Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge.
  • 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


Yet another proposal to tinker with Berlin districts. Please opine even if you do not know Berlin[edit]

So having a look at Berlin/East Central which I changed a bit b "giving" it Wedding and Gesundbrunnen (i.e. the pre 2001 Bezirk of Wedding), do you agree that it looks quite a bit "donuty" and that the map is a bit too "busy"? Those are the criteria I want you to apply when answering the question: Should this district be split into Berlin/Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg and Berlin/Wedding and Prenzlauer Berg? If you know Berlin, you can also based on other criteria, but I think my argument can be supported or opposed based on the map alone. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the map being "busy", but I'm firmly of the opinion that it's far more important for districts to make sense from a traveller's perspective (in a case like this one of a district comprising multiple adjacent neighborhoods, that said neighborhoods be related or similar to each other in some way that's interesting to a traveller or relevant to the reasons one would visit Berlin in the first place) than for a district to have a particular shape when viewed on a map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. I agree with Hobbitschuster that I don't like the way it looks on the map, but at the same time I agree with AndreCarrotflower. I think that if there's another good way to do these districts that makes sense to the traveller, then go ahead, but otherwise let's leave it as it is. Which is more important: too many listings on a map or a traveller getting lost in the middle of a big city? Selfie City (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg are obviously a coherent whole. They may have been on seperate sides of the wall before 1990 and they may only be physically linked by the Oberbaumbrücke, but they share gentrification, leftist-green politics and the Gründerzeit buildings. Whether "Prenzlberg" and Wedding have much in common in 2018 I don't quite know. Note that Wedding/Gesundbrunnen were moved to East Central in a prior district reshuffle more or less on my unilateral decision (not that there was anybody saying "no" at the time, just not much input either way). Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
As for "busy map", it's a map with (especially in the Southern part) too much going on in it. You don't really get a good overview, because there are just so many listings and you have to zoom in quite a bit to even see a lot of the things... I fear this is also one of the downsides of adding metro lines; maps getting busier... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
You could try changing the size, zoom, and shape of the map. Selfie City (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
That won't work, and part of the issue is the near donut shape of the district, which forces us to include lots of stuff on the map that isn't part of the district at all. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it would make a lot more sense for Prenzlauer Berg to become its own district. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
And what then about Wedding and Gesundbrunnen? Make them part of Prenzlberg? Or deal with them as part of another district? Its own district? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I know practically nothing about Berlin — I'm sure there are some Wikivoyagers who know the city well. Selfie City (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

For this busy map - (1) reduce the stroke-width of rail lines (type=geoline) from 5 to 3 or set the stroke-width to 3 (This would help a little as size 5 is a bit much.) -- (2) Use of multiple mapframes using group and show parameters - which may not be acceptable in this instance -- (3) add option or a wrapper to change the point (marker-size) to small for the unique pages such as this might help as well. -- (4) I don't think that breaking up East Central Berlin further would be the way to go either. -- Just a few thoughts. -- Matroc (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, using multiple mapframe for different regions of the district would be a neat idea, maybe a little like the mapframes I made in Underground Railroad. Selfie City (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
If we're having multiple mapframes that seems to me like an admission in so many words that the district might be better off split... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, multiple mapframes just make the travel guide look really professional, neat, and detailed. Selfie City (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, do you mind if this is moved to Talk:Berlin? I think you've now reached people with this question, so we should put it there unless you still think some others will comment in future. Selfie City (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And just to clarify — won't move until someone else agrees it should be moved. Selfie City (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The marker concentrations indeed suggest that the current district has at least 2 hotspots of interest to the traveler, with both sufficient attractions and listings to justify separate distrit articles. I support Hobbitschusters idea of splitting the district, probably in a northern and southern half roughly through the middle. ArticCynda (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree with User:Hobbitschuster that the current Berlin/East Central district covers too many (incoherent) parts of the city. In my opinion Wedding and Gesundbrunnen don't fit into the current East Central district (neither thematically nor geographically) - they fit much better with Moabit (which is currently in Berlin/City West). Alternatively, grouping Wedding and Gesundbrunnen with Prenzlauer Berg for sightseeing purposes is also conceivable, although I'm not certain about that. I am against having two dynamic maps in one district page, since this is not what I think wikivoyage readers would expect. Xsobev (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
So would you propose to add Wedding and Gesundbrunnen to City West (Prenzlberg certainly doesn't belong into any district with "West" in the name as it is east of the former border) or would you make a new district out of those two? And if so would Moabit and Prenzlauer Berg be added to that? I can see several of those working, but I think "City West" is already a rather expansive definition of the term as many West Berlin nostalgics would deny that Schöneberg is part of the City West... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
My first suggestion was to create a new district with Wedding, Gesundbrunnen and Moabit (removing it from City West). The alternative suggestion was to create a separate district for Wedding, Gesundbrunnen and Prenzlauer Berg, resulting in a separate district for Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain. I have a slight preference for option 1, but this only partially solves the "busy map" problem. Xsobev (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I like your first proposal. Any idea on a name for such a district? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It could be called something like "Mitte North" or "North Mitte", since all three areas (Wedding, Gesundbrunnen and Moabit) are part of the Mitte borough ( That opens the question of where to put Hansaviertel ... And before splitting, I would propose to copy-paste the contents relating to these areas into a sandbox page, to see if there is (or most likely will be) enough material to justify a separate district. Thematically they would fit together pretty well I think. Xsobev (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I followed up on my proposal and here is the result: User:Xsobev/Berlin-Mitte-North. It does look quite empty. Adding Hansaviertel would fill the empty "do" section. There are places to eat in Wedding and Moabit, and to drink in Moabit, which are not mentioned in Wikivoyage. This sight could be added to the "see" section in Moabit. This lake could be added to the "do" section for swimming. Not sure if this is enough though. Xsobev (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I would also tend to separate Prenzlauer Berg and Wedding. They are historically and geographically too different. I would even argue for a separate district for each Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain for similar reasons. Even if they share gentrification and the nightlife area on both sides of the Spree, they have historical, architectural (post-war buildings) and cultural differences and offer numerous and partly distant sights such that I would recommend a traveller to explore them on separate trips and days. But intuitively, I would detach the small "enclave" north of Elsenstraße (respectively inside the S-Bahnring) from Treptow-Köpenick and add it to one of both districts. A traveller will usually approach this little area around the Arena from Schlesische Straße and explore the connected cultural sights on both sides of the current Flutgraben border, but not when being on a daytrip for Köpenick and Müggelsee or Adlershof and Grünau. --Rio65trio (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Any progress? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I argued for also separating Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg: Both disctricts have a different post-war history, culture and architecture, have their own centers, together span about 20 square kilometers, and each offer a large number of sights (see alone sections Eat and Drink). Also for geographical reasons, in my opinion it would make more sense for a traveller to explore them on different trips. What do you think? --Rio65trio (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Website to extract Wikidata ID's from OpenStreetMap[edit]

Hello, CKoerner (WMF), Matroc, Shaundd, Alexander, Yurik, Andrewssi2, RolandUnger, Mey2008, Traveler100, ϒpsilon, Whatamidoing (WMF), Selfie City and everyone else interested in dynamic maps. I have created a little website, which helps to gather all the Wikidata ID's of a certain region.

Of course once this overview map is created there is still a lot of work to be done: All the Wikidata ID's for a Wikivoyage sub-district have to be manually copied and pasted into a separate Mapshape in order to color the map.

I have quite a few ideas on how to automate this further. Imagine a map of e.g. Prague with all districts is shown and you simply have to lasso/brush select all the districts, which should be used for a certain color and the tool would automatically output a Mapshape with all needed Wikidata ID's. Unfortunately my JavaScript knowledge is not (yet) up to the task.

Hope you guys find Wikidata Extractor useful.--Renek78 (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, great stuff! I'm not sure on general usefulness on WV, since many areas here don't match the official counties/municipalities. It'd be great if Kartographer could be convinced to do some logical operations with areas - e.g. subtract a region (group) and a json area (to be able to draw Interior_(Iceland) and North_Iceland). I didn't find such feature though :-(
If we can figure out a way to easily query for some administrative regions (also on lower levels, than just 'counties' - also city boundaries etc.) within a geoJSON area (e.g. from, that would be sweet. But even this so far is nice :) (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
For regions, which are completely independent of any official boundaries the GeoJSON has to be created manually (with tools like or JOSM) and then uploaded to commons. Plenty of articles with such maps can be found here already (check my user page for some examples). This would also be possible for your Iceland example. Wikidata/OSM is only for official districts/municipalities. Hope I didn't misunderstand you.--Renek78 (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
You understood correctly, and I know about the "commons maps"... But I don't have the will+time to do that, not to mention maintain it (it's almost like the negative properties of static and dynamic maps combined :-D). E.g. in Slovakia, most of the regions match the official region split - and I only would need to adjust a few on the south-west (though I think in the end, I'll just redefine the split and be done with it). I'd much rather maintain the "minus masks", than completely new mapshapes... A man can always dream :-) (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018
It's often possible to "approximate" the region/district map you have in mind by combining sub-region or sub-district polygons from OSM, although many are not yet linked to Wikidata. This allows you to compose pretty much arbitrary districts for cities by combining individual neighborhoods, for example. If neighborhoods are not defined, then a custom map on Commons, like Renek78 suggested, is probably the preferred option. Brussels is a good example, with its map hosted here. Note that these custom maps, although necessary for some articles, should be the exception rather than the rule because they're much harder to maintain than OSM polygons. This should be only considered for regions and districts which already have a clear overview of the distribution of their POIs so that frequent changes to these maps can be avoided. ArticCynda (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)(UTC)
Yup, the missing wiki-osm linking for the small regions (like municipality/city/town/village boundaries) is the biggest issue for that approach... It's a lot of work either way, though I think the linking of Wikidata to OSM is a bit more future-proof and valuable for other projects too, in this case. (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC) drawing custom maps is fairly quick if you use JOSM to draw polygons of regions, then export them as GPX and convert them into GeoJSON. The .map file can be linked directly, with few manual edits necessary. Distilling mapshapes for individual districts from that is another story, though... I haven't found a way to automate that yet. ArticCynda (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting! --Alexander (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! This tool is much better than manual lookups. MSG17 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Some minor thoughts
  • This should assist in getting coordinates which can be very useful in doing any manual coding.
  • Building mapframes and maplinks is a very simple task with the several methods that currently exist (templates, modules and static data files)
  • Wikidata, Wikipedia and Wikivoyage names/labels do not necessarily match but should not present any major issues.
  • Putting appropriate OSM links into Wikidata needs to be accomplished as wikidata is supposed to be a base point for many of the map tasks. Prague has some 91? pieces of which only 7-9 have OSM links and just as few WV matching articles. The opposite is also needs to be examined and a lot of OSM entries need to be addressed and matched up or created as well.
  • Insuring Wikidata has all the administrative units entered into Wikidata appropriately as well as insuring that each unit has its own Wikidata record etc. This would make life easier to do module lookups etc.
  • Wikidata records that have NO NAME should be looked at and corrected. (Prague has 2 I believe)
  • Using Data records from Commons is fine to do; however, how does one determine whether they are to be used or not and which ones exist. Can read a Commons entry in a Wikidata record to see if it begins with Data I suppose is one way.
  • Building artificial or arbitrary regions/districts by combining a group of other admin units. Can be done easily enough if matching OSM entries exist. Just a matter of determining what to combine and a little bit of extra coding.
  • Some of what you are doing, I believe can be done using a module directly from Wikivoyage rather than externally though in the opposite direction. In either case, keep up with the ideas. -- Best wishes -- Matroc (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't count on "combining admin units" as a way to generate the boundaries for a Wikivoyage article, as often the boundaries do not align. One runs into silliness like w:Cloyne, Ontario – a tiny speck-on-the-map hamlet where the main street is the county line. Wikivoyage avoids the issue by moving the boundaries to force the entire unincorporated village into Addington Highlands instead of chopping it in half with all the wisdom of Solomon. A boundary generated based on administrative units would not handle something like this gracefully, nor will it handle the case where the city sprawls that little bit across the county line into rural countryside. We include the suburb with the adjacent city, not with some more distant city which happens to be on the same side of the admin boundary. K7L (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree when OSM is off and does not meet requirements; the need for creativity arises, one may have to experiment and resort to other methods/avenues (There will always be exceptions). The use of wikidata admin units is but one suggestion as an approach for gathering information to use or not. -- Matroc (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Enable page previews?[edit]

Dear fellow adventurers,

Page previews has been live on Wikipedia for some time. Wikivoyage is the other wiki I frequent, and I miss it when I view pages here. I wondered if this has been talked about. Technically, there is little stopping Wikivoyage from using it, but if adopted it would mean we'd need to think more about leading paragraphs of articles - to ensure the summaries make sense in this context.

e.g. A preview for Spain ( at time of writing would show "Spain shares the Iberian Peninsula with Andorra, Gibraltar, and Portugal. It has the second-largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites after Italy and the largest number of World Heritage Cities." Maybe the 2nd paragraph would be more appropriate as a summary: "Spain is famous for its friendly inhabitants, relaxed lifestyle, its cuisine, vibrant nightlife, and world-famous folklore and festivities, and its history as the core of the vast Spanish Empire." Or a new paragraph combining the two would make more sense: "Spain, with the largest number of UNESCO World Heritage cities, is famous for its friendly inhabitants, relaxed lifestyle, its cuisine, vibrant nightlife, and world-famous folklore and festivities, and its history as the core of the vast Spanish Empire"

Just curious what people think about this feature and whether it would need editorial changes to be supported. It seems like a great way to "explore the world"! :) Jdlrobson (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

So what enables preview on Wikipedia? Or is it dependent on which browser is being used or browser security settings? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of having it, though? --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
So that when you're reading an article, and you run across the name of some place that you can't quite remember, you can hover over the link and see the first sentence or two, rather than having to click on the link and open another page in yet another browser tab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I like this feature on Wikipedia and support implementing it on Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In terms of what is needed to enable it - it would be a site request (config change) asking for it to be turned on specifying the following:
  • Should it be enabled for new accounts? (PopupsOptInStateForNewAccounts)
  • Should it be enabled for existing accounts? (PopupsOptInDefaultState)

I think the real challenge here is going to be buy-in for the editorial changes needed to support good previews (which would improve the quality of the travel guide in my opinion). I see two fun problems to solve 1) The use of hatnotes at the top of pages

:''This article is about the city of Salzburg. For the state, see [[Salzburg (state)]].''

appears in the summaries for Salzburg as the summarizer doesn't know this is not part of the article's first paragraph. The use of a template e.g

{{hatnote|This article is about the city of Salzburg. For the state, see [[Salzburg (state)]].}}

would help with this as it would allow us to wrap the message with CSS classes to help it be identified. See to get a sense of the impact here.

2) Certain articles might need improvements to the phrasing of the lead paragraph e.g. The Spain example I cite above.

I don't see either of these 2 problems as huge blockers to deploying this but I wanted to make this clear!

Note, if after enabling it you decide this doesn't make sense or degrades the travel guide, you can use the same form to request it to be disabled and we can disable it promptly.

Jdlrobson (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I think it should be enabled for both new accounts and existing accounts. As for the two problems to solve: the hatnote issue seems pretty easy—the current hatnotes could be replaced with a template by bot, right? The other problem basically amounts to a constraint on our lead-writing. To me it seems like a small price to pay for implementing this useful feature, and in general it's probably a good idea to start our leads with an appealing hook anyway. What do others think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably the correct approach. Also, note that it auto-disables if you've got NAVPOPS turned on.
I don't think it's going to constrain our lead-writing much. Wikivoyage is already practically perfect for this feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've setup the hatnote template for if we go with this. If not then it can be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks @WOSlinker:. I think I have a bot script that can find and replace a good number of these cases. Not sure if it will handle all as some have multiple colons on multiple lines and a few with odd use of quote which are probably better handled by hand rather than trying to wrote some complex script to handle every possible combination. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
regardless of whether you enable page previews using this would improve rendering on mobile which recognises hatnotes and styles them in such a way that they are noticeably separate from content! Jdlrobson (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Once replaced the colon text with {{hatnote}}, should go though its use and where appropriate replace with the more exact {{Otheruses}}, {{about}}, {{confused}} or {{See also}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have something called Navigation popups, which do exactly the function being described here. Just go to your Preferences, then to the Gadgets tab. Personally, I find it annoying to use all the time, but it does come in handy. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

NAVPOPS is more complicated/powerful. I think that readers would be much happier with this simpler tool (which, it turns out, was originally based on NAVPOPS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, to close up this conversation, I'm just wondering what the next steps are. Is this something that should be enabled, or should I start an RFC or something equivalent? Jdlrobson (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Jon, does that belong to your team these days? If so, please just turn it on for everyone here. If not, then please pheel phree to phile a Phab task for whichever team it does belong to. We're not into Process for Process's Sake here. If someone wanted to object, they'd probably have said so by now. It's not difficult to opt out, for anyone who wants to opt out later. And thanks for asking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, per WhatamIdoing's advise I've created phab:T203981 to make this so. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This is now live. I direct your attention to mw:Extension:Popups#FAQ for any questions. There are a few clear places where images and lead paragraphs can be improved, but most of the previews I've generated look great and really enhance the experience. I hope you all feel the same, but let me know if there are any problems. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

High speed rail maps[edit]

This edit added what purports to be a map of the Spanish high speed rail system, which to me however seems highly incomplete. Do we want those mapshapes in country article dynamic maps? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Since there's no way for a casual reader to even know what that funny black line is, I suggest not. The UK map is particularly strange looking, highlighting our woeful HSR infrastructure, but ignoring the actual main railway lines which serve the country. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
London has a tail! And it links it to "the continent"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Spain shouldn't have a dynamic map anyway, as it already has a static one. I've deleted the redundant map accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd remove it on the basis that such a mapshape is more in its place in an article specifically for (high speed) rail travel in Spain rather than the article for Spain itself. If infrastructure should be highlighted with {{mapshapes}} on country articles, then I'd argue that that should be highways instead, but personally, I'm not in favour of adding that either.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
MSG17 is the user who has been adding the HSR to dynamic maps, and (s)he deserves to have a say here. @MSG17: What say you? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that it's fair to move or remove them - there's not any real identifying marks for the lines (no specific colors or anything), and since the lines are not very important to trip-planning due to the concept of through services (the lines don't really matter if trains can shift lines or transfer cars to different trains), it doesn't really help the traveller. The "funny black lines" comment is apt and accurate. It might be better to move the lines to corresponding high speed rail pages, especially since the European lines are rather interconnected. There are some exceptions, such as the Taiwan HSR (only one line connecting major cities) and maybe some more regional projects (like the Hainan ring railways), but for the most part it may be better to move lines to the corresponding rail articles. I will start moving the lines out of the current dynmaps at least - they can interfere with clicking on regions. Thanks for the ping - this discussion is great. MSG17 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your flexibility. We don't have many High-speed rail articles - just the main one, and one for China and South Korea. The static maps on those pages are kept well updated, so unless a dynamic map could offer something more, I can't see a need for them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Where is that discussion we were having about this issue (static and dynamic maps on the same page) a few weeks ago? I can't find it anywhere.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: - User talk:AndreeBot#Duplicate maps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't highways show up anyway if you zoom in enough? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage mentors[edit]

Hi all.

I've had an idea which may help to increase our rate of retention among newbies - what if we were to set up a one-to-one mentoring/buddy programme whereby more experienced Wikivoyagers could register their willing to help new editors?

Anyone who looks through Special:RecentChanges on a regular basis will know that there has been an upsurge in new accounts created since the highly successful editathon, but many of those editors don't stick around beyond a few days or weeks. We don't know why this might be, but one possible reason could be that new editors don't really know what they're doing and find our Manual of Style and policies too confusing or overwhelming. Maybe they have had their work undone by one of us on Recent Change patrol and have felt disheartened or unwelcome. Maybe they find the prospect of posting in the pub for help, in front of the whole community, intimidating, and just want a 'friendly face' (of sorts) they know and trust whom they can turn to if in difficulty. This is where a Wikivoyage mentor could be useful.

So, how would it work? Obviously if the community thinks this is a good idea in principle, but don't like my vision, we can change the details, but my vision is as follows:

  • There will be a new page called something like Wikivoyage:Mentors. On this page, experienced Wikivoyagers* who are willing and able to offer mentoring will be able to write their username. This would be a bit like the list of admins willing to answer questions, which has apparently stalled. A potential mentor can also state how many mentees they are willing to take on and indicate their current availability.
  • The welcome message sent to new users' talk pages will be modified to include a sentence pointing the user to the Mentor page.
  • New users will be able to contact available mentors at their user talkpage and ask them to work with them more closely.
  • The mentor role will be a supervisory one. They will keep track of their mentee's edits, offer advice when they think it's needed, and tell or show them the correct way of doing a number of daily Wikivoyage tasks (using article templates and standard headings, adding and using listings, inserting images and banners, formatting and wikicode, signing comments...)
  • The mentor will also be that mentee's first point of contact when (s)he has a question, problem, idea, concern, or is in a dispute with another editor.
  • The mentor/mentee relationship will be entirely voluntary, and not subject to nominations.
  • Either mentor or mentee will be able to terminate the agreement at any point.
  • The mentor will not be in charge of the mentee or their edits, nor will they be responsible for any misdemeanours committed by the mentee.
  • In the case of a dispute, it will not be the role of the mentor to take the side of their mentee, but simply to advise them and make sure that policy is upheld.
  • The mentor will be responsible for letting their mentee(s) know when they are going to be unavailable, either temporarily or permanently.
  • In the interests of safeguarding, both mentors and mentees will be encouraged to keep their communications on Wikivoyage, and not share personal details about themselves beyond what they disclose on their userpage.

*We will have to decide what "experienced Wikivoyagers" means. I suggest that anyone willing to be a mentor must have at least a year's experience and/or a certain number of edits to their name before they are eligible to put themselves forward. I would be against restricting the opportunity to be a mentor to certain user groups such as admins.

Any questions? Comments? Thoughts? Problems? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, and I think it has been done somewhat in the past. I'm biased, but I think perhaps "experienced Wikivoyagers" could be decided by someone being an autopatroller perhaps, as an alternative to your idea? Because while policy isn't super difficult, it's tough at first, and it is sometimes hard for the more experienced Wikivoyagers to understand why new editors are doing things that don't line up with policy. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
As a new contributor, I fully support this idea. While I have made many edits and additions to the project, I want to be certain that such edits are in line with WV policy. Having a mentor to occasionally coach and give advice in that regard would be helpful. Americannomad1776 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The w:en:WP:Teahouse approach (a well-advertised talk page specifically for new contributors) scales better. A couple of mentors can help a hundred new editors a month, and the risk of getting a "dud" mentor, or your mentor going on vacation just when you need to ask something, is significantly reduced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think both a teahouse and mentors would be a good idea, mentors for one-on-one help and the teahouse for more general questions. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has been here since the Wikitravel days, I am happy to do whatever I can to help. The dog2 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
So are there any objections to creating a "Teahouse" of some sort? If not, should we go ahead and create a page? What should we call it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The Departure Lounge (because it's a starting point?) Ground Zero (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────But that makes it sound like they're leaving the site! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be the Departure Lounge for their Wikivoyage, not from Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I too would like to see (if mentors become a thing, that is) a combination of Teahouse and one-on-one mentorship. Regarding the issue of mentors going on a vacation: I, as well as other members here have a overview of previous and upcoming vacations and get-aways. We could always give mentors the ability to refer to a different mentor that isn't on vacation while they are and who is willing to help the mentees whose mentor is away should they have any pressing and urgent questions. General questions can instead be asked in the Teahouse.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, since the importance of this mentors thing should be the 1-on-1 help from an experienced Wikivoyager. Mentorship should be long-term (for several months), so 1 week on vacation shouldn't really be a huge issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, when it comes to naming the teahouse: what about calling it the "Learners' Pub" or the Learner's Lounge". --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's really great to see the enthusiasm for this idea from several Wikivoyagers both old and new.

Another idea for the teahouse name, riffing on GZ's suggestion, which I do like: the Arrivals Hall.

So we can either copy the 'pedia template of their teahouse, or model it after the Tourist Office. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I like the "Arrivals Hall" name (or even "Arrivals Lounge"). IMO, we should model it after the tourist office. I'm not to keen on Wikipedia's Teahouse design. I'd like to see it get started as soon as possible.
One another thing: you know the welcome template? Could we expand the welcome message to include a link to the new page? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, here's the current "welcome" template:
Hello, user! Welcome to Wikivoyage.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.
We could surely add a sentence to it, mentioning the new page. Also, how easy would it be to add a link to this new page from Wikivoyage's sidebar? Otherwise, the page might get more or less abandoned. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I quickly drafted this based on the text found at the top of this page. Feel free to add to it if you want. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for starting that :-) To be honest, I don't have any ideas for the Arrivals Lounge; if I get any, I'll be sure to write them down. On the other hand, I'm happy to take charge of setting up a mentoring scheme.
Now we have established that there is some interest in the idea, could I trouble people to offer feedback on the 'rules' I set out in the original post? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, so I'll move the "Arrivals lounge" page to "Wikivoyage" space, and then I'll consider your above "rules" for the mentorship, which IMO should be separate from the Arrivals Lounge. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've moved it to WV space, so new users can now go to the arrivals lounge and ask questions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. I've kicked things off with a question to get it going, and sprinkled links to it in various places new contributors may be looking for information. I like the name, too. Ground Zero (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is a good idea. Something else to keep in mind, is that most news users don't get any welcome message. If you look at Special:ActiveUsers, you will find a very large of number of editors that have made a few small but net positive contributions to Wikivoyage over the past 30 days who however, have never been welcomed in a standard way let alone guided or mentored. It becomes very difficult to find them once their most recent edit was more than 30 days ago. I sometimes go on a welcoming spree and add a personal touch to each message at the end (usually thanking them improving the coverage of a particular part of the world) but I could never complete the list as such. I found it took a long time to welcome someone properly. You have to go through all of their contributions and make sure their edits are positive or at least in good faith and then send a partially tailored message as a minimum. You can also find touting or vandalism that has flown under the radar. Gizza (roam) 23:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I like the mentor idea and the rules that TT has created, and I don't see anything wrong with them. We seem to have pretty widespread agreement over this, so I'd like to see it go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to mentor people too, if you don't mind that I'm not an admin, and I have no desire to be an admin. The dog2 (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A new welcome template mentioning the Arrivals lounge[edit]

So I've created a new template in my userspace (if I've done it wrong, feel free to correct it) with a slight change to it mentions the Arrivals lounge. This is what I intend for it to print:

Hello, user! Welcome to Wikivoyage.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the arrivals lounge. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.

Compared to the current:

Hello, user! Welcome to Wikivoyage.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.

The difference is subtle: just a different link near the end, leading to the Arrivals lounge instead of the Pub. Is everyone okay with this? If so, could they edit the template so this becomes the standard? Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that Ground Zero made a welcome template mentioning the arrivals lounge as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course newbies are welcome to post in the pub, but I think it makes more sense to direct them to the Arrivals lounge where their questions with be handled with more care because it is clear that they are newbies. I think our approach is that each senior editor uses their own welcome message, instead of their being a standard one, so that it is more personal. I would also encourage editors to mention the Arrivals lounge when welcoming new users. Ground Zero (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, good idea.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I want to invite English Wikivoyager to make a Youtube movie about Wikivoyage.[edit]

I want to let anyone know about Wikivoyage, to help anyone easily edit and create articles through teaching videos, and hope to promote Wikivoyage through Youtube.

The URL of Wikivoyage Channel is here, I have upload about Chinese teaching videos(Chinese friends can to upload related videos to here), and I want to invite English friends to upload related videos to here. For other language versions, please let me know if I need to, I will provide the URL.

I also want to invite some people to be Channel administrators. Through Youtube, I hope to let more people know about Wikivoyage, and hope that more people can like us! thanks.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How exciting! I have seen your YouTube channel, and wondered if it was still active.
This is a brilliant idea and proposal, and I hope some talented videomaker can come forwards.
I'd like to volunteer to be a channel administrator, if you don't mind having someone with no experience of running a YouTube channel. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @ThunderingTyphoons!: I am very happy with your willingness to do so, if you can, please leave your Youtube User name or email address to me, I will provide administrator privileges.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I think it's a great idea to add more English-language videos about Wikivoyage on YouTube. Thank you for plunging forward. I will follow your channel closely. Gizza (roam) 22:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@DaGizza: Thank your respond! but my English is very poor, I have been looking forward to having Wikivoyager help and management, let us Wikivoyage let everyone know!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope everyone can also provide promotional videos.(s.g. Wiki Loves Monuments)--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I has upload about promotional film of Wikivoyage, If everyone have good video of wikivoyage, please provide to Youtube channel! thanks!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Number of bytes[edit]

You know, I would be interested over time if the number of bytes of Wikivoyage increases or decreases. Is there any way to find that out? The question is whether we're adding content as fast as we're removing listings for places that are closed, etc. Just would be interesting. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a Wikivoyage:Database dump with a few old versions going back to April:
2018-04-03 19:41:56 done All pages, current versions only. enwikivoyage-20180401-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2 117.6 MB
2018-08-22 02:23:26 done All pages, current versions only. enwikivoyage-20180820-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2 120.8 MB
The net trend does seem to be "up", but that doesn't tell us whether that is because of new articles, expansion of existing pages or both. K7L (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that quality is more important than quantity as well, weeding out clutter can improve articles although it decreases the database size. 11:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Most-known-sights expedition(?)[edit]

Surprisingly often I find that we are missing iconic sights of even prominent countries. Would it make sense to start an expedition where we would find (e.g. via some "competitor pages" or google) top 30-50 sights per country and check that we have them as well? This could probably increase our google rank a bit too...

Second step, after we put those listings in the destination cities (if they exist), it'd be great to extend regions to look like Paris/Brussels - so that each one of them has some overview of the main sights (at least some) with links to lower levels. Because otherwise we usually only have cities listed in most/many regions, which doesn't help the visitor==traveler to decide where the good stuff is. Of course, this is complicated, since we have some 2k regions, so we'd have to limit the scope somehow here.

Would there be some interest to do such thing? I could probably start doing some ground-work (like prepare some raw POI lists). (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m not crazy on the idea, but I am not against it either. Perhaps we could make it a Cotm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've quickly thrown together a list of the fifty 'biggest attractions' of the Netherlands based on some data found online, and I must say that I'm amazed to find some of the listed attractions on the list and some of them not while I did expect them. The Vondelpark in Amsterdam, for example, I would have expected on the list. Many attractions are listed, one of greater relevance to the traveller than the other. I'm not sure what the right way of getting a completer coverage of major attractions is, to be fair, and I'm pretty sure that doing what I've done now, grabbing the fifty or so biggest attractions and checking if we cover them, is not effective and not getting anywhere. Perhaps grabbing a list of museums and other sorts of attractions in X through Wikidata, tossing that in a list of sorts and working through that manually is what we're looking for? In any case, getting a coverage of the major attractions in X, whether that be a city, country or the entire world, requires a lot of effort and a Collaboration may be the way, as SelfieCity pitched above, and I'd hereby like to say that I support such an effort.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with, the layout of the Paris and Brussels articles is a great asset to the traveler. For the most-known sights, I slightly favour the Brussels approach for See and Do sections (following the 7±2 rule to enforce its summary role) in a more traditional travel guide style illustrated with pictures rather than a listing of bullets (approach of the Parisian See section). 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gallery for main sights[edit]

Possible third step of the above and a topic for discussion. In spirit of "A picture is worth a thousand words" - we could introduce some kind of "gallery", where each Country (and/or top-level regions) would have a gallery of these sights. We have the pictures already, but randomly scattered around the articles, and often incomplete. I'm not sure where we would put such stuff - maybe there could be some tiny "banner"/popup icon in the "See" section? Just an idea... This could maybe also be auto-generated from wikidata of the listings.

If/before we do this, it'd probably be best to first prepare some sketch-ups and agree on the new look... I also know we have the rules Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal_use_of_images, but maybe that rule was written 15 years ago on WT and nowadays even the remove areas have 3G usually... (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The <gallery> approach is, in my opinion not an appealing one. I'm all for adding more images in articles, but I'm not a fan of having more pictures stacked above each other than that the page is long. Perhaps we should look at deVoy for this, who have implemented a decent-looking gallery to show more images in the same place (see Amsterdam, for example). It might be an idea to develop the associated template further to add things such as an auto scroll to drag the reader's attention to the multiple images hidden in plain sight. The gallery as it stands isn't very appealing in my opinion, but resembles a regular thumbnail, which is fine by me.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It is also possible to create the gallery at Commons ("Sights is London" or somesuch), cf Commons:Winter driving. The format is free, i.e. Commons admins are unlikely to interfere. --LPfi (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage meetup?[edit]

Wikipedians get together in the face-to-face world all the time, and if anything, as travel guide writers, the concept lends itself even more to our community than it does to theirs. Whether a Wikivoyage meetup would be feasible is something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

It strikes me that Buffalo has a strong argument in favor of being the most logical place for one. Not only are our U.S. and Canadian editor bases heavily concentrated within easy striking distance, in the Northeast (Ikan Kekek, Powers, ButteBag, ChubbyWimbus) and Windsor-Quebec corridor (Ground Zero, K7L, Pashley) respectively, but by the standards of North American destinations, Buffalo is fairly easily accessible for our European contingent as well: JFK is one of the main international gateways to the U.S., with service from pretty much everywhere, and onward travel from there to Buffalo is a snap (JetBlue flights between JFK and BUF depart several times daily, take about an hour, and are usually available for less than US$100). Furthermore, Niagara Falls is just a thirty-minute drive or one-hour trip on public transit, and Buffalo itself has some of the best Wikivoyage coverage of any city in the world.

Other than location, I don't have any specifics in mind just yet; I mostly wanted to gauge what the level of interest in a meetup, hypothetically, would be. Is this worth looking further into?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I notice the Buffalo bias here... No, this is actually a good idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the accidental revert. Of course, whenever I do a fingerslip like that, my Wi-Fi slows to a crawl and I can't restore the correct version quickly. I like the idea of a meet-up, but I'll be honest that I don't know if I'd travel for it. If I were going to Buffalo for other reasons (e.g. to take advantage of its most excellent Wikivoyage guides), I'd consider it. Ground Zero (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I think a meetup is a great idea, though I highly doubt I'll have the time to travel to Buffalo for it. But if any future meetups are scheduled in a place I happen to be at, I'm happy to join. The dog2 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The basic idea is good, though we could just go to Wikimania & meet people from a wider range of projects. Perhaps recruit some folk to contribute here too?
Buffalo seems a good suggestion in some ways, but in winter I think most of us would prefer somewhere warmer. Also, anywhere in the US or Europe tends to be expensive. Maybe one of the places listed at Retiring_abroad#Destinations, or a Caribbean destination? Pashley (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Pashley - "Anywhere in the US or Europe tends to be expensive" - yes, but let's look at this in the aggregate. Long-distance travel itself is expensive. Our active editing community consists of about 40-45% North Americans and about 40-45% Europeans, with the remainder widely scattered among the other four continents with no particular one predominating. So it makes the most sense to have a meetup in either a centralized location within North America or a centralized location within Europe. Going either of those routes would be a pain in the ass for roughly half of us but comparatively convenient for the other half, whereas having a meetup in a place like the Caribbean where none of us actually live would be a pain in the ass for all of us. As this meetup was my idea, and the logistical end of things would likely be my responsibility were such a thing to ever actually happen, it wouldn't make sense for me to plan a European meetup (one that I most likely would not be able to attend anyway), so that's where my advocacy for Buffalo comes in. Also, while winter in Buffalo is not anyone's idea of a good time, our weather is at least serviceable for eight months out of the year, and downright beautiful for six. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, but wrong continent. --Alexander (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Like The dog2, if I happen to be close to a place where the meetup is happening at a point in time, I'd be happy to join. Also in case anyone is not aware, you can add your hometown or current location to Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers by location. It gives a good sense of where everyone is around the world. Unfortunately it doesn't distinguish active and inactive editors but it is still interesting. Gizza (roam) 22:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Great idea; wish I could go, but there's an ocean in the way, and I have no money. Would like to see photos, though. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't be able to make a special trip to Buffalo, as I'm just too busy with a career, a business, and dealing with my father's estate as an artist. However, if any of you are coming through New York City, give me a holler and we can try to schedule a get-together. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a fun idea, but I actually live very far from the Northeast now, so it would be quite expensive for me. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
If you want to do this fairly soon, then the easiest option might be to piggyback on m:WikiConference North America/2018, which is 18–21 October 2018 in Columbus, Ohio this time. It's unfortunately too late to apply for their $500 travel scholarships (something to keep in mind for the future). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I don't think I will be making a trip across the pond for it. I have been to a few local Wikimedia meetups - meetings in a physical pub or coffee shop for a couple of hours - they are not just for WP. If the first meetup is successful, I would suggest trying to hold same day US and European meetings, with a video link for part of it. AlasdairW (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
We do have quite a number of editors based in the Asia-Pacific region too. Is there a way to be more inclusive of them? The dog2 (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It will always be more challenging for us to organise a meetup than Wikipedia because of our smaller community. Back in its heyday, it would very easy to organise a meetup in any native English-speaking city with a population of a million or above because there would be at least 10-20 active editors from that city. Even other big cities which weren't native English speaking would get many attendees. While Wikivoyage is growing, it will be a very long time before we can match that if ever. Gizza (roam) 12:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Woww... This is good idea! but Buffalo is too far for Asian Wikivoyager, I think we can use webcam meetup! --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure my math is the same as yours, but transatlantic airfare while substantial is usually dwarfed by the cost of simply being in the US for even a week. Unless you stay in the cheapest of hostel dorms, the same is true for Europe. Costa Rica would be a place that is relatively easy to reach from both north America and Europe, that unlike its northern neighbor hasn't seen political violence on a major scale since the late 1940s and while not dirt cheap, it is quite affordable... At any rate, I like the idea in principle and it can always be accompanied by on the ground research... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a cool idea, thanks AndreCarrotflower! Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to make it out that way any time soon. --ButteBag (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Flying across the Atlantic just for a meetup is not only expensive and time consuming, but also ecologically irresponsible. I like the idea of a meetup though, so I'd rather suggest splitting it into a European summit in a (relatively) cheap city close to a Flixbus hub, and a North American meeting. 11:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Like many others I think that it is a great idea in theory, but find it difficult to participate in practice. However, changing the Buffalo bias for a Swedish one, is anyone considering coming to Stockholm for m:Wikimania 2019? It is almost a year to go, so it might be a bit too early to start planning. Nevertheless, it has the advantages that we can get a lot of help with logistics (for example there will be plenty of travel scholarships) and that there will be events which are interesting to us as a Wikimedia community. By the way, have we been represented at previous Wikimanias? MartinJacobson (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage banners in Wiki Loves Monuments 2018[edit]

We are glad to announce the annual Wikivoyage banner competition as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2018! Take photos of cultural heritage monuments, crop them to the Wikivoyage format (7:1, as all of you should know...), and upload the banners to Wikimedia Commons. Best contributions will find their place in the travel guides and receive small awards from our ru-WV community.

I would be grateful if people with access to social networks of Wikivoyage will share this information.
@Andyrom75, Lkcl it, Adehertogh, Yuriy_kosygin, DerFussi
Others: just talk to your neighbors, and participate yourself!

Have fun with cultural heritage! --Alexander (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we'll take care soon about it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Atsirlin:@Andyrom75: I've just scheduled the post on fb and twitter. I've also tried to translate the page in Italian, with no result ... Is this edit correct? (if not please revert it). Btw you can find my translation here, can you add it? --Lkcl it (Talk) 19:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Lkcl_it, thank you! I have no idea how this bloody translation system works. It looks like we can't do anything without translation administrators. I have asked some of them. Let's see what happens. --Alexander (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Lkcl_it, I managed it somehow. Please, take a look.
Two small requests from my side:
1. The upload wizard has the field 'Source image (Commons file that your banner was cropped from)'. Could you suggest me the Italian translation for it?
2. Could you reach the guys organizing WLM in Italy and ask them that they add information about the banner competition to their website. Unfortunately, I don't have time to contact every country (there are nearly 50 countries in WLM this year!), and I am sure they will be happier if you ask them in Italian.
Thanks! --Alexander (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Great! Thanks.
1. A translation could be "Immagine originale (File Commons da cui il banner è stato ricavato)".
2. I'll write the email shortly and I'll let you know. --Lkcl it (Talk) 09:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yuriy kosygin, thanks! I may not be able to help you with the video at the moment, because Wiki Loves Monuments takes really a lot of time. --Alexander (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I deleted pages?[edit]

If you take a look at the deletion log, you will see that I "deleted" some pages to make way for a redirect. (e.g. it says on "00:07, September 2, 2018 SelfieCity (talk | contribs) deleted redirect Western Valley by overwriting".

That's fine except for one thing: I'm not an admin. And only admins can delete pages. Is this some kind of malfunction, or an error message not working or something? Or can anyone delete redirects in the process of making way for another one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it maybe that I technically deleted the redirect and not the page, but it still shows in the Deletion Log? If so, this is not an issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
There is one very small loophole... it's possible for a non-admin to move an article over top of an existing redirect if that redirect has no history and points to the article being moved. This exists so that non-admins can revert page-move vandalism, effectively reversing a move so that the redirection points in the opposite direction. It's rare, I don't think I've ever done it, but the one narrow exception technically does exist. K7L (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

POP-UP maps for markers/listings[edit]

  • Noticed that the pop-up map is not showing when clicking on the listing/marker icon on a page -- Can someone check as it may be a server or other issue - Thanks -- Matroc (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Broken for me in three web browsers on macOS Sierra 10.12.6. I'm pretty sure it was working very recently (possibly within the last 24 hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Anybody of the Wikimedia Foundation's programmers changed <maplink> behavior completely. CSS cursor events were set to none, the cursor was changed and the map is substituted by a special page.
You should add to MediaWiki:Common.css‎ the following lines:
.client-js .mw-kartographer-maplink:not(.mw-kartographer-link):not(.ve-ce-focusableNode), .client-js .mw-kartographer-map:not(.mw-kartographer-link):not(.mw-kartographer-interactive) {
	pointer-events: auto;
	cursor: pointer;
I think after this you will not see a pop-up map any longer but a special page like this. I think the programmers have no idea why we use the markers in the articles and that they are all shown on the maps.
At the German version we changed the display of maps and wrote several months ago our own client-side map scripts. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
This has made me a little bit angry. So my original thought that this was a new feature improvement for the worse was not in error. When will the usage of group and show parameters disappear as well? Limiting the versatile and practical usage of Kartographer as WV has been using it; almost seems to make it worthwhile to rethink using this extension at all. -- Matroc (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The phabricator task was raised to high priority. Now French wikipedians reported the same failure. I do not know the intention to change to code to the worse. I think the new programmers are not familiar with the project as a whole. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
спасибо за эта -- I agree with you - Matroc (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be back and working - thank you -- Matroc (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify the issue, we recently had the need to remove event logging from some projects due to resource redirection and improvement of page performance, during development we accidentally removed a piece of code that created the issue and doesn't have a test case, the code passed through our CI jobs and got into production. We are sorry about that, once we were able to take a look into the problem we tried to deploy a fix ASAP. Thank you for reaching us and help us to identify the problem quickly. MSantos (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Locations on Wikidata[edit]

I cannot get this map to give info on the marked places. Looking for the wikidata number for the location as the article Platanias is currently pointing to the wrong one. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Link in Wikidata for Platanias is for Platanias Municiplaity located in Crete. I didn't find another Platanias to match. Not sure if you need to remove the WV link from that Wikidata record and create a new Wikidata entry - apologize if that is not helpful. -- Matroc (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Table in Severe weather[edit]

In the Severe weather article I redesigned the table and it looks pretty good. However, some of the horizontal gaps between the numbers are rather small. What’s the best way to increase the gaps? Thanks.

Also, you can go to Talk:Severe weather to compare the old and new table designs and you can view sections of the new table design at Cold weather and Hot weather. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I added some padding for you.
But the contents seem wrong. Since when is cooler-than-room-temperature "warm"? And 75 °F isn't "hot"; that's barely warm enough for me to start wearing short sleeves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I ever changed the temperatures, but I think you're right that they are a little low. What I'd say is that on the original chart the higher temperatures for each temperature type were in bold, so it might have made more sense. But I'd agree that they should be adjusted a few degrees. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The contents were discussed earlier (on the metric and imperial page?), but I think it is hard to reach any consensus. For me, 18–21°C is room temperature, which is warm, and I start wearing short sleaves at 60°F. And I wouldn't call 20–40°F cold (unless it is supposed to be summer). For Severe weather the -10–30°C/15–85°F range is rather irrelevant, while that is the range the table concentrates on. I do not know how to present the temperatures in a way meaningful for those who haven't experienced them. Other than perhaps the freezing point and 35°C/95°F, which is mortal for humans in 100% relative humidity (the body core will get warm enough for proteins to coagulate). --LPfi (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
If it lasts long enough, and if you don't have access to cooling options such as fans, swimming pools, cold drinks, or air conditioning. Also, AFAICT that combination has never happened in recorded history. The equivalent dewpoint (a slightly higher temperature and slightly lower humidity, but the same net effect) has briefly happened; it set a world record in 2003. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing here. I wouldn’t ever wear short sleeves at 60 Fahrenheit and I’d definitely call 20 to 40 Fahrenheit cold. I think we should move all the numbers on the table to the left, and add one at the right end, so it makes more sense. I’ve never been out in 20 F weather, but I’d probably like 95 more. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
That you've never been in 20 F weather might explain something. That is a warm winter day (the recommended limit for having babies take naps outdoors is below 0 F). And if I waited for 75 F until changing to short sleeves there would not be many days to use them (except the summer we experienced this year). So the characterization is highly subjective, but fans won't help you at 95/100 (air conditioning lowering the temperature helps of course, as does access to cool drinks/showers/pools). Anyway, the characterization might serve most of our readers. --LPfi (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Does your home area perhaps not see those temperatures very often? I lived (for 20 years) in several places where 95/100 °F was a perfectly typical summertime temperature – you just planned for at least 30 days of that each year – and usually without either air conditioning or a swimming pool. I can tell you that a fan still helps on such days, just like going outside on a hot-but-windy day is more tolerable than going outside on an equally hot-and-still day. As a general rule, a fan provides the equivalent of 5 °F cooling, no matter what the temperature is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not talking out of experience, but a fan works in two ways: replacing air you made warmer with cooler air (works in sub 35°C) and replacing air moist from your sweat with drier air (works in less than 100 % relative humidity). At 35/100 there is no way a fan could keep your skin cooler than 35, which is too much. The 100 % humidity is of course not common in most places (here also the 35°C is a once-in-recorded-history event). --LPfi (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No, in Finland temperatures don't go above +30°C (86°F) every summer. But I think many, if not most, WV contributors do come from parts of the world where such temperatures are common, but instead temperatures below freezing (during daytime at least?) are rare.
And, in addition to what has been mentioned above, your level of activity also very much determines how you perceive the temperature. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't think our "normal" temperature standards shouldn't be set by Finland's climate. A better choice for average climate would be somewhere around 40—45 degrees north and close to sea level — maybe somewhere like southern France would be a good standard for what's hot and what's cold. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course we should not set our standard according to Finland. But I am not sure southern France is much better, or southern India, or central Zaire. Ideally our temperature descriptions would stand on their own, without one having to be acquainted to whatever climate we use as "standard". Having that standard implicit makes matters worse: how can one know that it is southern France and not Paris or the Canary Islands that is our normal? --LPfi (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
We can argue about this forever. Maybe we should just keep the tables as they are, since otherwise there will be a huge debate over something that doesn't really matter. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox design[edit]

I invented this design for an infobox.

Tasmanian devils

This carnivorous marsupial is the size of a small dog and found only in Tasmania. The largest carnivorous marsupial in the world, it is characterised by its stocky and muscular build, black fur, extremely loud and disturbing screech, and ferocity when feeding. Despite its appearance, the devil is capable of surprising speed and endurance... (read more)
This carnivorous marsupial is the size of a small dog and found only in Tasmania. The largest carnivorous marsupial in the world, it is characterised by its stocky and muscular build, black fur, extremely loud and disturbing screech, and ferocity when feeding. Despite its appearance, the devil is capable of surprising speed and endurance... (read more)

How do others like it compared to the current design of infoboxes? I'm not sure how to decrease the gap between the lines, and if someone can make the change please do. I also think the text might look good with the text aligned to the left, but I couldn't do it.

Of course, in most infoboxes there would not be a read more link. I just added that and the ... to this one so I didn't include an essay in this demonstration. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • One method - put your text in a div statement - can change font size or align left, right or center -- Matroc (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I had to leave before I finished -- If you are going to use a table then the text information in your infobox example could actually be just another table row (without a div statement) with appropriate font size etc. -- Matroc (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've taken the text I assume you added and made it the main text. How does it look now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, did anyone notice that I changed to an autumn signature? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's the current design for the same infobox, if you want to compare right here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Tasmanian devils

This carnivorous marsupial is the size of a small dog and found only in Tasmania. The largest carnivorous marsupial in the world, it is characterised by its stocky and muscular build, black fur, extremely loud and disturbing screech, and ferocity when feeding. Despite its appearance, the devil is capable of surprising speed and endurance... (read more)

In response to Matroc, I tried that but couldn't get it to work. You see, I'm no expert at code, and I'm one of those who tends to experiment with colors, etc. and sees what works and what doesn't. But thanks for the help, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I added example -- see: Help tables as that may assist you - Best wishes -- Matroc (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Just for those above, the red box is not the design example — my proposal is the gray/grey square. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally I like the existing format better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Granger, and prefer the current format. 11:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

How to note a museums temporary closure...[edit]

Was trying to find it in the Rio article, to leave a note.. What's it's Portugese name, and what sort of wording should be used? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was removed from Rio de Janeiro/Zona Norte... -- 10:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Andree. Was just about to say the same. Shakespeare, the Portuguese name is Museu Nacional, and if you want to note a temporary closure in future, you can just add it to the listing in a prominent place, either on top of the opening hours or in the 'content' field. Or if you want to be really fancy, you can hide the whole listing with a set of these bad boys <!-- -->, and note the closure somewhere prominent in the 'See' section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to downplay destruction on this scale as a "temporary closure". Wikivoyage:When to use dates#Permanent closure or cessation of service says "our goal is to give only current information to the traveller, including old information only when it is useful to avoid being misled by information commonly available elsewhere" and "the general rule is, once an establishment has closed the listing should be removed" with a few, limited exceptions. K7L (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Quite right. But it will become apparent only with time how permanent the closure is likely to be. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I added an infobox to Rio_de_Janeiro/Centro#Museums. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
If anything opens in its place, it won't be the original (which was destroyed) but a new museum with a similar name or location – and it would be too soon to list that as no construction has started. I'm not sure if we had a guideline on "coming soon" listings, but they're of limited use unless and until the voyager can actually go there. Again, something on this scale may trigger an exception as the history of the palace, which existed for a couple of hundred years with the grounds becoming the zoological garden, along with the history of the museum and its destruction might fit in "Understand" or as part of the listing for the (I presume, still functional) zoo. Also, should this infobox be in Centro or Norte? K7L (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@K7L: WV should only list the current situation, to reflect the attractions travelers can actually visit if they'd travel there today. Listings of closed attractions or speculations on future developments are needlessly confusing, not helpful to the traveler, and probably belong on Wikipedia instead. 13:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
In most cases a destroyed attraction or business would just have been deleted, but as this apparently was a world-class museum and a major cultural and historical attraction in Rio, I think an infobox could be warranted.
Our district division of Rio de Janeiro puts the park where the palace stood in the Centro (not in Norte, where it was listed), and therefore the infobox should be there too. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Star nominations are back![edit]

Hello, all. In case you are unaware, there have been three new nominations for star articles in the last couple of months on a page that had for a long time been dormant, but not many opinions offered. Your opinion is valued, needed and requested. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October[edit]

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cycling in Denmark and Category:Cycling in the United Kingdom[edit]

I cannot get these categories to work. Am I doing something wrong? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want to create these categories, how many sub-articles are you planning on writing about cycling in the UK? And even so, wait until they are created, add the PartOfTopic and use the blue icon at bottom of page created when no category exists. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I’ve finished, actually. There’s only one subarticle for the UK, Scotland, and only one subarticle for Denmark. So maybe those categories aren’t necessary? I don’t know a lot about categories yet, but thanks for your help so far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the general notion is that you want a category to contain more than a few articles, but not too many – somewhere between 10 and 1,000, to give some very round numbers.
There has been very little research done on categories. It is my belief (which could be wrong, of course) that most categories are nearly useless to readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
On Wikivoyage categories are basically a maintenance tool. Tracking articles with missing information or in the case of isPartOf or PartOfTopic to place articles in a hierarchy of categories based on the bread crumbs. This is useful for checking articles are listed in bottom level regions and for running update bots though articles as well as provide statistics by region. On Wikipedia contributors can add articles directly to categories, here on Wikivoyage article categories are controlled through templates. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Nonetheless, if a new category is created and items which the {{IsPartOf}} template should be placing in the new category aren't there, it may be necessary to edit each of the articles, then save them (without actually changing anything) just to get them to populate into the category. That looks to be what's happening here; I haven't looked at the template code to see what it does with a category that doesn't exist yet. K7L (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
That is correct, if the category is created after an article is added to the category then the article needs to be resaved to see it in the category. If an isPartOf or PartofTopic is created with a category that does not exist it is added to Wikivoyage:Maintenance panel categories, also at the bottom of the page there is a small blue hierarchy icon, which when you click goes into create category page. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Difficulty accessing Wikivoyage website in China[edit]

I am currently unable to access the Wikivoyage website on my home computer except when connected to a VPN. Does anyone else in China have this issue? Interestingly, the problem seems to be very localised, as I can still access the site on the mobile network or when connected to the WiFi at a restaurant or other public place.

Unfortunately, VPN is only half the solution because Wikimedia has a policy of blocking users from editing content while connected to an open proxy. Hence, I usually (but not always) encounter the following error when I try to do some editing:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis.

The block was made by X. The reason given is Open proxy.

Wikimedia's 'no open proxies' policy is explained here:

As stated in the article "This policy is known to cause difficulty for some editors, who must use open proxies to circumvent censorship where they live; a well-known example is the government of the People's Republic of China, which sporadically attempts to prevent the people in China from reading or editing Wikipedia."

The article also states that it's possible to get an IP block exemption and I am hoping that one of the administrators reading this might be able to give me one. A local exemption covering only English Wikivoyage would be sufficient for my purposes.

STW932 (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently able to access Wikivoyage from mainland China with no VPN. I'm able to read and edit with no problem. If you're able to access at restaurants, then I think the problem must be with your home computer or home WiFi network, not with the Great Firewall.
However, I have occasionally (two or three times in the past three months) had trouble accessing Wikivoyage without a VPN, and I have a global IP block exemption to deal with that problem and to let me edit other Wikimedia wikis without interference from the Chinese firewall. I think there should be no problem with giving you a local IP block exemption. Any admin reading this should be able to do so at Special:UserRights/STW932. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! STW932 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A team at U of Toronto have a tool Psiphon: Bypass Internet Censorship which, last I heard (a few years ago) worked well for people in China. It lets a friend outside the country run a proxy for you on his or her machine; typically this will not be on either the Chinese government's or WMF's list of proxy addresses, so it will not be blocked. Works best if you have a friend with a server that runs 24/7. Pashley (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See also w:Psiphon and the project website. Pashley (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding maintenance category for duplicate banners[edit]

Would anyone be opposed to adding a category like this one? I saw a couple of articles with locally-defined banners that were exactly the same as the ones in Wikidata, meaning double the work is needed to change them. The category can have a standard disclaimer at the top like the Russian WV has, which I can translate if necessary, but basically says, "If the local banner is worse than the Wikidata one, simply delete the parameter, but if it's better, either begin the process for changing the Wikidata banner or leave it alone." Either way, there are potentially many pages with this kind of banner problem.

I'm not 100% sure how to do this, but if it's just adding the appropriate if statement to the template code and creating the page, I can do it if need be. ARR8 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that is our default. That way others can use the same banner automagically, while a change at Wikidata won't affect us. On the other hand, if the banners differ – or is different to one used on any WV version – then checking and possibly changing it in some place might be worthwhile. --LPfi (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that duplicate banners is a problem. Different languages divide countries up into different sized chunks. We may have a huge city with 10 banners for the the city and its districts. If another language has not split the city into districts, I see no problem if they pick a different one for the city (possibly one which we use on a district). Different languages also appear to have different preferences for panorama v detailed views for banners. There is only a real need to change an existing Wikidata banner if the image is deleted or has been incorrectly applied to the wrong location. AlasdairW (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. ARR8 (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@LPfi, AlasdairW:, do either of you have any thoughts on creating the category? It doesn't necessitate any action taken, but it would be easier to see the scope of the problem. ARR8 (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
There are instances of banners being different on different voyage wikis as well. India being but one example. I don't believe banners should be restricted to that found only in Wikidata. Replacing one in Wikidata affects all those that "autorestrictomagically" refer to them. Use of a locally defined banner can eliminate the prospect of unwanted replacement in a particular wiki be they duplicate or not. Having a banner in Wikidata is naught but a convenience unless it is now a prerequisite that all wikis use the one banner. If wikivoyage banner in Wikidata is an array; perhaps, adding an alternative or two might be useful. Adding a banner to Wikidata if one does not exist makes sense as well as replacing a banner if it doesn't belong. There is no single authority. -- Matroc (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking the opposite, that we could delete the local definition of a banner if it is the same as the one in Wikidata, anyway. I wouldn't want to change them in Wikidata if multiple languages have the same article, or remove any local definitions if a specific WV has found an image that better illustrates their article. In fact, I would be opposed to any unilateral changes to the Wikidata banner for a location. What I do think is that the majority of the articles here which manually specify a banner will probably never differ from Wikidata, and probably aren't too attached to a specific image, rather only using the best available, in which case removing the local definition can save some maintenance. I wouldn't want to batch remove all local banners, either, because I'm sure there are some articles which override the Wikidata banner for a reason. ARR8 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a tradeoff, and I think the consensus here is that the chances of a better banner found and making its way to Wikidata without us noticing is less than the frustration of a good banner at WD being exchanged for a less suitable (according to the taste of whoever cares). If we have a banner, it can be assumed to be good enough, while there is no guarantee that the new banner at WD isn't problematic in some way. The new WD banner can still be evaluated by anybody working with the article. The consensus could change, of course, but probably not without some time passing or very good arguments being made. --LPfi (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately data can be changed on Wikidata without anybody noticing. There is an option to "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" but I have found this to be no help, as it notifies me if anything changes in the related Wikidata item, when I only want to know if something which impacts the article changes. After a few days of trying this option, I turned it off. However I do want to know if somebody changes the banner of a watched page. In particular, I want to know if the banner has been changed to a picture of a hotel or other business.
A recent bot edit on Wikidata changed the UK emergency phone number (999) by incorrectly adding a digit. It took 3 months for anybody to notice, despite this being used on several country pages.
It would be useful if a bot could put a message on the article's talk page when a new banner is added to Wikidata, but I would not want any automatic changes. AlasdairW (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Calling User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Could your project to limit 'noise' in the watchlist be adapted to Wikivoyage's needs? We'd want banners and whatever is used in the article (e.g., latitude/longitude). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the ping! The system should already work from our side. There might be two remaining potentially bigger issues: 1) Local templates sometimes load the whole item instead of specific parts of it. These need to be changed in order to get fewer edits from Wikidata to show up in the watchlist here. 2) If you get the page banner via an extension and not Lua then it might not be tracked correctly by us. If this is the case and people here would like this changed then it'd be great if someone could open a ticket for it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@LPfi: I understand. There is a tradeoff, and the status quo works fine. I'm happy to leave the issue be. However, I'd still like to create the category, if only for completeness' sake. Would you be opposed? @AlasdairW: ARR8 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it'd do no harm. I am not going to figure out how to create it though; I haven't created that kind of categories before. --LPfi (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to creating the category, but I haven't a clue how to do it. AlasdairW (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all for the discussion. ARR8 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I've added this change to the {{pagebanner/sandbox}}, and it seems to work fine. Would an administrator consider adding it in? I'm not sure if this is the right place to ping admins; if it's not, I'd appreciate it if someone would point the way. ARR8 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
This will create too many false warnings. It only checks of a banner page name is present, will show as different from Wikidata even if same as Wikidata pagebanner. The check needs to be more precise. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the sandbox version to only place articles in this category if they are different. Need to test a little more but appears to work. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I cannot support the idea of removing the banner name from an article when it is the same as on Wikidata. Wikidata is not very discoverable for many users, not just new ones. Having on the article page makes it clearing what is happening and easier for contributors to edit. If changes the article will be added to the category and others can comment on if it is an improvement on the Wikidata version. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Yes, this resembles the other concerns mentioned above. At this point, I'm forced to agree. Perhaps in the future, when Wikidata becomes a little more accessible and integrated with wiki projects, this can be reconsidered. Either way, I think there's no harm in adding the category. ARR8 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Yes, that was intentional. The name of the category is a little misleading, but I wrote about it in the description, and it matches the way the category is used on the Russian and Ukrainian WVs. Of course, if the category is more useful showing only banners that differ, then it makes sense to keep it this way, but I'd originally intended it to show pages that had banners defined in both places, even if they were identical. Perhaps there's room for both categories? ARR8 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The ones needing attention are those that have the banner defined only in one of the places. If on Wikidata, it means there is a banner, which could probably be used and should be added explicitly. If on Wikivoyage, it should probably be helpful to add it to Wikidata. I think the one you requested is more for curiosity, it mostly means the banner is defined according to our practice. --LPfi (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
You're probably right. ARR8 (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

Why am I blocked? AndreCarrotflower blocked me without even nominating me for a ban! I have done nothing wrong! @SelfieCity:: praised my Ada, Oklahoma edits! Who the hell is LibMod, what did he do that you now suspect me of, what the heck is a doppelganger, and what does any of this have to do with me?! If you're going to ban me, at least answer me! AmericanRide2 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, since you and him are the same person (I'm writing this mainly for the benefit of the other editors who may be following these events), User:Libertarianmoderate is a former editor who was banned for making bigoted statements and who has resurfaced several times under different usernames to cause further trouble.
Like you, LibMod:
  • has a habit of creating stub articles for unimportant small towns in the American Midwest, especially Chicago suburbs such as Beecher
  • has a habit of creating garbage redirects like International Date Line and Prime Meridian
  • has a habit of including city, state and zip code in the address section of listings, like so, in violation of our manual of style
  • uses Template:Listing for all listings, rather than differentiating by "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", or "Sleep" (see link in the above bullet point)
  • uses Template:Ping frequently, and tends to do so in the middle or at the end of his comments rather than at the beginning
  • after being banned, began making his doppelgangers write in affected dialects in an attempt to throw admins off the track (compare "Wazzup dudes? I'm American Ride!" on User:American Ride to "now why did y'all block me? I ain't done nuttin wrong!" in an email to me by an account that later admitted to being a LibMod doppelganger)
No, there's no smoking gun, but the nature of doppelganger detection is such that there never is. But the volume of circumstantial evidence I laid out above makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to draw any other conclusion.
In conclusion, LibMod, I would advise you to stop wasting your efforts. Here at Wikivoyage we have lots of experience with vandals and problem editors. We can spot a doppelganger a mile away, even when the vandal tries to cover his tracks, which believe me, you're a lot less good at than you think you are. You're never going to fool us, so your best bet is to cut your losses and go vandalize some other wiki.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to say, the use of Template:Ping is a dead giveaway. New users probably wouldn't know how to use that template. Thanks for figuring this one out, and sorry if any of my previous comments to the user caused any problems. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, I think if we still had any doubts as to whether or not LM was a problematic user or not (which was pretty clear already), this latest incident removes any doubt. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
No problem at all, SelfieCity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @AndreCarrotflower: --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC) ;)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for pinging me on en.wp. I knew you had a handle on it. If there's a serious doubt, we can get a CheckUser but this is classic "walks like a duck, talks like a duck". —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ban was correct thing to do. No doubt about the MO of the edits. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The ban is justified. I understand the desire to defend and explain such a ban, but listing all of his "give-aways" will make it easier for him to avoid detection. Ground Zero (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
If he returns. If he does, he's just being foolish. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
As I said, we at Wikivoyage can generally identify doppelgangers even of vandals who are good at covering their tracks. LibMod would have to make some pretty major improvements to his strategy before I'd start worrying about him slipping through the cracks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep. He hasn't covered up his tracks so far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
One wonders whether he even cares if he's detected. It seems like his object is to annoy us, rather than to return to editing per se. If he slips through the radar undetected, he's not annoying anyone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what he's trying to do, really. But I think we ought to watch the User Creation Log and follow when new editors start adding quite a lot of content with decent knowledge of how to use the editor mode (although not perfect, as the examples above show), particularly in the Middle East or the American Midwest. We're not having to deal with Einstein, though, so I don't think we need to examine every new user too much. As long as we follow possible LM doppelgangers that emerge fairly closely, we should be able to figure out who's LM and who isn't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting the issue of temporary semi-protection for Main Page features[edit]

Between LibMod, the Fuerdai vandal, and BTCentralPlus, we've been seeing a huge uptick in vandalism lately. The last time we broached the subject of instituting temporary semi-protection for DotMs, OtBPs, and FTTs during the time they spend on the Main Page, as Wikipedia does with its featured articles, the consensus was that vandalism wasn't enough of a problem to warrant it. But that was five years ago, and since then traffic has grown by orders of magnitude yet our community of active admins has grown only slightly, if at all. I think it's now a very realistic possibility that we might see vandalism on a Main Page feature that's left unreverted for long periods of time due to the lack of any admins online at any given time. What does everyone think? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(It also perhaps bears mentioning that none of the editors who were so vehemently opposed to this idea in 2013 are more than marginally active on Wikivoyage as of 2018.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it depends on the page a little, but overall I think you're right. This is a page we could lock, since it gets a lot of "I take over the pub" vandalism, but for genuinely new users that would be problematic (unless we directed them to the Arrivals lounge instead). I'm not sure how much Featured article-type vandalism we've been getting lately, but I think those should be locked too, since they shouldn't need to be edited during their month's feature anyway. So I would support, especially considering how few edits there have been lately at times (like 3 on some hours). While our Alexa rank continues to rise, Alexa ranks don't tell us everything. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Instituting any kind of protection on the Pub would be very problematic because, as "the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful", it's specifically intended as a resource for new users. As for featured articles, we haven't seen much actual vandalism on those as yet, but I can only imagine what happens when, let's say, Fuerdai realizes we have some Chinese city on the Main Page as DotM or OtBP. I say let's stop the problem before it starts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. I think I'd still support the page protect measure, although there may be some other pages that could be protected as well. Definitely pages like China should be protected, since the vandal seems to be obsessed with editing those pages (or North Korea). --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've been dealing with a particularly bad flareup of Fuerdai vandalism over the past few hours, with multiple sockpuppets tag-teaming China and Great Wall of China one after the other. I restricted both of those to autoconfirmed only, but because China in particular is a very high-profile article that attracts a lot of good-faith edits from bona fide newbies, I was uncomfortable protecting it for longer than 2 weeks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
When I looked at the Recent Changes log, all of those vandals reverting each other was quite confusing. China is, yes, a high-profile page that gets a lot of vandalism. It's the highest-population country in the world, with plenty of vandals along with plenty of helpful users. My guess is that Fuerdai is one or multiple editors who are pro-North Korea and see America and anything connected to it (like Wikimedia) as the enemy. It's unfortunate that these pages have to be protected, but I fear it is the only answer: even if we get a lot more contributors, we will probably get a lot more vandals too. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd support semi-protection for the Big 3. Probably not for the articles posted in Discover nor the current featured event (the current event needs to be updated frequently which outweighs the potential vandalism that could be inflicted on it). Gizza (roam) 23:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a new user, so I'm not sure what my vote is worth, but I'd Support Support this, and I'm kind of surprised this isn't the case already. It was my understanding that the articles featured are more or less "complete." ARR8 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be useful to have some idea of what the tradeoff is here. How many useful IP edits do featured articles typically get while they're on the main page? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @ARR8: I think you're right, and thanks for your input! However, one of the problems with featuring articles and then protecting them is this: let's say we feature city X as the DOTM and a restaurant is listed in city X article. But then the restaurant closes, and a non-admin or even an IP knows tries to remove the listing for the restaurant, but they can't because it is locked. Then a traveler, who has never edited WV, reads the article on city X and sees the restaurant listing. They think, "I'd like to go visit that restaurant!" but they find it's closed and they've wasted their journey because the article told them something inaccurate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-admin might be able to edit a semi-protected article; it's just new or anon-IP users who would be unable to do so. I recall editing (and {{warningbox}}ing) Oregon Trail during its time as featured travel topic to indicate wildfires had closed a road which follows the Oregon side of the Columbia River; I presume I would still have been able to make that edit despite this proposal? K7L (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It depends whether it is locked for administrators only or auto confirmed users only. Probably you'd lock it for auto confirmed users only. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
That's implicit in the mention of semi protection. By definition, in MediaWiki a "semi-protected" article is accessible to autoconfirmed users; a "fully protected" article is read-only to everyone except admins. K7L (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with protecting articles like China that are being vandalized, but I think that protecting featured articles just because they are featured is a bad idea. A new visitor who sees their home town featured, checks out the article, and finds errors they can't fix won't stay around Wikivoyage too long. If a featured article has been vandalized in the recent past, it makes sense to protect it when it is featured. Ground Zero (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gathered some data to help us make the decision. I looked through the histories of this year's dotm, otbp, and ftt for May, June, and July (9 articles in total) and counted the number of harmful and helpful edits from IPs and new editors during the time the article was being featured. (If the same user/IP made several edits around the same time, such as repeated vandalism on the same day or several edits to add a new listing, I counted it as one edit.) I found 7 harmful edits, 2 helpful edits ([1] [2]), and one that seemed neutral.
So the proposal would stop more harmful edits than helpful edits. But harmful edits are easy to revert, whereas if we miss out on a helpful edit there's no way to get it back or even find out that we missed out on it. Keeping the articles unprotected is also possibly helpful for recruiting new editors ("Oh look! I really can add something to this travel guide myself!"). So I think I agree with Ground Zero, but I don't feel strongly about it. Either way, it looks like a fairly small number of edits that we're talking about—on average, about one edit per featured article based on the numbers I gave above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
GZ made a good point there, but there’s a counter-argument. Let’s create a scenario where we have Person X, a new user (just was auto comfirmed, but no edits yet) who wants to improve the website, and person Y, an IP address vandal who is targeting main page features. Person Y vandalizes the DOTM article, but before WV users can revert, person X visits the page to make a positive contribution. They go to the page only to find text like “This has been vandalized” written over and over again. Person x thinks “this wiki is a waste of time” and leaves. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
There will of course be much more readers than new editors, so it is not only the prospective editor that sees the vandalism. Still, I think, vandalism is usually reverted reasonably quickly, so not that many see it, and if there comes a wave of massive vandalism, it is not too difficult to either watch the pages more intensely or protect them at that point. Even if the vandalism is coming we might earn a year of free editing for visitors, to the cost of having the features in bad shape for an hour or so. We could ask active editors to put the features on their watchlists, to get more eyes, although I suppose many have them already, for different reasons. --LPfi (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think featured articles have been targeted by vandalism considerably much more than articles in general (so I'm not sure if featured articles need to be protected); the pub and the talk page of different users seem to be the favorite targets among vandals as of now.
Nevertheless, I think everyone has noticed that the number of incidents of different kinds of vandalism and vandalism-only-accounts has for some reason exploded as of the last few months. I'm also afraid one of the vandals is "good old" pcv who has been dormant for a couple of years, although their grammar have become better. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This Fuerdai guy has been doing it for many months now. I wonder if an IP block is warranted for him/her. And given what he has targeted, the Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan articles may need to be protected too. The dog2 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

LM vandalism: could it be?[edit]

One other thing: is it possible that some of the vandals we've been having lately were actually LM pretending to be BTCentralPlus or whatever? For example, check out the contributions of User:Vandelsarebothersodontbotherwiththem, particularly the comment to Libmod and the statements "you never know where vandels will come from". LM pretended to be Telstra before (remember SmokinTourist909), so it is possible, although not too likely. There are no giveaways, the comment signatures look like those of the typical "Pub takeover" vandal, but I just have a suspicion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No, this is classic BTCentralPlus, and the behavior pattern pre-dates LibMod's userban. Despite the puerile nature of the actual vandalism, his tactics are actually a good deal more sophisticated than LibMod's: he targets specific admins, usually the most recent one to have banned one of his doppelgangers, and from his behavior patterns it can be deduced that he pays attention to Special:RecentChanges and focuses his attacks on articles that are currently being, or have recently been, edited by the targeted admin. This often does include other users' talk pages. Also, the dialect used by the vandal in edit summaries and other brief snippets of text does suggest that he speaks UK English, which would be consistent with BTCentralPlus' location in Lancashire. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Also: although I was mistaken in attributing the SmokinTourist909 account to BTCentralPlus, I think that was a coincidence rather than anything that was intentional on LibMod's part. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I think you're right. Just checking. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

visual editor[edit]

The visual editor template placement creates source with a capital letter for the name of the template, thus creating See rather than see. A mismatch of upper and lower case listing can create problems with map icons, only one type being displayed. Anyone know how the output of the editor can be changed? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case, but is it possible at all to convert the string to lowercase before storing it as a variable, to sidestep the problem? ARR8 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The behavior as described by Traveler100 is the usual one for all articles at the Mediawiki software. All article names including templates start with an uppercase letter. That's why the visual-editor output is consistent. I do not think that this can be changed. But the uppercase letter cannot be the cause because the templates like {{See}} has the line | type=see which is independent of the writing of the template name. Maybe you should check the function of the Listingeditor and should adapt it if necessary. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Module testing[edit]

I am currently testing an experimental Module as a tool that checks/tests a lat/long combination (point) and examines a polygon (shape) to see if it (point) lies within that shape or not. The polygon can be a box or polygon (shape) using coordinates that you provide. I am not a programming guru but so far it appears to be somewhat successful. Further work to be done - if you have any ideas/suggestions or are interested let me know. Ciao -- Matroc (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you think this could be also done with mapshapes from wikidata? I can imagine how such thing could be programmed, but I wouldn't want to do it :-D In the end, it'd be great if we could have some category "articles with listings outside maphapes", esp. if we could add some sanity there (like - "ignore the page, if one of the mapshapes is without boundaries"; the mapshapes added AndreeBot were often empty). -- 19:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The basic goal was to create something an editor could pop into a Sandbox and do some checking and assist in selecting markers (points) for inclusion in a specific map rather than a production type model which I think you are looking for. That would be a totally different and complex story altogether for me to accomplish. This all came about because of a request to see if I could help to identify items out of a few hundred that could be selected for inclusion in an article and its mapframe (an intensive labor effort by hand). I have worked on using a GeoJSON polygon as one would find within a mapframe or maplink which at this time has to be copied and put in as an argument (or one can manually enter coordinates for a simpler shape such as a box etc.) to the module. I am also now checking multiple latitude and longitude combinations (points) against that polygon argument. WV needs more qualified programmers to provide some of solutions we need. My favorite French saying: "Little by little the small bird builds her nest". Testing goes on... Thank you for your input and will keep your ideas in mind. -- Matroc (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately there appears to be now way to just get the textual coordinates of a mapshape polygon only from OSM that I know of yet. (Have a few feelers out) As far as testing goes - to look up name,lat,long information from Wikidata, there are for too many POI's for this mini tool project that would probably break processing limits (past and recent testing shows that the limit is about 420) and is the basic reason I have not incorporated that as of yet. For the time being the following page; if interested, has test for Negev Region checking to see if 488 positions can be found within its polygon shape or not. (may change/edit or delete in near future -- I just changed it from testing 6 POIs in Upper Galilee) -- Additionally; I have tested using a temporary Table of mapshapes (polygons) ... -- Matroc (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC) -- To do want to do what you mentioned earlier; it might require outside Python/other processing -- Modified my comment. Cheers! -- Matroc (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Random pages[edit]

Can you limit the random page button to a specific topic, like destinations or itineraries? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You might have success with Special:RandomInCategory, e.g. Special:RandomInCategory/Itineraries or Special:RandomInCategory/Usable articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What can I do here?[edit]

Any help in what I can do on this expedition? I like travel guides of all sorts. I need something to do i'm bored (not of wikivoyage) but i get restless if i dont help in some way. thanks. Jukkohiss (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There’s a cotm project that runs through each month, and this month there’s plenty that can be done there. Also, have you edited on Wikivoyage before under an IP address or some other wiki altogether? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
As well as looking at the cotm, think about which towns you know well, either were you live or work or have spent a holiday. Look at those pages and add some additional information about things to see, places to eat and hotels to stay at. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

New entries?[edit]

Birds of North America Birds Parks in North America

etc i got many ideas... --Jukkohiss (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Be careful not to mix up the aims of Wikivoyage with those of Wikipedia. Topic articles should concentration on destinations about those topics not facts about the subject. For a new contributor I would recommend sticking to the city articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

17 suggested new alternative banners - please participate in the following discussions and help decide whether some existing banners would be replaced or not[edit]

Over the last years I have created many new alternative Wikivoyage banners (mostly based on existing photos in Wikicommons) to be used, first and foremost, in the articles of the Hebrew Wikivoyage.

I am hoping that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using some of these alternative banners here as well.

Please participate in the following 17 discussions and indicate in each of the discussions which banner you prefer seeing at the top of this article.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing these and L'Shana Tova. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Melbourne district map[edit]

On Talk:Melbourne is a dynamic district map I have been working on for the city. The outer districts are shown on the map, since they correspond to official government districts (present in OpenStreetMap). However, the inner WV districts do not correspond to official districts - they have custom shapes, as shown on each of the district pages. Is there a way of adding these districts to the dynamic map, short of adding them to OSM as a special category of boundary? (Which OSM might not appreciate) Ar2332 (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Check e.g. Madrid. Basically you can create the inner map using geojson-commons map, and use wikidata for the rest....Wikivoyage:How_to_use_dynamic_maps -- 04:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you handle this type of edit?[edit]

I imagine this IP editor (with no other edits) lives in the area and deleted this bit of text they didn't like. I get it. Perhaps I could have been more tactful in wording things, but I would argue the sentence in question is more "unflattering" than "irrevalent".

I guess the question is how do you deal with telling folks your honest opinion, even if that opinion happens to be unflattering? And how do you do it w/o edit warring to boot? This one edit isn't a big deal, but asking in a big picture way. Thanks for any advice you have! --ButteBag (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd revert it with an edit summary and invite the IP user to discuss the fairness of the point on the talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If you wait a week or so, the IP will probably not notice what you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree it is more unflattering than "irrelevant". I try to give travellers reasons to go somewhere, rather than reasons to not go there. If I can't find anything positive to say, I tend to say nothing. So I don't blame the IP editor for deleting it. By the way, I find it a bit surprising that an area with no attractions beyond its parks should warrant six sub-articles. Maybe really there is more to see than commuters stuck in traffic jams - if not, maybe some of the articles should be merged. But I don't know the area myself. Nurg (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha, yes, Ikan with the most reasonable approach! Thank you! Nurg I totally agree, but since WV covers the entire world, I feel like we do need to make a few critical comments here and there. And yes, I would also prefer to merge all 6 articles together. However, WV consensus currently prefers having multiple low information articles, not fewer pages with higher information density. I believe it's just me, you, and (maybe?) User:Ground Zero who think this way. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
There is precedent for covering more than one town in a single article. I'd suggest for you to make a proposal in the Greater Boston article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What mobile apps are there to use wikivoyage on the road?[edit]

Hello everyone,

whenever I'm planning a trip I prepare the potential places I visit as PDF exports from WV. Are there any good offline apps for WikiVoyage I might have missed?

Cheers, Spekulatius2410 (talk)

There's the wikivoyage app. Its one major flaw is that it does not include dynamic maps. Ar2332 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
AFAIR the wikivoyage app wasn't updated too regularly, so the normal kiwix app+downloading wikivoyage data was better... but anyway, see Wikivoyage:Offline_Expedition. -- 07:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my experience as well. The data seemed rather outdated. Spekulatius2410 (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
A function I sometimes find eating in the app is to make notes for edits to make in the future. And more frequent updates of the underlying data. Last I checked the Costa Rica data was from 2016. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Spekulatius2410, I think OSMand's travel guide functionality is great. --Renek78 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Help with placing a listing in Racine[edit]

1) Would this be a listing or a "blurb" and 2) where would I put it (eat, see, do, buy?)

  • First Fridays, 100 Monument Square. 4PM to 9PM on the first Friday of the month, April to December. Local businesses in the downtown area host an event on the first Friday of the month. The main road through downtown is blocked off and turned into a pedestrian zone. In addition to the shop's sidewalk sales, there is live music in Monument Square and often stores will have a musician or band playing in front of them. You can gain free admission to the downtown's museums. Food trucks and the nearby restaurants have specials or promotions. Visit their website to see the band line-up, specials, and whether any special activities or demonstrations have been scheduled.

Obviously any assistance with wording and such is appreciated as well DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an event, so wycsi says it should be listed in the Do section. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I missed that. Thank you for your help! DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a minute, though. Is this maybe like an outdoor market type of thing? I mean, do people go there primarily to shop? If so, it should go in the "Buy" section. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yep, notice in what part of the article this outdoor market listing can be found. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's mainly a market, yes, then it should be listed in Buy. But if the market part is just a part of the event, then list it in Do. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This is what is what is confusing. Some background: the event is sponsored by the businesses(both restaurants and stores) as a way of getting more foot traffic. It's taken a life of it's own and now it has more a festival feel with live music and sometimes activities and free admission to the museums. It's not a festival like a once a year kind of thing (it happens every month) but it's also not necessarily a market. Most people who go do so to eat food and shop while drunk and listening to live music. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Then it sounds like "Do" to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yup, definitely a Do listing. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

WV:Requested article expansions page[edit]

I had a thought for a new Wikivoyage page idea. While most of our articles are still not at the ideal star status, a page similar to Wikivoyage:Requested articles would be useful for pointing out particularly poor pages on this website (e.g. outlines or usable articles that should be better) that need improvement and do not match the requirements for a cotm nomination — for example, they need more originally-written content. If the page requested for expansion reached guide status, we could then remove it from the list. Just a thought for a new page; what do others think of this idea? When one of us isn't sure what page to work on, it could provide more ideas. Also, to clarify in relation to the Requested articles debate, I wouldn't propose archiving/slushing old ideas.

Such a page wouldn't be harmful but at the same time help us focus on the poorest of our articles. Perhaps it would be more effective than COTMs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The star to all article ratio will always be a rounding error. I would guess most editors work on locations they're already familiar with. If someone is looking for work, try recommending articles like NYC, London, or Paris. Super destinations like these probably capture the majority of traveller interest, so we should strive to make our versions "the best". Good luck! --ButteBag (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
My idea is something more along the lines of WV:RA, but for stubby outlines, etc., including travel topics. What do you think? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather see people make such requests here (more people will see it) or on the article's talk page (anyone watching the page will see it), instead of on another page. Extra pages and "structure" means that we could spend more time maintaining the mess than improving articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:World cities/Large for one list of the most important cities, including some info on which get the most visitors. See its parent article for a longer & less detailed list. Pashley (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In response to WhatamIdoing, I see your point. The more of those types of pages we have, the more work is required. This is a good place to bring up such information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Fake reviews[edit]

A man has got a prison sentence for selling fake TripAdvisor reviews to Italian companies. Here's Trip Advisor's report. A European Parliament report suggests bogus reviews are widespread, up to 16% of total reviews.

I know we have policies like Wikivoyage:Don't tout and a number of people do good work enforcing them. I think they are mostly effective. However, on reading the above links I wonder if we should be doing more. If so, what? Pashley (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This is good news for us, in my opinion. It shows that vandals and other people who want to create problems using the anonymity of the internet do not necessarily get away with their actions in the end.
However, I think Tripadvisor is a more natural target for paid reviews than we are. Tripadvisor's 1 to 5 rating system is more inviting for paid reviews than here, where we provide mostly short, neutral descriptions of the places we cover. As long as we remove anything promotional we should be OK. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but this really suggests that it's on balance better to remove touty listings and not detout them or accept detouted versions of them by the original touter. I don't think we want to go that far, though, because there are instances of users who started off by touting but after learning Wikivoyage style and policies, because valuable users. Nevertheless, we should be quite wary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
In the Bucks County article I encountered some pretty obvious cases of tout (you know, using first person pronouns, that kind of thing), and I've deleted promotional content pretty liberally. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This strikes me as about three parts "we already do this" to one part "so what?"

More specifically: obviously we should continue to revert any touting we see, but I think it's a bridge too far to have a policy of outright deleting, rather than simply de-touting, listings added by touts. There is also a certain amount of onus on the reader to know that the question of whether a restaurant's food is good, the view from a hotel room is beautiful, an attraction is worthwhile etc. is inherently subjective, and his or her mileage may vary. For instance, take this restaurant listing that I recently added to Buffalo/Elmwood Village:

Between the dashed-off service, the spartan ambience, and a menu of heavily Americanized Chinese, Japanese, and Thai specialties that's no better than what you'd find at your average takeout joint, pretty much every aspect of the Tokyo Shanghai Bistro experience could be generously described as "mediocre". Every aspect, that is, except one: the coconut mushroom soup on the "Thai Specials" section of the menu. It's not available at any other restaurant in Buffalo (Sun Express downtown serves a soup that's identically named, but the recipe is completely different), but it is one of the best things you will ever taste. The best comparison would be tom kha, but the broth is less creamy and more savory, with different spices.

That information comes 100% from my own firsthand experience; it was not sourced from Yelp, Tripadvisor, or anywhere else. Now say someone reads that, thinks to themselves "gee, that soup sounds good", goes to the restaurant and tries it, and s/he doesn't like it. Would it be reasonable for the reader to then hold us responsible for adding misleading information? Was I "touting" the soup at that restaurant? No and no. There's no accounting for taste, and caveat lector.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the kind of tout. Instances of "our service X is the best in the area" are different than saying "this is the restaurant's best dish". Probably knowing who added the text in the first place will be a useful hint. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Andre. It's quite easy to tell when somebody is biased or touting, especially when they have been editing for a long period of time. Tripadvisor is a review-only site. There is very little other travel content added to it by users. Listings and opinions about the listings are just one part of the content added to this site. I would be skeptical of someone only adding positive reviews of a variety of listings but it's rare. Touts usually just promote one company consistently, which is easy to pick up, while other editors write all kinds of travel content and make many types of edits. Gizza (roam) 02:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that; I prefer to Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews altogether. If I needed to list it (e.g., only restaurant in town) and couldn't recommend it in general, then I also wouldn't have written a long list of failings. I'd have written something much shorter, such as "Serves heavily Americanized Chinese, Japanese, and Thai dishes. The excellent coconut mushroom soup, listed in their Thai Specials, is by far the best dish on the menu."
(It sounds like it'll be a great place to go if I'm ever in Buffalo and discover that I need to get my US Recommended Daily Allowance of red food dye. ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not certain why, but recently I am seeing lots of stories about online fakery: Yelp reviews Inside a Reddit Sockpuppet Operation. Pashley (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Districting George Town (Malaysia)[edit]

We need agreement on whether to treat all of Penang Island and then some as part of a districted huge city of Georgetown, and if so, agree on one or a few more district articles, change some article templates appropriately and create a static map with different colors for the different districts. If you have any opinions, please participate at Talk:George Town (Malaysia)#Huge city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"reopen in"[edit]

I just searched Wikivoyage for the strings "reopen in" and "will open in" and found a bunch of articles with out of date information about places that "will open" a few years ago. I suspect searching for other variations would find more. Just posting this here in case anyone wants to join me in finding and updating these. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Another variation I saw in an article you may want to consider including - "set to open." ARR8 (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Or "will happen in 2008" or related searches. Typing in year numbers may bring back some interesting results. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Flag template change[edit]

I've modified {{flag}}, adding an optional parameter to automatically or manually place a country's link next to its flag if set (does not affect existing use of the template). This is especially useful for things like lists of countries (e.g. see: Panmunjeom#From_the_South) to make it easier to find a specific country at a glance, instead of searching through a wall of text. The main advantages of doing this through the template, and not manually, are ease of maintenance and that it adds a non-breaking space between the flag and the link.

I am planning on adding it to such instances as the lists above and other places where countries are linked. Is anyone opposed to such additions, or to this change in general? ARR8 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're proposing. Are you saying you want to add a flag icon whenever a country name is linked? I think that sounds kind of distracting and weird-looking. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No, only in cases where it's useful. Take a look at the linked article; it's pretty hard to tell if your country is listed in the table without reading through it or using the find function of your browser. Flags are immediately recognizable and you can see your own at a glance. I was planning on putting flags into the table, anyway. This just reduces maintenance slightly in cases like this one so that you don't have to type a country name twice.
It seems to me that this is pretty much already what we're doing for lists of embassies and consulates, but those are full-fledged listings which sometimes already link somewhere, and not just names in a list. ARR8 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure the flags are helpful. When the countries are in alphabetical order as here (all but two of the mentioned one in the same box) your own is easy to find without the flags, while text interspersed with images is much harder to read than ordinary text. It is off course a trade off, but I think in this case, for me, they distract more than they help. --LPfi (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If the parameter is strictly optional, I don't see anything wrong with it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@LPfi: Sorry, didn't see this. Seems you're talking about Panmunjeom specifically. Personally, I think the changes look better, but I may be a little biased, though I'll note I find myself glancing through the images rather than the words. I wouldn't mind a brief consensus on whether this is preferred for tables like this. If I am alone in my view, I'll remove the flags. ARR8 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at that example, but I suppose my reasoning holds for similar cases in general. I generally prefer a plain layout, without too much bells and whistles. --LPfi (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

restaurants famous buildings etc[edit]

trump tower is not listed i know this is not wp but we should add info on them. or any restaurant listing make it into an article. ideas? Olp631 (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. Which article are we talking about? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Either Presidents of the United States or a New York City district, I would think. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Presidents of the United States#45. Trump lists the Old Post Office in Washington DC as its one token Trump hotel. The decision to pick one and just one appears to be a conscious decision per Talk:Presidents of the United States#Ritz-Carlton in Moscow. There are also mentions of the Trump hotel chain in individual destinations, such as Chicago and Atlantic City (although, with the latter, Trump has rolled snakes eyes and folded). K7L (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose Trump Tower should be listed in "See" in the Manhattan/Theater District article. It's not that interesting a building, but even before the guy was made president, it was a locally well-known big building. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Odd Edits[edit]

Hello! I don't follow the edit/troll sagas too closely, but I'm aware of them. Not sure if these are related, but these two IP users are likely the same person. Their edits don't seem very... let's say... high quality? I reverted two edits, but just wanted to post it here in case this is part of some larger pattern. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Mobile readers[edit]

Some of you may be interested in this new page: mw:Recommendations for mobile friendly articles WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately some of the points go against the readability on desktop. E.g. putting infobox after the main text will likely cause the floating infobox (or photo, weatherbox, whatever) to show up after the section where it belongs... :-/ -- 05:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
How can I code a page so its format is slightly different on mobile and desktop? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
One of the main authors is a regular editor here: pinging Jon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
We have code that moves the infobox above the lead paragraph on mobile, so provided when you add an infobox you test this on mobile, you should be fine. With regards to "code a page so its format is slightly different on mobile and desktop", ideally you wouldn't want mobile/desktop to have different HTML, but you can certainly target styles at different skins (for which the mobile site is one - mw:Skin:MinervaNeue) mw:Extension:TemplateStyles. What specifically are you trying to fix? Hopefully with that information I can be of more use. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, OK, didn't know about such thing... but it only applies to infoboxes, not images or other floating templates, right? I actually didn't see any infobox problems - but if I put e.g. {{climate chart}} after the text, then it is placet at the line where it's added (instead of e.g. floating from the beginning of the previous paragraph). So I guess a similar 'move when mobile' action could be done there too...? Also I'd like if floating templates had "higher priority" than pictures (which typically overflow through many sections), but that's probably not too easy to do w/ CSS only... -- 19:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Questions ware related to Travel topics which is fine as two columns for desktop but looks better with one. Travel topics/sandbox, on mobile. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Jdlrobson, Template:Infobox here looks a lot more like w:en:Template:Side box than like w:en:Template:Infobox. It's almost never put at the top of the page, either. See Wikivoyage:Information boxes or examples in Aarhus#Architecture, Albania#Money, or Athens#See. Is this particular piece of advice relevant? I'm not sure that the infobox CSS is present, either, so the re-arranging trick probably either doesn't work (and if it does, is it going to make things weird in the middle of the article?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this relates more to the advice around using Table based layouts. TemplateStyles would definitely help here - we could have one column for mobile and two for desktop!! A good start would be to create a template for the wrapper e.g. TopicBoxCollection. Once we have that and it works nicely on desktop, we can use TemplateStyles to format it nicely on mobile. I'd love to help fix this and point to it as an example!

Can we replace

{|align=center style="border: 1px solid #44718a; border-radius: 0.45em; margin-top: -3.5px;" 
| colspan="2" style="background: #eaf3ff;"|

with something like this?:


Jdlrobson (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


User draft, that I sort of stopped working on.. Is it yet at the outline stage?

If not, feel free to improve it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely at least outline, if not usable (haven't read it). When are you going to move it to mainspace? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but hopefully not until it's clear what the scope of the article is. Please refer to my remarks on the article's talk page. We were making progress in User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Government, politics and opposition#Scoping this more tightly, but unless I missed something, I don't see that reflected in the article yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it needs a more radical rethink/redraft. Most of what it has right now is "Legislature" related. In taking another look, it was perhaps a mistake to group the politics and opppostion part into it. Political History is perhaps best dealt with in a different way.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Re-title the current draft as Parliaments and Legislatures and have a separate outline on Visiting Government Buildings ?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Parliaments and legislatures is fine as a topic and should include the Great Hall of the People and other legislative buildings in one-party states. I'm not sure I really understand the division you want to make, as I don't believe every country has distinct legislative and executive branches, and of course parliaments are government buildings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Well the split that perhaps should be made is between where Government happens ( i.e Congress, White house etc.) and where govt service provision happens ( Like the FBI HQ, Commerce Department, Census Bureau, IRS etc...). Perhaps we need some better titles? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And yes, someone should add various asssemblies from outside the Western World :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure a distinction between the Legislative building(s), the residence of the Chief of State (if not royal)/Chief of Government and Executive agencies is meaningful for the purposes of a travel guide. They're all government buildings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I see the article being mainly about parliaments and other places where laws are created. Other opportunities to look at politics can also be included - relevant museums and any political parties that have exhibitions; but not participating in politics - canvassing or conferences etc. Executive agencies belong in other travel topics depending on the agency - tours of the Ministry of Agiculture belong in Agritourism. I don't think that we can usefully say much about visiting executive agencies in general, and in most cases any exhibitions etc should simply be listed in the relevant city. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked about this article's status as I'd got to the limits of of my knowledge. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Subject interest travel topics...[edit]

Prompted by the scoping concerns in relation to a user draft, I felt it wise to open a discussion to settle the wider concern about travel topics that focus on a particular interest area, as opposed to travel practicalites. I'm not sure if given the drafting problems some of them are easy to scope, or if they would be better implemented in an itinerary form. I am not expecting there to be any consensus, and so would welcome as many views as possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think as long as the author of a travel topic can prove that the travel topic is related to travel, we should allow it. The problem I see with your user draft, as a start, is how it overlaps with History of justice. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The GFDL license on Commons[edit]

18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

GFDL is not one of the standard license types available on our upload page, so new uploads are unlikely to be a problem.
However I am concerned that this may stop the crop tool being used on GFDL images which are currently on commons. I regularly use the crop tool to create pagebanners. It isn't a problem if it uses the date on the original file, but it is a problem if commons sees a crop as a new upload with today's date. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, do you have any information about simple modifications of GFDL-licensed images? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Cropping does not create new copyright, so no worries there. Some basic retouching, brightness adjustment or rotation doesn't create new copyright either. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I started this in userspace. Please help me.[edit]

I think the Costa Rican network is more or less a "Central Valley S-Bahn" at this point in time and thus it could still be done to have a map with all stations and all lines. Can y'all please help me with that? Any other advise would also be very much welcome. This is the website of the national railway, which maintains schedules and whatnot. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


This is marked as an outline, but I would like to ask that this status be looked at as the article is quite extensive. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, you don't need anyone else's approval to change the status of an article; you can just do it, specifying why in your edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It's now at usable status, which seems appropriate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Eat or Drink?[edit]

Which section - 'Eat' or 'Drink' - is most appropriate for places which specialise in afternoon tea? There are of course many hotels which serve afternoon tea, and their place in an article is clear, but there are also tearooms which aren't attached to a restaurant or hotel.

For those who don't know, tea is a meal inasmuch as a lot of food (i.e. more than a snack amount, and potentially enough to stuff yourself depending on how greedy and/or rich you're feeling) is typically consumed, but the main focus is a pot of tea (the drink), and there will always be a lot of blends to choose from. The food, while significant in quantity and served on a platter or one of those tiered stacks, is made up of things which by themselves are just light bites: cakes, scones, small sandwiches, toasted buns, fruit etc. Some upmarket places - like this example - offer a glass of champagne with the tea. Places like the example typically don't serve full cooked meals at other times of the day; tea is all they do, all day every day.

So I'm wondering which section of an article they belong in? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a judgment call, based on your determination of whether the tea or the food is more important. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I guess so. It's just...thinking for hard :P --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the drink section was geared more towards nightlife (bars, clubs, etc.) HOWEVER: In the manual of style [3] it also lists things like bar & grills and tea/coffee houses with a note beside saying those could go into an eat listing as well. So no matter what you do, it won't be "wrong" and you can plunge boldly. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I would put a complete afternoon tea in "eat", as I would regard it as a replacement for lunch. If I couldn't find any pubs to go in drink, then a tearoom where a pot of tea with one scone was usual would go in "drink". AlasdairW (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspectives. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd say the same thing as Ikan; if you usually go there to have a cup of tea and occasionally some snacks or a sandwich, then it's certainly a Drink listing. If people in general go there to have a meal, then it's an Eat. If really unsure, I put the listing in Eat. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to stick "afternoon tea" in the British sense (an afternoon meal break where tea is served with food) in "eat" as the "eat" and "drink" categories were originally intended to be analogous to the "restaurants" and "nightlife" sections of other travel guides. My guess is that the meaning of words shift because you are speaking English instead of whatever Americanised rubbish we're speaking here in the colonies; here "tea" means literally the beverage, but English usage has it as a meal break, pushing it into "eat" with the food listings. K7L (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the opinions; putting it under 'Eat' is what I've done. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Dinner theatre?[edit]

Where can I stick it? There are two Buena Park#See listings for "dinner theatre" which look to be in the wrong section; dinner should be "eat" and theatre should be "do" as an activity, but "dinner theatre" isn't listed on WYCSI at all. Would it be reasonable for me to cite the placement of "comedy club" in "drink" (as nightlife) as a basis to add "dinner theatre" to WYCSI as "eat" with the rest of the restaurant listings? K7L (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Putting it under 'Eat' makes sense, but I guess it kind of depends how big a deal the theatre/dinner aspects of it are. If the plays are eligible for industry awards, or widely recognised for the brilliant performances, a dinner theatre could arguably go in 'Do', whereas if people go for the food primarily then it's certainly an 'Eat'. Although I have no experience of this as there's only one such venue in the whole of the UK, it presumably depends on which between eating and theatre is the biggest draw.
For tea, I ended up creating a new section under the 'Eat' heading. For places where there are several dinner theatres around, that might be something which could be done.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'd stick this under "Eat" (maybe in a separate subsection), but there's a solid argument in favor of "Do". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated Buena Park#Eat and Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it accordingly. K7L (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, I disagree with comedy clubs belonging in "Drink". Stand-up comedy is a form of nightlife only secondarily at best; at its heart, it's a performance along similar lines as live music. If concert halls belong in "Do", so do comedy clubs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I recall raising the same issue in 2013. K7L (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dinner theater says "Sometimes the play is incidental entertainment, secondary to the meal, in the style of a night club, or the play may be the main feature of the evening, with dinner less important or, in some cases, optional." Medieval Times Tournament and Dinner Show (one at Buena Park) has a cast of about 75 actors and 20 horses that perform in a large arena. Pirates Dinner Adventure (the other at Buena Park) also looks to have a large cast and large set (a galleon). It looks like the main feature would be the shows, rather than the dinner. I say "Do". Nurg (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I would usually put dinner theatre in "Do", as I did a few months ago in the Greensboro article. I think of dinner theatre as much more than just a meal, and I would expect to see it listed with other performances and activities rather than with ordinary restaurants. But in cases where the show is less important and the meal is the main draw, I can see putting them in "Eat". Glancing at the websites for the Buena Park listings, I agree with Nurg's impression that these two seem like they fit better in "Do". —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've moved them to Buena Park#Do as there wasn't much there except for the one large amusement park. K7L (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Individual cottages and AirBnB-style units[edit]

Do we want this sort of listing, where the space for rent is one lone cottage by an individual on AirBnB or similar sites? We have Wikivoyage:Listings#Rental listings but that seems to be aimed more at restricting local rental agencies (middlemen) and landlords/landladies of long-term occupancy apartments from listing here. I've de-touted this a bit, but I'm nost sure how AirBnB fits with our rental listings policy. K7L (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

When there are few alternatives, then yes. When the cottage is particularly notable (e.g., "stay at Famous Author's house"), then yes. But in this case, where a few hotels exist? I wouldn't want a dozen such listings, but there's probably little harm from having one or two. I could go along with either decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Festivals" Secular and otherwise...[edit]

Okay this possibly an odd query but....

Wikivoyage has a an outline for Halloween, described as a secular festival.

However it was mentioned to me that there were other Autumnal festivals that occur (some secular, some with a much more religious focus.).

Would there be any scope for a broader article on these from a travel perspective? Seasonal festivals being a broad subject heading, with perhaps no more than a paragraph or two for each well known or major one?

I can think of a few "festivals" (excluding things like big Music concerts) that exist in Europe, such as Octoberfest in Germany, Scandanavian Midsummer events. Various regions have 'Harvest' related events (be it traditional Harvest home events or more recent innovations), but nothing specfic from a travel perspective..

A particular Winter Festival already has it's own articles..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We have an article for Oktoberfest. Christmas markets, Christmas and New Year travel, and Easter travel are partially related to this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
...and we have disambiguation for both Santa Claus and the North Pole. Humbug, I say, humbug! K7L (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a particular "vision" for an overarching festivals article, I'm not sure it's needed. I am quite happy to see all kinds of festivals and holidays - midsummer, lammas, le 14 juillet, diwali, you name it - to get their own travel topic articles if it's decided they'd make good TT articles, but an article listing or describing different unrelated festivals from around the world could get cumbersome, and probably wouldn't be of much use to readers. Then there's the question of scope; would it just be restricted to (pseudo)religious festivals, or would national holidays be included too? What about regional holidays? How about widely-observed but non-official holidays like Valentines or the Armistice, and why not music/lit/film festivals: Glasto, Edinburgh, Venice, Cannes, ComicCon...? All could potentially have their own article, but having them share an article with the likes of Chinese New Year, Thanksgiving or Eid ul Fitr would be rather strange. But I think even if the scope was limited in some sense, it would still be difficult to control the number of festivals included. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
There used to be a Calender, but this is essentially a Where do I put generic festival or event query?.. I will note that some very specfic local festivals are probably best mentioned in the relevant region, city or district articles... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The thing about these discussions is the number of topic suggestions that come from them. Comic Book fandom would be the best place for Comic-con, unless it counts as a one of a number Tradeshows, conventions and expositions a traveller can visit. Some nominal trade-shows like the Ideal Home Exhibition (which is typically at Earls Court, in London) are more widely known. Hmmm ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
What about Central American Independence Day? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
We've already got Category:Calendar of events and festivals. Perhaps we could also create an umbrella-article, similar to Reasons to travel, under which we list all seasonal events with their own articles. By limiting the scope to events with their own articles we make sure that the list is not bloated, and by only listing recurring seasonal events it would differ meaningfully from the existing category. If there is general information which is relevant to all these events it could be mentioned in that umbrella article. MartinJacobson (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Harvest festivals are widespread enough to have an article of its own. Every traditional farming culture around the world has their own version of a harvest festival. Festivals itself could become a parent/umbrella article because there are too many festivals out there to list on one page. Gizza (roam) 23:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Short-term information[edit]

I wonder if there is any general way to improve our handling or information that is valid only for short while or at a specific time, Examples include:

  • the festivals discussed just above
  • periodic events like the Olympics or World Cup
  • almost every town in the Philippines has an annual festival, usually for its patron saint
  • in China, many regions have their own festivals
  • most religions have festivals & we cover them in articles on the religions or in separate articles like Ramadan. Some, like Easter, are "movable feasts", on a different date each year. Others, like various Chinese or Islamic festivals, use a whole different calendar.
  • governments issue travel advisories that change over time. We mention them in some articles. WT has a list of current ones on the main page. Should we copy that idea? Create an article on advisories with links to all the main government sites?

I have no answers here, just a feeling that this is a general problem & worth some thought. Pashley (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about these types of events. We already have articles for some major sporting events, like the Olympics, but I was wondering about smaller events. Maybe some articles should have an "Events" section? MSG17 (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Articles do have an Events section - it's located under Do. See, for example, York#Events and festivals. We even have an event listing template (which I personally hate - it doesn't work properly). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
...and we do have an article on travel advisories with links to all the main government sites. A "lastedit=" field was added to {{warningbox}} (but not to {{cautionbox}}, an unfortunate omission as the typhoon/cyclone/hurricane damage info is usually downgraded from warningbox→cautionbox before finally being dropped once the community rebuilds and {{listing}}s for destroyed venues are removed). Every warningbox over six months old is added to a maintenance category. Annual festivals are fine – list them in the "Events" subsection of "Do" with a date vague enough to remain perennially valid ("Thanksgiving is the second Monday in October" and not "Thanksgiving is Oct 10, 1966"). Easter travel has an article, as does Halloween and Christmas. If individual government warnings are copied here, they'll be cautionbox/warningboxes on the destination's article; occasionally they are removed if the originating government is generating content which is more politically-motivated than actually useful to the voyager. There might be a place for a new template {{datedinfo|content=Cassandra has advised all voyagers to Troy to beware of Greeks bearing gifts.|lastedit=1250 BCE|expiry=1249 BCE-01-01}} which hides itself (and adds the article to a maintenance category) once the expiry date is reached. That would remove last year's typhoon damage from this year's articles. K7L (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for correcting me. MSG17 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't event listings have some code to put a (Date needs updating) under expired entries? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It is possible to set an expiry date with the {{event}} template, but not for ordinary {{listing}}s or {{cautionbox}}es. K7L (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes event listings do have a code to put a (Date needs updating)... I have been looking at grabbing event templates from an article page and checking multiple events out as to status as a tool to use in a Sandbox - experimental but works fairly well so far. Difficult to do with the variety and inconsistencies of parameter data entry. Output so far looks like:

  • Page: Bad Honnef Event: Rhein in Flammen Results: Event appears to be still a go! Event end date: 20190504 Check date: 20181005 date: 4 month: May year 2019 enddate: 04 endmonth: 05 endyear: 2019
  • Rhein in Flammen (Rhine in Flames): 4 May 2019. Between Linz am Rhein and Bonn
  • name=Rhein in Flammen | alt=Rhine in Flames | url= | email= | year=2019 | month=May | date=4 | location= | country= | address= | lat= | long= | directions= | phone= | tollfree= | fax= | hours= | price= | content=Between Linz am Rhein and Bonn
  • Verify all parameter formats & useage requirements!

-- Matroc (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Share Travel notes of Chinese My Voyage[edit]

I know that the English Wikivoyage has already abandoned the My Voyage project, but we still keep it in our Chinese Wikivoyage.

I take the Travel notes of My Voyage as an example. There is place I went to share the travel itinerary for other visitors, and some of the content can be placed in the destination guide.

Although My Voyage doesn't know if it can be recovered, I think My Voyage of Chinese Wikivoyage is available for English Wikivoyage!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So what happened to the English MyVoyage? Sounds like this was an interesting project, although at the same time I can understand why contributing to mainspace articles is perhaps a better use of time and energy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It has a lot of potential. Would like to see some kind of collaboration or group project coming out of it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Creep of dual maps[edit]

I'm looking through Manhattan district articles today. Some of the static maps, once upon a time, could have merited replacement by dynamic maps, but I don't want to see both dynamic and static maps on a page for no good reason. If the static map is fine, my opinion is leave well enough alone and don't waste space, and I don't think there's been a policy change, just creep because of some unilateral actions. If any listings need to be changed in the static map, that can be requested, but I'd like to delete all the mapframes that are unnecessary duplicates. Your comments? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about the undesirability of dual maps, but let's keep the mapframes and delete the static maps. Why make things difficult for the vast majority of Wikivoyagers who don't know how to edit static maps? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Because they're clearer and prettier and there are still people around who can edit them. You know I take this in a case-by-case basis, but when they're better, they're just better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
And I think the policy has been to leave them unless there's something wrong with them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
One option is to display the static map inline and display a templated link to the dynamic map; that compromise was used for Adirondacks and a later batch of edits which added {mapframe} inline was reverted. Of course, a city has different needs from a region article and the bottom-level articles are better suited for dynamic maps because POI's must be updated every time a venue closes. K7L (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I like that solution. It doesn't use as much space. I think that a good argument can be made for dynamic maps for district and undistricted city maps, generally, but when a good-looking, clear static map is already there, it would be better to request specific changes as long as someone is willing and able to make the changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"As long as someone is willing and able to make the changes" is a big caveat. The reason why we introduced dynamic maps in the first place was to further democratize the process of adding or updating our content, so again, why impose an unnecessary impediment to that? Is user-unfriendliness and an exponentially higher chance of inaccurate or outdated information really a reasonable price to pay for something that in some users' subjective opinion looks prettier? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
When has there been a consensus to delete all static maps from district and undistricted city articles? We ought to come to a new consensus on this before people plunge forward on their own to put mapshapes into articles that already have clear maps that might need a bit of updating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
{{mapshape}}s or {{mapframe}}s? The mapshape draws an area onto an existing dynamic map – possibly greying out everything outside the city limits, like this. K7L (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Ikan, this conversation is not about going through articles one by one and "delet[ing] all static maps from district and undistricted city articles" (though if it were, I'd be arguing in favor of doing so). We're talking specifically about the articles you've mentioned that have dual maps. Editors should not be adding an additional map to articles that already have one, but now that we do have articles with dual maps, we have to choose which of the two to delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Actually, I like dynamic maps as long as the zoom and coordinates are done in such a way that the map looks attractive in relation to the placement of the markers. Dynamic maps have two advantages, the ease of editing marker placement and the ability to zoom/move them, which are very useful advantages. Also, if you see the dynamic maps I have used on the Motorcycle speedway article, you will notice how the map size and zoom was picked out carefully to look aesthetically pleasing. I prefer an aesthetically pleasing dynamic map to a static map for those reasons, although I would not oppose having an article with a static map and a link to a dynamic map. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

AndreCarrotflower, if the result you want whenever any individual adds a mapframe to a district or undistricted city article is for the static map to be deleted, what you are supporting is a de facto policy of deleting all existing static maps for district and undistricted city articles. The obvious solution if we are not changing policy to support all such static maps to be deleted is that if one of the maps is deleted, it would be the new dynamic map. Otherwise, we might as well be honest and say a huge "To Hell with you!" to all such static maps and delete them all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Improve dynamic maps for mobile use[edit]

One of the issues with dynamic maps is that they do not handle well for mobile use. Our offline apps apparently cannot deal with them at all and if one enters the site via the browser, the maps are not auto-zoomed like they are on the desktop version. I think the latter at least should be easy enough to fix, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's okay on mobile for me, but it probably depends on the device. But it makes me think, what is so terrible about dual maps? Maybe they are actually a good thing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Waste of space and ugly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What if, however, we put them in very separate parts of the article? Absolutely I do not like dual maps on top of each other, but one towards the beginning of the article and another in "eat" might not be so bad. This wouldn't work so well in outline articles but in longer articles it could help with the dual maps problem. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think if we're going to have 2 maps of the whole city/district, a solution similar to the one in Adirondacks or collapsing the maps some other way is better than showing both maps on the page. Many of these articles are relatively brief and would benefit more from another photo than a 2nd map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a case by case solution would be better. For example, on the Financial District dual maps I would say the static map looks nicer. In more suburban areas, however, it might be different. Rural/suburban areas would not so much be an issue with Manhattan but in other places might be an issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have supported case-by-case decisions for a long time. I supported removing static maps from certain Manhattan district articles because they were so small as to be user-unfriendly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In a dense map (=lots of information to communicate), I disagree with the assertion that two maps are a waste of space. In such a case, I think that dual maps is preferable to one that's so crowded that you can't see what's where. Two maps with identical information (both with exactly the same cities marked in a region, or both with all the same districts marked) would indeed be a waste of space, but that situation appears to be very uncommon. (Did we ever find one example of that? I remember several examples of nearly identical maps being put forward (e.g., two maps showing cities, but the first listed cities #1 through #9, and the other listed cities #2 through #10), but I don't remember if we found an article with two maps that were actually identical.)
"Ugly" is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also going to vary with the aesthetic qualities of the map in question. The static map at Oklahoma City is never going to win any beauty prizes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that in a long article with plenty of content, having two maps that show the city from two very different perspectives at a fair distance apart is a good option and not a waste of space. Gizza (roam) 13:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Back to Hobbitschuster's comment: What exactly are the mobile map problems? We put map improvements on the m:Community Wishlist last fall, and we won – first place winner. The new wishlist starts in a few weeks. I think it really helps to identify a reasonably specific task, and to have an official bug report/feature request filed (or found). What would be the most important improvement to maps? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the two problems Hobbitschuster mentioned (not displaying on offline apps, not zoomed right), dynamic maps also don't show up at all when articles are downloaded as PDFs. Another useful feature would be for the map to display an icon indicating your current location when you view it on mobile. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Finding people who will actually update the static maps[edit]

This map needs to be replaced.

Who actually knows how to update static maps? And could one of you please go to Talk:Oklahoma City#Radical proposal on districts and make a new static map for the specified districts? I honestly think I'd have an easier time figuring out mapshape and replacing the districts with a dynamic map, but whether the replacement is dynamic or static, the old map needs to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the problems with static maps. There is no one to update them or create new ones. I've tried asking people before and I haven't gotten an answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that this question is even being asked cuts straight to the heart of the problem. A task as simple as updating a map should not involve such rigmarole, especially when we already have an easier way of doing it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I know that most people won't bother clicking through to see the map – which I'm sure was created based on the best information available some years ago, with the goal of improving things later, so I think it would be entirely unfair to lay any fault whatsoever at the feet of the volunteer who graciously improved this article by adding something – let me outline a couple of problems with this map:
  • The district map shows only part of the city, and none of its suburbs, some of which are important destinations in their own right.
  • Most of what's shown in the map is outside any district.
  • The gray area includes several other cities, which is okay, I guess, but they ought to be marked.
  • It's a car-centric destination, but there are no highways shown.
  • The only landmark shown is an unlabeled river that most travelers don't know about.
  • The main airport, which many travelers would probably start at, isn't shown (and might not be in the part of the city shown on the map).
And: I can't fix it, because it's a static map. If we want a static map for that article, someone else has to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Make a new policy proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Maps and let's make a decision by consensus, not individual action and de facto after-the-fact reasoning. But keep in mind that, unless you are proposing to do away with static maps entirely, they will continue to be needed for articles at the districted city, region, country, group of countries and continent levels.
The answer, though, is that the expert mapmakers aren't here much, nowadays. Saqib, PerryPlanet and who else? But it seems like their skills are still needed, to at least some extent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried making a static map once but I don't remember the instructions being too helpful. Otherwise I would be prepared to help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, all of that downloading from Openstreetmap was too much for me. If making static maps was easier it would be different. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek: It may well be that I am one of the last people that make static maps (though my results are by no means equal or better than Saqib or Perry's maps), but I myself am moving away from static maps in favour of dynamic maps because drawing the maps is much more time-consuming. I've never bothered with importing OSM data either, but have always drawn them from scratch. I've given Oklahoma City's map a go, and you can find the result in the associated discussion. If you ever urgently need any more static maps drawn, then feel free to reach out to me and I'll see if I can squeeze it in my somewhere in my week :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I just saw the static map and I have to say that you've done quite a good job. It's really nice and clear; you can see where all the important things are without having to go through millions of labels. Perhaps in future, we should try to make our static maps more basic so they are not as time-consuming.
On a related note, how long did it take you do create the map? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! The goal I try to achieve with static maps is to display districts and other subdivisions, as well as highlight key infrastructure. A proper city map would have listings for see, do, eat, drink and connect, but I'd rather not bother, since they are the key element that do not age well. Other elements currently lacking are district labels, which I left out since the discussions are still ongoing and the names didn't appear to be set in stone yet, as well as road labels, which I may still add later. All in all, I think I've spent about 2½ hours on this one, four if you count my initial map of the greater agglomeration that left the Centre way too small to be useful on the map. Anyway, this is one of the easier maps I've drawn. I've easily spent twelve hours if not more on the Luxembourgian district map, which I think is the map that I invested most time in. Working this map out with the labels described above, excluding listings, I'd spend another half or full hour on it, I'd say.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let me clarify, mainly to others, that a basic or simple map in my opinion is not a bad thing. I know the fancier maps, like that one of Luxembourg, are superior, but that doesn't mean that a very simple map is a bad thing. Anyway, that 2.5 hours is useful information, but actually I have a couple more questions, not to sound like an interrogator, but it may help us more quickly add static maps to places like North Dakota where they would be useful: where did you spend most of that 2 and a half hours making the map — was it mostly on drawing the lines for roads, bodies of water/rivers, or district colors? Is there any way we could decrease those times in future so we can make maps more quickly? I'm not trying to criticize your work, but it would be great if we could have a way to quickly draw static maps so it didn't take so long. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I don't mind the questions whatsoever. As for drawing the map, I can only give ballpark estimates, as different maps ask for different methods, if that makes sense. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to make a map for North Dakota, which you mentioned, and note down some timestamps so that I can give some more representative numbers. I'm pretty sure my ballpark estimates are way off in the first place. As for saving time: Using OSM data saves a lot of time that would be spent on drawing infrastructure, but as you pointed out before, that isn't exactly easy, and I for one don't bother with it. I hope to get back to you with some proper numbers later today or tomorrow. Also, if there is a request for one, I could give making a video tutorial or something along those lines a swing in order to make static map creation a bit more accessible, since the wall of text that is the written guide is what held me from plunging forward on static maps for about a year.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Those sound like a couple good ideas. I'm no artist but I would like to help out with static maps if it was easier to learn, simply because the number of people who have the talent of drawing Wikivoyage static maps is so limited — as you say, you're pretty much the only one now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Almost made it in a day, but here are the SVG and PNG maps. Time spent is as follows:
  • 15:51; Looking for source material (3 minutes)
  • 15:54; Designing layers in Inkscape, general preparation work (1 minute)
  • 15:55; Improving and stitching source material (14 minutes)
  • 16:09; Mapping highways and Interstate routes (35 minutes)
  • 16:44; Mapping waterways and lakes (33 minutes)
  • 17:21; Labelling cities and highways (14 minutes)
  • 17:35; Saving, interrupting for a break (4 hours, 25 minutes)
  • 22:00; Continuing, mapping tertiary roads (34 minutes)
  • 22:34; Drawing frame (1 minute)
  • 22:35; Drawing regions (45 minutes)
  • 23:20; Labelling unlabelled infrastructure (31 minutes)
  • 23:51; First export and evaluation (2 minutes)
  • 23:53; Annotating regions and frame elements (13 minutes)
  • 00:06; First final export (3 minutes)
  • 00:09; Files uploaded to Commons
This results in a total time of 3 hours and 49 minutes spent on the map. The drawing regions took longer than needed, since the source material did not include the county borders and I therefore had to estimate the region borders somewhat. Drawing elements takes by far the most time. As I said before, this time can be reduced by importing OSM data, but I generally don't bother. Labelling and annotating comes in second. I hope this is the answer you were looking for. I'll probably start work on a map for South Holland next, since its regions need revamping. I'll record it all so I can later edit that down into a tutorial video/videos. I haven't a clue as to when I can start on that.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pop-Up Pictures[edit]

Is there any way to control the pictures that pop-up when you hover over a destination, even just to make it the article lede? For an example, hover over this Ashikaga link. The picture is of a model. That image is obviously not from our article and completely inappropriate. I'd like to make it default to the article lede (or possibly be able to choose an image for each article). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: From what I can tell, those images are decided on by scanning the article for images, and listings get a right of way for that. The image is linked in the article as the image for the second geotagged do listing, Natural Indigo Dyeing Airoza. Change or remove the image in that listing or add more for earlier listings, and the image will change automatically. I personally would be in favour of putting the images linked in the article itself at the highest priority, followed by those of the listings rather than vice versa, which seems to be the current case.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that the popup pictures (not the text) should be disabled if we have no control over what image is displayed. I have looked at the popups for a few articles and the images displayed are often not in the article. Ashikaga is the worst of those that I have seen where a picture of a person is displayed instead of anything about the place. It is also annoying that I can't find where it is getting the image from - it is not in the Wikidata item either, and I can't view the image to get any information on it. In most cases the image displayed is not wrong for the place, but the choice is still often odd - why is Edinburgh/West showing a bird, or Dundee showing the airport which only has two flights per day. AlasdairW (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have now found that the bird for Edinburgh/West is attached to the WD item for the Zoo, the second see listing, but it is not directly linked in the article. I then added a different image to the zoo listing and it then appeared as the popup. AlasdairW (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: See also what I wrote above your first reply; Listings seem to have priority over images in the article itself. The images in the article only get used if there are no listings or no listings with defined images (see: Tiel). This, however, means that stations and main bus halts will be the go-to featured image for many articles (see: Assen, Den Helder, Vijfheerenlanden), as well as tourist information points (see: Berkelland, Harderwijk). Surely there must be a way to blacklist these listings, if not all listings that aren't in See or Do? Also, Dundee's image is that of the Airport, the first listing in the whole article, should you not have found that one yet.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
If we deleted the picture in the article that is used in the pop-up, what would happen? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: sorry for the confusion. I only found that your reply had appeared after I posted mine - a hidden edit conflict. I would prefer that we only use images in the article, preferably starting with the banner image if present. Images in a listing are not representative of the city as a whole, and are hidden when editing the article. We might wish to show listing images when you hover over the listing, but that is a different matter. AlasdairW (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: It would switch to the next available image. I removed the tourist office logo and station image from Harderwijk, and it now defaults to a picture of the Dolfinarium. From what I can tell, listings have priority over thumbnails.
@AlasdairW: I'd argue that listings' images aren't that unrepresentative, or at least, not with the set of articles I usually work with (i.e. Netherlands-related articles), so long as listings in sections before See can be ignored. Sure, articles like Ashikaga may have unrepresentative images for listings, but this way we can at least find them and change them for better images. It's a case-by-case thing, but if the priority of thumbnails over listing images can be switched around so that the first image in the article is featured. From what I can tell, banners already get ignored: Goes has no images in listings or thumbnails but does have a banner, yet the banner isn't featured as an image. The same goes for Zuid-Kennemerland National Park, Heemskerk, Hengelo, Ommen, Broek op Langedijk and many more. If we can bypass {{Pagebanner}}, then surely we must also be able to bypass {{Listing}} and {{Marker}}?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also found that {{Worldimagemap}} requires a bypass, as per South America, which has an image defined before the template. -- Wauteurz (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
pop-ups for listing images in dynamic maps (found in Commons) -- either entered by hand (image=xxx.jpg) or if (image=) is blank and a Wikidata ID is present in template and Wikidata has an image associated with that particular Wikidata ID. -- The image link for the girl wearing the indigo dyed material is in Commons - Upload mentioned here. Instead of using the existing image can use the related image Natural Indigo.jpg some other image or none. If you remove the remove the image information from the do listing for Natural Indigo Dyeing Airoza nothing will happen as it has no Wikidata ID and thus no image to default to. To eliminate the image parameter from listings etc. because one can't see them would be a truly negative thing to do. I often check Special pages: Pages missing file links to fix broken image file links. To do this I often scan the article page temporarily and grab the images mentioned (about 94% success in finding them) and put them in a Temporary Sandbox as a gallery to check. Though images not visible in Mediawiki editor, they can still be seen by other methods (by hook or crook).

-- Have a great day! -- Matroc (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the purpose of having imbedded images in the listing when we cannot see them? I feel like we should not allow that. It serves no purpose other than apparently to confuse this pop-up image... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
They do serve a small purpose - they can be seen when looking at full page map of the city. However you can only see one at a time and have to go around the various map markers. I think there are two things that should be changed:
  • Popups should display the banner photo if present, if not then display the first picture from the article, then the Wikidata image for the city. They should not display images in listing, especially not those which are only in the listing's Wikidata.
  • Listings should display the listing image when the reader hovers over the listing.
Are we able to make these changes? (We can have a more detailed discussion about the exact form of the change if we are able to do it.) AlasdairW (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Images for listings are just that... they should pertain to and be applicable to a listing that would not necessarily be represented by some general overall article image. I definitely would not like some image for India to appear in a pop up for a Go Next listing of Pakistan. I guess I was under the incorrect impression that editors checked and looked at images in listing templates before they were added or entered... the listing editor does has a place to click and see the image from Commons. The model for Indigo is not offensive or inappropriate as far as I can tell - I guess that is all in the eyes of the beholder, so if it considered offensive pluck it out and replace it with a better one. Perhaps it would be better to just not have any images at all and just output a Wikivoyage logo instead -- Boring!... It amazes me how many wanted to have Wikidata ID put into listings so that one could populate parameters and then be unsatisfied about what was wanted in the first place. When editing one has the ability to add/change/replace images, use it! - But I can't see those images on the page! - best solution I have seen so far is a hover to display the listing image ... Otherwise, take the time to click on points on a map and look or take a peek from within the listing editor or some other tool. Seems simple enough to me or am I just being lazy. -- Matroc (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who asked to have hidden images in the listing templates, but it wasn't me. It seems like a royal pain (the opposite of lazy) to try and check them when they're essentially invisible entities. I'd rather just delete them personally, but I think I must still just not be understanding their justification as I don't think I was part of any discussion on this topic at all. I definitely would like the picture that appears to be from the article and not the listing though. The lede image is already supposed to be representative, so it makes the most sense as the image that appears when you hover over a city's name. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposal that "popups should display the banner photo if present" as they're the wrong size (too wide, because banners have 7:1 aspect ratio) to be a good fit for a popup. K7L (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with K7L, it's better to have no picture than to use the banner. The lede image should be the one to show. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Star nominations[edit]

Anyone interested on voting on the latest star nominations, Windsor (Ontario) and Calgary? People sometimes don't realize there are new nominations, so I'm posting this here in case there were any interested people who didn't know about these new nominatons. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Bermuda COTM[edit]

The new COTM is Bermuda and anything breadcrumbed underneath it. These are the tasks:

  • Improve content of listings
    • fix dead links
    • expand description
    • add coordinates, address, phone number
  • Move listings to correct city article from region article. If key POI add some text in region article about it.
  • Add understand section to city article
  • Improve city articles to get them all to usable status
    • Adding See, Sleep and Eat listings were possible.

Some of these need local knowledge or require research, but there are some here that are easy. Here's to the success of another collaboration! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Would love to see a Bermuda DotM when all this is done! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably it would be a good place to feature. I would assume that popular destinations which would interest/be accessible to a wide range of people are good choices. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Train station article template[edit]

I figured that West Kowloon station has a lot of info that would make it too big and maybe too specific for the main article, such as customs processes, some ticketing quirks and tons of retail space (people may have specific recommendations for food, drink and shopping in the station, for example, and one can't exactly exit the station to get food outside and get back inside quickly due to customs). Since it is meant as a transport hub in Kowloon, it also has a lot of options, with many public transit and footbridges stops and connections. So I made this in userspace, using the airport article template to make the groundwork. This is pretty unorthodox, so I want to ask the community about it.

Don't worry about the dynmap for mainland trains, although when more connections open up it could probably become too complex to maintain it is simple to just remake that section to talk about some major cities served from Hong Kong.

If it doesn't seem to be good for an article, then I will simply make sure that the revelant info goes on the right pages.

Thank you for your input.

MSG17 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

So far, we've never made a separate article for a railway station. Even London's St Pancras station, which has immigration checks for those headed for France or Belgium, doesn't have one. But if there's enough information to warrant a separate article, I don't see why not, in the same way that we have separate airport articles. The dog2 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
What if we had a railway station article type similar to the airport article template? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. How about we take that discussion to the pub and see what people say? The dog2 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. If there are train stations with places to eat, sleep, etc., it would make sense to give them a separate article with a particular kind of template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, although I'm not sure how many train stations, even major ones, would fit this bill. Especially with hotels - most don't have any in them, and West Kowloon is probably one of very few that might have a direct connection to some. But yes, we should go to the pub and see how everyone feels. Besides, security can lead to some restrictive access to outside facilities, and some stations (maybe more in East Asia due to commuter lunches and bigger retail complexes) do have tons of food and drink options that a traveller would have to know about. MSG17 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I will now move this discussion to the pub. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So now it's in the pub, here's the basic question, should we create separate articles for train stations like we do for airports? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What makes these stations too complicated for them to just be listings in city articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Airports are generally speaking in the middle of nowhere and most people who are there either leave as fast as they can or cannot leave. None of that is really true for train stations where the whole joke is that they are close in. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I'm sort of ambivalent about this, if you are travelling from London St Pancras, you'll clear both British outbound and French inbound immigration checks at the station if you are boarding the trains to France or Belgium, so you'll definitely need extra time compared to if you are boarding a domestic train. Of course, Hong Kong West Kowloon is different in that it does not have domestic trains, and all trains are bound for mainland China, so everyone needs to go through both Hong Kong and mainland China customs and immigration. The dog2 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
What's the difficulty in simply mentioning that in the listing for the train station? I guess my feeling is that if so much content is required that it starts to overwhelm the article, we could possibly consider a separate article, but I don't see why it can't just be a section in an existing destination article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek. Show us a city article that has way too much information on a specific railway station, and then we can create a dedicated station article template. I note that the specific example of West Kowloon has only one short paragraph's worth of content on the HK article, which has apparently been sufficient for some time.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, West Kowloon has only opened about a week ago. However, the consesus is correct - most stations really don't have enough info that they require their own article. The main rationale for me was that West Kowloon has extensive security checks for all passengers, so passengers would be stuck there for a while like in an airport and thus might have to buy there. It also helps that it has links to all sorts of public transport and some sights of its own. Since most railway stations, even major ones, are nothign like that (and train food doesn't exactly have the best reputation)(nevermind, see below), there isn't much info to add, as you noted. So yeah, it is probably best to look into migrating the content to fit the Hong Kong article. MSG17 (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"train food" doesn't have the best reputation? Where did you get that from? Just the other day we had perfectly delightful Mexican food at Munich main station... And unlike airplane food, food in trains is actually unaffected by the fact that you're in a metal tube.Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
With regards to train food, you should try the ekiben next time your visit Japan. Some of them are actually pretty decent. And I've also had pretty decent tea eggs on the trains in China before they even built the first high speed line. The dog2 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Article on cultural attractions in sub-Saharan Africa[edit]

I understand that WV is not the place for political debates, and this might have a bit of a social justice tone to it, but after watching some documentaries and reading some articles, I think it's worth considering an article about this. When people think of Africa, they tend to think of Safaris, wild animals and "primitive" hunter gatherer societies, but the fact is that there were great civilisations in sub-Saharan Africa that built great cities. The Great Zimbabwe and Timbuktu are some of the best known, but I feel that perhaps with an article dedicated to that, we can properly showcase the sheer cultural diversity within Africa, and challenge some very widely held stereotypes of Africa. Some other sites I can think of including are the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela in Ethiopia, the ruins of Aksum, also in Ethiopia, the Nubian pyramids of Meroe in Sudan, the ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani in Tanzania, and the Dahomey Royal Palaces of Abomey in Benin.

I understand we should not use WV for political campaigning, but I feel that we should also be fair here and do our part to challenge inaccurate stereotypes. Everyone knows about the great civilisations of Asia, Europe and the Americas, so it's time we give the African civilisations the credit that they deserve. The dog2 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

All of these sound like valid travel topics to me. However, I think that it is a good idea to create separate travel topic articles for them, rather than to create one single article for all these African cultural attractions. Lumping them together would just enforce the idea of sub-Saharan Africa as one homogeneous block. A while ago I nominated an effort to upgrade Africa to usable status as a COTM. The nomination was eventually slushed (and not without good reason) but I think that it is also a good place to start if want to improve our coverage of Africa.
And for the record, I don't mind political motivations behind editing. If someone wanted to improve the coverage of their home country out of chauvinistic emotions of national pride, that would be fine be me as long as the edits were fair and helpful to travelers. MartinJacobson (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the dog that this is desirable, and with Martin that a single article would not do each civilisation justice. I suggest starting with a civilisation you know about, and go from there.
Tangentially, I have thought for some time that having both the pagebanner and lead image of Africa depict wildlife be part of the same problem, but as of yet have not found a suitable replacement candidate for one or the other.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, we would ideally have separate articles for each civilisation. Unfortunately, I'm not a historian, and I only know of the existence of these great civilisations and some of their most notable achievements, and I don't have enough knowledge to write about each of them in-depth. Perhaps we can have "African civilisations" as a landing page, and different civilisations getting their own articles that are listed on this landing page. In the same vein, I would not mind having a "pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas" article, and individual articles for the Inca, Maya, Aztec, Olmec and other civilisations listed under that.
Speaking of which, perhaps we can have a picture of Timbuktu replacing either the page banner or lead image of the Africa article. While of course there were many civilisations in Africa, and the Mali Empire by no means representative of all of Africa, Timbuktu is definitely impressive and built in a unique style that cannot be found outside sub-Saharan Africa. The dog2 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, a landing page along the same lines as European history would be appropriate, and might encourage users to expand content on places they know about in new articles. I confess total ignorance on this subject. How many African / Africa-based contributors do we have? The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Peter and DocWoKav.
Timbuktu is a nice idea, but it's also rapidly disappearing under sand and inaccessible to tourists due to being in the middle of a war zone.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"African civilizations" would include Egypt, Carthage, Nubia and Ethiopia, just saying. Also, it's presumably non-Africans who hold the mentioned stereotypes, not people in general, something to keep in mind. Coverage of ancient African civilizations is a worthy goal. We could probably facilitate this with an "Ancient African Civilizations" Expedition, to list each civilization and the points of interest associated with it. I am not an expert, either, but getting the information down will make coverage of individual archeological and historical sites and possible articles about particular civilizations easier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
In any case, sub-Saharan Africa typically also includes Nubia and Ethiopia as well, but yes, an "African Civilisations" page should most certainly include the Egyptians and Carthage. Moreover, the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula was actually initiated by Berbers, who are indigenous to what is today the Maghreb region of North Africa. And while presumably most Africans do not hold those stereotypes, you may be surprised to find out that such stereotypes of sub-Saharan Africa are widespread even among African-Americans.
But anyway, I would most certainly be in favour of an "Ancient African Civilizations" expedition, if we have enough people with expertise in the subject matter. And on a personal note, it's unfortunate that the achievements of African civilisations have been obscured for so long due to formerly widely-held racist pseudoscientific notions that black people were somehow genetically inferior to other races, so hopefully, by going on this expedition, we here can do our part as a community to reverse some of this damage. And course, many of these civilisations left behind relics of their existence, so it most certainly fits in our scope of being a travel guide too, as you can actually go to Africa to visit some of these sites. The dog2 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I really don't see an issue here. I think whoever can and wants to add travel topics about civilizations should go ahead and add them. If we created 20 travel topics on African historical groups I wouldn't mind. If you want to write articles about African history go ahead and add all you know — I don't intend to get in the way. Also, one more thing: someone said that the American civilizations were well covered, and I would at least partially object to this. While the coverage of Native American peoples is good, the coverage of the history of the South Americans is still only mediocre at best, despite the work me, Granger, and others have put into it. So while we improve African history coverage we could see what we could do with South America too. But I say, let the work go ahead! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, to add: while my knowledge on this topic, particularly outside of Egyptian history, is very limited, if there are other things I could do I would be willing to help out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I had suggested a few articles relating to African history on WV:Requested articles, namely Nubia, the Iron-Age Nok culture in West Africa and Kerma (ancient Nubian site). I also suggested the 9000-year-old Kuk Swamp archeological site in Papua New Guinea, which although obviously not in Africa, is similarly from a neglected part of the world. Not many people know that the New Guineans were among the world's oldest farmers and were the first to domesticate sugar cane and bananas. I haven't gotten around to starting any of these articles yet. While I have some knowledge of these topics along with other topics relating to non-European ancient history and culture, it's not enough to make a full-fledged article from scratch in a short space of time. The Trail of Ibn Battuta would be a great pan-continental itinerary too (as great an explorer as Marco Polo was) and there have been English-language travel documentaries replicating Ibn Battuta's journey from Morocco to China and everywhere in between so it shouldn't be too hard to write. Gizza (roam) 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, which reminds me, if we are going to write travel topics we need some travel topic ideas first. Do we already have an article on Egyptian history? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Historical travel will tell you which articles we already have in this space in terms of travel topics (specific historic sites will be destinations of course) and there are some history articles that are directly in Category:Cultural attractions. Ancient Egypt exists but it's quite weak. The more I think about it, the more I believe that our coverage of history overall is underwhelming. The good news is that it can only improve from here. Gizza (roam) 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think our Roman Empire article is overwhelming, but otherwise you are probably right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also agree that we do not have the best coverage of pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas. Even the three widely known ones, the Aztecs, Mayas and Incas do not have their own articles, so there is certainly room for expansion there.
With regards to Africa, I think we can start with an "African Civilisations" page and list all the ones we know. People who know any of those well can then use that as a landing page to create articles about each individual civilisation. We have lumped the cultures of North America and South America respectively in the same way, even though these cultures are different and speak different languages. The dog2 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, in the Americas I would say the Incas, Mayas, and Aztecs were the civilizations we ought to highlight for tourists, since they left behind such amazing pyramids and other remmants of what was once a fascinating culture. Instead it seems that these groups are taking the back seat. I'm not sure what our coverage is like for Chinese and Indian history, but those are also notable. I think most of European coverage is good enough for now, but even there there are some low points and improving that could be done. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Europe apart from the Russian Empire and Cold War Europe has room for improvement. We should probably have articles on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Bulgarian Empires (spanned many modern-day countries). Gizza (roam) 03:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a Chinese Empire article, and it is OK, though admittedly not as well developed as the one about the Roman Empire. And likewise, we have articles about ancient Japan and Korea that could probably be improved on. We don't have an article on Southeast Asian empires, the most important ones I can think of being the Srivijaya and Majapahit, and while smaller, the Malacca Sultanate certainly was significant. And of course, there were so many others like the Vietnamese, Khmer, Siamese, Mon, Rakhine and Burmese kingdoms. There's also no article about Indian history, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one given how rich Indian history is. For one thing, there were the great empires of the Mauryas, Guptas and Cholas, and there is the Indus Valley Civilisation (in modern-day Pakistan) that dates back even earlier than the Mauryas. The dog2 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And if I remember rightly there isn't an article at all for the Holy Roman Empire. Since historical articles make good travel topics, it would be great if they were better. I just did some work on the Ancient Egypt article a little while ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly it would be good to improve our coverage of historic sites in sub-Saharan Africa. I would suggest starting by putting this content in Africa#History and Africa#Historical civilizations (or in region/country/other lower-level articles). Individual travel topics like Nubia can be created too if someone knows enough to write them. I'm skeptical that something as broad as "African civilizations" would be useful as a travel topic separate from the Africa article, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Africa and its historic civilizations don't need to be thought of any differently than any others. I don't see why adding African civilizations as opposed to Asian or European needs to be "political" or have a political/advocacy slant nor do I see why you felt the need to petition here for an article when you know you can create an article for any African civilization that you want to dedicate your time to. I don't support creating articles for the purpose you outline, though. We don't need a patronizing article to "dispel myths" about anyplace. We need travel topics to provide information that is valuable to travelers not weird articles whose purpose is to argue that Africa has "just as good culture as Europe/Asia", "is actually better and more cultured if you think about it like this", or whatever weird social justice hang-up you are trying to appeal to. If we have an article on the Axumite Kingdom, for example, it should be because we have something worthwhile to showcase to travelers on the topic with a variety of places to go to experience the historic sites/events/culture and learn more not because we feel embarrassed on behalf of the nation of Ethiopia because the remnants of its horrible famine still occupy minds when they think about the country or because we want to pat ourselves on the back for "making them look good". Let's stick to travel and let the travelers decide for themselves what they care about/like/dislike/etc like we do with every other place. Most people who are interested in African travel DO in fact seek out places of historic and cultural interests. First thoughts are not final thoughts.

Most of what was proposed is already in the Africa#Historical civilizations, including briefly mentioning that it is fruitful to dig deeper than just wildlife. I wrote that section and remain the primary author (little has been changed since I wrote it). If you have nothing more to add, then just add what you want to that section. Beyond that, I agree with Granger that it's better to create an article for a specific African civilization/empire. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In any case, judging from how this discussion has gone, how about we launch an expedition on historical travel, so we can improve all our history articles. It seems that information is sorely lacking in the vast majority of them. Indian and Southeast Asian history are also very much undercovered, so I am convinced that we should expand the scope beyond just African history and expand our history articles in general.
And please, I am not trying to advocate for any civilisation being portrayed as better than others. Every civilisation has its own achievements and shortcomings, and sub-Saharan African civilisations are no different. Of course, all ancient civilisations, including European ones, will be considered barbaric by our modern-day moral standards. Sure, as a conservative American, you believe that the U.S. is the greatest civilisation that ever existed in the history of mankind, and you are free to believe that. But all I'm saying is that we should represent all peoples accurately, and it is most certainly true that most non-Africans think that sub-Saharan Africa was comprised only of hunter gatherer societies and no cities prior to the arrival of Europeans, which is just inaccurate. If anything, I was the one who added most of the stuff about African involvement in the slave trade in the Atlantic slave trade article, so if you think I'm trying to promote black power, pan-Africanism or some other specifically pro-black ideology, please look through my edit history before you come to that conclusion. The dog2 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I find the views of ChubbyWimbus and The dog2 in these recent comments good and well stated. I myself am not too crazy on creating a general article for African civilizations but I would not oppose such an article being created. I like the history expedition idea as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The dog2 Just to clarify, I said nothing about "black power" or "pro-black ideology". I was responding specifically to your claims that we need to be "more fair" to Africa and advocate on behalf of the continent to make it look good and prove it has cultural sites, cities, and other things that developed countries in Europe/Asia/the Americas have. I resent the insinuation that my comment was meant to protect "American exceptionalism". I didn't mention the US at all and my reference of Europe/Asia was because those regions currently have the most articles of the type you brought up (ancient civilizations). I'm baffled about where the "black power", "pro-black ideology", etc line is even coming from. I don't know if you think I was accusing you of that or if you are trying to insinuate that I'm racist (in which case, I also strongly resent) or both, but I wasn't even thinking about race in my response. I thought I was clear when I said create TRAVEL articles not propaganda. I even repeated that African articles should be written like any other article. I've always wished we had more well-written, guide-status African articles and I've contributed to many African articles but I don't have the travel experience to make the kind of headway required to get any featured.
Also, I don't think it's fair to our contributors to make claims that we need to be "more fair" to Africa. Your stated issues are with what you believe to be the societal perceptions of Africa, but saying we need to be "more fair" to Africa suggests that we are not being completely "fair" to it now and/or that there is an issue with our contributors as we relate to Africa and Africa-related content which I find to be untrue on both accounts. Even concerning the stereotypes you mention, any user who cares about Africa can easily find from our current content that it has cities and cultural sites, including old/ancient ones. Users who don't care, won't look, and that has to be okay, because we aren't trying to propagandize. I don't see any evidence that Africa is being treated unfairly or even that other users treat it differently than you do, and everyone has been supportive of the idea to create these articles. The only issues brought up were just to be specific rather than broad and that it needs to be a travel article and not propaganda so please be careful with making accusations against the community when it seems all you really want to say is "I wish we had some historic articles from African kingdoms, but I don't know enough to create any myself. Anyone know enough about any of them to start one." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the two of you are fighting over what is basically a misunderstanding. I don't think thedog2 ever insinuated that you were a racist and I think thedog2 was actually saying he was opposed to the "black power" ideaology. While I agree with ChubbyWimbus that we shoudn't think of ourselves as racists just because a region's article coverage is poor, that doesn't mean that we can't make that region's article coverage better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I apologise if I misunderstood ChubbyWimbus's intentions, but I think I was misunderstood too. I was never proposing the creation of a social justice article, and I never said anything about WV being unfair to Africa or black people. But I don't think I'm wrong for saying that the stereotype of Africa that most people in the Western world have is an inaccurate one, and it is most certainly true that the reason for the prevalence of such a stereotype is because of the legacy of formerly widely-held racist ideologies, even if those ideologies themselves are no longer widespread today. In a similar vein, what they teach you in American schools about the Atlantic slave trade, specifically the story of white people going to Africa and kidnapping the black Africans in order to enslave them and ship across the Atlantic, is a gross oversimplification of the actual history, and that is why I added all the stuff about African involvement in the slave trade and Native American slave ownership to the article. If there is a very widely held misconception about something, I don't think it's wrong to briefly mention that in our articles and give a brief overview of why that is a misconception. In any case, the article I was originally proposing was more about listing the different civilisations of Africa, and perhaps a map of where those civilisations were located, as well as sites concerned with those civilisations that tourist can visit today. I'm pretty sure that fits in with our goal of being a travel guide.
And anyway, seeing how these other civilisations also suffer from a lack of coverage, I might also create articles about ancient India, Southeast Asian civilisations and pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas if nobody has any objection. The dog2 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd really like to see those articles get created. History is closely related to travel, so we ought to have good coverage in that field. I know a fair amount of history, although not so good regionally. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't see anyone objecting to those except for some mean-spirited non-reason, so please go ahead, Dog. Our articles skew towards the urban and the "first world" because that's what most of us know best*, and any attempts to redress that are welcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
the historic civilization articles have potential to be among our richest articles, so it's great if someone can create a good article. The dog2, the way you brought up the topic made me weary that your intent was to create an article with "dispelling myths about Africa" as the primary focus and purpose of the article. What you state above in your clarification about the slave trade edits to me is just a standard corrective edit which is what we all do and should do whenever we see inaccuracies. If that's all you meant to say, then there is obviously no issue. No one wants to knowingly promote incorrect accounts no matter what it's about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic cities and sites[edit]

On a somewhat related issue, we don't seem to have a consistent classification for historic and archeological sites. Not talking about ancient cities that are still inhabited like Rome and Athens but cities and sites that now in ruins. Persepolis, Pompeii, Teotihuacan, Luxor and Mohenjo-daro are "cities" while Troy, Tikal and Tiwanaku are "parks". As many of the articles that will be potentially be created from this expedition will be archeological sites, the way they are classified should be settled. Gizza (roam) 00:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think this should be our rule: a city with ruins that is also a living town (like Pompeii) should be classified as a city. Those that are solely ruins, as I assume Great Zimbabwe and Troy are, should be parks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I think Pompeii is still inhabited, just that part of it isn't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Pompei is a sizable suburb of Naples. The excavated area is a discrete section of town. Pompei and Pompei-Scavi are two different stops on the Circumvesuviana train. Pompei-Scavi is just outside the excavated area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Then it sounds like a city article IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
In fact it is, though quite understandably, the article focuses on the excavations. Similarly, see Herculaneum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


So I've created two travel topics in this field, one for Nubia and another for Churches of Ethiopia. Please expand these, since they are just outlines at the moment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Outside of Africa the historical travel articles for South Asian history and the Khmer Empire have also been created. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, some of the articles that will be referred to by these topics should be beefed up a bit. I just added coordinates for all the city/listing markers for Ethiopia and its Regions as an example. Adjusted some markers and maps. So please consider developing those articles further as well since some are sparse -- Matroc (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for responding late, but the reason I can't expand these travel topics is that I don't know much about these topics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also created African-American history, which needs to be expanded. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the ListingEditor[edit]

I've been making some changes to the ListingEditor gadget in my userspace. I'm looking for feedback. If anyone is interested in testing the changes with me, you can disable your listing editor gadget and copy my common.js and common.css to switch over. Any feedback on the alterations to the appearance of the editor, including changes to the text, and on bugs/glitches would be appreciated. Even if not testing, I'm looking for some other feedback, so please read on if you use the listing editor.

I've copied over the preview functionality from the German version, which is very useful. I've also added the automatic updating/addition of IATA codes for airports, and trimming of a trailing period in the price box (as you sometimes see new users writing, resulting in a double period). The significant-ish thing I've written in are lock checkboxes to prevent certain fields from updating from Wikidata, specifically the URL, coordinates, and image.

I've added tooltip text to warn users against using it if the Wikidata information is inaccurate, as a way to avoid fixing the information there, and instead suggesting some "acceptable" use cases. The ones I thought of are listed below:

  • Lock URL: Use this only if Wikidata links to a non-English website, and we have the English version set.
  • Lock coords: Use this only in case of the wrong coordinates being selected. For example, if the listing is for a river, and the Wikidata coordinates show the mouth of the river, while we want a point on the river.
  • Lock image: Use this only if we have a better image that we cannot put on Commons
  • Lock image: or if we have a subjectively better photo set here, and we have been prevented from changing the one in Wikidata to match
  • Lock image: or if we do not want an image here at all.

Can anyone think of any other use cases to write into the tooltip? Maybe some of these should be fixed on Wikidata's end? Alternately, should I remove the tooltip completely, and assume all editors know the appropriate times not to update from Wikidata?

Should I add lock checkboxes for any other fields? I couldn't think of any use cases for the others. Alternately, are the checkboxes useless and should I remove them completely? I ask this question also of the other changes, and of this endeavor as a whole.

Finally, one question for the community: would we consider switching to the RFC3966 standard for phone numbers? It is very similar to what we use now; the only difference is the addition of a dash after the country code and the area code equivalent. Doing so would allow use to use Wikidata phone and fax numbers. Example here

ARR8 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I suppose usability folks would be afraid the interface could feel too complex with the lock boxes. One could have a box to activate them, with them otherwise greyed, I do not know whether that helps or makes it worse.
There are a few more reasons to lock our versions, mostly pertaining to our wanting visitor information while Wikidata may have general information. This concerns images as well as URLs. I think the tooltips are a good tool to standardise use. I think only the editors who spend time at the pub automatically get to know our reasoning.
Our current phone number standard is counter-intuitive for me and probably many others, but it tells what part of the number can be used when dialling locally (traditional phones do not allow dialling the +xx... global number). The RFC3966 standard does not provide an obvious way to do that ("." characters are allowed, should those be used? probably there is some other common use for them).
--LPfi (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You might be able to get around that complexity by not using checkboxes, and instead offering "get all from Wikidata" (what we have now) followed by a little "Advanced" button, which gives you a new form with all the checkboxes.
On the phone numbers, I've long wondered why we use different formats for regular and toll-free phone numbers. I'd support making them match any sensible system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The checkboxes are hopefully unobtrusive. They have no text next to them, just a lock icon. I would post a screenshot if I knew how. The "advanced" button is an option, though. Greying out, I'm not sure about, for a couple of reasons, one of them technical. However, in the meantime, I think I'll at least modify it to only show the checkboxes if there is a Wikidata ID set, much like the update link itself. That should simplify things at least for users adding new listings. ARR8 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
One alternative to the checkboxes would be to import the Wikidata only into fields which are currently blank. If the local and Wikidata fields are both populated, but with different info, one line of static text somewhere could be displayed to indicate the mismatch - with the local data left intact unless the user manually removes or replaces it. K7L (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Support: I think this makes most sense. Just extend the text to "Update empty shared fields...". The added benefit is that users that are not knowledgable/read enough won't overwrite stuff by accident...-- 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I have to admit, I don't really like this option. It seems like it adds a lot of time-consuming copy-pasting if the editor actually does want to overwrite the values, which I find myself doing more often than not. Still, it's possible, though a little challenging to figure out a good place to put the static text in a way that makes the intent obvious and still looks okay. ARR8 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
w:en:WP:WPSHOT has directions for uploading a screenshot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't involve "a lot of time-consuming copy-pasting if the editor actually does want to overwrite the values"; all they'd have to do is blank the existing field and click "import from Wikidata". K7L (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I don't know why I didn't think of that. It's still not my favorite option, but I won't dismiss it out of hand; if there's a consensus that this is the direction we want to take the listing editor (and that we want to change it at all...), I'll do my best to implement that.
I'll also look into making that screenshot. ARR8 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Here's a screenshot. Hopefully this clarifies things. ARR8 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I've just changed it to show a tooltip and the preview. I doubt anyone's seen the screenshot yet, but I don't want to change things without notice. ARR8 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another update to the ListingEditor. Added a button to get the Wikidata ID from an entered Wikipedia article. I find that the Wikipedia autocomplete is much more intuitive than the Wikidata autocomplete. The button is just the letters "WP" next to the Wikidata box. Any thoughts are welcome.

I feel like I should mention that if anyone has any feature requests for tweaks to the editor, I would appreciate hearing them. I will obviously ask in the near future for this to be moved out of my userspace, once no one has any more input or objections. It would be nice if this update could address others' gripes with the editor, not just mine.

By the way, still no consensus on what to do with the checkboxes, or importing phone numbers from Wikidata. I'm leaving both as-is for now. If we don't reach a consensus, I'd like to revisit this in the future, perhaps after rolling out the uncontroversial changes (preview, etc.). Thanks to everyone who did respond so far. ARR8 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If making changes to the listing editor, can a mobile number field be added? There was a discussion ages ago which I thought came to the conclusion it wasca good idea but ascwith many things, somebody with knowledge, etc. needs to to make those changes. But I have no idea about finding those discussions PsamatheM (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not related to the listing editor. That's the template itself, {{listing}}. So while I could add a field, it wouldn't actually put the number anywhere on the page without matching template changes. ARR8 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it nowadays possible to have several comma separated numbers in the phone field, with comments in parenthesis: "phone=+358 9 123-456 (office), +358 40-123-456 (mobile)"? --LPfi (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as the listing editor goes, yes. It only validates e-mail, Wikipedia, and Image fields. ARR8 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
And the result is working phone number links (i.e. the template handles them), and the ErrorHighlighter does not warn about them. --LPfi (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily featured events on the Main Page[edit]

I've started a discussion about this element of the Main Page to discuss whether to continue this feature, and of so, what events to include. Comments are welcome on the Main Page talk page. Ground Zero (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Are the different editions of Wikivoyage allowed to choose a logo which is slightly/completely different than the current one?[edit]

At the Hebrew Wikivoyage some users have brought up the suggestion of choosing a new logo for the Hebrew Wikivoyage which would be slightly or completely different from the current logo.

The options so far mostly rely on the suggestions which weren't chosen the last time a voting was held on this matter.

Wikivoyage he propose.png
(like options 6, 7 and 8 above)

In my own opinion, choosing a logo which is either slightly or completely different from the logos chosen in the 2013 voting that the Wikimedia foundation held on this matter would give the Hebrew Wikivoyage a sort of unprofessional/amateurish look, as it would not be similar to all the other logos used by the other Wikivoyage editions (for the same reason that if the Hebrew Wikipedia would choose to replace the globe in their logo with a different graphic element it would probably look unprofessional/amateurish) + I am not sure at all if the Wikimedia foundation would allow us to use a different logo from the one chosen in 2013.

In any case, in order for the Hebrew Wikivoyage editor community to examine this proposal more seriously, I decided to raise the possibility of changing the logo completely/slightly here with the English Wikivoyage community, so that the final decision we'll take there would take into account the opinions of the English Wikivoyage community as well.

So what do you think... are the different editions of Wikivoyage allowed to choose a logo which is slightly/completely different than the current one? If we are allowed to choose a different logo, how do you think that would look like... to have one edition with a completely different logo? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think, at least to English speakers, 1-4 would seem problematically different. But definitely the last two options would be something different altogether. I don't think these two look amateurish but at the same time they would make the Hebrew Wikivoyage look less like a language version of Wikivoyage and more like a different website altogether. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I am afraid of. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary has different logos in different language versions. Compare English, Spanish, and Latin. Overall I think this inconsistency is a bad thing as it makes the sites look less cohesive, but it's not a big problem.
In my opinion, versions 1–6 above all look very similar and wouldn't make the sites look less cohesive. 7 and 8 would be more of a radical departure from the other Wikivoyages. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless Wikimedia says otherwise, I think it's up to you guys at Hebrew Wikivoyage to decide upon a logo; I don't mind greatly which one you chose since I don't edit on that language version of Wikivoyage, and my guess is that most of the other English Wikivoyage editors have the same view.
Perhaps, though, a new logo could be chosen for Wikivoyage in general? The one we use is fine, but options 7 and 8 are definitely more travel-related and if there was an English-language version of these, perhaps they could be considered for here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to have different logos in different language versions. Well, Uncyclopedia is known for this but...
Language versions can very well have different ways for rating articles, featuring them, standards of listings, main page design etc. but I think at least the logo design should be common for all language versions. Just my 2 cents. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

American Civil War Battles[edit]

  • The following pages are available for reference should anyone be interested in the American Civil War. These pages were created (using a different set of experimental templates and Modules) as reference material only should you wish to look at them. The information was garnered from Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikivoyage as sources. There may be sites/locations that you might want to investigate/select for any individual US state articles or just to puruse to see the enormity of that period in American History. You may have to convert these into some standard format should you wish to use any of these references; the information is there and should be easy enough to do. All of these are links and appear on dynamic maps in each section. Wikipedia links are also provided... About 98% have Wikidata ID's used to garner lat/long information. These Wikidata IDs were collected by another mini Module to search to see if a Wikipedia article existed by name in order to obtain the Wikidata ID. The remainder were researched and had lat/long information added manually. Text for each listing was basically found in tables/articles on Wikipedia and should be revamped/modified somewhat. Again, the sources are from Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikivoyage.
  • Enjoy -- Matroc (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Star article criteria[edit]

Recently there has been an effort to revitalize Wikivoyage:Star nominations. We currently have a "Last minute checklist" with criteria an article should satisfy before being nominated for star status. However, this list is very thin, and thus not very helpful. I therefore took the liberty of creating a list of criteria I think a city article should meet in order to qualify for star status. Hopefully it can be used not only as a bar to star status, but also as a source of inspiration to editors who want to improve an article, but aren't sure where to start. What do you think of the list? Is it too demanding? Is there anything I've missed? Should we adopt anything similar as an official guideline? Or is the list to similar to our article templates to bring anything useful? MartinJacobson (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this places a lot of restrictions on articles. I think the checklist, as it is, is fine. Otherwise we will find ourselves ruling out articles for star status based on bias (e.g. "I think this article ought to include information about this, and if it doesn't we shouldn't nominate the article"). The star article criteria (as opposed to a short checklist) would also make all our star articles similar in their content, etc., and I'm not sure if we want to do that either. The problem with star nominations is that we need more attention paid to them and more places nominated; with a long list of criteria for a star article before it is even nominated, star nominations will become an even more difficult process. We need to be simplifying the process, not making it more complex. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the star nominations need some more attention, and that we should make the nomination process as simple as possible. However, I also believe that a checklist could make the nomination process easier, rather than more difficult. In my experience, giving the detailed kind of feedback needed for a starnom vote is quiet time consuming. I think that this is one of the reasons why people are reluctant to get involved in the starnom. As a voter, I don't want to spend my time assessing an article which is obviously a far way from star status. I want to focus on the details making the article optimal, not on the more obvious gaps which could have been dealt with before the article was nominated. With our current system, most articles go from nomination to feedback to rewrite to new feedback and so on, and making sure that the article don't have any obvious faults before the nomination would, I hope, make the nomination process simpler and not more difficult.
As for biases, I think that our biases is already reflected in our feedback. Creating a checklist could be one way of making them explicit, and perhaps to assess which which requirements are valid and which ones are not. For example, I usually point out if a starnom lacks information about eating out as a vegetarian or vegan. But perhaps the community disagree with me that this is not really a necessary condition for stardom. Hopefully, creating a list would make it easier to see, and come to an agreement on which requirements are valid and which ones aren't. When discussing individual nominations we could put more emphasis on discussing whether the article meets the critera, rather than discussing what the criteria should be. It would bring "rule of law" to starnom.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think that this would help editors trying to get articles to star status. I've improved Uppsala extensively over the last year with a long term goal of it reaching star status, and I surely would have needed a list like this. In particular, it helps you counteract the "what you see is what there is"-cognitive bias. (I.e. it is easy to improve the information which is already in an article, but it very difficult to know what you might have missed mentioning. You can see errors but you can't see gaps.) MartinJacobson (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Flabbergasted that line links to Wikipedia "sights" are not allowed[edit]

I was very surprised (and disappointed today) to become aware of Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia and to see my good-faith edit reverted. Right now I'm in the middle of planning a trip to this destination and many places pointed to in the article - Caroni Swamp, Divali_Nagar, Pitch Lake quite rightly do not have links as they are not destinations, they are sights... things to do.. just like Buckingham Palace would never have a Wikivoyage page.

This in itself is fine. I don't want to be overwhelmed by information on those things here. I don't want to read a paragraph of text why I want to go to a place - I can work that out myself.... but...

... I still want to learn more about these destinations to determine whether I want to go to them during my visit to this destination. Right now, every time I plan a trip, I spend hours searching for these places in a separate tab with Duck duck go, my search engine of choice, and then loading them in other tabs on Wikipedia and reading about them, making notes about which ones I want to go to. It's a rather exhausting experience, but generally I find the information I need to supplement the travel information in Wikivoyage on Wikipedia - behold there are links on Wikipedia if you can find them - w:Caroni Swamp, w:Divali_Nagar, w:Pitch Lake!

Links help connect the web together, so I thought I'd save somebody else an hour of doing all that, by linking to the Wikipedia articles! Now behold they too could learn about them whether the mental burden of searching and finding them and they too could be inspired just like me who's just learned about the w:Scarlet_ibis through Wikipedia and as an avid bird watcher is very excited to see it... I felt great having made that edit. Someone else will hopefully be inspired too! Yay!

Yet moments after doing this, my Echo alerts me and I find my well-intended change reverted because of an unclear "policy" on Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia.

This really disappoints me, and to be honest, doesn't seem in the spirit of a travel guide which should help people learn about the world. Is this interpretation of this page, correct, and if so why on Earth would we not allow links? Rules are great, but they shouldn't get in the way of someone trying to make the travel guide a better place.

I propose that the wording of the "Inline link" section is relaxed to permit links to Wikipedia articles on sights which that do not warrant a Wikivoyage page.

Jdlrobson (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson: changes to policies should be discussed on the policy's talk page, as I've explained to you already. It would be useful to provide on that page, the specific text that you propose to add, delete it modify, to help focus the discussion. You can also review previous discussions on the matter to understand the objections, and focus your arguments. Also, you should not be offended by someone like me reverting your well-intended edits. That is part of working on a collaborative project, and no offence is intended. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand linking in the way you did is tempting, but in fact doing it the VW way serves the traveller. Most WP links were to attractions that should have a listing, and the WP link is allowed in that listing. So keeping to policy means some more work, but ensures the main attractions are mentioned as listings in the proper lowest level articles, which should be the primary place. At least half of the linked attractions are indeed missing. You could link the lower level article from the attractions lists. The w:Caroni Swamp may be a little problematic if the listing is for the nature reserve – I do not know whether we prefer linking anyway or leaving the link out, or whether there is some workaround.
The w:Scarlet ibis is a separate issue. Some types of articles list many animals and plants, which cannot be linked by our current policy. Linking them would make a lot of links, which may distract the reader, and it is easy to paste those names to the Wikipedia tab (is there some elegant way to do that on mobile?), at least if the editor has provided scientific name or in some other way made sure you end up in the right article. I suppose current consensus is such links are more trouble than they are worth, but I can think of workable solutions.
--LPfi (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It is possible to add a WP link to a listing, see for example Shanghai/Pudong#See or Suzhou#Classical_gardens which each have many such links. The little "W" at the end of each listing is the link (& I wonder if there's a better way to show it). So one method that gets more-or-less what you want is to create listings & put links there. The external links page does mention this, but perhaps it need clarification or more emphasis. Pashley (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this is what is throwing me User:Pashley. I'm not quite seeing why this is allowed but not an inline link to the sight. I'd like to help improve this article to whatever is the preferred consistent way of doing this. Starting with inline links seems like a good step. Maybe at some point the whole section needs to be updated to a new style using lists of see templates (??) (but that will take more than time than I had yesterday). User:LPfi could you elaborate what you mean on the "VW way"?
@Ground Zero: I have big concerns with using revert for helpful edits. I could understand reverts for vandalism and for edits that remove content or add useless content, but surely we should be collaborating to make the article the best we can instead? If there are other ways to link to sights, which is a problem we want to solve, we should work in that direction, not throw out the links, which to me seems like a useful first step. Instead of reverting, if I saw such edits, and knew that they were allowed in the "{{See" template, I might guide the editor to change the links to those (or do so myself and ping them). I am very willing to be guided in my editing. I see inconsistency as a big problem with Wikivoyage and I'm keen to help in that way. If you help me work out the best way to solve the problem at hand, I'll put in the effort and I'm sure there are others that would be just as receptive!
I also see that linking is one of the types of edits that are easier during the act of traveling itself. From my phone I can edit and add links to a page but I cannot add templates very easily. In this situation, there must be a practical next step. I would have continued editing that wiki page last night, but the reverting put me off and I can never get that time back.
What is the practical next step? Using `{{see` templates instead of links in this article? That seems like a task that would be made easier if these were already inline links to Wikipedia (with the notion that more work is to be done). - User:Jdlrobson 14:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The proper way to fix this would be to create {{see}} or {{do}} listings with the location of the individual beaches - or enough info that the voyager could find the place without looking this up in the encyclopaedia or on an external website. I don't have time to do this right now as it's the Thanksgiving weekend here and I need to be on the road in an hour, but could take a look this evening if nothing's been done yet. Certainly we want a link style where links to a venue's official site, to Wikipedia or to Wikidata look different from internal links to other Wikivoyage articles, but at the same time we can't afford to put obstacles in the path of Wikipedians coming to edit here if we want to have new users to keep this project viable. Misusing the "rollback" button is a bad idea in these cases, as it doesn't allow the inclusion of a meaningful edit summary, but the underlying issue does look to be fixable. We just need the info on how to find each beach here instead of omitting it or linking off-wiki. K7L (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The first time I removed the external links, I ensured that the valid internal links that Jdlrobson had added were kept, and explained the edits in the comment line. I did not just roll back willy nilly. Furthermore, I provided a link to the policy on their talk page. Despite the policy, Jdlrobson restored the internal links, and tesponded on their talk page questioning the existence of the policy for which I had provided a link. So I reverted the incorrect links, and posted on explanation on the article's talk page here, with a suggestion that if the editor doesn't like the policy, they could propose a change on the policy's talk page, and provided a link to that policy. I have no idea why they decided to start this discussion here. I have tried to work with this editor, but they don't seem to be interested in my help. Had the idea of converting the points of interest to listings occurred to me, I would have mentioned it, but it didn't. Ground Zero (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The reason why we frown on inline links to Wikipedia is because we aim to be as self-contained as possible, rather than farming out our content to other sites. All traveller-relevant information about a particular destination or point of interest should be in the Wikivoyage article itself. Editors who find our coverage deficient are certainly welcome to paraphrase or even copy (with proper attribution per the CC license) information over from Wikipedia to here. Integrating Wikipedia links into our listing template was a somewhat grudging concession to the pro-interwiki link minority, but in terms of information that's not immediately traveller-relevant, the sentiment over here has always been that our readers don't need to be spoon-fed. If they're capable of typing Wikivoyage's URL into their browser and the name of their destination into the search bar, they're certainly capable of doing the same at Wikipedia or whatever other source of information they want to use. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Mapshapes/mapframes in country and continent articles[edit]

Sometimes a poorly-made static map is worse

Do we really want or need those? If so, why? Aren't the static maps in that case unambiguously sufficient? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m unclear on why they were added; community input and consensus were certainly never part of the equation. I say get rid of them. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Any objections? User:Kiaora, would you like to defend these edits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Which articles are in question here? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't type that well right now, as my busted 3rd finger is still healing, so just look at Kiaora's contribution history. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
We did discuss dynamic vs static map criteria in the Wikivoyage:Map policy.
Southeast_Asia is a recent example. The Dynamic Map does look good (and great effort), but I'd agree that it isn't actually required given the existence of the regional static map. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
What about the other country or larger-than-country articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ikan, can you please point me where exactly country maps were discussed? I just can't find it so easily. Is it when we were discussing what type of changes AndreeBot is allowed to perform?
I won't try to defend continent articles, as it's just 7 of them.
In case of country articles. It seems to me, dynamical maps in many cases are very helpful. Check for example Morocco and Denmark (I've chosen those two almost randomly). And in order for static maps to be unambiguously sufficient in those cases, they need to be redrawn. Morocco's article needs a completely new static map. Denmark's static map should at least be supplemented with the items from Other destinations list. So current static maps are not enough there. Do we need two maps on one page? I'd say, it depends on a static map present in an article. For intance, in case of Morocco I'd delete static one, but for Denmark both maps seem to be quite usefull. --Kiaora (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
If the static maps need edits, those should be done. I understand the argument for replacing all district or undistricted city maps with dynamic maps - it's based on the idea that businesses open and close often. No such issue obtains with static maps for larger areas. Unless we're just going to let inertia overwhelm everything. And we're discussing this here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The need for dynamism is key here. The town of Aarhus in Denmark is unlikely to move its geographic location significantly for at least another 10,000 years, so we are safe in maintaining that on a static map, which is faster for web page rendering and easier for printing. Most of the WV community appreciates Dynamic Maps, but they are intended for local areas where listings can change on an annual basis. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Just checking so I don't do the same without realizing the rules: is the standard that continent and country articles only have static maps and not dynamic maps? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:Map#What type of map should be used in an article? It doesn't mention continent-level maps, because I don't think anyone conceived of the idea of a dynamic continent map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless we plan to change our standard, I'd agree based on your provided links that country dynamic maps should go. Dynamic continent maps, especially for somewhere like Asia, would probably be much too distorted to be good maps.
Let me just say that most people who read our travel guides probably don't care much one way or another, but I definitely must say that static maps are a lot more artistic than dynamic maps. One that would help with dynamic maps would be smaller markers, IMO, but that's another issue altogether. For now I think we should stick with our current policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Using the marker template you can display a smaller marker on a dynamic map - whoops I just opened another can of worms. Smaller points can also be accomplished with the maplink template with colors, maki symbols etc. - mmmmm - another foo bar.. Not so for listing templates .. Another 40 paragraph discussion is about to ensue, oh well -- Matroc (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
How about if we delete dynamic maps for countries that have good static maps, and keep dynamic maps for countires with subpar static ones? This way a dynamic map will be used only in cases when it can supplement a static one.
And related topic of discussion: what can be considered a good static map? I'd say, it should at least display all items from Cities and Other destinations.--Kiaora (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I would agree on what a good static map is, but I would disagree that deficiencies in a static map automatically give license to insert a dynamic map. Country borders don't change often enough for a dynamic map to be required. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd say a dynamic map is better than nothing if no static map is available, but otherwise, static maps make more sense for country articles (except maybe very small countries like the Vatican and Monaco). In general the locations of major cities do not change often enough to warrant a dynamic map. I highly doubt New York City is going to move away from the East Coast anytime soon. The dog2 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if the locations don't change, that doesn't stop some silly git from changing the name of Canada's capital Ottawa-Hull, as happened in 2002, or changing the boundaries of a territory, as happened in 1999. K7L (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but in such cases, we could add a dynamic map temporarily, until the static one was updated. This is a wiki. Things can change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Funeral travel[edit]

I've created Funeral travel today, and I have one question and one request:

  • Request: If you know anything about last-minute travel (e.g., how to find cheap flight tickets), please add your advice.
  • Question: Funeral customs vary significantly. For example, #til that wearing red to a funeral is actually a good idea in (parts of?) Africa. I'd like to add a couple of sentences about funerals to country-level articles. For example, in South Africa, we might want to say something like "Funerals are major community events that are attended by all family members, neighbors, and friends, as well as anyone with any connection to the family or community. Businesses may close and lesser events may be postponed until after the funeral is over. If you are attending a funeral, dress respectfully in your best black and red clothes – never anything casual." Would you put that under ==Cope== (because that's mostly where we put religious stuff) or under ==Respect== (because wearing the culturally appropriate colors shows respect)?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say "respect". --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This could be a useful topic, which we all hope we won't need to read. I was going to suggest booking by phone, explaining the situation, in the hope that the airline had sympathy, then I read w:Bereavement flight which says that this is no longer the case.
I would recommend that close family members of the deceased keep all receipts, as there may be some expenses that can be offset against taxes on the estate (death duties are far too complicated a subject to explain for one country, without trying to cover it worldwide!).
I think that the article could give some advice on attending funerals whilst travelling. I am thinking of funerals of casual acquaintances such as somebody staying in the same hostel, or a local that you have got to know. AlasdairW (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Having read your South Africa example fully, I'd actually lean in the direction of "Cope" for that secrion now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing currency[edit]

Countries change their currency from time to time. I have the impression that this is more frequent lately, one prominent example being UK £ (GBP). I've added a few lines under UK / Buy / Money on the new banknote styles, and what to do if you're stuck with old notes. Plus a cross-ref under London / Get in / by plane since that's the main portal of entry, and where folk may be relying on an old stash to get them into town. Georgia and Belarus are a couple more that I've recently stumbled over, and will likewise update. So I make a general request for something similar, for any other changeover country that you may become aware of.

A related point is that when we describe an exchange kiosk's rates - often as "poor" - it helps to put a number on this. A good measure (not subject to daily fluctuation) is the spread, ie the % difference between "buy" and "sell" for major currencies. The traveller can then better judge if the "poor" rate is offset by the convenience of getting money in hand. Grahamsands (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Further evidence that the UK is going you-know-where in a handbasket. Twice now I've been caught with "expired" currency while visiting the UK. I expect that in tin-pot dictatorships, but in a supposedly modern country? Okay, rant over. Ground Zero (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, in Nicaragua they did replace the currency since my last visit (introducing for the first time since the last round of "cutting of zeros" a 1000 Cordoba note, which is a bit over 30 USD) but the old and the new series circulate at par and the old series will likely be withdrawn as it is torn to shreds due to having used a polymer susceptible to that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The UK changes banknotes about once every 15-20 years. What is different about the current change to polymer notes is that there is a much shorter overlap period between introducing the new notes and withdrawing the old. The paper £10 note was withdrawn about 6 months after the polymer one was issued, but the previous change of £10 had nearly 3 years overlap, see w:Banknotes of the pound sterling. If you have any expired UK notes, you can change small amounts at a any bank branch, and deposit larger amounts in an account, in addition to the formal offer to change anytime at the Bank of England. AlasdairW (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The "unelected Eurocrats" who decided to introduce a second series of € banknotes also decided that a) it would be one note per year (i.e. the 5€ were introduced, the year after that the 10€ and so on) and b) the old ones would (for now) remain legal tender. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Canadian paper notes have been replaced by polymer, but the old ones don't expire. Once they hit a bank, they are pulled from circulation. I took less that six months for them to disappear from general use. The government has proposed making the $1, $2 and $1000 bills not legal tender, but they were last issued in 1987, 1996 and 2000, respectively. Ground Zero (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This is definitely useful information. Sweden and Norway have recently redesigned their currency, I think Norway is still halfway in the process with some denominations already renewed and some yet to be launched. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
All countries need to occasionally renew their currency, to avoid the people from noticing how governments and banks rob value out of their pockets through the inflation mechanism. The higher inflation, the more frequent the need for currency renewal (or "cutting off zeroes"). 10:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Finland did cut zeroes 1963, but that did not force us to invalidate old money (new 1 penni coins would look like the former 1 mk, and likewise new 1 mk banknotes would replace the former 100 mk ones). Any money ever released (since the markka was introduced in the 19th century, replacing Swedish and Russian money) was legal tender into the 1990s. Of course no one would use a 19th century coin or banknote, but you were allowed to (and the Jokioinen museum railroad did give change in obsolete but still valid banknotes from the 1970s). --LPfi (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Renaming a redirect[edit]

I would like to rename the redirect "OV-Chipkaart" to "OV-chipkaart" as the "c" should be lower case. (There is consensus on the spelling.) I would rather link via [[OV-chipkaart]] instead of [[OV-Chipkaart|OV-chipkaart]]; however, [[OV-chipkaart]] (OV-chipkaart) does not work due to case sensitivity. So, how should I solve this problem? Should I create a new redirect called OV-chipkaart, or should I rename ("move") OV-Chipkaart to OV-chipkaart? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe that there is consensus on the correct spelling, but not on replacing one redirect with another. There are a few pages that use the current redirect, which you would have to change to link to the new redirect. What is keeping us from having both OV-Chipkaart and OV-chipkaart as a redirect to the same target? I'll go ahead and redirect the latter since there is indeed consensus on that. Deletion of the original redirect can always come later if warranted.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Augsburg[edit]

Have a look at the last couple of edits to Augsburg. They seem to be by somebody who wants to make Augsburg look as positively as possible. Should we correct some of that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Have looked through at least 15 of the most recent edits, and don't really know what you mean. Are you suggesting the user is touting? If so, why not try to talk to them, either on their personal talk page or the article's talk page? Talking to people, rather than about them, is usually a better way of resolving an issue :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say to them. Which is why I did not mark the edits in question as patrolled and raised the issue here, after I came to the conclusion nobody else had taken a look at them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I did notice the edits to Augsburg some days ago, and found some of these edits weird, as they were basically chopping off sentences. I tried to ask the user on their talk page if they were aware what they were accomplishing but got no reply. They haven't edited since Friday night. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
These edits don't look unusual to me, merely a novice user trying their best to contribute. That aside, doesn't everyone try to make their city look as positively as possible? 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I created an itinerary in a rural region in my userspace[edit]

I created this today after hiking the trail yesterday. Please have a look and tell me what it needs before getting to mainspace or whether there are general reasons for it not being fit for mainspace... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a real/official hiking trail, so sure, it can be moved into mainspace. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Would you say something major is missing/unclear? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Not that I can see. However, a couple pictures would be good, along with a few minor corrections which I can do now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As this seems to be a hiking route along roads, I'd wonder about what the roads are like. Are they small roads you share with the cars, which will slow down on meeting you, are they passing by in 80 km/h while you have a half a metre stripe for yourself (if that), or is there a dedicated trail away from the road – or something else? Is the route marked? Are the breweries easy to find in the villages? --LPfi (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The trail is partly through the woods on trails that you will not share with any kind of motorized traffic (apart from maybe forestry related stuff), crosses some roads, some of them not that minor and also makes use of village roads, which are paved and either so calm as to not need sidewalks or equipped with sidewalks. The trail is marked with either the "Fünf Seidla Steig" logo (which contains those words) or as part of the longer "Frankenweg". The breweries are in most cases near the center of the towns or serve as a village center of sorts, but yes, there could be more information on that in the article. In general, if the weather is good and it is a holiday or weekend, there'll be plenty of other people hiking that same trail and the locals will obviously know where the brewpubs are. The website also provides the GPS track for download as well as maps. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

New currency symbol Ukraine[edit]

How can we add a new currency symbol (грн) for Ukraine (see discussion) in the list that appears underneath the editor window? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done (it can be edited at MediaWiki:Edittools btw) sumone10154(talk) 23:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
👍 Ceever (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Traveling with ADHD[edit]

I had an idea to write an article about traveling with ADHD, but I quickly ran out of ideas. Could someone help me out, maybe adding onto what I have so far? Vulcandor (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

9/11 tourism?[edit]

Isn't this new article in very poor taste? 9/11 tourism

Museums and memorials do exist in the location articles of the attacks already. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm of two minds. I hear what you're saying, but is it really in poorer taste than, for example, the article on Nazi German architecture that's being advocated for on the Tourist Office? Or, in the realm of already existing articles, the one on the Atlantic slave trade? I suppose the ultimate answer would be that it depends on how the topic is handled, and the article isn't yet well-developed enough to make that determination. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's good to have articles on travelling to sites where you can learn about large-scale tragedies and pay respects to their victims. I think our best-developed article of this kind is Holocaust remembrance. But calling it "9/11 tourism" does seem quite strange and in poor taste to me. Would we have an article called "Holocaust tourism"? Maybe 9/11 remembrance would be better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, 9/11 remembrance does sound better. Sorry if I offended anyone. Vulcandor (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was actually commenting on the article title with the word 'tourism' (for which there was no content at the time). It was more concerned with the depiction of tourists heading to sites of recent atrocities for selfies. Visiting memorials is however a reasonable activity to have on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Not enthusiastic about this. Agree with the above comments on the validity of remembrance articles but this one is just a list of destinations. Having stood at the base of twin towers site and seen so many insensitive people smiling, joking and taking selfies amongst a few people clearly moved and remembering a tragic and emotional event I tend to look at this as being in bad taste at this point. It is too fresh in peoples minds, not a historical article. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I support changing it to 9/11 remembrance. Next year, people born after 9/11 will turn 18, so I don't agree that it is too soon. I've seen people talking happy-smiley selfies at Auschwitz, but that isn't a good reason for omitting it from our travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed the title, since even the article's creator seems to support that. But I admit I'm not sure there's enough to write about this topic for a separate article to make sense. Unlike the Holocaust or the Atlantic slave trade, there aren't that many places to visit related to this topic. Maybe it would be better as a subsection of Postwar United States. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a global guide, and there was another tremendous act of terrorism on a Sept. 11, in 1973. I actually think deleting this topic would be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the deletion suggestion. There's topics on the WWI and WWII which have affected far more people across many more countries and those articles are there. Getting back on topic, I was wondering if I could add Gander, Newfoundland which hosted many stranded flyers when US closed its airspace (and the subject of the Broadway musical). OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be best to delete. Expanded, the most the article could hope for is an unsourced summary of the Wikipedia article and a handful of fairly obvious listings. ARR8 (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, if you disagree with deletion, I think you need to support including remembrance of the Sept. 11, 1973 Chilean coup d'etat. Again, this site is a worldwide guide; it isn't a U.S. guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: as you are our resident New Yorker, I'd like know why you think this article should be deleted. I think you must have better reasons than the lack of an article about the Chilean coup. If there are sites related to that event that could be assembled into an article, I'd be in favour of it. Ground Zero (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I guess you're right, though I would point out that many people initially thought the attacks in 2001 could be revenge by Chileans, considering that the CIA had its hands all over the 1973 coup, so I would maintain my point about the significance of the date in Chile as well as the U.S. But I'll admit that I resent people going to the ugly hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be for tourism. I've seen it once, and in no way did its being a fountain save it for me. The only thing that saved it somewhat for me and my girlfriend is that it's an absolute delight for pigeons, who love to ride the ripples on its top, but I went only because we were somehow in the area (I forgot why). The pigeons were a living presence in what otherwise felt like a huge dead zone where there used to be a building whose interior I still have a mental picture of. I normally go to that area only to shop at Century 21. I also feel strongly that even people who try to learn a lesson from visiting sites damaged or destroyed in those terrorist atrocities are learning the wrong lessons, because focusing only on those acts of terrorism ignores what the G.W. Bush Administration did to exploit them, including the tremendously larger number of civilian deaths due to his act of aggression against Iraq, which I considered a huge act of terrorism, and the stupidity of the attempt at a long-term occupation of Afghanistan, in league with corrupt drug lords and election-thieves. And I have also never forgiven G.W. Bush for refusing to pay any attention to any of the warnings before the atrocities in the first place, and then demoting or firing the warners and promoting and decorating the ignorers. I'm sorry to bring in politics, but these attacks were deeply traumatizing for New Yorkers, and many of us don't appreciate anything about the way many visitors choose to "remember" them and would rather they do something else for tourism. Maybe you're sorry you asked now, and you'd get x different views from x different New Yorkers, but for better or worse, I've said my piece. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ARR8 raises a good point about the article possibly being too narrow in scope. 9/11 was no doubt important, but only a single event in the global War on Terror. It's like having an article on the Battle of Gettysburg or the attack on Pearl Harbor. A broader terror attacks remembrance page would be better in theory but 1. unlike WWII and the Cold War, the War on Terror is ongoing and most relevant destinations are unsafe for travel and 2. nearly every big city in the world has been struck by terrorist attacks in the last two decades. It just might be too early to have a travel topic on it. Gizza (roam) 08:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the title "War on Terror" would give rise to political arguments, because ever since 9/11/01, the U.S. government has claimed that every hostile act they've taken, including the aggression against Iraq, was part of the "Global War on Terrorism". I oppose such an article. And if we instead called it "terrorism remembrance", would it include remembering nationalist or religious terrorists as heroes, which many monuments and countries do? Nope, no way is that a good topic, and it's also more than a little ghoulish to have lists of sites of atrocities for people to visit just because they're sites of atrocities. We do that for the Holocaust, but that's because the death camps were specifically established as factories of death. The World Trade Center, the Bataclan club, the school in Beslan, hotels and pizza parlors in Jerusalem and Netanya - these are or were ordinary places where people went to work, party, study, eat or sleep. Do we really want to encourage people to gawk at everyplace just because it's been attacked? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
VFD discussion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons, again...[edit]

It's happening again... Commons is arbitrarily deleting valid copyleft media which is in active use here. The latest is this image (CC-BY-SA) of historic commemorations at the Mary Meachum freedom crossing on the Mississippi River in St. Louis, which appeared in a recent featured travel topic on the Underground Railroad. I raised the issue at commons:User talk:Jcb#Three re-enactors at Mary Meachum Freedom Crossing by Lynn DeLearie.jpg and received no reply. (The admin in question appears to have been de-opped in the past for questionable deletions, but was reinstated for some reason.)

I've long felt uncomfortable about a policy forcing Wikivoyagers to upload content (be it images, map traces, co-ordinates, Wikidata, whatever...) to another wiki for a number of reasons. Scattering content across three different projects (WV, Wikidata, Commons) makes it more difficult for new or inexperienced users to contribute or maintain existing content. Add to this the ongoing issues with content deletions on the external wiki breaking things on this wiki, and the harm done more than outweighs the very marginal benefit of being able to re-use content a bit more readily across multiple language versions.

Commons needs to make substantial changes to its deletion policy for items in active use in individual projects to notify those communities before items are deleted. The need to give them the chance to move the items local (if they're under valid copyleft, in this case CC-BY-SA) or bring them under EDP (if they're public art or architecture which is "fair use" here but not there). Unless and until they do so, the common repository does not serve our needs and is causing us to lose valid content in a manner which does not serve the voyager.

Currently, Wikivoyage:Upload file says "Go to Wikimedia Commons' Upload Wizard to contribute your freely-licensed media. If your file meets one of the exceptions set out in the exemption doctrine policy for non-free content, you can upload it locally to this wiki. Please do not upload free files locally, as they will be deleted."

I would like to propose that we scrap this policy as it is harming the project. If something is actively in use here, users should be permitted to upload it here. K7L (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone who alreday transfered more than 2000 photos from Commons to Russian Wikivoyage, I wholeheartedly support this proposal. --Alexander (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There is in fact a deletion notification system, but we have not tried it out yet. --Alexander (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a serious shortcoming of Commons, but I'd still say they are doing a vary valuable job, and having to police the files ourselves would be a major undertaking, and not uploading to Commons would mean our images would not be available to the other projects w, ru-wv etc. other than by first finding the image here and then reuploading at Commons (or locally, repeated for every project). A big hassle. --LPfi (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like that deletion notification system would not have been helpful in this instance, as it only addresses cases where this has gone through some sort of due process (a vote for deletion or speedy deletion). The problems arise when someone arbitrarily tags an image with a template claiming that the permission information is incorrectly formatted or missing; this is usually done without any attempt to determine the actual copyright status of the image. If there's any notification given at all, it's merely posted to the talk page of some random Commons user (in this case, a n00b who uploaded this from Flickr in 2016) where it will never be seen; no notification is given to the project(s) actually using the image. Once the tag is present, the image is fair game for deletion with no further process or safeguard. Sadly, there's nothing new in this sort of thing... I remember Wikipedia was already this dysfunctional in 2006: some random Wikiproject posts a request for an image, a user shoots and uploads it with plain-text description "I took this photo twenty minutes ago, do what you want with it. I don't care.", a robot script tags it as "missing machine-readable permissions" and another robot script (impersonating a human admin, although these scripts were openly available on at the time) then merrily deletes it. To add insult to injury, once it's been deleted, we also lose all of the description and metadata needed to find the original source and status of the image, or even to determine why it was deleted. All that's left is a misleading one-line note like " ‎CommonsDelinker‎ (Removing Three_re-enactors_at_Mary_Meachum_Freedom_Crossing_by_Lynn_DeLearie.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: [[:c:COM:OTRS|No permiss)" which actually throws us off the trail as what happened has nothing to do with OTRS (open ticket reporting system: a "support ticket" system for handling e-mail to info@... or support@... addresses which is not open or public - which appears as a red herring to eliminate any transparency from the process).
Clearly the intention is not to produce an encyclopaedia or a travel guide, it's to create a pile of images which can be harvested by automated means for commercial reuse for purposes which have nothing to do with the original project. In the eyes of Wikimedia Commons, we do not matter because we are not the client. While the creation of a "deletion notification system" is an initiative which was long overdue, at this point I'd suggest that the onus is on the WikiCommons community to establish that this is addressing any of the problems. The need to track the removal of valid images from our articles because of Commons shenanigans is now a bigger hassle than hosting them locally, so giving users the option of uploading locally is the lesser of two evils. K7L (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The OTRS link is not a red herring: Writing to those e-mail messages is how photographers (or other copyright holders) can prove that they own images. (This is often done by revealing personal information that one would rather not have published on the internet. Consequently, e-mail is the appropriate communication medium.) If you are in a legal position to solve the problem of "no permission", then that link tells you how to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The OTRS link is a red herring in the way it was used in the edit summary for this specific deletion. An edit summary of "it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: [[:c:COM:OTRS|No permiss)" is misleading if the motive for this deletion had nothing to do with OTRS and there is nothing in OTRS relevant to this case. Basically, it misleads the reader into believing that there was some legit reason to delete the image, but the admin is magically released from any obligation to reveal that reason because it's concealed deep within the star chamber of OTRS. The CC-BY-SA flag was posted openly, on the original image, on Flickr. Being sent on a wild goose chase into OTRS serves only to throw anyone questioning what's happened off the trail, which is not nice and certainly not helpful. K7L (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This makes no sense. There is exactly one method of resolving the problem of "no permission", and that method is to send e-mail to the OTRS system. How could you possibly get from the fact that the OTRS page has the instructions on how to resolve the stated problem to a belief that "there is nothing in OTRS relevant"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It's one method of solving "no permission" problems, but not the only one. I think K7L's point is that in this case, there was a straightforward way to solve the problem that didn't involve OTRS. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
LPfi, ru-wv will certainly not bother about it. If there is a good image, I can afford spending one minute on transferring it to another project. That's considerably less time than what you need for finding any suitable image on Commons. --Alexander (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we should get the deletion notification bot set up.
Also, could we maybe just talk about this subject like it's not the end of the world? K7L "received no reply"... or at least no reply within the first 12 hours. Are we on such a tight deadline that can't wait at least a whole day for responses? The file was, in fact, incorrectly labeled, but when asked (and when it was a reasonable hour in his timezone), the Commons admin promptly restored the image and fixed the tag. Asking for help was IMO a good idea. Complaining that a volunteer didn't reply within hours, and that this failure to be instantly available at all hours should result in dramatic changes to our structure, in ways that disadvantage all of the smaller Wikivoyages, is unfair. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time these issues have come up. I would not have proposed a policy change here were this an isolated incident. We've had problems with Commons before, including one incident where they were demanding deletion of (lat, long) data just because it was sourced from the (copyleft) OpenStreetMap project. It's not even the first time that images have been removed from this one itinerary, Underground Railroad, because of Commons issues. K7L (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
On the face of it, hosting all images here seems too drastic a solution, and one that would bring problems, too. What's the total number of files that we've been using here that were erroneously deleted from Commons? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
We should enable the deletion notification bot. I do find that commons can be a bit quick to delete files, and a couple of my uploads have been deleted. However I expect that the commons admins are severely overstretched, and a quick look at some of the recent uploads shows the massive problem of non-free files being uploaded. Many of the photos which we use have been taken by people who don't edit here. We do already upload the main page banners locally, and I would agree with uploading any other small set of significant images, but not doing so generally. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure if it was K7L's original intention or not, but I think the idea is to allow more local uploads whenever editors prefer to keep files locally. It's not about storing all photos here, but about additional flexibility that the community should use.

It is true that the current situation with the single file restored after some hours was not dramatic, but as the organizer of Wiki Loves Monuments in Russia I have to deal with thousands of photos and with similar deletion issues on a much larger scale. It is a pain, and it is a pain only because the Commons community does not see themselves as an image repository for Wikimedia projects. They treat their project as a unique collection of free images (whatever "free" means in their definition), and it is their choice, but then I don't see why we should deem Commons a unique image repository for our projects. It's nothing else than a place to store photos, just like Flickr, but Flickr gives you a lot more flexibility regarding tags, attributions, and licenses. I don't see why good photographers would upload their works to Commons instead of Flickr, and in fact they don't.

Finally, we should always remember one fantastic deletion request, where a dozen of experienced Commons users was doing all kinds of stupid things, including the point-by-point analysis of geo-coordinates, instead of familiarizing themselves with details of the OSM license policy. It is a very good example of how weird the Commons community is, and why it is often safer to store files locally. --Alexander (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that idea. We should encourage local uploads, but not force anyone to upload pictures here or move thousands of pictures from one wiki to another. When fairly recently I wanted to upload some pictures I took to Wikivoyage, I was disappointed to find that you weren't allowed to do that. I'd support a change for that reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I would oppose changing the current policy. If an image can go on Commons, it should. Allowing discretion here would only hurt smaller projects, and the problem it's meant to solve is one stemming from poor communication with Commons. ARR8 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Whatever else we do, it seems to me that enabling the deletion notification bot is a good step. I see some support for that—does anyone object?
I've also started a discussion at Meta to see if the bot will tell us when a "No permission since" tag is added to an image. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the abuse of "no permission since" should be ended. I think its intended use was on new uploads, where a grace period of a week is reasonable: either the uploader is still around and sees the change, or is away not necessarily ever to return. With old uploads it is just ridiculous: who but the active Commons users will check their watchlist every week? The problem is made worse by the practice K7L describes.
I think the description is a bit exaggerated, but yes, people do mark files as missing permission when the permission in fact is there, but not formatted according to current practice (which may have been introduced long after the upload), sometimes in a language the editor does not know. Then the busy admin comes along and does not see as his or her duty to really check – if no permission is found (again, perhaps due to inadequate language skills) or there is not clear evidence of a claimed permission (perhaps due to link rot) the file is gone, and if not in use nobody will know – I doubt anybody is checking deleted files systematically.
I think such hasty deletions are against the policies, and you can usually revert them if you argue your points, but the admins (and the original template adder - a pun?) will get away with it, partly because the paths to seriously question an admins manners is convoluted, partly because they do an immense work, deleting thousands of real copyvios, adding categories to newby uploads and maintaining the collection in other ways.
--LPfi (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Visual editor[edit]

A user is wondering how to add listings in the mobile visual editor at Wikivoyage talk:How to edit a page. Just thought that bringing some attention to their requests would be a good idea. I'll also post this to the Requests for comment page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The mobile visual editor is very limited at the moment. It can make links and add bold and italic character formatting. On the Wikipedias, it can add citations.
If you happen to know the magic code, then you can type {{ where you want the listing to start, then you'll be able to insert a template. (All listings are templates.) But there is no toolbar support for that (or for making bulleted lists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)