much to increase editor activity during the edit-a-thon itself, but to retain some of those newbies after it wrapped up, right? That being the case, I think it's too early to really evaluate the results. March 2018's projected readership numbers are certainly cause for optimism, but ultimately we'll have to wait until the dust settles a little more to see where the numbers land - whether they're higher than before the edit-a-thon, and if so, by how much. What we should focus on is how to translate this brief spike in activity to a sustained increase in our editor and reader population. This is the same reason why I was so enthusiastically in support of the "low-level awareness campaign" that Seddon proposed a while back (which I'd love to hear some updates on, if there are any). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Andre, you can check what I said in the presentation and see whether you agree or not. I tried to make the point that the Central Notice clearly had no long-term effect on smaller Wikivoyages (which is easy to see from the recent changes) and articulate the need for technical developments. --Alexander (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the low-level awareness campaign, I am not sure that this idea is still on the table. At least, Joseph mentioned it differently in his part of the talk (Joseph, could you elaborate?) In my opinion, Central Notice has its limits, and running it continuously does not always help. One should probably collect the March-April statistics across different languages, and come up with a clear plan on where we want to go. --Alexander (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin, AndreCarrotflower: - This is definitely still on the table and would love to try and schedule something during the next three months. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Joseph, thank you. I suggest that we wait till the end of April and collect unbiased statistics for two months after the edit-a-thon. Then it may be good to try the low-level campaign, perhaps in selected languages (this is something to consider after we analyze the full statistics for March). What do you think? --Alexander (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: - I'd quite like to wait until at least mid-May, just due to other commitments and to give me enough time to set up some of the tracking analytics. But yeah I am definitely happy to draft up a proposal.
One question, how likely could we try to push improvements to the mobile front page with the new template styles? Does the community have the technical know how or would we need to bring in extra people power. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Joseph, I think that we need help with that, or at least some examples of how it could look like. --Alexander (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I would be grateful for any feedback on this presentation. This will be helpful for me and, hopefully, for anyone else who may have to give similar talks in the future. The pdf of the slides is here, and the pptx source can be provided on request. --Alexander (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I've only heard praise for your presentation, and I thought it was quite good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: I thought you did a fantastic job - thank you again for presenting! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Enabling a helpful feature for Template editors[edit]

Hello, all, I'm posting this on behalf of CKoerner (WMF) and the Readers' team. Feel free to ping Chris if you have questions, but I'm around, so you can talk to me, too.  :-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


The team working on TemplateStyles at the Wikimedia Foundation would like to enable TemplateStyles on this wiki.

TemplateStyles is a feature to allow non-administrators to write and manage CSS styles for templates. It allows contributors who edit templates to separate content and presentation. A good web practice that makes it easier to manage the layout of templates. If you don't edit templates, this will not have any impact on your contributions.

TemplateStyles is useful for a few reasons.

  • It makes it possible for templates to work better on mobile.
  • It cuts out confusion on where to apply CSS rules.
  • Editing CSS is currently limited to administrators, which is a major barrier to participation.
  • All stylesheets must be loaded on all pages (whether they actually use the page or not), which wastes bandwidth and makes debugging style rules more difficult.

You can learn more about TemplateStyles on Technical documentation is also available.

This is an optional feature and no one must use it, but template contributors are encouraged to do so! Please discuss and let us know if there are any concerns. If there are no concerns we will proceed to deploy the feature on the 28th of March.

Thank you. 16:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Currency notation for Chile and Argentina[edit]

Could you guys help me with the currency notation here and here.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Shutdown of[edit]

After a few days I will shutdown our server. We used it to support map development since December 2012. But most of the map tools developed by Mey2008 are no longer used and were substituted by the Kartographer tool set. There are several reasons for this decision: The operation of this server takes a lot of money we haven't any longer. That's why the members of the Wikivoyage association demanded to switch off the server and to use that money for other purposes. The other reason is that we have no programmers and administrators except me to support these tools. My time is limited, and Mey2008 and others stopped their collaboration in our project. But all the scripts will be saved.

There is a working copy of tools at That's why I changed today these URLs in MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor.js‎ and {{GPX indicator‎}}. I will do the same at the other wikis. The wmflabs tool server is managed by Nicolas1981 and I hope that he will give some support. Please update the pages named in Link search.

I like to thank May2008, Nicolas1981, the members of our association and the WMF programmers who support Wikivoyage and the map tools. Now we take care of further development of the Kartographer tools. For instance, since a few days the zoom level 19 is available. And I thank you for your understanding. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

When you upload the source code, please let us know where, it could be useful Thanks! :-) I haven't touched this "wmflabs tool server" since years, and I am pretty sure the machine has been deleted. Syced (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Master list for pubs in the UK?[edit]

Hello all, new Wikivoyager here (Wikipedian for a while).

Would it be feasible to make a huge master list of all the pubs in Britain, so that city/town pages can have a more complete list to reference? I'm suggesting this because I've noticed that many articles only list a couple of places in the eat and drink sections, when there are often several not included.

SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Such a list would be out of date almost as soon as it was written, as we don't have remotely enough manpower on this site to monitor when existing pubs close down and new ones open. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage: goals and non-goals and ttcf would make me think that's not a wise use of our resources. But maybe I am misunderstanding the proposal. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not the aim of Wikivoyage to be a Yellow Pages listing all businesses in a town. What is desired is a small list of recommended places to go if you are visiting the town. Pubs with character and good quality beer and food is what would be welcome. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to Wikivoyage :-) My gut says that would be completely unfeasible and also unnecessary, because there are literally tense of thousands of pubs in Britain, they change names, they close down forever, and sometimes new ones open. A good chunk of "all of the pubs in Britain" aren't worth listing to begin with, as WV:the traveller comes first and WV:avoid negative reviews pretty much stops us from adding in places that are merely average quality unless there's nothing better for a similar price around. Remember, this is Wikivoyage, not Wikipub ;-)
That said, if you need guidance on which pubs to add to specific articles, I highly recommend looking no further than [Whatpub], which is a pub search engine (yes! what a future we live in!) devised by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) to list only the 30,000 or so good real ale pubs around the country and cut out all the chain lager plastic menu places. You can search for pubs by postcode, geographic place name, or nearest station, so this is probably the kind of tool you're looking for. Let me know what you think! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes one of my go to web sites :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, even if we could keep up such a list (which probably even English speaking Wikipedia couldn't), imagine how "useful" our readers would find a such a list of a million pubs. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all, good points, and I hadn't come across that website. SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The Scores on the Doors website lists the 0.5M places in the UK that have food hygiene certificates, which should all pubs that serve food. It also lists a load of places that are of no interest: factory canteens, prisons and schools. I find that it useful for checking if a place we have listed is still open, or finding if there is anywhere to eat in a small village. AlasdairW (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
If you are looking for pubs in a particular county, then search the local council's website for a listed of licensed premises in their area. Results vary between councils, but some have a simple list e.g. the 600 places that can sell alcohol in Argyll and Bute. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

April 1st-[edit]


Any reader of Rice Burroughs, Bradbruy or Heinlein out there? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The box at the top of the joke article suggests that nobody help work on it. Maybe that shouldn't be posted there just yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm also consideirng making some updates to earlier efforts like Joke_articles/Time_travel. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You're right, WhatamIdoing, the box shouldn't be there before April 2nd.
Tangentially, ShakespeareFan00, after the April Fools day is over, to my understanding joke articles shouldn't be edited any more. At one point, such articles were even protected but this doesn't seem to be the case any longer. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll respect consensus then. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
As a little reminder; everyone is welcome to join in editing the joke article :) . ϒpsilon (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I Will also note that User:ShakespeareFan00/Nano-tourism which I drafted as a 'proposal' , has been brought up to stub status by someone else. Maybe it will be possible to have both a "Destination" and broader "Travel Topic" This year. No objections to contributions on it either. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, or we could save that for next year, depending on how much it gets expanded in the two and a half days we have left. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
My vote would be to save it for next year. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... I had a different thought for 2019..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Then we could save it for 2020, maybe. Running two April Fool's articles in the same year seems like a waste of energy to me—energy that could be better spent improving our real articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The box was only created for use back when the joke articles were still in mainspace (ie: Hell (Hades) and not Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Hell (Hades)) and someone still believed that there was a risk that someone would edit these in the mistaken belief they were real articles and not jokes. In that respect, {{joke}} has outlived its usefulness and is no longer needed nor valuable.
That said, a set of multiple articles on April 1 of the same year has been done before and seems harmless. In theory, we could create a DoTM, an OtBP and an FTT plus the three "discover" entries, if we had the material. It's just a question of how many are willing to contribute. (Another tactic is to mix real and fake info on a common theme, as was done by placing Wikivoyage:Joke articles/East Berlin opposite a matched "Discover" set of three real entries for Cold War themed destinations like the Soviet gulags and tiny, divided Modlareuth - which ran for a day instead of the usual three. K7L (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't our April Fool's article be (have been?) mentioned on our facebook page? Scrolling back to last year, I notice East Berlin was? Andre? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the process of doing that currently. I usually try to update our Facebook page not necessarily directly at midnight UTC, but at a time of day when the greatest number of people are likely to be on Facebook and will actually see the posting. It's Sunday, currently the afternoon and evening in the U.S. and Europe respectively, so now seemed like the opportune time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Great! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is "technically" a word to avoid?[edit]

So it appears that User:Ground Zero has been removing the word "technically" from quite a few articles recently. Given that it appears that I am one of those who use the word quite a bit, I'd like to hear some community input on the issue, so that I might adjust my writing if need be. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be avoided in all cases, but there are some times when it is superfluous (the removals on Ruta del Tránsito strike me as examples of this).
However, "technically" does seem to me to add an extra meaning to the other two examples you've cited, given that it is implied that although San Ysidro and Neuwerk are treated as their own place, they do in fact technically (legally, actually) belong to San Diego and Hamburg, respectively. The use of "technically" highlights this. I would go as far to say that without technically, the following sentence is unclear: "Although part of the City of San Diego, San Ysidro is separated from the rest of the city by the entities of Chula Vista and National City just to the north." So it's part of the city, but also separate from it? No, it's "technically" (legally) part of SD, but is physically separate. That makes better sense. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am removing it only where it doesn't add any meaning or is vague. I am sure that we can agree that:
  1. San Ysidro is part of the city of San Diego?. The modification "technically" doesn't change that. The rest of the same sentence explains that "San Ysidro is separated from the rest of the city by the entities of Chula Vista and National City just to the north", which provides clear information to the reader.
  2. the lighthouse in Neuwerk is the oldest building in Hamburg, because Neuwerk is administratively part of the city. There is no older building in mainland Hamburg. In what way is itthe lighthouse not the oldest building in Hamburg?
  3. the ferry from Ometepe should be able to accommodate a horse. The question posed in the rest of the sentence is whether the operators are willing to do it. In what way is the sentence ambiguous and in need of clarification?
In these cases, "technically" is a filler word that adds no meaning.
In other cases, like here and here, "technically" is used to distinguish between the physical challenge of a hike, and the technical challenge of a hike, e.g. the requirement of climbing skills. So I wouldn't say that "technically" should be avoided everywhere, it's that it should be used where it adds meaning that isn't already clear from the sentence, and not where it doesn't.
I was caught in an edit conflict while typing this. In response to Thundering Typhoons' comments, I don't think these are unclear, but if someobe else does, there are ways of providing clarity that are not vague as "technically" is. San Ysidro is administratively part of the city of San Diego, but geographically separate from it. (I've made this change to the article.) The Neuwerk article already provides the "administratively" clarification. The problem with "technically" is that the writer understands what s/he means by it, but we can't expect the reader to do so. Ground Zero (talk)
Imagine the following: New York City annexes some minor island in the Caribbean where there is an old Spanish customs house from the 16th century. Hence it would "technically" be the oldest building "in" New York City, but most people would not consider it a building in New York City at all. Hence the "technically". Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In that case you should explain exactly what you mean instead of implying it. The point of writing is so that other people understand it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think technically is vague; however the insertion of administratively and geographically on San Ysidro has made it clearer. Few Hamburgers (tehehe) or anyone else would consider some random lighthouse on an uninhabited island several miles out to sea to be the oldest building in a city that isn't even on the coast! So the use of any word that highlights the unusualness of the situation is preferable in my books to having none. I'm not fussed whether that's technically, actually or something else though. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In the San Diego example, I think technically is a better choice than administratively because it better suits the informal tone that we aim for on Wikivoyage. I don't see how the word technically is ambiguous in that example. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect, Mx. Granger, "technically" is fine for the writer who knows what s/he means, but "administratively" is clearer for readers who may not know what the writer means. An informal tone is fine until it doesn't convey the intended meaning, as in this case? That San Ysidro is part of San Diego is not a technicality. It is a factual matter of municipal administration. Ground Zero (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the intended meaning is that San Ysidro is legally part of San Diego but is physically separate from the rest of the city. To me, it seems like the sentence with the word technically conveys that. Maybe it's ambiguous or unclear in some way that I'm not seeing? Anyway, I think the word administratively is fine, just a little too formal, so I won't press the issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous at all. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's ambiguous without the modifier, but if someone else thinks something is unclear, I think the best approach is to try another approach to make it better, as I did, rather than just saying "you're wrong". Ground Zero (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you think it's unclear? So far you technically haven't said, you've just said other people may find it unclear :-) Still, I've changed the wording at Neuwerk per my comments above. If you want to make it even better, go ahead. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
After reading these edits, I'd say that the first two changes are clearer after the edit than before. In the third edit, the use of the word technically in the first of the two removals is necessary. What does it even mean to "technically" accommodate a horse? I think it means there is room but we don't know if it is permitted, and it's clearer to say that. The second edit in the third diff seems to change the meaning. So, I don't think it's a word to avoid in the correct context, but it's an easy word to insert rather than saying what you actually mean. And these edits I'd consider 3 from 4 to be improvements, so that's pretty good odds. --Inas (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

British vs. American spellings[edit]

I've long had the understanding that on this site we use British spellings in articles about places under the sphere of British influence (e.g. the EU and the British Commonwealth), and American spellings in articles about places under the sphere of American influence (e.g. Mexico, South Korea, etc.). So I was very surprised when another editor disagreed with my use of the American spelling of the word 'traveler' in an article about a place in the US, and insists that the British spelling of the word is more appropriate as it is 'Wikivoyage style'. A search reveals many many uses of both British and American spellings on this site, and I cannot find a policy page anywhere that states that only the British spelling of this word can be used. Could someone please point out the relevant policy page? –StellarD (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy page was linked in the second edit summary. The relevant section is: "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling. This isn't because US English is somehow better or to stomp on the rights, heritage, and cultures of other English-speaking countries. We just have decided to pick one default spelling style for consistency. One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site." -
Personally, I interpret "Wikivoyage documentation" to mean policy pages, the pub, maybe talk pages and travel topics that aren't geographically restricted, but not to most articlespace, and certainly not to destination articles for places in the U.S. That would be absurd. What does anyone else think of my reading? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I do find this exception to be odd, and I don't know where it comes from (way before my time). But it is there, and I linked it in the edit summary. It might be time to revisit this policy on its talk page if other people object to it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I would edit neither spelling in articles about the U.S. or any other country where the "ll" spelling isn't indisputably standard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The relationship between British and American English is dynamic. Americanisms (such as World War I instead of the First World War) tend to dominate in domains which are not defined by geography. /Yvwv (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"Wikivoyage documentation" is pages in the "Wikivoyage" namespace, e.g. policy pages and the name of the "Travellers' pub" – not travel topic articles. Of course, you can use whatever spelling you like in pub discussions (and Talk pages), but the name of the pub page is spelt "Travellers' pub". For articles about US places, it's better to use "traveler", which has has been the more common US spelling since about 1910 (before 1910, "traveller" was more common in the US). Nurg (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, Wikivoyage convention is to use the double-L spelling for "traveller", irrespective of whether the article is about a U.S. place. This has been held to supersede the guidelines laid out in the rest of Wikivoyage:Spelling#National varieties of English dating back to the origins of the site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a very permissive interpretation of "Wikivoyage documentation" (which is actually quite unclear wording, since we can't agree on what it means), and clearly not one which is adhered to in reality; there are just as many search results for "traveler" as for "traveller". Even if the original intention behind the rule was to make the "travell-" spelling standard across all WV articles, which I doubt, vague historical convention is not a good enough justification in my books to perpetuate an arbitrary and pointless rule which probably isn't followed by the majority of editors on this site and which it seems nobody has bothered enforcing until this Southeast Arizona disagreement came to light. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Big-Endians and Small-Endians - does it really matter so much which area of a boiled egg to break open in order to eat it. -- Matroc (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We don't prescribe spelling for non-article spaces anywhere else. It would be absolutely bizarre to tell people to spell one word a particular way for the pub and policy pages, but not any other words. Unless we have a written definition of "Wikivoyage documentation" somewhere that says otherwise, the only logical interpretation is that it means articles. I am far from the first editor to change this -- I have seen lots of others making this change. That is how I became aware of this oddity in the first place. Yes, some editors don't follow this rule, but that's true of all of our rules, including "don't tout" or "be fair" or "avoid negative reviews". That isn't a good argument for abandoning a rule. If people don't like the policy, they should propose a change on the policy's talk page, as I suggested above. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see the point in moving discussions that have already got going from one place to another. This is all going to get swept to the policy page eventually, and the pub is practically the most visible discussion page on the whole site. However, it's another one of these peculiar WV traditions, so I've opened a discussion at the policy talk page. Please direct your thoughts over there. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
A lot of this discussion has been about whether the rule applies, or about ignoring the rule. I think it is better to have an explicit discussion about changing the rule so that it is clear what we are talking about. Thanks for getting it started. Ground Zero (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to propose changing the main policy and not use American English in some parts of the world and British English in others. Lets be consistent and have the same everywhere. To avoid arguments from US and UK supporters lets change all to Canadian English. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah and after we do that, let's all go on a team-building retreat. I hear Mars is beautiful this time of year. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
What about German capitalization and phonetic spelling tho? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Đat wüd nevə wurk. -- ÞunderingTīfoons (Tork) 21:44, 1 Æpril 2018.

Per the discussion on the talk page, this policy had now been revised/clarified. Ground Zero (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of Ecotourism article[edit]

The ecotourism article advices travellers how to reduce environmental footprint. The word ecotourism is however commonly understood as visits to natural attractions. Should the article be named green tourism, sustainable tourism or anything else? Make your suggestions at Talk:Ecotourism. /Yvwv (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Travel topic Easter in Jerusalem / Christmas in the Holy Land or something of the sorts[edit]

I think the existing Christmas and New Year Travel and Easter travel articles can't go into too much detail about those places and likewise the Jerusalem or Bethlehem or Holy Land guides shouldn't be cluttered with too much information for just a few days out of the year which only interests a rather slim minority of travelers at that, but going to one of those places for the high holidays of Christianity is pretty common (judging by the crowds they show on the news) and doesn't seem to be super-easy and super-straightforward and given that there is a high potential for stress, panic, Jerusalem syndrome and whatnot, should we have travel topic on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say just add material to Holy Land for now. If it gets large enough to be a problem there, then consider one or more separate articles. Pashley (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Turkish Censorship[edit]

I am writing from Istanbul. Turkey is blocking Wikipedia. Wikivoyage is not blocked. Except that if you just go to and type in a destination, e.g., Istanbul, you will be blocked because you are sent to the Wikipedia default language redirect If you go to, choose english and then search for a destination it works fine. But that might not be obvious to most users. Maybe Wikivoyage should just have English as the default language as e.g., Wikivoyage has. Or WV should have its own redirect page. Or the search-redirect should be on wikimedia. Elgaard (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! I just reported your findings at Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - April 2018[edit]

We have a few hundred Articles with formerly dead external links. These are links that previously had domain or page not found but are now showing a valid web page. Many of these are referencing other, incorrect, businesses. Some are just incorrectly tagged. Would be good to have a concerted effort to fix these links or removed listings that no-longer exist. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If you've not done this before, then there are instructions at the top of the category page. Alternatively, look in the wikitext for a dead link template with two months: {{dead link|Month 2017|Another 2017}} and check the marked URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Here are a couple of examples were the web address exists but have been taken over by tourist site pages, Westfield MA , Truro MA. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Half way through. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


It ended up taking way more time than I had anticipated, but I've finally finished work on Gaspé, the latest and longest chapter in my ongoing quest to improve our coverage of the Gaspé Peninsula.

As always: I'm an American who's not wholly accustomed to writing in Canadian English, so if any native speakers of that dialect (Ground Zero, perhaps, who's been following my progress) would like to double-check for any U-less "colours" and whatnot that may have slipped under the radar, it would be much appreciated.

Next up in the Gaspé project: Grande-Vallée and Petite-Vallée, a much lighter lift: being a less important destination than those whose articles I've improved thus far, it probably only needs to be elevated to Usable status.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you need to have a discussion with Paul Schmiedge on Canadian spelling. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Change naming scheme of regions[edit]

I think it is not exactly desirable to have regions named The Coast or "North (disambiguator)". I think we should rather opt for organic names that work without disambiguators like "East Coast of x" or "Caribbean y" or something of the sorts... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing these names have been chosen because no more organic name exists for the area. Our regions aren't always the most organic, they're what is judged to best serve the traveller.
However, I do think it very strange that "The Coast" links to a specific region and not to a disambiguation page of all the "The X Coast" articles we have. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well in that case instead of having it Coast (disambiguator) rather make it Disambiguator Coast or Coast of disambiguator. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
That would certainly be clearer! ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm the one who, way back in 2014, created the region The Coast that's cited above by Hobbitschuster. The article covers one of the daughter regions that I created for the Gaspé Peninsula, and I titled it after a literal translation of La Côte, which at the time was the title of the analogous article in French Wikivoyage. I didn't think it needed to be disambiguated because there were no other WV region articles called "The Coast" that it might be confused with, but with four further years of hindsight and experience as an editor under my belt, of course you all are right that the title is extremely ambiguous. Apparently they came to the same conclusion at fr: as well, because their article has since been retitled "La Côte gaspésienne" ("The Gaspesian Coast"), which IMO would be a good way to rename the article in question here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't edit on Android[edit]

Hi, everyone. Earlier today, I was away from my computer and tried to edit this site on my Android. It was impossible. After every keystroke, my view moved to the top of the screen, so I couldn't see the text I was trying to edit. I didn't have that problem on Wikimedia Commons and could edit there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Strange, I'm not having that problem on Android. I do have a problem (both here and on Wikipedia) where my view moves up a lot whenever I click to put my cursor in a new place, but not after every keystroke. I use Firefox on my Android—what browser are you using? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I use Chrome on Android and Firefox on my laptop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I use Chrome on Android too and haven't noticed any issues. Are you on beta? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I was on the regular site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh right; me too. So it's not that then. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Just so it's known, @Ikan Kekek: isn't the only one with this issue. I get the same issue, though the text jumps up about half the page while typing. Chrome build 65.0.3325.109 running on Android 7.0.0 here. I do, however use Wikivoyage Beta.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Which one is "the regular site"? Ikan says Chrome, which is very helpful information. Are you going to the mobile site at en.m.wikivoyage, or to the desktop site at en.wikivoyage? Are you editing the wikitext or in the visual mode? The screenshots at mw:Editor might help you figure out which one. (Feel free to ping me; once we've figured out which editing environment, I'll make sure a bug is filed.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC) is where I was. I was trying to edit the wikitext by pressing the pencil icon on a section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Miniatures,_dioramas_and_scale_models#Miniature railways and "Grand Scale" railroads and Buyers guide for model collectors?[edit]

I was taking another look at this, and moved some content across from tourist trains... My question is it long enough for a stub?

I was thinking that maybe Grand Scale railroads should be it's own article, given that there are many of them in the UK and in the US, and that they are distinct from Model Railways (which are typically below 3 inch gauge), and full blown park railways like the Ruslip Lido Railway, despite it being of a narrower guage than some nominal 'miniature railways' like the North Bay Railway in Scarborough ;)

If there's enough for a stub I'd appreciate someone else splitting it out and adding some more explanatory material, as I am less familiar with US 'Grand Scale' rail-roading.

The main 'models' article could also do with a major expansion, Such as the addition of a concise buy section, listing place that have good 'model' stores, and possibly what brands to buy (Most people in the UK know about Hornby (pricey), Bacchman, Airfix etc, The Europeans know about Marklin, Faller, Pola etc, What would the modeller look for in the US?) Sadly the most famous model shop I knew about in the UK closed at least a decade ago. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at w:en:Grand scale, I'm pretty sure that there could be enough for a long article, and perhaps some regional itineraries. I don't know much about the subject myself, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please help migrate related site links[edit]

The RelatedSites extension (which creates the links in the "Related sites" sidebar section) will be disabled sometime in the next few months. In most cases, this won't cause any problems since these links are now automatically created by the Wikibase client extension (under the "In other projects" sidebar section). For example, on the article Africa (permalink in case someone fixes it), the links under "Related sites" are repeated under "In other projects" and are exactly the same links. In some cases, however, these links differ. There can be many causes of this: one link is more up to date (e.g. reflecting a page move on Wikipedia); one link is wrong (e.g. linking to a disambiguation page instead of the exact topic); one link is more specific or general (e.g. linking to a city instead of a region); two Wikidata items need to be merged, etc. Please help to resolve these difference before the extension is disabled. Here are the pages that need to be fixed:

If the link in the "In other projects" section is the better link, simply remove the {{RelatedWikipedia}}, {{RelatedCommons}}, or {{RelatedCommonsCat}} template from the page. If the link in the "Related sites" section is the better link, please update the data in Wikidata to match it and then remove the template from the Wikivoyage page. If you have questions, please ping me or Traveler100. Thanks! Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are some special cases which I don't think Wikidata can handle. For example both Rail travel in Canada and Across Canada by train use {{RelatedWikipedia}} to link to w:Rail transport in Canada. I understand that the Wikidata page can only take one Wikivoyage link. I think that we should look at how to handle these (and the cases where the two links are different).
Maybe the related templates could become a text box in "Go next", like the WP template Wikivoyage that is used to link in the other direction. I would also like this to allow for multiple WP links (max 5?), but I am happy to back down on this if it is a step too far for some. AlasdairW (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Was thinking along similar lines. In the sandbox of the related template there is a version that makes the Wikipedia a reference box if it is not the same as that on Wikidata. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Inline=yes seems to not work in see listings[edit]

I unfortunately cannot recall who wrote the "inline=yes" parameter for listings, so I am asking here in the pub why it does not seem to work in the Erlangen article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

(raises hand) I only added it for {{listing}}, it isn't done/forwarded from {{see}}, {{do}} etc. Since nobody protested against it (inline=yes) yet, we can probably extend the latter templates... (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That makes sense. We should however have the debate at some point whether all those templates should be consolidated into the template listing with the type parameter. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Such thing was already hinted/discussed above ("all Wikivoyage listing templates other than {{listing}} are going to be unsupported very soon")... I guess we could decide against, but there's no reason IMO too. (talk)

Government, politics and opposition...[edit]

I've started a basic article stub here User:ShakespeareFan00/Government,_politics_and_opposition, but will need a lot of help to get it to a stub level that can be moved into article space. Anyone got ideas on what to put in it originally?

The topic name was carefully selected, based on a comment in the History of justice topic.

Once some basic content is added, I might get some ideas on where to expand. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

An inital thought is that it needs a concise 'history' - Politics is probably as old as civilisation, but I was unsure what the earliest 'government' was, given that there were if I recall governments in Asia and elsewhere before Egypt, Athens and Rome...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that we might be better with a more catchy title, but I don't know what. I think that there are possibly two different things to cover:
  • Visiting parliaments, government buildings, related historic sites and museums.
  • Attending party conferences or conventions. Whilst this is not something that a traveller is likely to do on a whim, it is a major reason for travelling.
Should we have a separate Conferences and Conventions article, which could also cover going to a conference for work or hobby reasons (including Wikimania) - we are generally lacking travel topics on group and business travel. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Not all Conferences are political in nature, and yes they should be a travel topic. (Also Trade Shows, spending 3 days in a Warehouse outside Brimingham isn't exactly a pleasure trip for some people, but is a business one.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Well it seems once more our editor base skews away from the type of people where most of the stuff is taken care of, like (most) business travel and all-inclusive stuff. For perhaps, understandable reasons... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Obviously, ShakespeareFan00 is going to the wrong kind of trade show. There are quite a few trade shows for chocolate manufacturers. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been to quite a few National Flute Association conventions and one Fancy Food Show so far, and I assure you, no-one took care of anything for me except that I could check my coat and bag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
For a trade show or convention, the advice that I first think of is not necessarily about the traveling aspects. It's more about meeting people, pacing yourself, and keeping track of commitments (so that "Sure, let's talk when we're home" doesn't turn into "Why didn't she call me, like she promised?"). There are also group travel issues (e.g., traveling sports teams). What else could we include? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that group travel issues should go in Organizing a group trip which was created a few months ago. Should trade shows and exhibitions be in the Conferences and Conventions article - Conferences and Exhibitions? AlasdairW (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Out of date prices[edit]

The public transport fares on Barcelona and Barcelona El Prat Airport are out of date (for example, a T10 pass now costs €10.20, per [7]. I don't know the correct prices for all tickets, so can't update them, and updating just one would be even more confusing, for people trying to work out the best deal. Is there a template or some other way to tag that the section (or entire page) needs an update for prices? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well there was a controversy some time ago whether or not prices should have dates attached to them. Don't know how (if ever) it was resolved... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This was the discussion. I proposed to delete the policy that says "If the underlying currency is stable, as a general rule we don't append a date to a price." There was a lot of discussion, but I was not confident that I could declare a consensus. I still think it's a bad policy because appending dates to prices lets the reader know whether they are current, and lets editors know they should be updated. Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
How about something like this - $2 (Apr 2018) ? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
👍 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I like the look of that. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The template would be a useful tool for experienced editors, but I expect that newbies will continue to put dates in parentheses because it's easier, which should be allowed too. Ground Zero (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand why the template is more useful than dates in parentheses. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
as it stands advantage is the date text is a little smaller and grey. Also in case of some currencies exchange rates are shown on mouse over. Could also easily create a maintenance category based on the entry that say lists prices more that 3 years old. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Since when was "$2" an abbreviation for "US$2 ≈ €1.64, ¥214, £1.46"? Please don't abuse accessibility markup like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, probably since Wikivoyage decided to shorten, aka "abbreviate", the text by listing only one or sometimes two currencies some years ago. 😜 WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Bus timetables?[edit]


I'm wondering if there are any examples of bus timetables on this site? (Or rail would prolly work too.) I found this, and tried to update it like so, and then figured hundreds of other folks probably had this same problem at some point. I looked at all the templates, but didn't see anything there that meets my needs. Is this something that could be templatized? I could see a standardized format for bus and rail travel being helpful to the traveller, but I'm equally sure there is some reason this doesn't exist already. Thank you & happy Patriot's Day eve! --ButteBag (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

For the actual bus times, it is generally better to link to either the bus company website, or a local journey planner / transit authority website if they exist. If there are no websites then the phone number of the bus station would be useful. Usually bus services are described in a paragraph giving an idea of the frequency. Bus times change frequently, so it is best to give some way of the reader getting the latest information. AlasdairW (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree that bus times change frequently, I thought it might be easier to notice something amiss within a table rather than "hidden" within a paragraph of text? --ButteBag (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph is not supposed to say "the bus to Metropolis goes at 8:15, 9:15, 9:45... and 20:35" but rather "during the day there is at least an bus an hour to Metropolis. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I just figured if that information is expressed in a table, it might be easier to parse, which may encourage more frequent edits. --ButteBag (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It is useful to state on pages here if a bus is just 3 times a week or every 30 minutes during the day but more than that should be taken from the transport company's web page. Clogging this guide site with timetables would not be beneficial. I would suggest setting up a specialist Wikimedia based site if you think it would be worth while. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
A table may be easier to read, but I think that it is a lot harder for inexperienced contributors to edit. We want it to be easy for the traveller standing in the bus station to update the information using his mobile. A paragraph is also better for describing the route or facilities of a particular route: "From Bigtown Busco runs one bus (with reclining seats) per day over the bumpy but scenic mountain pass, and Coachco runs two buses per day (with WiFi) via the much longer coastal road.". AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
there are of course plenty of places where the bis company has no website or it looks like it was last updated under Kaiser Wilhelm and what to do in those cases is of course a valid question. Particularly when the bus schedule seems to have steady for years. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Marketing campaign?[edit]

An editor here has created an entry for a marketing campaign, Ireland’s Hidden Heartlands. This isn't a standard regional grouping, but a promotional one. Is that OK? --Calton (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • As long as there's no copypasting of copyrighted text or other such violations, there is no problem with it, especially if they're likely search terms. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Over exposed locations?[edit]

Saw this on the BBC: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There's also this great documentary speaking with locals about how they deal with the excessive number of tourists in Barcelona. --ButteBag (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
We have an article pair on sustainable travel (ecotourism and responsible travel), but these focus disproportionately on damage to the natural ecological environment. The whole "UNESCO-cide" concept (where a world heritage listing for a venue attracts more visitors and more vendors hawking more tacky souvenirs, degrade the integrity or features which got the site listed in the first place) needs to be addressed. The issues vary from driving out local residents to make way for AirBNB-style rentals and closing stores which served locals in order to open overpriced tourist venues (loud bars, pricey restaurants, endless postcards and useless baubles but no local grocer, hardware store or community resources) to damaging the environment (tours or tour boats disturbing wildlife, garbage or sewage dumped into the environment, or huge crowds in what was once pristine nature preserve). The consequences of just plain too many visitors ("it's so crowded that no one goes there any more") on the community from a sociological, architectural, economic or historic preservation standpoint also need to be taken into account - one motorboat won't destroy Venice, but a million of them will erode the foundations of the old city. K7L (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Maya Bay is an example of situational irony. The Beach (the book as well as the movie) presented the tourist's dilemma to avoid becoming too many in the same place. In the real world they didn't just inspire a new generation of backpackers to visit Maya Bay and ruin the pristine location, but had the same effect across much of Southeast Asia. So, even if we set aside the local population's interest, visitors themselves want to avoid overcrowded venues which are far from authentic. Many destination articles describe seasons and places with risk of overcrowding, and warn about classical tourist traps which are overpriced without authenticity. Too few people can also take down a travel experience; people who visit Stockholm or Uppsala in mid-July to mingle with Swedes, might find the city to be nearly deserted. /Yvwv (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a perennial problem. One of the Philippines' top destinations, a former DotM here, is being shut down for six months to clean it up after too rapid & corner-cutting development; see Talk:Boracay#Sewage_&_other_problems. I once found an article by some Frenchman complaining that Bali was being destroyed by excessive tourism; it was written in the 1920s! Pashley (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you know anyone famous?[edit]

A little off the beaten path here, but I wonder how many of us know someone (or know someone who knows someone) with a Wikipedia article? If so, I'd like to do a little plug for the c:Commons:Voice intro project. The idea is to get them to record a simple introduction. Some variation on "My name is ____, and I am ____" is just fine. It's fun for readers, and it should be helpful to anyone whose name gets mispronounced regularly. All the details are on the Commons page, or you can talk to Andy about it.

BTW, this kind of approach might be good for some articles here, for places whose names are difficult for travellers to figure out how to pronounce. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia has an article on me. Wikipedia:sv:Tore Kullgren /Yvwv (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Great - please record your voice for it. There is just one contribution in Swedish, so far. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Back in the '60s, my uncle Mike was briefly a New York Yankee. Also, I'm Facebook friends with Professor Frank Popper from Rutgers. I'll see if I can drum up some interest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's an example of an interesting contributor to the project: the first content made especially for a Wikimedia project, in space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You all are awesome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


Didn't we have the debate whether to include audio files in phrasebooks and it went nowhere more than once? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, how about the audio for phrasebooks? That's much more relevant to Wikivoyage. I salute Wikipedia on this project, but it's a heck of a lot less important to know how to pronounce the name in a Wikipedia article you're reading than to know how to say "Where is the toilet?" in a foreign language when you're traveling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I have personal experience of exactly that at a service station in Spain several years ago. My pronunciation of ¿Dónde están los aseos? simply wasn't good enough and the situation was desperate. Good pronunciation is vital. But now we've got this shoehorn in, let's take it back to Talk:Phrasebooks#Phrasebooks. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

maplink: The JSON content is not valid GeoJSON+simplestyle[edit]

I see this error message at could someone please check? :-) Syced (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like some bug in either the wikidata or {{mapshapes}}. I'll check it, later... (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
If not - there may be something incorrect in OSM -- Matroc (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata Q409036 --> OSM 272078 -- Mapshape/Inner is outputting "| stroke=#00888A, 00888a" for 5th line to be drawn thus GeoJSON error - Issue is the extra 00088a in the stroke parameter. The other 14 pieces are fine... -- Matroc (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) -- see Talk Page
Fixed it. There was a duplicate sRGB color value, now it is gone. MSG17 (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what we're doing, but let's keep doing it.[edit]

It's really astonishing that the edit-a-thon has been over for nearly two months yet our Alexa rank continues to improve. This is very different from what happened during the site launch in 2013, when the line on the graph shot up into the stratosphere briefly but came right back down afterward, without much if any lasting improvement. What do you all think might be behind that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably the 2013 spike came from Wikimedians, who might have been interested in WV primarily as a new sister, while those who now found WV might be more interested in the subject matter. A curious thing: the fraction coming via a search engine fell drastically that month (so they came via other links), but the rank persisted after that effect was gone. Is this due to some technicality at Alexa? Another thing that puzzles me is that we share audience with wikitravel (more so than with lonelyplanet, tripadvisor & co). Does that mean Wikitravel users actually are aware of us? --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am quite new here and I found Wikitravel before finding Wikivoyage. I actually found Wikivoyage after clicking on a Wikitravel editor's profile page and saw that they had said that they moved to Wikivoyage and I decided to check it out. I now prefer this over Wikitravel as it is obviously more kept up to date. However, I would say that most Wikitravel users are not aware of Wikivoyage because I had used (not edited until about two months ago) Wikitravel for probably two or three years with no knowledge of Wikivoyage. BrysonH44 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is brilliant news! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikitravel seems to have shifted to slower servers, as there is visible loading time for their images. I haven't seen that for years; at least not on a website which intends to be market leading. Their travellers' pub is mostly a charade between a few administrators, struggling not to mention the elephant in the room (Wikivoyage). /Yvwv (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
May is the critical month for us as Alexa uses a 90 day timeframe to measure the popularity of a website. We are still doing better than 2013 because 1) more editors have stayed on post edit-a-thon, 2) more original content was created, which is helps with the SEO and 3) the site itself is much more appealing with higher quality banners, adding a current events destination on the main page, adding dates to listings, removing poorly written and touty language and so on. Gizza (roam) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Update on map internationalization[edit]

A quick note to let you know that Collaboration Team is planning to release map internationalization next week for testing on testwiki (T112948). When it’s ready, we’ll post a note to confirm. But meanwhile, you might like to check out the detailed post I added last night to the Map Improvements 2018 project board: Special Update on Map Internationalization. It includes a lot of information on the feature’s status, how the it will work, how we imagine it might be useful, what the known limitations are, etc. I’m looking forward to getting your input on this challenging but important feature; the best place to leave your ideas and questions is on the project talk page. —JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be put up on testwiki this week. Please have a look. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Gaspé Peninsula - a progress report[edit]

With yesterday's elevation of Land's End (Gaspé Peninsula) from Outline to Usable status, I'm now finished with the first of five phases of the Gaspé Peninsula project.

Though it was way back in May 2014 when I started on it, I don't anticipate that it will be decades yet before it's completed. It began as a side project that was subordinate to my main one of districtifying Buffalo and bringing it and its daughter articles up to Guide status. Even after Buffalo ran as DotM in 2015, my Gaspé work continued to be sporadic, as the maintenance of the Buffalo district articles - removing closed businesses, adding new ones, etc. - still took a huge chunk of my time at Wikivoyage, along with admin duties, buffing up DotM candidates before featuring, and other routine site maintenance stuff.

Furthermore, as the peninsula's main area of visitor interest, Land's End and its daughter articles were by far the most work-intensive of the five Gaspé Peninsula daughter districts. The district includes four of the ten bottom-level destinations I had targeted for Guide status (Percé, Chandler, Forillon National Park, and Gaspé; the others are Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Bonaventure, Gaspésie National Park, Matane, and Mont-Joli; Amqui is already at Guide status but was ported more-or-less verbatim from its counterpart at fr: and needs extensive reconfiguration to comport with standard English Wikivoyage article structure). The remainder of the bottom-level destinations are less important touristically and probably don't need to be developed beyond Usable status, and - as can be seen with Grande-Vallée and Petite-Vallée, which I promoted to Usable recently - I could probably knock a couple of those out a day.

So I'm happy to say that we're probably still on track to feature Gaspé Peninsula as OtBP sometime in summer 2019. I'm going to hold off on officially nominating it - I learned my lesson the hard way the last time, and there's another round of badly-needed updates to the Buffalo district articles that could yet throw a monkeywrench in those plans - but I'm optimistic on this forecast.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

MTR issues[edit]

With the earlier discussion of the Hong Kong MTR in Kowloon, I thought we should look at the lack of lines displaying properly with the mapshapes template for it. Only 3 lines of the MTR are displayed, which is probably the worst I have ever seen. MSG17 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

3 out of 15 is my guess; most may not be mapped out in OSM or if they are; link not provided in OSM to Wikidata item and/or vice versa? Not that familiar with template interaction with OSM, but this should be a definite concern not only for MTR, but others as well... == Matroc (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, missing OSM data is a concern in general. However, sometimes I notice strange behavior where the OSM data exists and is linked, but doesnt show up. Other times the lines show up even without OSM data, like something else influences what lines show up in general. One thing with MTR I am looking at is taking away the link with the Airport Express wikidata and the *superrelation* on OSM, only leaving it on the actual lines. But that will take time to update, since the OSM-Wikidata link is notoriously slow. Of course, the wikidata page will still use the OSM superrelation. MSG17 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup Cities Regions[edit]

Dear colleagues!
Wikimedia Russia (WMRU) is a co-organizer of Discover Russia. 2018 FIFA World Cup Cities & Regions Wiki-Marathon (March 14 - July 15). Targeted CentralNotice banner campaign is initiated to inform Wikipedia, Wikivoyage & Wikimedia Commons visitors from among residents & guests of the Russian Federation about this opportunity.

  • Draft Banner (EN)

We invite you to express your opinion, voice your proposals about improving the banner or its settings, here or (better) at banner request page in the language of this notification. We will be grateful if you can help us to create or improve the banner and the project landing page in Your language.
On behalf of WMRU Banner Program, respectfully--Frhdkazan (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am strongly against this Central Notice, because the rules of this edit-a-thon were never discussed with the Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Against - not enthusiastic about a non commercial site like Wikivoyage promoting FIFA. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I take no position on this proposal, but I don't think there's any Wikivoyage guideline against promoting a for-profit event. Haven't we done some kind of promotion for Eurovision or something, and certainly we have for the Olympics, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I also have no opinion, but I don't see this as a promotion of FIFA at all. As I understand it, what's being promoted is travel to Russia in general, via a campaign that's timed to coincide with, but otherwise doesn't have much to do with, the World Cup. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower, Ikan Kekek: the problem here is not FIFA promotion, but the intention to create "new articles for Wikivoyage... about sights and touristic objects", which is against basic policies, such as Wikivoyage:What_is_an_article?. Moreover, none of the two jury members has any record of editing Wikivoyage. Unfortunately, the organizers never bothered to contact us regarding the rules of this edit-a-thon, and repeatedly ignored all proposals from our side.
Last but not least, Wikimedia Russia is notorious for not sending prizes outside Russia (because of taxes, customs and whatever operational reasons), so advertising this edit-a-thon in the English-speaking community is nothing but cheating. You can participate and win, but you won't get the prize. We had this situation last year when a Spanish/German photographer won Wiki Loves Monuments in Russia, and only got his prize from Wikimedia Russia 6(!) months later after enormous pressure from our side. --Alexander (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Oy! Thanks for explaining. :( Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The rules say that articles must be created on Wikipedia. Articles on Wikivoyage do not compete for the main prices but for "illustrated de luxe edition books" (nothing said about what genre or language). --LPfi (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: The proposal page looks dodgy and ill though-out (which may or may not be due to an unclear translation), and I trust Alexander's judgement too. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The page barely mentions Wikivoyage; the contest is mostly about Wikipedia. It sounds like the early respondents would prefer to have Wikivoyage omitted entirely. That should be easy from the POV of the organizers, if that's what's desired. I kind of think it'd be a shame to miss out on an opportunity to get some more editors, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Maps in the language of your choice—you can try it now on testwiki[edit]

You can now display maps in languages of your choice on testwiki. I made two pages to demonstrate the new features, on testwiki and testwiki2 (embedded maps on test2 are dynamic; those on test are static until you click to pop up an enlargement).

By default, internationalized maps display in the language of the wiki (which is English for the testwikis). So to experiment with these features, you’ll want to use the two new mapframe parameters we’ve added. Just insert them into your mapframe code.

  • lang=”xx” Shows map labels in the language you specify using the short language codes associated with each wiki.
  • lang=“local” Shows map labels in the languages of the territory mapped (essentially opting out of internationalization).

Right now, internationalization works only with mapframe, not maplink (which should be working some time next week). You can read more about this new feature and how to use it on the Map Improvements 2018 project page, under Updates. Our plan is to wait a week or two and assess user comments about the feature. At that point, we’ll decide whether to move forward with a general release or keep making fixes.

So please try the new features out and leave feedback on the Map Improvements 2018 talk page. We’re listening! –JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)