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 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


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

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

Probably the 2013 spike came from Wikimedians, who might have been interested in WV primarily as a new sister, while those who now found WV might be more interested in the subject matter. A curious thing: the fraction coming via a search engine fell drastically that month (so they came via other links), but the rank persisted after that effect was gone. Is this due to some technicality at Alexa? Another thing that puzzles me is that we share audience with wikitravel (more so than with lonelyplanet, tripadvisor & co). Does that mean Wikitravel users actually are aware of us? --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am quite new here and I found Wikitravel before finding Wikivoyage. I actually found Wikivoyage after clicking on a Wikitravel editor's profile page and saw that they had said that they moved to Wikivoyage and I decided to check it out. I now prefer this over Wikitravel as it is obviously more kept up to date. However, I would say that most Wikitravel users are not aware of Wikivoyage because I had used (not edited until about two months ago) Wikitravel for probably two or three years with no knowledge of Wikivoyage. BrysonH44 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
This is brilliant news! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikitravel seems to have shifted to slower servers, as there is visible loading time for their images. I haven't seen that for years; at least not on a website which intends to be market leading. Their travellers' pub is mostly a charade between a few administrators, struggling not to mention the elephant in the room (Wikivoyage). /Yvwv (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
May is the critical month for us as Alexa uses a 90 day timeframe to measure the popularity of a website. We are still doing better than 2013 because 1) more editors have stayed on post edit-a-thon, 2) more original content was created, which is helps with the SEO and 3) the site itself is much more appealing with higher quality banners, adding a current events destination on the main page, adding dates to listings, removing poorly written and touty language and so on. Gizza (roam) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage's Alexa ranking is now in freefall. The second honeymoon is well and truly over. While the edit-a-thon was still very beneficial, we should think about ways to improve a similar event in the future so that more readers and editors stick around in the long run. Unfortunately, a huge chunk of the increase in views in the month of February were just people going to the edit-a-thon page (2.7 million of them) and not exploring Wikivoyage any further. The main page would be a better starting point for readers and potential editors in terms of exploring the site but as stated earlier, the mobile version for the main page is not well designed. Gizza (roam) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment at #Mobile above if you want to see the main page for mobile re-designed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The good news is that some of that decline can be attributed to the seasonal nature of the way our page views fluctuate, and that the overall trend is still up. March 2018's page view numbers were at 2.7M readers vs. 2.6M in March 2017; April 2018's were at 2.5M vs. 2.2M for April 2017; May 2018's projected number of 1.9M views is similarly a solid improvement over 1.7M in May '17. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Despite the fall, things are actually looking quite good now with our Alexa rank. Since January 2018, the rank hasn't fallen as much as it went up and the Alexa trend is now returning to an upward direction now. Hopefully we can soon overtake Wikitravel's rank, which seems to have a steady downward trend. Selfie City (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it drew a lot of attention from the banner across different projects. It may not get as much attention in the next one (unless we're thinking about the 10th anniversary edit-a-thon). I agree that it should be held more frequently. Maybe once a year for one month? My first impression when I noticed the edit-a-thon was that it was slow at the beginning because not a lot of people were listing out what they were working on, which gave an impression that it wasn't well received or that not many people were participating in it (or many signed up but their entries were blank). The more people sign up and list out which article they improved, the more attention it draws. Perhaps someone reading the list will click on the link that they're familiar about and realize that some items were not mentioned and they decide to add that in.
I also thought about what held editors back. Having the extra click definitely stopped some from finding out how many people are participating. Maybe the 4000 bytes requirement was too steep (or new users don't know how to count 4000 bytes)? Maybe the initial requirements for 4 article improvements to qualify for a barnstar was too high? Maybe the changing deadline confused editors? Or perhaps restricting the latest sign-up date discourage some from participating?
So how can we do better? Entice them by showing how the barnstar looks like. Perhaps create special category awards like an award for the individual creating the most Africa content, one for microstates (and I would probably win this one with all the Andorra pages lol), one for most capital cities in the world, one for best picture/banner uploaded, one for non-destination articles (e.g. Rail travel in Great Britain or Round the world flights) or something else. A better tracking is also needed. It took me a long time to manually follow every editor that signed up and verify if the contribution reached 4000 requirement (and whether they forgot to list some that would qualify). WMF created a dashboard tool for education and events. The tool allows finer tracking and more statistics. It also tells you whether the editor stayed around and contribute after the edit-a-thon. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE, verify the GPS coordinates when copying Wikidata information![edit]

Dear all, please, I beg you to really put some additional effort into verifying (OpenStreetMap, Google Maps) that the GPS information copied from Wikidata is correct.

I see many listings being updated with the Wikidata code and consequently the GPS information being copied into Wikivoyage. E.g.

However, the GPS information on Wikidata, IMHO, is far from correct and of rather low quality. I actually trust Wikivoyage more to have more accurate GPS information. The problem is not using Wikidata, which in the future might correct the false GPS information. The sad thing is that we are deleting high quality information from Wikivoyage this way, instead of spreading it.

Therefore, in case you find the Wikidata GPS information to be incorrect, please head over to the relevant item and correct the GPS coordinates on Wikidata using "English Wikivoyage" as a reference.

Please, help to keep up the good data quality on Wikivoyage.

Many thanks, Ceever (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that it is unfortunate that the listing editor only gives the option of updating all the fields using the Wikidata values, not just the empty ones. With large venues Wikivoyage may deliberately have different co-ordinates from Wikipedia - We may want to show where the entrance or ticket office is, and WP may want to show somewhere in the centre of the site. AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AlasdairW. Is it possible to change the listing editor so that the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" button will only update empty fields? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Btw, the marker/listing templates now do exactly this (automagically adds location/images from wikidata, if specified; doesn't override)... If we added also wikipedia/url autofetching, the 'update from wikidata' button would become obsolete. (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC), would it be technologically feasible to have a single click update button for Wikidata? I've made it a habit to fill in the Wikidata field of any attraction I add or edit, and noticed a lot of Wikidata records indeed have inaccurate coordinate information. I believe it wouldn't be a bad idea if the data flow could be bidirectional. ArticCynda (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess anything is possible in the end, but I'm not sure wikidatians would like WV "autooverriding" their database. Who's to say WV coords are better than the ones imported from WP? I guess if we don't like the WD coords and they are somewhat correct (aka - are better the coords of center of the building, or of its entrance?), we should simply override in WV. Otherwise I'm sure WP:WV edit wars will ensue :) If the WD coords are completely off, like in this case, we should fix WD - it would also help fellows from DE/FR/... WV branches. (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Non-overriding updates would be a good place to start.
In the fairly rare case of desired differences (e.g., venue center vs entrance), I think that Wikidata can support multiple values, with qualifiers and rankings to identify why there are more than one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
An extreme example is w:Caledonian Canal which runs for 60 miles from Fort Augustus to the outskirts of Fort William, and has listings in both, with the lat/longs being good locations to see the canal if you are in that town. The WD lat/long is 5 miles from Fort August. (The Fort William listing could be changed to be specific to a set of locks there.) AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This doesn't surprise me at all. When Wikidata was introduced it was noted that this type of thing could happen very easilty because of multiple input sources and appears to prove Wikidata to be a tiny bit less reliable than one would have hoped. Double checking would be a good practise to follow. -- Matroc (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
And it gives credence to my earlier warning to be wary of too much integration with, and ceding too much control over our content to, an unrelated WMF project that doesn't necessarily share (or even have much familiarity with) our goals. I recently had to remove several Wikidata values from the Buffalo article because it made no sense to associate a specific set of geo coordinates to (in two cases) a local restaurant chain with multiple locations and (in the remaining case) an annual event whose venue changes every year. Until these issues get ironed out, I propose a moratorium on any further addition of Wikidata values to local listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think stopping adding is a little rash, but checking before changing and after adding I totally agree with. Even better fix the wikidata, which I have done a number of times. Particularly when totally wrong. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
👍 Ceever (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Доверяй, но проверяй --Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as advocating a moratorium on adding Wikidata links, but would rather propose we make an effort to correct Wikidata in the process where necessary. That way, both WMF projects enjoy the benefits. ArticCynda (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I can tell you people one thing; the coordinates given for Wildwood State Park in Wading River, New York are way off the coast of Long Island Sound(,-72.8107658/41,-72.8/@40.9672569,-72.9050227,11250m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2?hl=en ), instead of the correct location, which should show up on that google map. ----DanTD (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Takes only a few seconds to correct, so I did! ArticCynda (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
👍 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
One caveat to this: I've noticed that Google Maps gives me the GPS coordinates of the centre of the map instead of the GPS coordinates of the pointer that I searched for. I've had to move the location slightly off the map and then search for it in order to get even semi-reliable numbers that way. --Robkelk (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata - like Wikivoyage - is a wiki. If you see something wrong, fix it! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Category:Articles Geo different to Wikidata, regions not important but there a a good number of cities were either Wikidata coordinate is wrong or the Geo entry on Wikivoyage is wrong, or a little bit off. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I had to manually update just about every single set of GPS coordinates (Not a long list) I got from Wikidata and Wikipedia's sets - sometimes the difference was a matter of blocks, sometimes the difference was a bit more than that. I will see if I can poke my nose into the source to see if I can help there. L. Challenger (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is to change how {{ambox}} templates are displayed. I posted a list of templates using the {{ambox}} base at mw:Topic:Ughilsroamjr53ld; mostly, it's {{translate}} and {{style}}. They're currently not displayed on Mobile Web, and they might be afterwards. I don't think this project will have a significant effect here. I think it's designed for the big Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I am having issues creating pages on mobIle, the usual "create page" option isn't available from the search bar and linking to a non-existent page doesn't give the potion either. I can't even post a new topic in the pub. Please forgive me if this is a PEBKAC error, I've been traveling a year without a phone and have been editing in Internet cafes. - unsigned comment by User:
I don't know how to solve that problem, but I created Jyrgalan so that you can work on that article in the meantime. Thank you for your updates to Karakol. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

European copyright law changes[edit]

At least to me, both the organisation whose site this on (EFF) and the writer (Cory Doctorow) are highly credible.

Will this affect us & if so, how? Is it something we need to worry about or can that be left to WMF? Pashley (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Pashley, I think it's more of an issue for Wikipedia than us, although it could still be a problem: basically, it'll create more problems with external links. Selfie City (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The other problem is false positives of copyvio detection. Every now and then the wording you use would be blocked. I think how to handle this technically can largely be left to WMF (checking how the solutions work for us), but politically, I urge every EU citizen to try to do something to stop it. --LPfi (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it also prevent reuse and redistribution of our content (which is permitted and encouraged under copyleft), or worse potentially have our own content flagged as infringing the copyright of a mirror? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead of setting up such copyrighted material databases and checking all uploaded content against it, I propose to simply move all the WMF servers to Switzerland. It may be a bit more work, and incur a higher cost intitially, but it's a better long term solution to the problem. ArticCynda (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't help. The proposed legislation does not affect USA directly, but it probably affects Switzerland (I do not know the details of the agreements between it and EU). Moving servers has been proposed many times, but every jurisdiction has its own problems. Reusing WV content would not be directly affected, as it is licensed as required, but would be affected by copyfraud and other false positives. The reverse problem could probably be solved by whitelisting existing content (including history not reverted as copyvio). --LPfi (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Switzerland doesn't follow EU copyright law (see Copyright law of Switzerland) since it's not part of the EU. Switzerland is also de facto immune to mass surveillance (unlike EU or USA) so I think it's a superior location for the WMF servers than the current situation. ArticCynda (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any mention in the linked article that Switzerland does not implement the EU copyright directive, or is not mandated to implement the possible changes. Switzerland is not part of EU, but it has a relation to EU resembling that of Norway & co (which belong to EEA). Is copyright exempted from the areas of coordination? --LPfi (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
May I suggest the topic about whether the WMF can move servers is best handled elsewhere (i.e. somewhere on Meta)? There is nothing we on Wikivoyage can do about which country our servers are hosted in, but we can try to establish what exactly the effects of the new law will be on our work and discuss how we're going to respond. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Update: As I understand it (from chatter at some of the other wikis), the vote didn't pass, which means that the legislation will be properly debated in the usual parliamentary style, and the real vote will take place later in the year. Also, I'm hearing that some parts of this proposed law are desirable changes (e.g., clarifications to the existing copyright laws). It's just Articles 11 and 13 that seem to have people upset. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
That is right. To be clear this would affect Wikivoyage *more* than Wikipedia. Anything added to either (as text, image, map) is potentially in violation of copyright, so would be required to be monitored to delete copyvios, but there is an exemption for "online encyclopedia" which would possibly allow Wikipedia a get out, but not Wikivoyage, or Wiki Commons, etc. JimKillock (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Maps presentation[edit]

The monthly metrics presentation is going on right now: The first presentation (after some quick notes) is about the map internationalization project. This is the result of six months of dev work that basically happened because the Wikivoyage core community banded together to make it #1 for the m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What apps do you recommend using to load our GPX files?[edit]

So far I've only tried the app GPX Viewer (for android) and I wasn't impressed -

  • it shows all the POIs in one color (while on the mapframe window at our site the POIs have different colors for each category).
  • It doesn't show the city/region boundries which are shown on our articles using the template template:mapshape
  • It doesn't show metro lines or other route lines which are shown on our articles using the template template:mapshapes

Am I missing something? do you actually prefer using the maps in our articles over GPX files when you are on the go? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

CC the main two users whom have worked on the template Template:GPX indicator so far: Andyrom75, WOSlinker, RolandUnger
ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Usually, Gpx files do not contain colors but only waypoint and track positions. A waypoint can contain a description and a comment.
To store more information Gpx extensions are needed. At Wikivoyage/de we additionally use the Garmin extension to store phone numbers etc. Apps like Locus and Openandromaps use additional extensions.
Waypoints and tracks are obtained from the article itself. Boundaries and other geographic objects are not part of the articles and must be obtained from the Foundation's map servers and converted from GeoJSON to Gpx.
If I have some time, I will extend our Gpx tools in future, but it is a huge task because I have to become acquainted with Gpx. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
RolandUnger, thank you for the answer. From your answer I understand that our readers would most likely get most benefit from using the mapframe maps in our articles instead of the GPX files if they need to use either of them on-the-go (unless they just want to put a bunch of POIs in the old Garmin GPS. By the way, which GPX app do you recommend using ? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Osmand+ seems to work pretty well in terms of displaying POIs exported from an article, it even uses thesame colors as wikivoyage. I've been using it for years for offline navigation and I'm pretty happy with it. It costs a few bucks in the play store but the full version is also available for free from fdroid. --El Grafo (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am not able to recommend an app. The main problem is that many apps behave in a different manner and use a set of undocumented gpx features which makes it difficult to implement. If we use undocumented tags or tags without schemas then some apps will not import these Gpx files because they cannot perform a tag pass validation.
mapframe and gpx are completely different tools which cannot be easily compared. Mapframe can be used only online with a reduced set of maps. Gpx is an exchange format bringing the data to different (offline) map viewers. Gpx contains also additional information like elevations, phone numbers and others. The can calculate moving times and landscape profiles which are of interest to hikers and bikers. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RolandUnger (or anyone whom knows), is there any official instructions on the English Wikivoyage on how to use GPX files? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


It looks like at least one established, experienced editor has been creating entire "Understand" sections for articles by copying a few entire paragraphs verbatim from Wikipedia for each destination. These were created in good faith, but I nonetheless have a few reservations.

The issue was raised with Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Ice Age National Scenic Trail but it affects a larger number of articles. I'm not sure how many, short of going to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikipedia and checking every destination's lede and "Understand" against the "History" or other sections of the original Wikipedia article. The creative communism free licence doesn't prohibit this (as attribution has been provided) but these do incur a SEO penalty. I'd raised the issue, only to be told "The text has already been adapted for use in Wikivoyage. If you think it should be tweaked, tweak it. Or you can just keep complaining and not do anything to improve it."

I disagree with this stance because:

  1. We need to have original content. If the Wikimedia Foundation wanted an encyclopedia, they already have one... Wikipedia. We add no value by merely cribbing answers from the encyclopaedia and posting them here.
  2. Dumping verbatim copy-paste text to muliple articles and telling others to "tweak it" is merely making more work for subsequent editors.
  3. There's no easy way, short of manually going through the user's entire contribution history and a list of every page with the {{wikipedia}} tag, to determine which articles contain text which the user has summarised and posted in their own words (good) and which articles contain copy-pasted encyclopaedia text (which is bad, due to the SEO penalty and due to the perception that we have nothing original to offer editors or voyagers).

Admittedly, our existing guidelines on WV:SEO, WV:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel, WV:Cooperating with Wikipedia discourage copypasta from other CC-BY-SA sources but (if the attribution complies with the licence) don't expressly prohibit it. I'm thinking that we should adopt a more restrictive stance; specifically, entire paragraphs of verbatim text from other free sources should be treated as a {{style}} problem which needs to be flagged and repaired, much like touting, fluff or listings which lack a {{listing}} template or a description of the venue being listed. Currently we have no easy means to track copy-paste edits and no way to discourage their proliferation.

As much as I don't like an article lacking an "Understand" section (as we're an educational resource, not merely a yellow-page directory listing of every greasy spoon and cockroach motel) we are looking for original content and any mass, w:User:Rambot-style spree is doing more harm than good. K7L (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should write a good free travel guide. If we find good text that suites our guide and can be used legally I see no problem in using it. Original content is better, but summaries or extracts from Wikipedia articles, with the information useful in our context, are much better than nothing and often better than what could easily be written as original text. Unless the Wikipedia article is a short stub, which equally well can be read here, there is still much more to read on Wikipedia, and unless our article is started with just the Understand, there is much other content here. SEO concerns should not stop us from writing what we think is best for our readers. Crippling our guides for SEO reasons is hardly the way to go. Then of course, as you say, Wikipedia information should in most cases be rewritten for our purpose, but for different reasons. --LPfi (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
WV aims to be the best and most complete travel guide, such that travelers would not need or want any other existing travel guide. As such, endless lists of mere attraction names are undesirable because they don't tell the traveler what there is to see, nor why they would want to see it. Instead, each attraction should have a few lines explaining what's special about it (i.e. what makes it worthwhile to see/do) and for many See items that inevitably includes a short history of the place — without their history mentioned, travelers would still need to consult another travel guide to get the full picture. For attractions that have a Wikipedia page, do link to them (using the wikipedia field of the listing template), but only summarize what's relevant to the traveler. For example, it is probably relevant to mention the architect of a building and its architectural style, but usually irrelevant to mention when its last renovation took place or when it was classified as a protected monument, although Wikipedia will mention all that info. Thus, limit WV articles to the scope that most travelers will find interesting, which is typically a few sentences. Those who want more in-depth information can follow the link to Wikipedia. For reference, a good example is the current Sarajevo article. ArticCynda (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is me to whom User:K7L is referring. I welcome the discussion, and will of course respect the views of the community.

I have been undertaking a solo expedition to upgrade city and park articles from "outline" to "usable". I have completed 184 articles so far. This means that a reader clicking on any of our city/park articles for western Canada, the Greater Toronto Area and the Niagara Peninsula will get useful information instead of a stub. I have done this by adapting history from Wikipedia articles, and more importantly, by adding get in/get around info, and a number of listings at least of some of the see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep sections, depending on what is available for that community. In most cases, the WP history for a town is too long or includes details that are not appropriate for a high-level travel article history, so I cut it down, and improve the wording. (Sometime I copyedit the WP text before moving it over by to WV.)

Here are the four articles that I have upgraded recently from outline to usable in this way, and the corresponding Wikipedia articles: Petawawa, W:Petawawa, Hawkesbury, W:Hawkesbury, Ontario, Wilno, W:Wilno, Ontario, Renfrew, W:Renfrew, Ontario. You can also check my work by picking a random small town in Western Canada -- I've contributed to most of them in this way.

What I don't welcome, however, is the continued misrepresentation and denigration of my work as "copypasta", "copying a few entire paragraphs verbatim from Wikipedia", "merely cribbing answers from the encyclopaedia and posting them here", "Dumping verbatim copy-paste text".

I explained in the Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Ice Age National Scenic Trail that "If you compare the new article to the WP article, you will see that I have adapted it to make it more suitable for a travel guide, and useful for travellers." When User: ChubbyWimbus (and not K7L) falsely described my contributions there as copypasta/e a second time, I responded to him/her, "The text has already been adapted for use in Wikivoyage. If you think it should be tweaked, tweak it. Or you can just keep complaining and not do anything to improve it. Your choice." No-one complaining in this VfD has done anything to improve the article. It seems that they would rather have no article at all than a work-in-progress.

Yes, I'm a little cranky about this. I've been doing a lot of work to build this into a useful travel guide, and I am seeing my work denigrated by a few editors repeating the false narrative that I am just copying and pasting. Don't take my word for it - compare the articles I've linked above to see whether you think they "add no value" for travellers.

Commenting on this discussion without looking at any of the articles is not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked at two of these articles and it appears from the attribution that the stuff copied from WP is around 20%. Although this is not ideal, I don't see this as a problem. I realise that there are SEO penalties in doing this, but I think that it is much more important that readers are satisfied when they do come here. I don't think that 20% in common is going to irritate somebody who reads our article a few minutes after reading the WP one (including those that follow the link between articles in either direction). Both articles will have later edits and will diverge over time. AlasdairW (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I did not "misrepresent" or "denigrate" anyone's work. My second comment was "I'd say do whatever needs to be done to remove the WT attribution and tweak whatever text was copy-pasted and then keep it". I used the word "whatever" which doesn't mean it was all copy-pasted. The concern was brought up about copy-pasted content, so I suggested giving that content (whatever it may be) a tweak and keeping it. It wasn't my accusation that anything was copy-pasted. I only responded. Also, I voted "keep" so if you're worried about "misrepresentation", you could refrain from saying I'd "rather have no article at all". I have no issue with summarizing. I looked at a couple of the articles you cited and those seemed fine. I don't know the extent of what you've edited or if there are other articles that are more concerning. I'll trust that there aren't unless someone brings some up. Copy-paste has been an issue brought up before, so it's not about you personally. I've never seen any value in copy-pasting when summarizing is easy and in complete alignment with our goals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
ChubbyWimbus, because your comments were in a VfD discussion about an article that I had created, I assumed that your comments were about my work. Thank you for the clarification. And yes, you voted "keep", so it was incorrect for me to suggest that you would rather have no article. I apologize. Ground Zero (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Aside from K7L, I'm not seeing concern about adapting text from Wikipedia where appropriate in order to build our articles in conjunction with adding practical information from other sources. I had stopped contributing in that way pending the outcome of this discussion, but since the discussion has fizzled out, I'll resume expanding articles to usable status. Ground Zero (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you go this route, could you please check whether the geographic coverage area of the article to which you're pasting text matches that of the original Wikipedia page? Often our geographic boundaries are different, and this is by design. Wikipedia tends to align strictly to the official municipal boundaries, while we tend to allow one bottom-level destination to continue across suburbs or even a collection of small rural villages so that a bottom-level article's coverage ends where the next destination begins. This gives articles of reasonable size to be printed and carried for travel. K7L (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It will be interesting to check the SEO results of these articles, say 3-4 months down the track. Hopefully the new original listings and content added outweigh the copied text in Understand. When I have used Wikipedia as a source of information, I paraphrased every sentence and made the wording more informal, lighter and travel-friendly (and interspersing it with personal knowledge and information from other travel sources). While the content is original, it has the drawback of being much slower than adding many sentences verbatim but excluding some of the irrelevant ones from Wikipedia. Gizza (roam) 04:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
DaGizza: as you note, there is definitely a trade-off between building the travel guide, and maximizing SEO, and each editor will make his or her own decisions about which to prioritize. For my part, I will edit Wikipedia text to make it more concise, to improve the writing style, and to focus on what I think would be of most interest to travellers in the interest of putting the traveller first. I'm not going to edit for the sake of appeasing someone like K7L whose criticism of other editors is unconstructive. Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
SEO is only part of the issue. Our success in attracting editors depends on being able to encourage editors from other projects, including Wikipedia, to edit here. We have a better chance of convincing them to stay if we're creating original content instead of merely mirroring some other random wiki. K7L (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For the last effing time, the content I am adding is not "merely mirroring some other random wiki". I have had with your insults. I raised the issue of your attack on my contributions and tone on your talk page to encourage you not to drive away editors, and you didn't have the courtesy to respond, as you didn't have the courtesy to respond to my reply to your attack above. You are probably the last person qualified to advise on how to attract and keep editors. I am focussed on building the travel guide, and ask you to stop trying to bring other editors down. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I see both sides here, but I think it's better we copy open source material than have nothing- while it seems lazy we have a lot if work to do.

It would be nice however if copied descriptions could be catalogued some way so other editors can identify them as areas needong re-writing easily

Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

I looked at this yesterday. The current situation is that the community elects whomever it wants as admins, and the admins all get the block button, the delete button, the edit-Javascript button, etc. In the future, the community will still elect whomever it wants to do these things, but the edit-Javascript button will be assigned separately from the block, delete, etc. buttons. From the POV of the bureaucrats, you'll tick two boxes instead of one if you want someone to have all of the former rights.
A sensible approach (and one that many non-technical admins at other wikis seem to be hoping to take advantage of) is to assign the screw-up-sitewide-Javascript button only to the people that we want to have it, rather than everyone. There's no rule against all the admins at a wiki having it (or against non-admins having it, for that matter, if you find someone who will do technical work but doesn't want to be bothered with requests to block vandals or delete pages), but it makes more sense to only assign it where it will be useful.
On a practical level, we should probably make a list of the current admins (all of whom currently have this ability) who want to continue working in this area, so that the bureaucrats can add them as soon as the software is in place (end of this month?). For the future, maybe we should add a few lines at Wikivoyage:Administrators to describe this; we can probably take text from m:Technical administrators. I don't think we need to create a complicated process for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
As an admin on this project, I have never yet had the need to edit sitewide javascript, and don't have the skills to do anything useful with it anyway, so not having the button would make no difference to me. As is the case on most WMF projects, we elect our admins by consensus, and give the bit to those we trust. So far it has worked pretty well. Anyone we trust to be an admin, we trust to edit the js if they find it necessary. I suggest that anyone who is an admin on Wikivoyage and actually wants the bit can be given it. Presumably this will be logged for all to see in the usual way. Conversely, if anyone wants the js bit, without the mop and bucket, they could apply in the same way as for admin. I don't see any advantage in separating the process. Just my opinion. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
For me this would be great! I'm not active enough to be a "real" admin (and I don't think I should be), but I do have a high degree of proficiency with html/css/js. I'd love to be able to fix some issues I've noticed on the homepage, as well as improving its mobile experience. --ButteBag (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What questions concerning the strategy process do you have?[edit]


I'm Tar Lócesilion, a Polish Wikipedia admin and a member of Wikimedia Polska. Last year, I worked for Wikimedia Foundation as a liaison between communities and the Movement Strategy core team. My task was to ensure that all online communities were aware of the movement-wide strategy discussion. This year, my task similar. Phase II of the strategy process was launched in April. Currently, future Working Groups members are being selected, and related pages on Meta-Wiki are being designed.

I’d like to learn what questions concerning the strategy process would you like to be answered on the FAQ page? Please answer here, on my talk page, or on a dedicated talk page on Meta-Wiki. Thanks!

If you have any questions or concerns, please, do ask!

Thanks, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

bdi template[edit]

I'm seeing this template proliferate in edits such as this one. Has anyone approved this template for Wikivoyage? If so, why, and don't we want to maintain Wikivoyage listing templates instead of allowing this irregular structure? Is there a way to disable the bdi template on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That edit is worrying. These are listings being moved from one article to another but loosing their listing template. Suspect being copied and passed a different way and getting these html tags. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
What on earth is that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a HTML element to help write pages with languages were the text is written in a different direction, i.e. right to left. I think it is being added automatically by someone copying from the display "read" page on an article into the edit input of another. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A quick chat with Mr Google suggests that these have been copied without attribution from another website. The next admin passing by should probably treat it as a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The presence of the word "edit" but without edit function at the end of the entries supports this interpretation. It is quite likely that they have been copid from a free licenced site, as the original was editable, but there is no apparent attribution, so they do look like copyright violations. Are they all from the same editor? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The edit summary on the example indicates that it was a badly done copy paste from within Wikivoyage (specified "move from main Kathmandu article"), so probably a good faith effort to improve the wiki by a person who does not know how to copy content correctly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I checked, The listings have been copied and pasted from the main Kathmandu article, and then deleted from it, so it looks like this is a good faith districtification attempt gone wrong, The edit summaries are descriptive. The edits are tagged for Visual Editor, so maybe it is a problem with Visual Editor not handling the listings correctly. @WhatamIdoing: this is yout turf, I don't use VE at all. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 02:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Working as designed. If you copy formatted (HTML) text from a website, then you get formatted text. If you want the wikitext, you have to open the page in an editor (the visual editor or any wikitext editor) before you copy it. (The most common failure is someone copying a paragraph that contains ref tags, and ending up with a link to the source page's ref section, labeled [12] (or whatever number that ref was on the source page), instead of copying the contents of the ref. Fortunately, we won't see much of that here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
So just a well meaning IP editor not knowing the proper way to do it. No harm intended, not much done. Just some new distractors (the <bdi> tags) and a slight mess to clean up? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Since someone has investigated and determined that there is a free license for the content, then, yes, it looks that way to me, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Need help improving/expanding three filming locations articles which might help get many more people to hear about Wikivoyage[edit]

In order to significantly increase the readership of Wikivoyage I decided to shift my focus to develop a couple of prominent articles the would focus on the filming locations of some of the biggest and most profitable film series of all time.

So far I have created the following three outline articles:

Is anyone interested in helping me expand and improve these articles? I am hoping we'll be able to get them in decent shape collaborativly so that the many fans whom would find out about these articles (after we'll add links at Wikipedia) won't be disapointed, and would rather decide to spread the word about Wikivoyage.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I was curious as to whether the current Fiction tourism articles are big drawcards and bring in readers. All of them bar literary travel were created post-fork and therefore won't be crushed by the SEO hammer like many of our older pages. The results are mixed [1] Some of the current articles and short in length and in substances and don't fare so well. Others were longer but still don't get many views (like Lord of the Rings). Game of Thrones is most popular which makes sense. Currency is one of the biggest factors that influences pageviews. If it is in the cinemas, people will want to read about travelling to those film locations. Also, the two comic book franchises (DC and Marvel) are constantly churning out new movies. The Avengers and Justice League could be good additions to the current list. Gizza (roam) 06:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd expect that category would miss a few relevant articles as it's searching for travel topics and some of the content (such as Radiator Springs) is itinerary. K7L (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Good point. All the more reason for itineraries to be breadcrumbed and categorised. Gizza (roam) 04:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Side question from me on film (or celebrity) mentions in destinations. I recently updated Glenfinnan, where the railway viaduct has been used in many films, most recently by Harry Potter. I found myself kicking against the whole HP marketing onslaught and restricted it to a single mention. Would this have any effect on page views? I do think it helped readability. Grahamsands (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I decided to create the following two filming locations articles which would probably gather most interest. Please help me expand/improve them.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to listings[edit]

Recently I saw a link to an article listing. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore. I personally think, that this is a very useful feature and thus would like to know how to do that. Example: Link to Sugar Loaf Mountain: does not work. Any idea how to do that correctly. Thanks. --Renek78 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You can use the wikidata ID, so Rio de Janeiro/Zona (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! That's a nice solution. What about if there is no Wikidata ID? --Renek78 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like that even simpler Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul#Sugar_Loaf_Mountain works (I think the latter comes from the marker name) :-) (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Renek78: if there is no Wikidata item associated with the attraction yet, then please create the Wikidata item and add it to the attraction. If the attraction is important enough to link to, it is definitely important enough to have a Wikidata record. ArticCynda (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Exactly that is what I saw in the other article! Thank you very much! Need to write this down somewhere. But to create Wikidata items is the best solution for sure!--Renek78 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way: To me this type of linking should be used to link top sights from the main article to the district article. For example the Eiffel tower as a top sight is mentioned in the main Paris article under See. From there a link to the appropriate district listing should be placed, e.g. Paris/7th_arrondissement#Q243 (or Paris/7th_arrondissement#La_Tour_Eiffel as the worse alternative). What do others think?--Renek78 (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

One more comment: All additional information, e.g. phone number, website, opening hours, etc. should only be stated in the district listing. On the main page (of Paris, for example) only a one-sentencer with the link may be sufficient. This would be a clean distinction between the (superficial) overview and (detailed) district article listing in my opinion.--Renek78 (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I very much agree with that point of view. Ideally, the See and Do sections of city articles should be written in a summarizing style with a length no more than a standard A4 page. Their goal is to give an overview of what there is to see or do in the city, and make extensive use of links to the respective district articles to point readers to the right sub articles. Wikidata items are the perfect identifiers since they're static and also easily resolvable for other sites linking to Wikivoyage (in a similar fashion as DOIs). ArticCynda (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. This is very useful, I wish I had known about it before. In the past I have always linked to the section containing in the listing. Selfie City (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Selfie City, I think so, too. It is nowhere documented either. At least I couldn't find any information.--Renek78 (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I originally set this up so that links could be made from pages on Wikipedia about attractions could be created to listings. That is documented at Wikivoyage:Links from Wikipedia#Links to listings and w:Template:Wikivoyage#Links to listings, but have since used it to link between Wikivoyage article, like at Scotland#Castles. But good point needs to be documented somewhere else too. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to improve in this explanation. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Just now I have set up the See listings of Paris in the way as described above. Furthermore I added a comment in the source code to explain, which information should be added to this section. Do you guys see room for improvement or could this be the way to go for all huge city/country articles in the future?--Renek78 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this is when two listings have the same Wikidata link. The solution is to remove the Wikidata link which you don't want to link to, but two listings with the same data link could still be problem: see the two Ohlone listings in Hiking in the East Bay. Selfie City (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding duplicate listing in the same article, they are generally discouraged. In the Ohlone example this is not the case however, one listing and the Wikipedia article is about the park, the other listing is about a trail. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The inverse problem also exists; there's an underground railroad museum in Boston which consists of two buildings, which were originally a school and a church. As each of the buildings has its own entry on a national historic register, each has its own independent Wikipedia and Wikidata entries (with just a redirect if one searches for the museum's name). Our underground railroad itinerary treats the museum as a single entity (so our listing is the museum, not one of the individual constituent buildings). That makes linking from {{listing}} here back to WP and WD awkward. K7L (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes it is also desirable to be able to point to the same listing multiple times in the same article, for instance, to point the traveler to a railway station that is closest to an attraction in the See section, and again to another attraction in the Do section. ArticCynda (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Is this a problem? The Wikidata link should be only in the main listing for the park, railway station or whatever. Linking to the main listing (with the anchor) from many places should raise no issues. One should just be careful not to give the Wikidata ID for the park as wikidata= in a listing for the trail. Usually the temptation to do so hints on bad organisation of the article, so the discussion should be based on cases where we genuinely need the same wikidata parameter in more than one place. In some cases the solution is to create a Wikidata item for the subordinate entity we want to describe. --LPfi (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding the word "Ghetto" to WV:Words to avoid (with a few certain caveats, which should be obvious)[edit]

So after we've had a certain brouhaha at Talk:Brussels because someone who shall remain nameless considered it a good idea to call a district "Ghetto" (yes, really!), I think that we should make policy abundantly clear where I thought it didn't have a need to be. Let us please add "Ghetto" to the list of WV:Words to avoid with the caveat that its proper use in historical contexts, particularly Shoah remembrance and the history of Jews, particularly in Europe is of course encouraged where that term is the one that was in use historically. Is there anybody still of the opinion that we do the voyager or anybody else for that matter a service by randomly calling certain parts of certain towns "Ghetto" just because someone read somewhere once that "evul peepull" live there (which, to me, is antithetical to what travel should be about, but I digress)? If that be so, may they speak up now or hold their peace forever. I for one am frankly a bit shocked that we have to clarify this at all, but maybe not all here are English native speakers and maybe to some, the word isn't offensive? I don't know... At any rate, that's the proposal. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Having read all of and taken part in a bit of the Brussels discussion, I strongly support this proposal. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What about this passage from Buffalo/West Side?
"Less hip locals will try to dissuade you from crossing west of Richmond Avenue. It's 'dangerous', they'll tell you. A 'ghetto'. And while it's true that the West Side has had a rough go of it over the past half-century and it's still a ways from exorcising its demons when it comes to crime, poverty and other social ills, this is probably the neighborhood that best embodies Buffalo's phoenixlike rise from the ashes."
This is a case where the word is used judiciously to address and then dispel local prejudices about certain places. I agree with the spirit of this proposal but I would hope that whatever the new policy ends up being would allow for usages like this. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If the word "ghetto" is used in quotes like it is in AndreCarrotflower's comment, that is different because the travel guide is just quoting others. It's when the travel guide labels, to the tourist, the place as a ghetto that it becomes an issue. Selfie City (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I second the sentiment of AndreCarrotflower and hope that we can either arrive at a wording that makes it sufficiently clear that such use is allowed or that we are all mature enough to understand the difference between such use and the one that started the whole discussion... That said, saying "the neighborhood has a bad reputation" may in some cases achieve a similar thing, but then we can justifiedly argue the old Mark Twain adage about the difference between almost the right word and the right word. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with a policy placing a blanket ban on the word "ghetto". Some uses, such as "student ghetto" to refer to a university off-campus housing district controlled by mostly absentee landlords, are valid and inoffensive. They don't live there, their tenants leave after a few years whether the housing is any good or not, so what's the incentive to maintain anything well? There's also the voyager-comes-first principal where, if a district has an unusually-high crime rate or poses other specific and identifiable hazards, we say so. The people living in the district with the highest crime rate in the city won't like us for that (and may even start editing the pages themselves to whitewash the situation) but the traveller's safety takes priority over local promotion or pride. K7L (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Saying an area has a high crime rate is not the same as calling it a ghetto. Frankfurt has insanely high white collar crime and offenses related to border violations, drug trafficking and so on. Which part of it is the "ghetto"? And just the same we should not go around calling places "shithole countries" even if they do present certain, shall we say, challenges, to the visitor... Calling a spade a spade doesn't mean insulting for the sole purpose of insulting Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I definitely support a policy against labelling places as "ghettos", "shitholes" and similar such insults. It's just an application of the WV:Be fair rule. There's a difference being frank to the traveller and describing the negative or dangerous aspects of a destination and just insulting for the sake of insulting as Hobbitschuster said. There is also a difference between the way the word ghetto was used in the Buffalo example or the way K7L uses it and the way it was used in Brussels. Using these labels isn't even all that useful for the traveller. Does the place have a high crime rate, no electricty, no water, high drug usage, beggars, water but not clean water, not actually that poor but has rundown, dirty housing that makes it look like a slum on the outside? Not every third-world shitholes faces the same issues. Gizza (roam) 01:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
But then there's the flipside; we wouldn't label something a "glorious workers' paradise" if the appropriate term is "tyrannical dictatorship", much like we don't claim a hostile invasion of a weaker country by a stronger one to be "restoring democracy" if it's being done solely to install an oppressive puppet régime the invading country can more easily control. A description filled with euphemism violates Wikivoyage:Be fair just as surely as just insulting for the sake of insulting does. K7L (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely. But I haven't yet come across a city or district called "XYZ/Paradise" for example. I'm against the labelling (which is a personal judgment) rather than the describing (which is more neutral), especially if there's context (which group of people think a place is a hole or paradise). Gizza (roam) 03:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is necessary. Searching for the word, it has only 100 appearances sitewide and about 3/4 of the mention of "ghetto" are already Jewish and Holocaust-related sites. Other mentions seem pretty apt as descriptors of places that have been known as "ghettos" in their respective cities/countries, typically also in a historical (but not Jewish) context, with a few in China and the US among other places. There also seems to be a few bars/drinks with "ghetto" in the name. A couple "backpacker ghetto" mentions as well, that I find interesting as descriptors, as well as lively writing. I don't see the term being thrown around liberally at all or being used to intentionally make places appear like something they aren't ("insulting just to be insulting"). Many of the non-Jewish ghettos are describe as historical ghettos that actually sort of add to the intrigue of the location. It's also not being used as an adjective which is when the term often sounds most offensive. "Ghetto" is like "slum" (I would not say it is akin to "shithole", which is profane and more judgmental than descriptive) in that it is a negative descriptor, so there is always potential to offend, but avoiding "negative" words doesn't change the situation or conditions on the ground and often "ghetto" can sum up a place much more succinctly and even less offensively than trying to describe all of the elements that make it a "ghetto" without using the term; if the place is a "ghetto", alternative descriptions are not going to make it sound better without lying. It seems unnecessary to ban the use of a word we are using correctly due to a single dispute. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I just read the discussion at Talk:Brussels. I could agree that the word "ghetto" shouldn't be used in a European context except when describing a place to which Jews were restricted. However, in the U.S., the word has a different meaning - a neighborhood into which black people were de jure and/or de facto segregated and/or redlined (effectively forced to live by real estate agents), generally a place of widespread poverty, poor living conditions and neglect by local and higher levels of government. It is probably not necessary to use the word in the American context, but I would have to judge this on a case-by-case basis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with banning the word ghetto, and second user K7Ls opinion on this. The word has a legitimate use even if not linked to Venice or Jews, as Wikipedia defines it as "a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, typically as a result of social, legal, or economic pressure." In the example of Brussels, it indeed seems that the proposed area is inhabited by a large community of economic immigrants, so it satisfies the definition of the word ghetto.
Please keep in mind that Wikivoyage aims to provide the traveller with honest information, including dangers. We're not a ministery of tourism, and don't have to draw as many tourists as possible to a specific destination. If the conditions are dangerous then we should say so, there is no point in using euphemisms. If you call a ghetto an adventurous residential neighborhood then you could just as well call a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist or a rapist a freelance gynaecologist. ArticCynda (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we can trust our users to exercise common sense and judge any controversial additions of the word as they come. Like I said, the word is generally most offensive when used as an adjective, but if someone were to add "The ghetto waitresses distract from the food" we'd easily be able to justify a revert/rewrite without needing a "ghetto ban". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the word "ghetto" has clearly entered the common venacular and can be used broadly to describe any empoverished and unfriendly neibourhood. No its not polite- but it's frank and usefull to travelers because it's universally understood.

Sure we shouldn't label a place as a ghetto just to be rude, and it's a claim that might often be subjective, but I'd argue it has its place because the pejorative is often applied accurately. Many poor or dirty or ethnically segregated neibourhoods are entirely safe-but when someone says a place is a ghetto I know exactly what to expect going there. -willthewanderer

I think we ought to go back to what was said in Talk:Brussels: there's a big difference between saying that a place is a ghetto and calling a city district "Ghetto" — in Brussels, a district was actually called "Ghetto".
I normally would support the proposal, but after ChubbyWimbus's statement that there are only 100 uses of the word "ghetto", and many of these refer to it in a historic context, I don't think adding the word "ghetto" to WV:Words to avoid is necessary. We may as well just deal with the word on a case-by-case basis unless it starts to appear in articles much more frequently in the long term. Selfie City (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes the key point is that "Ghetto" should rarely be used as a proper noun. In particular it shouldn't be used when it isn't by any other travel guide, news article, book or source. And on the flipside, calling a district Heaven or Paradise would be just as biased. Gizza (roam) 02:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of its definition, which is broadly applicable, the word ghetto has entered mainstream vocabulary in the sense that (nearly) everyone interprets it as an unwelcoming, run down neighborhood with numerous safety and health concerns. If used to refer to such a neighborhood, I don't see a problem with using it. ArticCynda (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "Ghetto" should not be part of the Wikivoyage name of a district unless that's an official name, as in Venice/Ghetto, if Venice is ever districted on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well there is a certain unicorporated Nevada community legally called Paradise... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ArticCynda, you're saying: "[...] If used to refer to such a neighborhood, I don't see a problem with using it." People here pointed out many good reasons why it is problematic. Here is a summary, with some comments from me:
  • it's imprecise (everyone seems to have a different understanding of the term) and acutally describing what the area is like (what and where the dangers are) is much more useful for the traveler
  • it has strong negative connotations (at least in a European contex) with what the Nazis did (and this is actually the first definition that comes to my mind when hearing the word)
  • using it as Wikivoyage district name gives such a problematic word too much attention (distracting from the actual problems or benefits of visiting the district)
  • it is unfair and insulting towards the people living there most of which are innocent of the conditions they (have to) live in
  • you're picking out one meaning of the word (claiming it's the mainstream meaning everywhere around the world), ignoring other more problematic usages
I'm unsure about adding it to Wikivoyage:Words_to_avoid (which is actually not banning its use, but clarifying that it should be avoided and why), because I think a discussion is much more beneficial for everyone involved. Xsobev (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have a policy proposal, post it at Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid#Ghetto. /Yvwv (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Brandenburg mapshape[edit]

For some weird reason, the Brandenburg mapshape pretends that Berlin is part of that state. This is of course not the case. How do we fix that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not have a mapshape at all, just include a map with no parts highlighted. Selfie City (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: Is this the look that you wanted? You can always add multiple Geomasks (light) and Geoshapes (dark) to the dynamic maps should the available shapes differ from the desired result. I'd assume that {{Mapshape}} would go into more detail about this.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: can this technique be added to the Dynamic Maps instructions? This would have been useful for Brussels as well, but was unknown at the time its map was created. ArticCynda (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@ArticCynda: Sure thing. I'll add it to Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition later unless there is a more central place for dynamic map tutorials where it would fit better. In that case, please let me know so I can add it there.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Where would something like this be listed?[edit]

In which article would I find this attraction and ways of getting there? And perhaps more importantly, how should the interwiki link from WP to WV look like for this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is far from any nearby town, I'd say it should be its own park article. There is an RV Park set up near the crater [2]. Gizza (roam) 03:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
That depends on its complexity; if it had its own picnic areas, campgrounds, hotels, and a city-size list of things to see and do, maybe it would merit an article - but it looks like it does not. Meteor (Arizona) as a geographic place is too small to merit its own article if there only ever will be one or two listings. I'd therefore be inclined to create a Winslow (Arizona)#Nearby section in the closest town for which we have a page, then under == Nearby == create a subsection === Meteor === with the {{see}} listing for the lone attraction in tiny Meteor, Arizona.
* {{see | name=Meteor Crater | wikipedia= | wikidata=Q431381 | content=...whatever...}}
==Go next==
...list the next place with an article...
and the link target would be voy:Winslow (Arizona)#Q431381. K7L (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
It is only a 30 minute drive from Winslow (Arizona) (close for that type of area) and is currently and correctly in the See section of the article. As for link from Wikipedia, just added. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Put the data in the Winslow article if there's not enough for an independent article. I do not think you need the Nearby heading, just a linkable ==Meteor Crater=== header, a redirect to that section at Meteor Crater (Arizona) & perhaps links at Astronomy or elsewhere. Links should go to the redirect so that if we eventually create a full article they will not need to change. Pashley (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Telegram channel for enwikivoyage[edit]

Do you have a Telegram channel for English Wikivoyage? --Zerabat (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary since the service has seen a steep decline over the last 10-15 years. ArticCynda (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Some of our articles still use it - ocean liners and RMS Titanic, for instance, and the whole heritage railways topic is steam-powered. K7L (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that Zerbat is talking about rather than old-fashioned telegrams. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you suspected right. There's no way I'd be talking about telegraphy nowadays. But by the way, it is still used to send private injunctions (legal stuff...), at least in some countries. Do you have a Telegram messenger group or feed? --Zerabat (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks like a random messaging app abusing a well-known word. Is it big enough that you cannot ignore it or is there some specific reason to endorse it? --LPfi (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The unfortunate naming will be too easily confused with telegraphy indeed, so I'd suggest choosing a more "universal" tool like IRC or XMPP (Jitsi, Pidgin etc.) that most people will know. However, I don't think there is a real need for this, the pub seems to be a better place to centralize discussions. ArticCynda (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to draw more eyes on Brussels/International District[edit]

I excised some of the verbiage I considered absolutely beyond the pale and advise discussion about whether to have a warning box and what it should look like. I can only urge User:ArticCynda in the strongest possible terms to step away from this if they cannot at least try to write a guide about this region without smearing it in a frankly uncalled for attempt to be "funny". I think this is really a debate about more than one specific guide about one specific neighborhood, it is about whether we want this to be a wiki that gives honest but fair advice about even perhaps not-so-commonly-visited neighborhoods, even if they are "a bit rough around the edges" or whether we want this to be a wiki that paints certain places with a broad brush as "ghettos" and places where you "won't get out alive". I for one do not consider this either a joking matter or a matter on which we can afford to be callous. If it really is "Lord of the Flies" down there, the flippant tone does us no favors. If the reputation is more smoke than fire, we should really refrain from "jokes" like that. And I also kindly ask for this to not be prematurely swept. Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording was wrong and removing it was the right thing to do. However the article does deserve a stay safe section as the area is not one to wander into as a tourist unexpectedly. Take guidelines from articles like St. Louis or Chicago suburbs. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Traveler100 on this one. As a travel guide we must adequately warn travelers who are unfamiliar with the city. Opinions aside, there is overwhelming evidence of the dangers: official crime rate statistics, terrorism analysis reports, and numerous independent reviews of the area. Keep in mind that, according to police reports, the islamic fundamentalists/terrorists in the district mentioned above are an European branch of ISIS/ISIL, and an appropriately worded warning box (like the one for Iraqi Kurdistan for example) should be in place. ArticCynda (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
A warning box is fine, as is a comprehensive and factual 'Stay safe' section. I still see no reason to use the word 'ghetto', when there are many more descriptive and accurate ways of conveying the district's troubles to travellers. The hyperbolic nonsense you wrote in several parts of the International District article, including the warning box ("doing so [going to Molenbeek] may dramatically shorten your life expectancy") has no place in Wikivoyage, and I'm surprised that you thought that kind of tone was appropriate. If you can't take this subject seriously, maybe you should move on to other articles. If, on the other hand, you can dial it down a bit and think before you post, we can still work together to find a solution that we can all live with. It's not like you're a bad contributor - most of the stuff you've done for the Brussels articles is amazing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we don't need a separate article for the so called International District, if it apparently is just dangerous there and not really one of the Brussel's highlights anyway. Look at the articles for Rio de Janeiro, possibly the world's most dangerous major tourist destination. We don't have a warning box there (though an extensive Stay safe section), nor a separate district article for the favelas. --ϒpsilon (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
But we do need to completely districtify a city, so if the International District doesn't get its own article, then it must be included in a larger district. Personally, I have no opinion on whether it should or shouldn't get an article, but if Brussels is divided into districts, they should cover the whole city one way or another. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes of course, but if the International District just has a few attractions, and is otherwise not a place to go to, those could be covered in an adjacient district. If really necessary, a warning could be added to that district article. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── it is quite conceivable that the Brussels districts are too five grained. The "Sonian forest" one contains basically no attractions of any sort for one. I also do not understand what is wrong with calling the district around Molenbeek "Molenbeek and surroundings"...

At any rate, saying that any part of the EU is akin in danger to a war zone is palpably absurd and I think you comparing it with Iraqi Kurdistan which was the due of some intense fighting write recently bodes ill for what you're writing about the area... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, the district could be mapped out but not have its own article, such as with the Industrial District which doesn't have any touristic value at all. However, the risks associated with Molenbeek probably deserve a proper warning rather than a few lines of text in the Stay safe section of an adjacent district. ArticCynda (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The current warning box says criminal figures are ten times that of the rest of Brussels. I do not know about Brussels, but if some district in Turku had ten times more crime than the rest of the city, I would not take any special measures going there. If it means you could stay ten years in Brussels until being unlucky, and just one year in Molenbeek, I do not see a war zone like warning appropriate. Somebody spending a day there would still have quite low risk. Usually in such neighbourhoods violent crime is mostly a problem for locals, and dressing modestly and having your valuables out of sight should diminish the risks to a reasonable level, at least with some carefulness. I do not know about Molenbeek, but I'd like to hear whether the troubles rally are of an exceptional scale (terrorists hardly attack random passers by). --LPfi (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not just "a danger to locals" if theft and robbery run rampant in one particular area or destination. Voyagers who are unfamiliar with the area and likely to be carrying items of value are, as in other high-crime districts, at immediate risk. As a travel guide, we warn of these issues. Nothing new or special about that. K7L (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
No, but one can state that in different ways. Talking about terrorists and Islamic fundamentalism in the warnings is probably unnecessary (are religious fundamentalists more likely to rob you?). And the question is how big the danger is. Earlier it looked like you were more or less guaranteed to get killed if you entered the area. Now the warning is milder, but such a radical change in one day does not seem convincing. Is the new version written by somebody who knows the situation? --LPfi (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
It was rewritten by me, and no I don't know the situation. I simply took out the obviously false "you're going to die if you set foot here" vibe. With regard to terrorists, they seldom seem to shit on their own doorstep, if you'll forgive the language. There is a constant risk of attacks in most major western cities, but these are, historically speaking, much more likely to hit central locations, big landmarks or key transport infrastructure. Therefore, I doubt jihadis pose an increased threat to people within Molenbeek as opposed to the rest of the city. Though of course other non-ideological criminals will not hesitate to opportunistically take advantage of a vulnerable traveller, and this is more likely to happen in crime-ridden neighbourhoods such as Molenbeek, rather than central tourist areas which are heavily policed with loads of witnesses everywhere. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How current are our facts? I've found official crime rates per neighborhood at (through 2014; see for a map – click "locaties : tonen" to make the neighborhood names appear). Crime rates appear to be on a sharp downward trend in these neighborhoods (~25% decline over a few years, with the timeline corresponding to a significant increase in police presence). shows a map of the neighborhoods that shows these in the same color as approximately half the city. It is reasonable to expect that most travel-related advice is a little outdated, since it is based on what happened in the past, but being out of date can be unfair, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe with Chrome shows world map[edit]

I have noticed that {{mapframe}} often, but not always, shows a map of the world instead a map of the article's title location when displayed in Chrome. On Chrome, {{mapframe}} shows a map of the world for the Orillia article but the correct map for Leiden. If I edit the Orillia article, then click "Show preview", the correct map appears. (The correct map always appears if the page is displayed in IE or Edge.) What I have done a couple of times is to add extra parameters such as {{Mapframe|43.8690|-79.3121|zoom=11}} as in the Markham article to display the correct map in Chrome. Should I continue doing this where the wrong map is displayed? I noted another discussion on the Chrome browser but I did not understand it. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I realized that as well. Adding the zoom level is sufficient in order to show the map as expected. But this behaviour is strange, anyway.--Renek78 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not use Chrome; however, when I make a mapframe I have usually added zoom and have had no problems. I have seen this type of behavior using maplink or marker as well. Just verify and if need be put in a zoom parameter. (pop up maps are it appears, handled slightly differently due to how a map is created (tiling). -- Matroc (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
A few weeks ago we found a JavaScript runtime error at Chrome-based browsers (including Opera) which prevents the full execution of the script which is necessary to add controls and to show the correct map section. It seems that this is not a problem of the browsers but a problem of programme-part dependencies which is done by the resource loader. Unfortunately, the foundation's programmers did not made a software correction until now. The most awkward situation is that the Chrome browsers are the major ones on smartphones. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, 80% on mobile, ~60% on desktop... really unfortunate. (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the Orillia article, but adding zoom only was insufficient; so I also added the lat/long which fixed the problem. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Mapshape and small cities/rural areas[edit]

I'm wondering if randomly adding {{mapshape}} to small city articles is doing more harm than good, as the boundaries of the Wikivoyage article rarely match the boundaries of the incorporated municipality on Wikipedia or Wikidata. Our small-community articles are normally drawn so that one ends where the next begins, even if that means lumping huge, sparsely-populated rural areas into the nearest town or grouping them into larger, arbitrary entities.

For instance, superimposes a very tight, narrow boundary around the town itself, but the article extends out at least far enough to include Promontory Summit, a rural point near Corinne, Utah which is only notable as the "last spike" in US rail history.

Do we want the municipal boundary displayed on the map if it doesn't match the boundary of the article's coverage at all? K7L (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that mapshapes should normally only be used on regions and city districts. The reader still wants to read the map to get to attractions which are out of town. I would also say that the full boundary co-ordinates should appear in the article, so that they can be adjusted for our use. AlasdairW (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should display a mapshape that doesn't match what is covered in the corresponding travel guide, regardless of where it falls in the geographical heirarchy. It's probably going to confuse readers and editors alike. Where I've come across inaccurate mapshapes placed by the bot, I've been commenting them out.
I'm not a fan of storing boundary coordinates in the article. A boundary could appear in more than one article (mapmask in the bottom-level and region/district shape in the next one up) so it increases the chances of errors if it needs to be maintained in more than one place. It also makes it more difficult to share across language versions. Unfortunately, the WMF made a mess of implementing shared map data in Commons, so I'm not sure there's a better option at this point. -Shaundd (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Not all countries draw municipal boundaries in a way as to only include small surface areas. Have a look at San Carlos (Nicaragua) for one example... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
San Carlos? That looks tiny; I could fit forty-eight of that into the Caniapiscau municipal limits with room to spare. Nonetheless, if we blindly import any boundary of anything from Wikidata, there is a need to manually check whether the result makes sense in the destination article. The case where our bottom-level article boundaries don't match the official boundaries of a single municipality (with the small-town municipal limits more often being smaller than the corresponding WV destination, jokes about 2760km cross-town car trips in northern Québec aside) is one example. Another is the subregion boundaries, as displayed in a region article. It's entirely possible that some of the subregions have boundaries on Wikidata which can be imported, while others in the same parent region do not - giving weird maps like where three of the subregions are shaded on the map and the rest are not. We occasionally use incorporated counties as bottom-level regions, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Usually, a county is too large to be a bottom-level municipality and too small to be a region in Wikivoyage, so we create our own divisions into arbitrary chunks like "Seaway Region" that contain a manageable number of cities - but have no official definition outside WV. K7L (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
And it has a delightful amount of exclaves without even the Vaduz (only capital village in Europe) excuse of feudalism and centuries of history... Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


w:2018 Attica wildfires - Do we need a caution box for incidents like this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it can be good to add one. There have been huge forest fires in Sweden for a few weeks, and that article also has a warningbox. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
A warning message is definitely in place here in my opinion, although other users may argue that it's not dangerous enough and that the fire should not be blamed for the reported deaths. ArticCynda (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you consider this sort of calling out appropriate? More so since a fire is an objective reality. Your doom and gloom view of Molenbeek is surely colored by some sort of agenda, or at least you are doing a bad job convincing me it isn't. I am pretty sure I have been to places where various indicators "should" tell me it is "worse" than Molenbeek. Amazingly, I survived. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: just like wildfires, crime is also an objective and very real threat to the traveler. It's not because you got out unharmed, that there is no risk. ArticCynda (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
WT has a "travel alerts" box on their main page. Should we add something similar?
I think we could easily make space; most of the stuff in the blue box (below the DotM etc listings) is unnecessary. On the other hand, I'm not certain it is a particularly good idea or that it would be maintainable. Pashley (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Forest fires have no agenda. Well except native the ones in Nicaragua in April. Your crusade to paint Molenbeek worse than it is, does. Ten times the Belgian average crime rate is still only the level of the "better" U.S. cities. Should there be a race mongering screaming warning box all over Chicago or Detroit? Should we warn lgbt folks or those on the tan side of "foreign" not to set foot in Dixie? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


I would appreciate the views of others editors on these edits to Berlin. User: Hobbitschuster reverted my edits without comment, marking the massive rollback of my copyediting as a "minor edit". S/he provided no comment, and did not respond to my invitation to discuss previous edits that s/he reverted on the talk page. Hobbitschuster's appalling behaviour aside, I'd like to know what other contributors think of these edits. My aim was to make the article more readable by breaking up long, rambling sentences, and to fix punctuation and capitalisation errors. Do other contributors agree or disagree with these edits? Hobbitschuster has not explained why s/he objects to this. Ground Zero (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Long sentences vs. multiple smaller ones is just a linguistic preference in my opinion, but your copy editing indeed fixed numerous errors that should not have been reverted. Regardless, undoing such a massive amount of work should not be without good argumentation. If User: Hobbitschuster continues to refuse justification of his/her rollback, the corrected article should be reinstated. ArticCynda (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
S/he has provided a comment on the talk page, so we can begin to work together to improve the article further. The sentences I edited did run on, often without even a comma to indicate where one thought ended and another began, and sometimes with additional thoughts in parentheses. While we assume readers have a certain reading ability, I expect that many of our readers are reading in their second or third language, so complex sentence structures do not put the travellers first. Ground Zero (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Well nobody has said that the sentences were so horribly horrible on the DotM discussion or during the recent discussions on what to do with Berlin/East Central (hey, ArticCynda, do you want to include a huge fat warning box about Neukölln or Marzahn? In the case of Neukölln, w:Heinz Buschkowsky, former district mayor would likely agree with you that it is a horrible no-good place where zombies will rip you to pieces). Perhaps that was because neither of you to my recollection participated in said debates? At any rate, I'll go enjoy the nice weather now, maybe later I'll have something more to say. Have a nice day. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: nobody said the text was horrible, but that doesn't mean it can't be further improved. As for the strange reference to Neukölln, I don't know the area well enough to voice any opinion on it, so it might be worthwhile considering following the former mayor's point of view — who likely is well informed about the problems in certain neighborhoods. ArticCynda (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Is our aim to write in a way that is not so horribly horrible? Or is it to write in a way that is conversational and informal? I'm sticking with the latter. Enjoy the nice weather, HS. This discussion will wait. Ground Zero (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the edits so don't intend to wade in, but I would like to say two things. Firstly, try to remember we're all on the same team, trying to do our very best for Wikivoyage and our readers. Let's all respect each other and keep the tone civil.

Secondly, and in Hobbit's defence, all rollbacks are automatically marked as minor edits across all WMF wikis. This is not something which can be changed, and not something to take offence over.

Best wishes to all of you, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

One could still exercise caution and not use the rollback function when an edit needs some explanation (just as a general remark, I haven't studied the article history). I also have understood Germans in general use longer sentences than the rest of us, so what looks reasonably sentence structure by German eyes may not be by (e.g.) US standards. Which just means assuming good faith is important also in this case. --LPfi (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
When using the undo/rollback function, one can still add a comment in the "Summary" box, and in my opinion this should generally be done (definitely in the above mentioned edit). This helps both the affected user and everyone else to understand why the revert was done. Then the edit can either be discussed based on provided reasons, or one can learn from an editing error. Generally, I'm also for simplifying text for easier understanding. Such edits of course should preserve the general meaning. On a more technical note: The edit in question covers a large part of the page, and splitting it into several smaller edits (for example by smallest section or paragraph level) will avoid technical edit conflicts and will make reverting possible at a more fine-grained level. Finally, I strongly agree with User:ThunderingTyphoons!'s comment, that "... we're all on the same team ..." Xsobev (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The 'undo' button prompts for an edit summary and allows the user to edit the page before saving; 'rollback' does not as it's intended as a means for administrators to undo an edit (or series of edits by the same user to the same page) with a single click. That just leaves the canned summary "Reverted edits by User:SoandSo to last revision by User:AnotherVoyager" or some such. K7L (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - I didn't know such a one-click admin rollback existed. Xsobev (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Xsobev, I did in fact make four edits, all of which were rolled back, but I agree that it would have been better to edit section-by-section or paragraph-by-paragraph. I will try to remember to do that going-forward. There is no question that we are on the same team here -- I would never question Hobbitschuster's commitment and contributions to Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Great! I didn't have any doubts on your side in this case; I felt your edit was dismissed in an unconstructive manner. Xsobev (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

need template syntax help[edit]

For some reason part of my code works, but together does not. Passing an invoke result through a template fails but passing manually the same result works. This version of User:Traveler100/sandbox-coord add to the end of the Cairo page, as template or copy paste content, (Show preview not save). Why does {{Decdeglat}} give error if invoke of wikidata function used as parameter but works if manually pass the value? --Traveler100 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think something to do with the String module as placing {{Decdeglong2}} in an article fails too. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly positive but I think you are using parser function expr which may be an issue if a string is involved. If this is ompletely off base; I apologize in advance, but I might check the type and convert it to a number. -- Matroc (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you are in the right area, I need to look at the area where specify the cut up of the degrees, minutes and seconds. Probably have an error in thre somewhere. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Narrowed it down. I think the invoke wikidata is returning characters with html syntax and string is reading as actual characters so are a number of & in the results.

  • {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|Q85|P625|FETCH_WIKIDATA}} give 30°3'22"N, 31°14'22"E
  • {{#invoke:String|len|30°3'22"N, 31°14'22"E}} gives 21
  • {{#invoke:String|len|s={{#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|Q85|P625|FETCH_WIKIDATA}} }} gives 37

So how to I get the invoke to be a normal string? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Convert the 2 html characters - string.gsub(xxx,"'","\'") and string.gsub(xxx,""",'\"') might be viable -- that will give you the correct count... You can probably use Module:String replace function - I made a separation function. I am sure there is another way dealing with html or raw or something like that? -- Matroc (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Quick fix: {{#invoke:Sandbox/Matroc|convchar|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|Q85|P625|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}} - {{#invoke:String|len|s={{#invoke:Sandbox/Matroc|convchar|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getValueFromID|Q85|P625|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}} --30°3'22"N, 31°14'22"E - 21
You might just be better off writing a single Module to handle the tasks rather than calling multiple Modules and as well as a template -- just something to consider -- Best wishes! Matroc (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That does appear to have solved the main problem. Still finding a few odd cases that give errors. You are probably right though, would be better to write a single Module than use the many template calls I am using at {{geo/sandbox}}. Is becoming difficult to debug. Time for me to learn how to write Lua. Is there a quick teaching guide you can recommends? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Kraainem Star nomination[edit]

Our article on Kraainem, Belgium has been improved considerably and looks up to date, so I took the liberty to nominate it for Star promotion. ArticCynda (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merging map/marker functionality with de.wikivoyage[edit]

Guys, I came across Template_talk:Mapframe#Why_Poimap2_doesn't_display_English_and_Mapframe_does?. Basically, it looks like the de.WV guys have figured out the issue with markers only using wikidata to gather coordinates (summoning User:RolandUnger, as usual :-)). Basically they got rid of the abandoned poimap2.php wmflabs thing and use javascript to extract whatever is needed. Check e.g. Luxor. In addition, they have a nice popup map on the top, so we could even remove many/most of the {{mapframe}}s added via User:AndreeBot recently in the regions (esp. if the popup map would show by default for the regions). They also have other improvements, e.g. of the listing editor or markers with icons. They don't seem to use region masks or metro mapshapes, but I think that should just continue to work.

I'd almost say it's a good time to combine the efforts and bring back de.WV improvements to en.WV, use the same codebase for both. What do you guys think, do you see any reason why not start preparing this "operation"? (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Until Mapframe type maps support showing your current location like the Poimap does I would strongly object to removing it from articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Mapframe markers look very similar when printed in black and white, so I would prefer to keep having the alternative Poimap format. AlasdairW (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Today I started to explain marker and map tools as we use it on German Wikivoyage. But it will take time to make this explanation complete. Why I did it? As already stated we made all the programming from scratch. So we should not speak about merging of functionality but about replacing the tool set. That's why I am explaining our tool set. The community should discuss (in future) pros and cons. After a decision, the replacement can be done step by step starting with new marker and listing templates. I think we should do this together with the Hebrew community to check correct right-to-left support.
Of course we payed attention to a high degree of backward compatibility. But it will be necessary to adapt the templates by a bot.
All this is connected with some new concepts. The main one is to rethink the current system of really simple types which is unusable with Wikidata. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it easy to transfer Mapmasks to OSM ?[edit]

I created many of those for the Hebrew Wikivoyage during the last year and I would like them to be used in other Wikimedia projects (such as Wikipedia). Is it easy to transfer them to OSM/Wikidata? If so, how is that done? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward, since the mapmask is basically a polygon definition with line segments. Simply convert those to GPX format and import them into JOSM (Java OSM editor). Give it a name so you can search for it through OSM afterwards, and if it makes sense, assign it an administrative boundary by setting the admin_level tag. ArticCynda (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Be careful! Only upload to OSM, if it is an official district boundary. If your boundary lines were set up by you at random in order to divide a city for Wikivoyage district maps then it definitely has no place in OSM. The right place is Wikimedia Commons for that (here is an example for Brussels). You need your polygons in GeoJSON format. If you only have gpx it is necessary to convert them to GeoJSON ( should work for that. Else JOSM).--Renek78 (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree, Renek78, although I think we should try to reuse existing OSM data as much as possible and limit the custom maps as in the case of Brussels or Kraainem since they're less flexible and less accessible than OSM data. ArticCynda (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Automatic article generation tool[edit]

I design a Automatic article generation tool in Chinese, I hope that it can help newcomers or users to create article easily. Does the English version need this tool?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

A better starting point when new contributors create a page could be useful. Would need to see a working demonstrator in English of this first though before commuting.--Traveler100 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I had a very quick play with this using the automatic translation provide by Chrome. It seemed to give a result fairly similar to our article creation page. However the first page may be a better way of starting rather than our "To start, please click on one of the following links to pre-fill this article with the standard sections", which I suspect is not so clear to newer editors. AlasdairW (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
For example, the below is automatic article generation tool of huge city:
preload=Template:hugecity skeleton
placeholder=Create to huge city
We can use Substitution version of article templates to design other article type.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Brussels/North Redirect[edit]

To me it looks like not the way one redirects and perhaps (given Berlin/North) not the way to treat "former districts" in the first place. User:ArticCynda thinks differently, so I'll ask y'all... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the issue? Why not replace the whole page with just the redirect statement? (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the issue either, organizing a redirect this way preserves the original district page as a legacy/archive, and forwards to the new district page simultaneously. ArticCynda (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed circular redirects left behind in other cases where this sort of redistricting was done. For instance, Toronto/Fashion District was merged into another district, but the new district still linked to the old one (which no longer exists), leaving the reader going around in pointless circles. K7L (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Hobbitschuster—the current situation, in which the page is a redirect but also has a bunch of content including listings, is no good. The listings should be merged to the target article before turning the page into a redirect (I think this is what is suggesting). —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster did neither though, and with his revert only removed the redirect completely. ArticCynda (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Brussels/Southeast also has a redirect without merging/moving content - are there any more? Xsobev (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across another: Brussels/East. Xsobev (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A new section[edit]

I have a great idea for a new section to add to the format of our articles: a Trivia section. A lot of other wikis have one, it would make our site more interesting, and it would allow us to attract a new set of editors: the guys with all the random facts. Of course, the facts might trigger some SJWs because they hate facts, but who cares, right? What do you guys think? Libertarianmoderate (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage already contains travel-relevant and interesting trivia but incorporates it into other sections. The Discover section on the main page can be regarded as trivia. I don't see the purpose of a separate section. At the most, it could be a subsection of Understand, since trivia would help you understand a destination. Gizza (roam) 03:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Understand is indeed for trivia about the destination, so we don't need a separate section for that. And if the trivia is about one listing, for example "the biggest castle in the world", it'd be mentioned in that listing. --ϒpsilon (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
And for fascinating trivia that are a bit sideways to the main sections, use an Infobox. Grahamsands (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite fond of the infobox, however, they tend to overwhelm places like Montabaur or Bad Ems which are - so to speak "best known for the Trivia" (and in the case of the latter, it would be sacrilege not to mention that damn telegram that ruined Europe) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Inherently, there's an effectively infinite amount of information that could be put into a "trivia" section for any article. What would end up happening is one of two things: either we'd have articles with huge trivia sections that dwarf the rest of the article, or else we'd have to get into the weeds of deciding what kind of trivia is worthy of being included and what isn't. A lot of effort for very little gain. Also, I'm not sure what the non sequitur remark about "SJWs" was all about. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Given that the reference to "SJW" is about "hating facts", I think it's safe to assume that User:Libertarianmoderate is talking about "Some Jerk in the Whitehouse". Ground Zero (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You could think of infoboxes as floating trivia sections, and if done properly (like in the Sarajevo article), a separate trivia section is not needed. But even then, infoboxes should be sparsely used; it is still preferred to integrate the information in Understand or respective See or Do listings. ArticCynda (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think it's okay to have one infobox in an article, but not any more. Generally, info/caution/warning boxes are okay to use but the article(s) in question would look best if only one box total is used. So this would be my advice: it's best not to include an infobox in an article that already has a caution and/or warning box. Selfie City (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, a little brain teaser: how important is trivia? Selfie City (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
One more statement for now. I think Libertarianmoderate's statement that "the facts might trigger some SJWs because they hate facts" (assuming SJW means what Ground Zero said it means) is actually proof that there shouldn't be a trivia section of any sort. It could easily tumble into a political debate and even an edit war for something that doesn't matter much. The "Ronald Reagan was from California" and "Clinton was from Arkansas" trivia statements could easily become problematic if someone, like a vandal, starts inserting "the best President" or something of that nature into the trivia statements. Selfie City (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Where presidents came from is relevant to travellers, and not just because many people visit presidential libraries. We deal with "best president" vandalism by removing it, not by excluding information that is relevant to travel. Ground Zero (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just joking about the SJWs. :-). That's not the kind of facts they get triggered by. They get triggered about facts related to gender and biology. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we would include gender/biology in trivia sections anyway, and if we did, more opportunities would arise for a political edit war. It just doesn't seem necessary to include a trivia section. Selfie City (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Libertarianmoderate, don't poison the well with the political dig at the beginning: it's just a dumb distraction. The question remains if we should include a trivia section. I think that the current method of including fun trivia in listings and something particularly noteworthy as a box on the side are good enough. Having a section will probably end up with virtually empty sections in several articles or very uninteresting trivia populating the guide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

New user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS[edit]

This user right can be assigned now. Special:ListUsers/interface-admin will have the list once anyone has been assigned to it. I think (from the above discussion) that the sensible thing to do is for any interested admin to go to Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations and post a simple request for it, ideally during the next week or two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Atsirlin, User:Globe-trotter, User:Ikan Kekek, User:LtPowers, User:Nurg, User:Pbsouthwood, User:RolandUnger, User:Saqib, User:Shaundd, User:WOSlinker, User:Wrh2:  This means you (and maybe a couple of other admins, too).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Since this new group was created to improve security, just wondering if we should keep with the 2 years of inactivity for removal as per the admin group, or if it should be a bit tighter, removal after 1 years inactivty? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not have the skills to make use of this user right, and will not be applying for it, but I agree with WOSlinker on the 1 year inctivity removal. Getting it back should also not be a problem after removal for inactivity if the user comes back and is active again. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely with Peter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Colored area with Template:Mapmask[edit]

Hi all, using Template:Mapshape with a "type=geoshape" draws a colored area defined through its wikidata item from OpenStreetMap. If that does not exist, Template:Mapmask should be used according to Wikivoyage:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Custom_boundaries_and_tracks. However, this is only coloring everything except the defined area. The "mask=" parameter in the documentation seems to invert this behaviour ("if set, will show highlight instead of a mask"), however, setting this parameter, doesn't change anything. What am I doing wrong? Thanks for your help, Xsobev (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit hidden/obscure, but you can use the {{mapshape}} parameters type=page and ... (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer and it's good to keep that in mind. For testing purposes I would like to avoid uploading files to wikicommons. Is the Mapmask template parameter "mask=" broken then? Or am I misunderstanding its purpose? Xsobev (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The article counter at Hebvoy seems to be stuck on 2,095 articles (even though I wrote 10 articles recently but the counter hasn't changed)[edit]

Is there any way to fix this in order to make it accurate again? (I am afraid it hasn't been completely accurate for a awhile). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll file a Phabricator task to request that someone look at it. If anyone else knows of this problem at other wikis, please ping me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to automatically retrieve coordinates for all POIs with a "Wikipedia" article data field?[edit]

At Hebvoy I'm currently looking into double checking that all the major POIs are included in our most sought after articles by checking if the top watched articles on Wikipedia about tourist attractions definitly are included in our our most sought after articles on Wikivoyage. I have started testing this first with Israel destinations (which I am much more familiar with).

Thanks to the new tools which lets one compile lists of articles based on page view statistics I have created the following list. Please note that all the 490 items, which currently only include the fields "name", "Wikipedia", "Lat" and "Long" have been created manually so far and mostly include coordinates I need to fix manually one by one.

Is it possible to automatically retrieve the coordinates for all the 490 POIs based on the "Wikipedia" data field? (which would then maybe be able to get that data from Wikidata) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You should use Wikidata field instead of Wikipedia because it is impossible to get coordinates from Wikipedia. And if you use Wikidata then you must not specify Wikipedia because you can fetch it from Wikidata. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
RolandUnger - thanks for the tip. That shouldn't be too big of a deal for me to add the wikidata field when creating such a list... nevertheless, is there any way to fill up all the "long" + "lat" fields automatically for all the 490 POIs, based on what exists for those data fields in wikidata, once the wikidata field exists? (is there a button anywhere that does this sort of "magic" all at once? Face-smile.svg) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
On this wiki, I used a bot to add (to listings) wikidata derived from the wikipedia parameter, and afterwards modified {{marker}} and Module:map to fetch lat/long/image acc. to the markers wikidata... So only the second part is automagical. In theory, probably also wikidata can be found via some lua calls and SPARQL, but I'd that's quite an "expensive" operation to do on each edit... (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes marker was modified to include the wikidata id; however, it does not work correctly with the geo map. A marker with just the wikidata id (no lat or long parameters) will not appear on the geo map though lat and long parameters may exist in wikidata. Mentioned this on the {{marker}} talk page. -- Matroc (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You can also lookup the wikidata ID using the article's title on the wiki you are physically working on and then retrieve the coordinates and other wikidata information then go from there. To do this with a Lua module would have certain limits because of limited processing time allowed. I think I did a limit test and it was around 3-400 module calls. -- Matroc (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Matroc @ Ok, so i guess what I was initailly looking for (a "magical button" or simply "magic" Face-smile.svg) does not exist here for this purpose... but meanwhile I have had an alternative idea which I think would solve what I am trying to acheive here... Is it possible to simply disply specific parameters that exist at Wikidata for "Lat" and "Long" right next to the name of each of the 490 items on this list by manipulating the listing template to temporarliy display that info by default? If that would be possible, I could then easily copy and paste all that data to Notepand and manipulate it there (with "Find & Replace") so that there would be wikicode for each item that looks something like this: * {{see | name=Masada | lat=31.315278 | long=35.353611 }}

The only question is... how does one get a template to temporarily display specific parameters fetched from wikidata for each listing? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a game changer![edit]

ויקיג'אנקי -- added section on your talk page - put together quick function that works on en wikivoyage or can be added to. 1st argument is a list of names each separated by a newline (return). Function run twice - 1) to produce just text and 2) using safesubst to produce actual markers (actually listing type see in examples).

  • {{see | name=Masada | lat=31.315555555556 | long=35.353888888889 | image=Israel-2013-Aerial 21-Masada.jpg | wikipedia=Masada | wikidata=Q186312}}
  • {{see | name=Haifa | lat=32.8 | long=34.983333333333 | image=Haifa Shrine and Port.jpg | wikipedia=Haifa | wikidata=Q41621}}
  • {{see | name=Jerusalem | lat=31.783333333333 | long=35.216666666667 | image=Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPG | wikipedia=Jerusalem | wikidata=Q1218}}
  • {{see | name=Akko | lat=32.926111111111 | long=35.083888888889 | image=Acre - Akko Tower.jpg | wikipedia=Acre, Israel | wikidata=Q126084}}
  • 1 Masada. Masada on Wikipedia Masada (Q186312) on Wikidata
  • 2 Haifa. Haifa on Wikipedia Haifa (Q41621) on Wikidata
  • 3 Jerusalem. Jerusalem on Wikipedia Jerusalem (Q1218) on Wikidata
  • 4 Akko. Acre, Israel on Wikipedia Acre (Q126084) on Wikidata

-- Matroc (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Matroc! Using the module created by Matroc I managed to use it at Wikipedia in order to quite easily re-create the initial list with coordinates given to almost all POIs (except for POIs about festivals). This of course would be a game changer for any Wikivoyager whom wants to make sure that articles about specific countries here in Wikivoyage do indeed contain all the most popular tourist attractions (based on page view statistics at Wikipedia). Anyone interested in having me help them do the same for other countries is more than welcome to send me a message on my talk page. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Legalize all caps![edit]

I don't know about you, but don't you want to be able to use ALL CAPS without being BANNED for life (or 3 days)? Well now you can! At least, you'll be able to if you support this proposal.Nothing gets people's attention like ALL CAPS!!!!. If you want to convince someone NOT to visit Burundi, for example, lowercase might get people to reconsider, like the US State Department advises you to do (Burundi is only moderately dangerous). But if you REALLY want to scare the pants off of people, tell them, ALL TRAVEL TO DARRA ADAM KHEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VERY DANGEROUS AT THIS TIME!! Libertarianmoderate (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

what you're proposing, libertarianmoderate, is a change to Wikivoyage:capitalization, so the discussion should take place at wikivoyage talk:capitalization. i can't say that i am keen about the idea, but let's see what other editors say there. i'll copy the discussion over. regards, ground zero. 01:30, 1 august 2018.
r u tryna abolish caps completely? maybe we shd giv up all editorial stndrds n jus right however the hell we want ;) tt! (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
yeah i no write (pun wasnt intended), i can imagine some great wp articles written with no editorial standard, you know, like — um — like w:court of chancery, w:uniformitarianism, or something basic like w:principles of geology. Ormaybejustallonewordlikethissoitseasytoread. Okay, that's enough. Selfie City (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

WV has a pub, but does it have a window?[edit]

What do we know about WV readers, how do we know it, and what more ought we to know?

In editing, I form an idea of what the traveller might find helpful; other contributors then modify or comment, but I lack broader reader feedback and don’t know how to get it. In “Talk” pages there's throwaway mention of (for example) page-traffic, but I don’t know where to see this, or if it’s open to view, or what analysis there might be of what those numbers mean. Do folk seek out WV or chance upon it, and how likely are they to come back? Which other methods has WV used to understand its actual and potential audience? Has it done any survey outreach, has any impartial agency rated WV along with other web and printed travel guides?

If there are ready answers to these, then the task is to collate them into an accessible place, as easily found as the pub. The work-up for any major project should explicitly state how it addresses the view “out the window”. If there are no such answers, then WV has a strategic blind spot, and should encourage proposals to remedy it. Grahamsands (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

For any page you can see how many views it has been getting recently. From the page select the "View History" tab, then select "Page view statistics". This should then display a bar chart of activity in he last 20 days - I usually then change to 90 days using the options on the left of the page. (For example for Hartlepool which we have both edited recently: I would take the figures "with a pinch of salt", as I suspect that there is some under reporting. The same method works on Wikipedia, and in other languages. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the page views of specific pages, the Alexa ranking of Wikivoyage is regularly updated on the WV:WT page. It doesn't tell the full story but is a reasonable indicator of long-term trends. Wikivoyage also engages with its readers via social media (Facebook and Twitter). We don't seem to be as successful on this front as we could be. Other travel guides out there (Lonely Planet, Nat Geo Travel, BBC Travel, Fodor's and even the other site) are more popular than us by several orders of magnitude.
The app for Wikvoyage Offline receives a decent number of ratings and for the most part, they are positive (4 or 5 stars). Anecdotally, I've noticed that most people who read Wikivoyage have a positive impression of the site but most people don't know about WV and read our articles in the first place. If you surveyed 100 random travel enthusiasts and asked them whether Wikivoyage is a good source of information, a bad source or they have never heard of it, my guess is that the vast majority will say they have never heard of it followed by good. I still see the other site's name being thrown around more frequently than ours when I go to online travel forum posts written in 2018. Gizza (roam) 23:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
These are brilliant examples, many thanks. All these data, and knowledge about what they mean, are out there scattered. And I'm guessing there's more. They need to be collated on a page, which is practically writing itself as we go, before the next sweep of the pub disperses them again. That page could sit alongside tools, formats and conventions. But I'd advocate for it being more prominent, in the "get involved" sidebar like the pub, so that contributions and discussions about the "view out the window" were seen as just as important as any others. Grahamsands (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Apart from the WV:WT page which shows the Alexa ranking, the only other page I found which has kept a record of statistics measuring engagement with readers is Wikivoyage:Search_Expedition. There is a table comparing the search results and rank of selected articles with their WT counterparts and there are general links below that measuring Wikivoyage's general popularity. The table is good but I'm don't know why those articles were chosen for comparison. It would be great if we could make a table including all of our very important articles (e.g. countries, famous regions, capitals and 100 other highly populated cities). Gizza (roam) 00:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Routebox for Romantic Road[edit]


I recently created an article for Dinkelsbühl on a whim and found out that now the Romantic Road has all of its "stops" bar one with articles on en-WV. Should we create routeboxes for those articles explicitly mentioning the Romantic Road? And if so, what should the graphic design be? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Base it on the road sign. Added as image here. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody help me turning that into a routebox? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I have updated Dinkelsbühl. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


I don't think the directions should be "N" and "S" but rather Würzburg and Füssen as that makes it clearer where the route begins and ends. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Was just going by examples at Wikivoyage:Routebox navigation. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

A new Worship section[edit]

Okay, here's a serious proposal. One we can all agree on. It adds a new section to our article format: a Worship section, for churches, mosques, etc. Churches aren't always sights in and of themselves, but they're still worth mentioning because some people feel the need to worship while on vacations. Most of the churches in my town aren't exactly sights, but I'm sure that more religious people would like to give some time to God while they're here visiting their families. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently we include these in the "Cope" section, which seems like the right choice to me. My feeling is that for most of our readers, religious services aren't such an important aspect of travel as to merit a dedicated standard section. But by all means add them to the "Cope" section. In articles for non-English-speaking destinations, I think it's especially helpful to mention places that offer English-language services. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon a few webpages about the difficulty of "Traveling While Orthodox" (Jewish). Mostly it didn't seem too complex, unless you were traveling on the Sabbath or during Passover. From there, the advice seemed to be: Just stay home, if possible. If you can't stay home, then travel to (a) the Catskills, (b) on a kosher cruise ship, or (c) to Israel. If you can't go to one of those three places, then call an orthodox school near where you're going, and ask if the headmaster's family will let you stay with them. (Apparently this is a thing.) And if that's not possible, then call te hotel in advance and try to arrange a long list of accommodations, like not using elevators and having a staff member turn on the lights in your room, and figuring out how to reheat kosher food in the in-room coffee pot (which is acceptable; a microwave is not, unless you double-wrap and double-seal the food first). It's not exactly ===Worship=== information, but it was interesting to read about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
It's very useful for a travel topic about "Travelling as an observant Jew". That advice about where to travel is really unnecessarily restrictive, though. My godmother is an Orthodox, shomer Shabbos (Sabbath-observant) Jew and has traveled to Ethiopia, Kenya, Myanmar and quite a few other countries. There are a lot of countries you can visit on kosher tours, for example, and in other places, you can seek out the local Chabad members. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I added a hotel to Montevideo#Sleep that's good for Orthodox Jewish travellers (including a Sabbath elevator, etc.), and I'm sure there are other cities with similar hotels that would be worth listing. A travel topic article seems like a good idea if someone has enough knowledge to write it. We already have some information about the subject in the Judaism and Kashrut articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that User:Mx. Granger has struck the right note here - places of worship are welcome in the Cope section. If there are enough of them, they would warrant a subsection withing the Cope section, which I think captures the spirit of User:Libertarianmoderate's proposal. I also think that "Travelling as an observant Jew" and "... Muslim" would be great articles, as would articles about Christian pilgrimage tourism, but I'm not qualified to write them. Ground Zero (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I can only speak of Christian or formerly Christian countries, particularly Germany where my approach is "likely at least one church is a sight in itself, so list it as that. If there is a synagogue, it will almost certainly be the only one, so it is ipso facto of enough note to be listed as a sight." Mosques are a bit more complicated as the vast majority of mosques in Europe (bar of course Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and a few isolated cases) are not exactly sights; people in Germany like to talk of "Hinterhof-Moschee" (roughly: back-alley mosque). However, I think we have to keep in mind that it is rather uncommon for travelers who care enough about their religious observance to feel the need to head to a mosque, church, synagogue, temple, shrine to Elon Musk, supply side economics monument or whatnot on vacation to then not care about the denomination. I think quite a few Lutherans would not be called dead worshiping in a Catholic church and vice versa. Muslims are - to my knowledge - often even more keen to not go to the "wrong denomination" and said keenness increases with the devoutness of their faith. Remember that we aren't catering to long time residents here (and I think if you are truly religious, it can be expected that you do the legwork after a few weeks to find out where skydaddy lives in town). And I also don't think we benefit from a long list of boring nondescript suburban "pray-factories" just to cater to the minority of travelers who absolutely have to go pray to that thing up above (or down below, hey, I'm not judging) in regular intervals even while traveling but absolutely cannot do it outside a special building or in a building of vaguely the wrong kind. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Another thing I just thought of is that listing primarily religious venues even if too nondescript to count as "sights" even with a generous definition of the term might be okay if they hold a nontrivial number of "secular" (and the term "secular" here is to be interpreted very broadly) events that might interest the general public. For example if the local mosque hosts a debate night every Thursday, it might be worth mentioning even if the mosque looks like a residential building from the outside. Or if the church does concerts every month or so... But I think the line should be "Would a nonbeliever feel uncomfortable in going to such an event? If yes, it probably doesn't fit even a broad definition of 'secular'" Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with such a clear bias toward the secular. If a mosque has a notable Qur'an-chanting contest once a month, that should be listed even if some atheists might not feel comfortable attending it. Other examples are church, mosque or temple festivals involving food. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
We list any and every embassy in many articles, even though the chances of a traveller in Athens needing the Maltese, Saudi Arabian or Indonesian embassy is pretty slim. I see no harm in listing places of worship for the benefit of travellers who would want them (I'm not one of them), along with any denominational information we might have. If the list gets long, maybe we could collapse as I think is done for some long embassy lists. Ground Zero (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Embassies are common only in capital cities and even some of the capitals don't have all that many embassies. Churches or other houses of worship are insanely common and there is not really a good criteria to exclude any one of them if we remove the "should oder something - anything - to people who don't believe in that particular faith." And that "something" should not be a gag reflex, mind you...

To give just one example, if we were to list all churches in San Carlos (Nicaragua), that list alone would easily be several times, perhaps an order of magnitude longer than the current article. And don't think a "one per denomination" rule would work either. Firstly plenty of perfectly fine churches of the more common denominations (Catholic and Lutheran, mostly) which actually have architectural or artistic value would not be listed and secondly many many denominations consist entirely of a single or a handful of churches "no, you see, I am a southern Baptist born again gospel of 1912, you on the other hand are a southern Baptist born again gospel of 1923, or in other words a filthy filthy heretic who'll burn in hell"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For big towns and cities (even if districtified), a line has to be drawn for many types of listings: places of worship, restaurants, parks, bars, accommodation, shops/malls, hospitals, libraries, etc. I think places of worship can be approached in a similar way to the others. If there are too many to list, limit them on a case-by-case basis, and remove the less famous or interesting ones for the voyager. Gizza (roam) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What percentage of churches in San Carlos are Catholic? 80%? 90%? The problem with reductio ad absurdam arguments is that it so easy to dismiss them on the basis of experience. We don't have that much problem with editors who want to add every restaurant or every hotel in a large city. And when we do see that, they tend to get bored quickly and move on, then we can go and clean up the article. Workng with other editors, I handled a well-intentioned anon contributor who was focused on adding endless listings of gorcery and convenience stores. Wikivoyage managed to withstand that. The reality is that few cities have every variety of Christianity out there, so it's not really going to be a problem. The denominations that consist of a single or a few congregations would not likely be listed anyway. I don't think that we will see a committed long-term editor who is determined to list every Southern Baptist church, either. The people who are most committed to Wikivoyage recognize that that level of detail is not useful. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it tells us to put churches (for religious services, as opposed to sight-seeing) in Cope. I would be opposed to removing that and prohibiting adding churches (etc.,) Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Restaurants and accommodation are a special case as "food, fuel, lodging" are core necessities of travel. We´ll usually also list at least one local library if they have public-access computers or other "connect" ability and are open reasonable hours. We look for two things: how relevant is the listing to travel and how common is one particular amenity? Want your fuel station listed on Wikivoyage? Build it in Relais-Gabriel or at some point on the Trans-Labrador where it's 410 km (250 mi) to the next station. Anywhere else, it's typically a commodity and safely ignored.
By contrast, a small city article might list just the one main cathedral for a village (even if there are other options) as the small churches in each neighbourhood primarily serve local residents. Likewise, we ignore the nondescript, interchangeable elementary schools in each neighbourhood but an institute with some other claim to fame (such as a museum on-site) might be duly noted. The Sorbonne gets a listing. K7L (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, since I think this highlights a slight but still notable gap in the travel guide's coverage. I think the real solution to the problem, however, is to add church information to either "see", "cope", or "connect" depending on the church and place involved. I think information about churches is useful and is something other travel guides don't cover. Of course, the importance of this depends on the religious population of tourists to a place. Selfie City (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It's one of like adding a vegetarian restaurant to the Eat listings. It won't be for everyone, but it will be very welcomed by the vegetarians. Finding a suitable place to worship would feed the soul of the religious person. Ground Zero (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep. And my comment about San Carlos is that since so many of the churches there are Catholic, it's easy to find those, and none need to be listed unless they're otherwise interesting. However, if there's one mosque, one synagogue and one Mormon temple there, those can be listed in "Cope" if they're not otherwise interesting. It's precisely the places of worship that are in a scarce category for a given place that are most useful to list for the believers in those religions who travel there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── to my knowledge, the number of Catholic churches in San Carlos is one. There are to my knowledge zero houses of worship of religions without reference to Jesus. But there are tons of houses of worship with reference to Jesus that aren't Catholic. There are a bunch of various denominations that I don't even want to know about... And they make up their perhaps slightly smaller numbers (nationally a plurality is still nominally Catholic) by increased attendance and making more noise... Catholics tend to not even attend every week. Non-Catholics tend to attend several times weekly... Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, you are not the person to add those listings, then, but someone else might list something. I know there's a very loud Ukrainian Evangelical church a block and a half from me, and it's loud even when you pass it on the street - definitely not my style of worship, but someone might find it stimulating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If the place of worship is worth seeing for its architecture, artifacts, tombs of famous people burried there etc. then list it under See. If there are activities going on that might be of interest to the traveler (talks, seminars, workshops, ...) or if it has been converted into community centers, indoor playgrounds etc. then list it under Do. If it doesn't fit under under See or Do but somehow still important then list it under Cope. But avoid overloading and cluttering articles with too many religious points of interest. Cities like Brussels, Paris or London are dotted with churches (and all of them will have sculptures, statues etc.) but there is little value in listing them all I think. ArticCynda (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing. I think those Houses of Worship that are properly listed under see or do are usually more than is needed. If something is to be listed under "cope" it might be the airport chapel (usually non-denominational for obvious reasons) but it should be limited to one or two (how to chose if there's more?). I think the rub lies in whether churches are by their mere existence worthy of listing even if boring and uninteresting to us who will burn in hell with C. Darwin, C. Hitchens, T. Pratchett and others... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If I do not misremember, I even added a "don't list churches just 'cause they're there" caveat into a policy list somewhere, but I am not sure where. Back then it had no opposition that I recall... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that almost every church/mosque has something that makes it "unique", like an unusual sculpture or statue, stained glass windows by a famous glass artist, an architectural style uncommon in the region, and so on. In the Brussels Pentagon district alone we have already 8 churches listed, and from the descriptions it looks like each and every one of them would be worth a visit for different reasons. It's not always straight-forward to draw the line. ArticCynda (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That's the same issue as listing shops in New York City. Yes, it's hard to draw a line. I think in Rome, it would be an even bigger problem because there are literally hundreds of churches that are well worth visiting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we find ways of managing too many listings for everything else, there is no reason the would be a problem for churches-for-praying as opposed to churches-for-taking-selfies-in. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it says:
"church (religious services) | the Cope section of the City page
church (sightseeing) | the See section of the City page"
The argument that we can't put any churches in because then we'd have to put them all in is addressing a non-real problem. Let's deal with real problems. If we can find space for LGBT bars and vegetarian restaurants for people like me, we can find space for places of worship and kiddie parks for people who aren't like me. And "places of worship" can be interpreted broadly to include humanist meeting halls and atheist temples if there are those around. Ground Zero (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
And what would those criteria then be? Surely it cannot be their architectural beauty or their non-religious offerings, because those are the criteria for listing them in see or do. I think there are quite a few religious figures who'd argue any given House of Worship (of the right denomination) is just as good for prayer as any other. Jesus might even have said that a less impressive church is better, for all I know. And in places where there are countless denominations, who are we to say whether Baptists get a listing and Methodists not? What about Quakers? Are Anabaptists different from Baptists? What about a town which has Mosques on every corner? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The amount of debate over this points to the fact that it will become impossible to decide which churches should be included and which shouldn't, so my point of view is changing a little: we should either include the worship section or keep things as they are. Selfie City (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not ready to concede the point, in that if there's only one church of a given denomination having mass/services in English in a given town, it's helpful to include it, and likewise, if there's only one Orthodox synagogue, one Sunni mosque, one Hindu temple, etc. In cases in which there are numerous houses of worship of a particular type, there's no need to list any that don't have something of additional interest about them (e.g., notable architecture, a concert series, a notable or particularly good church dinner open to the public, Gospel services). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, we can apply the same rigorous criteria we use for determination which of a city's hundreds of restaurants are listed in the Eat section. Oh wait, we don't have rigorous criteria, we just let editors add restaurants they think are good, and of the list gets too long, someone comes along and culls it. But having too many churches in an article is not a real problem. It has not happened. And cheer up, it may never happen. Don't we have better things to worry about than problems that aren't real? Ground Zero (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, it probably happened in articles for some cities in former East Bloc countries when one editor added voluminous information about dozens of churches in some articles, but in that case, none of the listings were about worship. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Count this as a !vote for keeping a couple of non-sightseeing-worthy religious organizations in the ==Cope== section of smaller towns. In one small town that I lived in during the previous century, the local churches were also the primary source of non-spiritual assistance for travelers in need. If your car broke down on the highway and you couldn't afford to get it fixed, they'd let you make a long-distance phone call, or pay for a hotel room for one night, or buy a bus ticket so you could get to the next city. They had some kind of inter-denominational club or committee that they all chipped into to pay for these (rare) events, and I think that you could have walked into any church in town and ended up with the same assistance in the end. Even in places with no funding or organization, the local clergy can be expected to know where the hotels are and who can fix your car, and likely feels more of a professional obligation to be hospitable to strangers than the average person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is an important point. I haven't used churches for car repair, but when we ones happened to pop into a small church for sightseeing at time of the mass and stayed, we were asked to stay for coffee too, and could have made any number of friends. This kind of community spirit is hardly universal, but probably not too uncommon either. --LPfi (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I occasionally go to church when I am travelling. Often, one of the attractions is the after service coffee, which can be a good opportunity to talk to locals. I am not bothered about the exact denomination of the church which I visit. Unlike commercial facilities it is perfectly acceptable to ask in one church what are others are in the area - the Anglicans will happily tell you where the Methodists are - I have had such information volunteered without asking when I said where I am from. AlasdairW (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Then again, where do you draw the line? The only major difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers... So are we okay with listing meeting places for Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the likes? Many cults have the potential to be very harmful and even destroy lives, so perhaps we'd even need warning boxes for some! I have faint memories of how such a discussion is going to be like... ArticCynda (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you will find that scholars disagree with your definition of cult, but since this isn't Wikipedia, we can skip that point and get down to what matters: In a big (or even medium-sized) city, I expect that most religious groups would end up in ==See== or perhaps ==Do== (if there's a big annual festival), and so might not list any. If you did list one or two, then it might be a locally prominent religion that didn't happen to get mentioned previously, for balance. If there were a place that catered to travelers (e.g., a church that serves a church-sponsored campsite), then that would be another good choice for the ==Cope== section. But mostly, I expect this to matter for towns and rural areas, in which case you probably want to list the biggest (because it is the one most likely to have someone in the office during the week) or the one closest to the highway (shortest distance if you have to walk in to town) or the one closest to other things a traveler might need (whatever's across the street from your favorite hotel). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Believe it or not, there are small communities all around the globe where the highway isn't the only or the most likely way in. Islands for one. Mountain towns for another. But I digress. I think we are at this point mostly discussing a hypothetical handful of churches that are a) not architecturally relevant enough for a "see" listing b) not doing enough "stuff" for a "do" listing c) offer some sort of resources d) in an article that overall lacks listings and maybe resources for travelers in need of them which e) the church / mosque / temple / shrine to Elon Musk / whatever in question provide. I think we are down to a set of circumstances enough sui generis as to be comparable to those places in the high arctic where our listings boil down to "This place may have burned down last year and it had a shoddy reputation before that, but it is the only commercially available option in town"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Not so hypothetical, actually.
I grant that it might be hard to get the best information for unfamiliar places. For example, in another small town that I'm familiar with, I'd recommend the lone gas station as a far more useful place for whatever that you need. However, I still think that this is a reasonable model, and not as rare as it might seem. And, yes, "highways", because I'm thinking about this from the POV of the "smaller town" in what are sometimes called "flyover states", where there is an unfortunate shortage of passenger rail service and no islands worth mentioning. If you find it useful to adapt this approach to islands or mountain towns with no highway service, then that's naturally fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Always keep in mind: if the locals manage to get in/out, then also travelers can get in/out. Ruling out bikes for intercity travel, that means there must be (light) rail, bus/tram or coach services available, unless the article is about a ghost town without a living population. It's just a matter of finding out the transport options the locals use! ArticCynda (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Your assumption that there will always be a mass transit option is just not true. For example, the US state of Montana has ~130 towns; about 20 of them have intercity bus service. You get in and out of the other 100 in a private vehicle – or you don't get in and out. This can be a serious problem for local residents, whose own town may not have a grocery store, much less a hospital, and are unable to drive to the next town (or the one after that) for things they need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Mx. Granger & Ground Zero; quoteing the latter "places of worship are welcome in the Cope section. If there are enough of them, they would warrant a subsection withing the Cope section".
As for the travel problems of observant Jews, we have a Judaism article; why not mention them there? They aren't the only ones who might have problems; what does an observant Muslim do if Ramadan comes when he's in an area with the Midnight Sun? A Sikh has five things to carry or wear: turban, bracelet, some I forget & a knife; can he wear that knife on an airplane? Pashley (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
There is a Canadian solution to observing Ramadan in the Arctic: Muslim Canadians living in the far north follow the timetable of another Muslim community, typically Edmonton or Ottawa. A kirpan under 6 cm is permitted in Canada. (It would be awkward if our Minister of Defence were not allowed to fly.) Ground Zero (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
But at the same time I still think places of worship haven't been included within articles enough, so we should create an expedition for "places of worship". Just my opinion, I think any of us could start it. Selfie City (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't be practical to include all places of worship in a city or country article, as there would be just too many to list, so I'd say we only mention such places if they're particularly notable. For the most part, we do mention notable places under the "See" or "Do" sections, so if you are a religious person, I'd suggest that you look in those sections. Let's keep in mind that we're a secular travel guide, so while we can provide information that is helpful for religious people, I think that creating a "Worship" section specifically for religious people is overkill. Therefore, I'd vote for keeping the status quo where we list religious sites under "See" and "Do", and not start a new "Worship" section. What I'd think we can do though, is to create a "Places of Worship" or "Religious Sites" sub section under one of those sections, so religious people know exactly where to look if they want information about their places of worship, and this would also cater to non-religious people who are just interested in visiting such religious sites. The dog2 (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you haven't been following the discussion very closely: no-one is suggesting including all places of worship, so there is no point in bring up that red herring. Including some restaurants, bars and hotels does not oblige us to include all restaurants, bars and hotels in a city or country article, so allowing churches, etc., to be included does not in any way at all mean that we would have to include all of them. The status quo allows us to include religious buildings for the purposes of worship under Cope -- see Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. If anyone wants to prohibit including places of worship under "Cope", then they'd better propose a policy change to make that change, because otherwise, it's allowed. Ground Zero (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I checked that page. Either way, I'm happy with the status quo. Having a "Worship" section is a bit overkill IMO, but having a listing of some important places of worship under "Cope" is fine by me. This is no different from how we provide information for Muslims and Jews about halal and kosher food. The dog2 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
As per wycsi, places of worship that aren't notable as sights (i.e. listed in See) can be listed in Cope. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The existing policy[edit]

I think before we change around policy, we all should be on the same page as to what the policy currently is. This is it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The current policy is good for me. We're happy to provide information to religious people to fulfill their religious obligations, but ultimately this is still a secular travel guide, and we do not promote one religion over another, and neither do we promote religiosity over atheism/agnosticism (or vice-versa). Having a separate "Worship" section might be misconstrued as promoting religiosity over atheism/agnosticism. On the other hand, listing it under "Cope" is sufficient for providing information for religious travellers, though I would strongly suggest using "Places of Worship" instead of just "Worship" so the tone comes across as more neutral. The dog2 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikivoyage uses verbs for section headings, and worship is a verb. (Also, the overall goal is to "be fair" rather than to "be neutral".)
I'm not entirely sure that I would agree that this is "a secular travel guide". It is not "a religious travel guide", but I thought it was just "a travel guide" – neither specifically secular nor religious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this is not a pointedly secular guide, just a travel guide. However, "Worship" could be interpreted as an imperative, thereby implying that we are suggesting for people to worship, rather than just providing them with information. Subsections don't have to be in verb form, anyway: They can be terms like "Budget", and from what I've seen, subsections of "Do" are more apt to be "Scuba diving" than "Scuba dive", "Meditation" rather than "Meditate", etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The existing policy is fine as it is. If a subsection of "Cope" is needed to group listings, "Places of worship" would be an appropriate heading. Ground Zero (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Mapshape doesn't work[edit]

Mapshape for Fort George not visible

Does anybody know why the Mapshape for Fort George doesn't work? If "geoline" is changed to "geoshape" nothing is shown on the map. The relation in OSM seems to be clean. Thanks for your help. --Renek78 (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

THe coordinates from OSM is correct - I built a geoshape on my homepage using <maplink> directly with those very same coords and there were no issues. (Note: I put in all the geo coordinates rather than use external) I noticed that in your example when I refreshed screen the mapframe showed a geoshape then map flashed and was overlayed with the geoline. Yes there evidently is something awry. (Someone may have recently changed something that is causing the slight malfunction you have noticed - I do not believe you are the first to mention this!) -- Best wishes -- Matroc (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Just tried external with <mapframe> and <maplink> which does not work either for Q1426707 - other external geoshapes tested ok - ( Still have not found cause except I noted that Fort George (Q1426707) is an 18th-century fortress built in the Scottish Highlands in the aftermath of the Jacobite Rising of 1745 - and not in New York = perhaps some confusion with wikidata id is happening) -- Matroc (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Matroc. The wrong Wikidata ID could be the reason. Just changed it in OSM. Let's see whether it shows up correctly here in a few days... --Renek78 (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it works now -- Matroc (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
You're right. So it seems to be important to apply the correct Wikidata ID! Thanks again, Matroc --Renek78 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new Wikidata item[edit]

For hotels, there is now a new tool/form at:

Sample creation: d:Q55932902 for this month's Höfn.

The tool is still being improved, but it can make it easier to create a new item. Jura1 (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: the tool doesn't allow entries to be saved yet, is that correct? ArticCynda (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, logging in indeed unlocks the "create new item" button, but even with a completely filled in form, nothing happens. How/where is the Wikidata item for the newly created hotel revealed? ArticCynda (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Once clicked, it adds a link below the button to the new item. From d:Special:Contributions/ArticCynda, it looks like nothing was created. There are still a few bugs with tool (d:Wikidata_talk:Cradle). Jura1 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the motivation of this? I mean, you could as well just import=copy hotels from arguably much more complete OSM, and perhaps add wikidata refs while at it... That way you could even somehow re-sync the two occasionally (compared to above "start from scratch" approach) (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
These concerns aside, I'm also not entirely sure that any and all hostels or B&Bs meet the WikiData notability requirements. ArticCynda (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The idea is to allow to share the information about the ones used in Wikivoyage listings across various language editions and other WMF sites. I think notably is here if the item is used in a Wikivoyage listing. Jura1 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The idea is good: to share information across various language editions. But not the solution. We need considerably more information as shown for instance for Steigenberger Hotel El Tahrir Cairo. And of restaurants and so on. We are using such data at the German Wikivoyage since about two years. It seems that information for sleep (hotels, but also campsites) are now fully accepted. The information should not only be entered but used. We start usually with a photograph at Commons and a category which is specific to this location. Then we create a Wikidata item and link it with commons. If there is no photograph you should immediately use this Wikidata item in a Wikivoyage article. There were a few problems at the beginning when Wikidata authors forgot to check the page information to got informed about data usage.
Now we are thinking about how to transfer these data from the listing templates or from the listing editor at Wikivoyage to Wikidata.
But there are some unsolved problems till now. One is that of opening hours (as discussed recently). The system used now is difficult to handle by software and it is not compatible with that of OpenStreetMap. Other ones are how to store hotel/restaurant features (in P527 ?), the types of cuisine and to expand properties for booking companies. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess many people already discussed this in depth... But I'm really not convinced that essentially duplicating OSM work to wikidata is a good thing to do. It sounds like it would be better to e.g. extend wikidata with another namespace (like the [recent lexeme stuff]) that would somehow refer to OSM. Sure, OSM has unstable IDs yadayada. But I would say some man-weeks of developer discussions/implementation would be better than thousands of hours of copying stuff. Especially when the hotels come and go daily, and hotel aggregators get the listings+updates for free from the hotel/restaurant operators (whereas we have to maintain that manually here and in OSM). But if there are people willing to spend time on this, who am I to stop them... My 2c... :-) (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should have mentioned: please use it here if you create an item.
    — In some aspects, it seems to me that Wikivoyage was light-years ahead of other MW projects. Wikidata slowly follows up, but I don't think it can provide all required fields for listings yet and might not be able for some time. At d:Wikidata:Wikivoyage/Resources#Properties_for_listings there is the result of the last iteration (2 years ago). I think infoboxes for places were set up back then.
    — @RolandUnger: I don't think the thing with opening hours got anywhere last time. If there is a standard format we could use, please propose it. Unless the data is used and maintained, I'm not sure if Wikidata is the best place for that though. Unfortunately, development is absorbed by other things, so we can't even enter time-values in date properties. has facility should work for some of the aspects you mention.
    — There are some types of listings that I think work better in Wikidata than others, at least based on current update frequency and the number of users doing that. Items for many "see" and "do" listings are already available and basic "sleep" listings might not require that much maintenance.
    — BTW, for demo purposes, would it be possible to add the listing template and tool on ? It might be more readily present in the minds of Wikidata editors even if it's not the English version. I asked a Wikidata admin to look into that.
    I do think that Wikivoyage is a good usecase for Wikidata items, allowing local reviews, descriptions, and comments on shared basic structured data. Jura1 (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles about Trivago, Expedia, etc.[edit]

I was thinking, wouldn't it be nice to provide our users with info on hotel or flight booking sites? Libertarianmoderate (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:External links says to avoid linking to secondary sources, including aggregator sites such as the above. Please slow down with the flood of new ideas and proposals and focus instead on adding content within the parameters of our current policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, there sort of is an article about aggregators: User:Hobbitschuster/Aggregators --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that we could usefully have an article about how to get the best out of online booking sites, and how to avoid some possible mistakes. Such an article need not actually link to the booking sites. I see it as more about avoiding booking a flight to Birmingham (Alabama) when you want to go to Birmingham (England), how far ahead to book for best choice / best prices etc. Online booking sites include primary sites such as those run by airlines and railway companies. AlasdairW (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it's OK to link to important sites in such an article, though not in other articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New Watch List filter[edit]

Not getting it. How can I easily remove bot edits from the list. In old UI was a simple tick box and update. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So quickest way appear have to type in Human, (was looking for bot) then rerun. OK works but do not think it is so discoverable. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It's kind of conceptually different; you ask for stuff you want rather than stuff you don't want. seems to be the page for these filters on Special:RecentChanges, but I couldn't easily find something specific for watchlists. User:Trizek (WMF) should be able to tell us (after the weekend) if there's a good help page for watchlists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The point with the new format is not th think about excluding things, but what you want to display. If you want to exclude bots, you have indeed to display edits made by humans instead. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit button edits the wrong listing[edit]

After an absence of about a year, I am back—basically just visiting, but trying to upgrade information for Lake County, Oregon. In Lakeview (Oregon)#Buy, there's a listing for BLM. (The question of whether BLM should be under "Buy" is irrelevant here.) When I click the Edit link after the listing, I get an edit box for the MC Chuckwagon exhibit (under See). If I click the edit link after the Goose Lake State Recreation Area (under Camping), the same thing happens. The one common factor that I can see is that all three of these listings have a number 1 (different colors) map link. I have never been a fan of WYSIWIG editors on Wikimedia projects and would prefer just to edit the whole article in source text, but when I try that, I get into an endless loop where pushing "Publish changes" endlessly asks me for an edit summary. Somehow, my editing environment here is not what I am used to (on Wikipedia, e.g.) where there is an edit-summary box below everything, and no toolbar at the top. Any suggestions? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not the common behaviour. I sometimes get the wrong listing/section either because of an edit between loading the page and hitting edit or because of the wrong type used in some section (a Do listing in See can confuse the tools). Something like the latter could explain what you see (but I get the right listing). You can also choose to edit the wikitext like on Wikipedia, and there should be no such problems (except the edit conflict one). --LPfi (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, I can choose to edit the wikitext, and there are no problems except that I cannot save my edit. Clicking "Publish changes", I get a dialog where I am asked for an edit summary, which I supply and then attempt to save, and I get thrown right back into the dialog where it asks me for an edit summary. Of the two mechanisms that I know about, for editing Lakeview (Oregon), I have been successful with zero of them. :( Peter Chastain (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Peter Chastain, and welcome back. I think I can help you get back to the mw:2010 wikitext editor that is probably more familiar to you.
  • Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn off the "new wikitext mode". (If that works, you're done; stop there.)
  • If it's not turned on, then check for the "Automatically enable all new beta features" option at the top, and turn that off. (Then turn on, and turn off, the "new wikitext mode" to make sure that it noticed that should be turned off.)
  • If neither of those are turned on, then go to Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and repeat all of that.
  • Also, please tell me, just because I'd like to know if I'm the only person getting this bug: when you hit the endless loop of it asking you for an edit summary, and then nothing happens, if you cancel out of edit summary box and check the history page in a new tab, did it actually save your changes already? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

New Canal itinerary - Main Donau Kanal[edit]

I took the liberty to create this itinerary as today the importance of this canal is largely touristic and there are paths along its banks that can be used by bikes and pedestrians as well as cruises along its entire length. de-wv also has an article. Please help with filling in POIs and whatnot. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a larger article concerning canal travel might be appropriate as well - There are many canals throughout the UK and Europe that one can almost get across Europe to the Mediterranean via barge or small craft. -- Matroc (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Existing canal itineraries include Rideau Canal, Erie Canal & Along the Grand Canal. Those might give you ideas. Pashley (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the Main Donau Kanal (the third attempt to link those two river systems and ultimately "Black Sea and North Sea") is actually sometimes described as linking the Rhine via its tributary Main to the Danube and hence crossing most of Europe. There were even - believe it or not - concerns that it would have to be opened as an international waterway even to "hostile" cargo shipping during the cold war... Well and nowadays it is mostly a place for cruises and other types of leisure only moderately disturbed by the occasional cargo vessel which once were supposedly the reason for building the whole shebang. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Good addition. On the topic of articles about canals, there is the broader topic of Waterways for a start. UK canals would be a good topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Another thing, the markers as they are (unfortunately neither de-WV nor WP were all that helpful in identifying other sights along the canal) do a pretty okay job of identifying the route, but what about using Wikidata for a blue line where the Canal is, kinda like we do for subways? Oh and I think for those that offer generally accessible passenger boats of some kind (ferries, cruises) I think we should link to (some of) the operators... It however appears that the RMD (yeah I know, the abbreviation makes no sense, but is one of the most common shorthand forms) is not mentioned as prominently on the cruise brochures as e.g. the Panama Canal is... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


User:Curlylips22 has added a link to a site called Gynopedia to several destination articles. They've described it as "a free wiki resource that covers topics like birth control, the morning after pill, STI tests, menstrual products, women's clinics, gynecologists, prenatal care, abortion laws & access, crisis hotlines, etc. in locations around the world."

It could maybe be useful to have that link in Tips for women travellers or some similar article, but I doubt we need to have it in each and every destination article. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

From this looks like it may fall into Wikivoyage:External links exclusion of "links to other guides". K7L (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, those edits are going to need to be reverted. We don't use external links that way (definitely not in destination articles, and arguably not in travel topics like Tips for women travellers either). Any such information on our site should be specific to the individual destination and presented in the article itself, rather than linked to from another site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I reverted some more additions. While it's useful information for many travellers, it's better to have it in one article. We for instance don't include detailed description of malaria or zika virus in every destination article where those diseases are a risk. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey everyone - Thanks for the input, and sorry if I added external links incorrectly! Here's the deal: The links that were added were not redundant; they were different on each page. For example, the link that was added on the Dhaka page was specifically for health care options for women in Dhaka, while the link on the Paris page was specifically related to health care options for women in Paris. Like Wikivoyage, Gynopedia is designed to have separate city and country pages (but focused on sexual and reproductive health care). It seemed like it would be useful for visitors to a given page to find health care information specifically for that city, hence why I added specific links to various city and country pages on Wikivoyage. However, if this violates how the wiki is managed/run, I understand. - User:Curlylips22 note: for User:AndreCarrotflower User:Ypsilon User:K7L

Curlylips22 - Understood about the fact that the links weren't redundant. However, the rule of thumb at Wikivoyage is that we prefer to include as much relevant information as possible in our articles themselves, rather than forcing our readers to click through to another website. The reason why is because we are a travel wiki, and there are many underdeveloped places in the world where travellers might have Internet access only through slow dial-up connections, or they might have none at all and have to make do with printed copies of our guides. The information in the Gynopedia articles is welcome, but policy holds that it should be integrated into Wikivoyage by, for example, creating listings for pharmacies, etc. in the "Cope" sections of the destination articles themselves, or adding information about availability of contraception, etc. to the "Stay healthy" sections. I'm not sure if Gynopedia is published under a Creative Commons license, but if so, the process could be as simple as copy-pasting the information directly from Gynopedia to here (don't forget to use proper attribution in your edit summary or on the talk page.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a Wikidata property for linking to pages on this site from the corresponding items about places: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Gynopedia place ID. Curlylips22 FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it should definitely be added to Tips for women travellers. Not sure about links anywhere else. Pashley (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the Gynopedia site would be okay as a link from Tips for women travelers however, most of the information is outside of scope for destination articles. Birth control, abortion advice/clinics, menstruation, advocacy, etc. are all outside of our scope, so I don't think most of it could even be adapted to Wikivoyage. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say that information about the availability of birth control and abortion in a given city, including the locations of clinics, is definitely relevant to travellers, particularly if there's any scarcity (obviously, in a place where you can get birth control over the counter in any of hundreds or thousands of drugstores, there's no need to start listing those). It seems to me, on the same basis that there are Commons and Wikipedia links for every article that has a counterpart on those Wikis, a link to the relevant Gynopedia article should be provided through Wikidata, if it is part of Wikimedia or has compatible Creative Commons Copyleft policies and would like to associate with Wikimedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It is relevant indeed. I would agree with an "In other projects" link once Wikidata has the links. If Wikimedia had a wiki dedicated to hospitals we would certainly link to it. Syced (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a track on the dynamic map of Around the World in Eighty Days but now all the POIs have disappeared[edit]

does anyone know how them make the POIs reappear? (without removing the track) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just about to try playing around with this thing. Yes, it seems as though there's a lot of complex code involved with the formation of that map. Selfie City (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure Traveler100 would know and be able to fix it easily. Selfie City (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There was a parameter to indicate which items are displayed; if you changed it to indicate the track should be displayed, you'll likely have to also list the standard items (come, see, conquer, do, buy, eat, drink, be merry, sleep, pillage, burn, listing...) or they won't appear. It might be worth looking at Trans-Siberian Railway or Oregon Trail to see how they handle this. K7L (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Temporary fix - added show="listing" to mapframe and the POIs now appear... Did this fix while K7L was entering explanation -- Matroc (talk)
marker without a type appears to default to listing and will not show in a mapframe unless show=listing is applied I believe. If you add type=see to all the markers - mapframe without a show parameter should work fine. If you click button icon 1 for Fogg the popup map will appear with that green icon 1 only, if you want the other icons to appear just put in show=listing for the other markers and they will all appear. You can experiment with group and show to see different situation. -- Matroc (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: Using {{mapframe}} is not the same as using <mapframe> and there are subtle differences. -- Matroc (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there actually a usecase for a "common editor" to use the tag instead of the template? I didn't see one yet, and quite the opposite - the former almost always caused some issues, like markers not showing (=the above). (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Insert > Map in the visual editor (and in its wikitext mode) uses the tag directly. It would be ideal if the tag worked as well as the template; if anyone wants to talk to work-me about this problem, then I'd be happy to file bug reports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Chinese nationalist vandal[edit]

I've noticed that there is this vandal who seems to be bent on vandalising articles about China and China's geopolitical allies and rivals. I was wondering if we should have a partial protection on these articles so people don't have to keep reverting this vandalism. For a start, perhaps the articles we could do a partial protection on are the articles for China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and the United States. What do people say about that? The dog2 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support I'd lock the bigger/controversial countries (US, China...) for auto-protected users only... and also auto-ban new-comers who (nearly-)blank big pages like Pub within the first hours of their account existence. (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd probably have supported that second proposal, if I hadn't just accidentally blanked a Google Doc and needed ten agonizing minutes to figure out how to get my browser un-stuck and the previous content restored. As it is, I'm a little more aware of the possibility that something might go wrong accidentally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
In GD you don't have to push "save", here you do... What about "auto-revert" and ban for 12h, then after next accident 24h, 48h...? But I don't know if this is even possible with mediawiki, not if there are so many cases that or deserves a topic even :) (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It was a pure coincidence that I posted this at the same time that this most recent vandal was going around blanking pages. But this Chinese nationalist vandal who names himself some iteration of Fuerdai (which btw is Mandarin for second-generation rich). I think if we protect the articles I mentioned from edits by non-autoconfirmed users, we should be able to stop him from vandalising them. The dog2 (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
True, Andree. But it's also true that you can click "Publish" without realizing that you've screwed up things that aren't visible on your screen.
Is this vandal doing large-scale blanking? It might be possible to set up an abuse filter for blanking (or certain names) by new editors in the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How to switch a page banner back to default[edit]

I've been trying to do this for the poor-quality banner images for speedway and Ohlone Trail, which I added myself a while ago, but now I can't change them back to the default. How is this done? Selfie City (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to remove the "wikivoyage banner" on the associated Wikidata item, in addition to putting the default image in the template here. K7L (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the assumption is that any banner is better than the default... However, I'm not sure I agree... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, the speedway one is working now. And generally yes, I would say any banner, but these images were very poor quality. Selfie City (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to K7L's explanation, I've got the other one working now as well. Thanks, both of you, for your assistance on this issue; it's really been a help. Selfie City (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Putting graphs in Template:Climate[edit]

Climate chart with graph

I have seen that there was a small discussion in here more than a year ago but it was suggested at a late stage that didn't go anywhere with few participants, or an earlier discussion from 3 years ago.

I'm curious as to why the present template for climate is all text and numbers but no graphs. Why aren't we having graphs like the one to the right? My day time job is a climatologist and it is always simpler for humans to compare between graphs at a glance rather than compare the numbers in a table. Take our department's climate data for Toronto as example. Our first tab is always the graph because it gets the message across easily. Only if you want to get nitty and gritty part then you will find the table in second tab.

Since the code is already available in wiki format, we can easily lift it for our use. Those who prefer numbers still have access to it in the graph, while those who are visual learners can benefit tremendously from this addition. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Addendum: I wanted to get clarity because Template:Climate chart says "This new template [from 2014] should be discussed on its talk page to explain its purpose and build consensus for usage on the site. Until there is a consensus to keep the template it should not be added to more than one low-visibility article (as an example of usage)..." OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it has not been implemented because most editors don't have any problems with the current climate template. Also, while the new template gives out more information at a glance, it does take up more space vertically. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, shouldn't traveller comes first? I placed the currently version of the template for Seoul as comparison so everyone can take a look between the graph and the box. The graph gives you a context and scale. At a glance with the box, you wouldn't pick out easily that July and August had the most rain (by a factor of 3) comparing to other months. But the graph shows it right away. Not to mention that one-click expansion gives you the unit conversion to imperial units for our American visitors. Space-wise, while you accurately described the graph taking up more vertical space, you didn't mention that the box takes up more horizontal space.
 Climate Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Daily highs (°C) 1.5 4.7 10.4 17.8 23.0 27.1 28.6 29.6 25.8 19.8 11.6 4.3
Nightly lows (°C) -5.9 -3.4 1.6 7.8 13.2 18.2 21.9 22.4 17.2 10.3 3.2 -3.2
Precipitation (mm) 20.8 25.0 47.2 64.5 105.9 133.2 394.7 364.2 169.3 51.8 52.5 21.5

Korea Meteorological Administration
OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Taking up horizontal space is not really a problem, but we've recently discussed the issues with infoboxes in country articles taking up much horizontal space, and together with region maps that likewise are located in the top of the article they've been forcing all photos (in the case of small countries with short articles) far below where they should be. That problem was luckily solved.
To make it clear, I don't oppose replacing the climate template. I expected the new chart would grow huge when inserted in articles with very much rain but apparently it doesn't.
But, if the community decides we should start using the new chart, someone needs to make sure that they're changed in all articles that have climate tables. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
On the first look, it seems we could replace {{Climate}} with w:Template:Climate_chart relatively straight-forward-ly (so it'd be fixed everywhere 'for free'). (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I'd support the graph anytime. We don't really have an "real-estate issue" with WV, IMO. I'd say it's the contrary even - esp. on the modern wide-screen desktops the text is really unpleasant to read. In any case, as you said - from the graph, it's immediately obvious when the "best season" is - compared to very hard-to-read table. (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note - I fixed the WP Climate_chart (sub-)template, now it seems to print fine. This was one of the blockers back then, so perhaps User:RolandUnger and User:Andrewssi2 will be interested? (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I checked several pages on Android that uses the existing box (since that's the biggest "real-estate issue") and it causes page alignment issue. Anchorage and Adelaide 's climate box spills out to the left and you wouldn't see the text for "Daily high", "Daily low" and "Precipitation". Aarhus's climate box spills out to the right and you can scroll to see the furthest right, but you also scrolled the entire page at the same time. But if I go to w:Aarhus that uses climate chart, the mobile version gives me a scrollbar within the template. So from a mobile standpoint, the graph is also superior to the box. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I agree with this proposal, graphs are much easier to interpret than individual numbers. I would suggest to check how graphs come out when articles are printed however (for users who prefer to print articles instead of reading them on digital devices). ArticCynda (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support I also support the graphs. Much more visually appealing. Thanks to Ohana United for this. Ground Zero (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I personally am particular to the Walter+Lieth type of diagram, but the graphic style proposed above certainly beats numbers... this is what Walter+Lieth looks like Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I was about to propose the same, as the Walter/Lieth style allows for very quick identificaton of humid/arid periods. There doesn't seem to be anything about this on en.wikipedia, but this page gives a pretty good quick introduction. Downside is of course, that there doesn't seem to be an already-existing template for this. --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support So fancy! This looks much better than what exists currently. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support +1 for graphs PsamatheM (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Support Agree with the above. As a general comment, Wikivoyage tends to be text heavy and light on visuals/graphics compared to other travel guides. This will go some way towards fixing the imbalance. Gizza (roam) 21:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we should also establish which graph to use. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
While the Walter+Lieth is technically superior to the WP style, it took me a good while to understand how it works (saw it for the 1st time, too) - and I am relatively technically skilled, IMHO. The WP style is commonly used in mobile apps and on web, so I'd say most of the visitors would be very familiar with it. And finally, we have an implementation of the WP style readily available. (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of a graph. Could typical hotter (>30 °C/85 °F) or cooler (?) ranges be lightly highlighted in the background, so that it's easier to get an idea of how hot or cold those numbers are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course, (good) graphs can be read easier and faster at least on smartphones. However, a graph should be visible on all devices but the graph shown above cannot be printed because div-tag background colors are omitted in print which are used for the bars. To prevent excess editing work and time we have to develop a method of implementation firstly. Contrary to the map development we have to cooperate with Wikipedians because they have the same need. Three problems must be solved: (1) where and how to store the climate data? There are two possible repositories: Wikidata or Commons (for instance as JSON data as it is done for map data). (2) We need a Lua application interface to fetch these data into the wiki (Wikidata: a simple one is available; Commons: not yet available). (3) Conversion to a png or svg media file. This can be done for instance with the <graph> tag. In 2015 I made a first simple graph experiment to create a media file. Graph is a strong tool to create more complex charts, too. Unfortunately we do not have the manpower at German Wikivoyage to create a complete solution. That's why I ask to collaborate with Wikipedians and the foundations programmers. --RolandUnger (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Roland, as I wrote above, the WP style can be printed now, as is. Other points are not needed immediately, IMO. We can likely just replace the current template to present the existing data ina graph form. For sure it'd be better to fetch P4150 from wikidata and render it on the fly to svg, but that sounds like a long term task. The data are hardly present anywhere (short of the New York entry), and there's no renderer. I reckon this may take years, right? (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I fear that you are right (taking years). But we should try to ask the English Wikipedians to find a faster way. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

...looks like nobody's really against this proposal. Shall we implement it then? (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do. Everyone loves a graph. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm very much looking forward to the graphs. Thank you for taking this on. Ground Zero (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

hi pub users[edit]

how you doing?.

--Themainhomepageitsputittouse (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot better now that you're banned. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Why were the regions removed from the Central African Republic page? Those articles contained vital info on the security situation in the three areas of the C.A.R. If they were too short, I can fix that. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We prefer not to break articles up into regions until the article contains enough region-specific information to not have empty region articles. If you want to recreate the region articles, that's a valid solution to the problem so long as you do add information to them. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The other solution is to simply include the safety warnings for different regions in Central African Republic#Stay safe - in different sections, if that's appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, in my opinion, unless you plan to create city articles to populate those regions, it would probably be better to add the information about the security situation to the "Understand" and "Stay safe" sections of the country article for now. If more city articles are created, or if the content in the country article gets so long or confusing that readers need separate region articles to make sense of it, then recreating the regions would make sense. (By the way, if I'm not mistaken, all or almost all of the security information in the region articles was incorporated into the country article when I merged them.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It is possible for a bottom-level region article to group a long list of villages into a few shorter groups of 7±2 each without creating a new level of subregion articles. Adirondacks does this, because it's a huge chunk of parkland into which at least eighteen tiny villages have been scattered. I'm not sure that CAR needs this (as the article only has seven pages under it) and it's rarely done, but it might be an option if you want a region-like subgrouping without creating another level of region page under this one. K7L (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Mapshape in Moscow/Central North[edit]

The map in the district article Moscow/Central North shows POIs outside the shaded area of the map. Either the shaded area needs to be redrawn or the listings moved. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, the map for this district has been an issue before, perhaps even quite recently. Selfie City (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, see Talk:Moscow/Central-North; it was brought up about six weeks ago. Selfie City (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
...And not resolved or addressed... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It appears only 2 POIs were outside the district boundaries, so I moved them to their appropriate neighbor districts until a better solution is agreed on. ArticCynda (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Because you came a day after I fixed the region to fit 1/2 of the items that were previously outside... :-D In the end, the problem is that our Moscow region boundaries are very badly defined. (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Oops I didn't check that, thanks for the efforts you invested in fixing the issues,! I agree that the boundaries are quite loosely defined, so perhaps we should move to a Wikimedia Commons hosted map like Brussels or Saint Petersburg? From the recent experience with Brussels and the ongoing discussions in its margins, we know that such a setup is quite a bit of work, but almost immediately pays off because the map becomes a lot easier to maintain. ArticCynda (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the extra work, I only left the message in history and didn't bother to write back here :) :( Anywho, in the end we can relatively easily redraw the dynamic map acc. to Moscow_map_by_WikiJunky.jpg, or rework Moscow completely and match the stuff from the Russian comrades... (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Issue with the editor mode[edit]

I'm having an issue with the source editor mode where it automatically creates another editing box on top of the area where you publish an edit. Fortunately, the box can be changed in size, so I can post this, but a solution would be excellent. It's also putting the headings in larger text and that kind of thing. Selfie City (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've never noticed this. On which browser/platform are you seeing this behavior, Selfie City? Could it be a conflict between browser add-ons and Wikimedia preferences? ArticCynda (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Chrome. I tried disabling an ad blocker but that has not worked. Selfie City (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Could you please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and tell me what's enabled?
Also, do you have syntax highlighting enabled? (If you do, then there will be some colored text showing when you type wikitext.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I turned everything off with the hope of that working, but it didn't. Also, interestingly, I commented quite recently on ArticCynda's talk page when that user was blocked, and the editor mode worked for that page and that page only. Selfie City (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Which mw:Editor are you using? I think the default here is a light blue one from 2010, called the mw:WikiEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It most closely resembles the 2003 original version. Selfie City (talk) 16:16, 12 August 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)
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)

Mapshape of NoHo not identical with the one in OpenStreetMap[edit]

Map of Travellers' pub

Another funny issue: The mapshape of NoHo/Manhattan looks differently here than on OSM. How's that possible again?--Renek78 (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the NoHo wikidata ID is used by two areas actually: way/482797187 and relation/8398111. So I guess Kartographer just merges those? (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! That was the reason for both boundaries! I cleaned them up in OSM. --Renek78 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Update: Same goes for Upper West Side. Is there any other place than OSM where Wikidata could get the shapes?--Renek78 (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This is quite a wide-ranging problem; most of the mapshapes for English counties are also wrong, because the Wikidata item uses the modern administrative county, which has different boundaries to those of the ceremonial counties we use on WV. How would one go about changing this? Somehow, the WV article needs to link to the Wikidata item for the ceremonial counties.
With respect to the NYC neighbourhoods issue, is it possible there's a similar problem of there being multiple definitions of which areas exactly places like the Upper West Side and NoHo encompass? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
One thought is to create a Data file and put it in Commons thus avoiding the use of defined OSM boundaries... This would be an external file with page parameter. May require some extra work, but I think that might work -- Matroc (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for delayed response, @Matroc:; this must have got buried. To be honest, and forgive me, I don't understand your comment, because my technical expertise is limited. But if you think that would work, whoever decided to take it on would have my full support. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking to an online map[edit]

I'm writing Maps, and of course I'm linking to a lot of map services, which is not normally policy but in this situation there's obviously a reason. But I also want to link to a map that's out of proportion to give travelers an example of what a map looks like when it's not to scale. Is this permitted according to policy? If not, are there any maps on WV/Commons that are like this that I could use for the maps article? Selfie City (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

technical question[edit]

Is it possible to get a list of just the interwikis in a specific article? If so, how does one do that? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, something like this might be possible example wikivoyage and wikiquote searching Jerusalem Q1218 - Also check the panel on the left of an article page - there are links there as well:

What is the point of having articles like this one?[edit]

In my opinion, the article is too small. Is this even a place of interest to tourists? I thought it was decided that the English Wikivoyage would only have articles of places that are of interest to travelers and not have articles about any place just because it is on the map. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out such an article exists. If this place passes the sleep test, hopefully someone can expand it — either through someone who has been there or someone who is willing to do research about the place. Selfie City (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Instead of complaining, you could just do something about it. Either expand the article if there's something to add, or merge it to a nearby place / the next level up in the hierarchy. If you think this is a unique case, let me disabuse you; there are plenty of outline articles like this on English Wikivoyage. They don't all need a pub debate. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
What harm is it doing? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Or, what harm was it doing. ThunderingTyphoons! redirected it to Central Tennessee. I think this did have article potential, so I'm not sure about redirecting. Selfie City (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
If you can find a single thing to see or do there, and put that information in what was a completely empty article, along with the single possible sleep listing (a Hampton Inn, I think), and somewhere to get food, then by all means reinstate it. But a Google search for "things to do in White House, TN" came up with absolutely zilch. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Made a disambiguation page to include a well-known destination known by the same name. /Yvwv (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────According to TripAdvisor, there are 6 hotels in White House. Selfie City (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation page should be restored & a link added to it for Casablanca, which is "white house" in Spanish.
As for " I thought it was decided that the English Wikivoyage would only have articles of places that are of interest to travelers and not have articles about any place just because it is on the map", that does more-or-less hold for actual articles but it is very common to have redirects for lesser places. Pashley (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
6 hotels and what else? The sleep test can only apply if there's a reason for travellers to spend the night somewhere. The disambiguation solution is perfect. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I did a bit of looking around, and AFAICT the best reason to go to White House is if you can't find a hotel room in Hendersonville (Tennessee). White House has a population of about 11,000 (and booming), but I couldn't find much to do in the city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Non-WV-related links on user pages[edit]

Do we (or should we) have any guidelines re editors putting non-WV-related links on their own user pages? How far do we go in tolerating link spamming by editors on their own user pages? Nurg (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't want any links which could be considered touting or otherwise breach data protection / safeguarding / decency rules, but other than that, I'm not sure we should prohibit what people want to link to from their userpage.
Just to help us out, do you have any examples as to what you're referring to, in order to establish whether this is a problem? If you want to avoid singling out individual users, you could just post the links here and not say which userpage they're from. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd say if a user actually contributes to the guide & not just to their own page, then a single link to their employer or a place they own is fine. Pashley (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
My own page is pretty tame in this regard - the only external link I show is to Wikipedia's main page. L. Challenger (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The example I'm thinking of is 4 links to pages aimed at converting people to a religion. The user is an active contributor to the guide, not a drive-by link spammer. Nurg (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've seen users link to their personal blog which may or may not be related to travel but haven't in recent times seen links to convert people to a religion. I don't really know whether they're acceptable. Wikipedia has a general user page policy on what's prohibited (Link) but the principles are quite broad and don't help all that much here. It does say however that extensive promotional material not related to Wikimedia should be avoided. Gizza (roam) 11:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Four links to something off-topic would, in my interpretation, count as pretty "extensive promotional material". I think one link would be alright, because the religion is clearly important to the user, and they are entitled to share elements of their personal life to whatever degree they wish. Perhaps you, Nurg, could have a quiet word with the user in question? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Of Taxis and Uber[edit]

I have a conundrum. The small group of cities that I'm a Docent for all have entries for getting around by Taxi - but between my own experiences, the experiences of people I know and yes, even Yelp - old-fashioned taxi services are getting increasingly avoided because of prices, lousy customer service skills and a host of other reasons that I've heard and seen mentioned. The people I know have by and large turned exclusively to services like Uber and Lyft for a host of reasons, among them reliability and price, and even my own experience seems to correlate. Should I start nudging listings for these services into the city listings, or not? L. Challenger (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the general rule should be to shortly note whether the ride hailing services are present or illegal or what the situation is and then move on. Linking to the same WV:Boring chain a trillion billion million times imho smacks of touting. And yes, I dislike the "sharing economy" especially in the arrogance and ignorance many techies exhibit when approaching stuff they want to "disrupt", but that is besides the point... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that we should list app taxis in the Get around section of cities. There is probably less need to provide a link because you can't book the taxi from the web page, and generally I would not recommend these services to those who don't know how to get the app. It is much more useful to say how they are regulated within the city - are there the same checks on vehicles and drivers as regular taxis, are they allowed to use the same routes as regular taxis (e.g. in cities where taxis are allowed to use bus lanes). AlasdairW (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
{{edit conflict}} Here in Finland the law on taxis changed, and now competing call centres have appeared at least in Helsinki. It seems Uber is going to work like any other of those companies (requiring the driver to have a taxi licence). I suppose one should list companies serving a large part of the country in the country article and local companies in city articles, with phone number and links. I do not really buy the "boring" argument, as few taxi companies are an experience in their own right (unless in the "no bad reviews" sense). Leaving out the dominating actor from a list because it is too big doesn't really seem to benefit the traveller (there is of course no need to repeat national phone numbers, reviews or instructions). -LPfi (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and ideas for this! After examining the options and possibilities, I think the most I will do is indicate that ride hailing services are legal and in frequent use in the cities and simply leave it at that. It bears noting the the home city of Uber and Lyft is in fact not terribly far from myself or the places I docent. L. Challenger (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
L. Challenger - Sorry for coming to this discussion late. For another option, check out what I did with Buffalo#Ride sharing: start by "indicat[ing] that ride hailing services are legal and in frequent use" and then ballpark what you might reasonably expect to pay, and mention any special circumstances e.g. airport pickup restrictions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Articles needing attention[edit]

  • There used to be a category for Double Redirects - are we no longer concerned with them. -- Matroc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It is under Special pages. Currently in a good state. --Traveler100 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks... No wonder! - I was looking at incorrect Category Page - Yikes! I better hang it up -- Matroc (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
On a different needing attention topic, a new check of articles with dead external links has been run (thanks Ryan). At the end of February's cotm we had no guide or star status articles with bad urls. This is back up to 507 as of today. --Traveler100 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

El Castaño[edit]

Can someone take a second look at the article El Castaño. I cannot locate the village or the organisation mentioned and the coordinates in the article do not match those of the Wikidata page. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the article a bit, corrected the coords, linked it to the correct WD item and corrected WD (though I'm not sure what title to give it in WD, as "El Castaño" is ambiguous). It seems like the name of the organisation may be different now - maybe Centro Turístico Costa Verde, or Centro Ecoturístico Costa Verde, I'm not sure. Nurg (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I was not sure were it was. Just looking at mismatches between sites. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Euronet ATM transactions[edit]

Euronet Logo
Wrong map!!! Sorry.

In Italy I encountered ATM's of the brand Euronet, not a European but a US-based company. I tried to get money from it, but was confronted with a fee. Happily I could abort the transaction. My Dutch bank card has the Maestro logo, and in countries that have the Euro as their national currency, banks may not charge costs for getting money from the ATM's. Is the different way of Euronet a reason for adding a warning? A map I found using the search function, suggests that they are active in Italy, Poland and The Netherlands. In The Netherlands I never encountered one, but I have my regular ATM to get money, so maybe they are there but I never noticed. --FredTC (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be worth putting a note about this in the Money article and in Europe#ATM section. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The language in Europe#ATMs seems to suggest this, although it could be less vague, if somebody knows for sure. The JESC map seems to be about the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, according to description, although I do not know why the Netherlands and Belarus (not Poland) are shown. --LPfi (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the wrong map, it was a result from a search for euronet, but I did not check it well enough. --FredTC (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I vaguely remember that the thing is that teller machine companies may not discriminate: if getting money from an account in one bank is free, getting money from another EU account must also be. As getting money from your own bank's ATM is usually free, those ATMs are free for all. I do not know how foreign cards and currencies other than the euro are handled. As the Euronet machines probably take fees from everybody, they would be allowed to do so. I do not know whether the warning is explicitly required, but silently taking money from you is hardly allowed. --LPfi (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess Euronet has a legal construction that allows it to ask money for the transactions with their ATM's. The may not discriminate is for banks in Europe, so I guess Euronet simply is not a bank and therefore allowed to operate ATM's without the rules that apply to the banks. For people from non-euro countries it is even worse I fear, because the exchange rate is very bad. See here for some experience information. --FredTC (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not only banks. Over here the banks do not run the ATMs (but a company running them). But yes, if you take money from everybody, that is not discriminating (except against the poor, but let's not go into that). --LPfi (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

New travel topics[edit]

I have some ideas for some new travel topics.

  • Star Trek tourism
  • Spanish-American War historical travel
  • Mission Trip survival guide
  • Druze religion travel

Libertarianmoderate (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I suppose at least some of those could be written, but I very much prefer one good travel topic article to a dozen outlines. If you are going to write those yourself, plunge forward, but start with the one you are best at and try to make it reasonably complete before starting the next one. I do not understand what the survival guide is about. If it is about how to survive as a missionary, I suppose it is hard to write sensibly, and easy to fill with prejudices. And I know nothing about Druze religion travel. --LPfi (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think limiting yourself to a few things at a time rather than getting bogged down in myriads of outlines is the better course of action. At any rate, you can also try out ideas that may or may not be fit for mainspace in your user space. Just take the URL of your userpage and add /whateveritisyouwantthearticletobe and then click on "create page". So for example Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Need help[edit]

I messed up, guys. I need a space between 'Racine' and 'County' in RacineCounty. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've given you all the space you need. Ground Zero (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a very emotional time in my editing life and I appreciate your assistance. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone here by any chance be able to fix the following bug at the Hebrew Wikivoyage ?[edit]

Ever since we started using listings on the Hebrew Wikivoyage (a long time ago) we had a major bug with the listings that has never been fixed - there is no edit button to any of the listings on the Hebrew Wikivoyage (see example here). The bug prevents users from editing listing in a visual input window (as is possible on the English Wikivoyage). Would anyone here by any chance be able to fix this bug? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Traveling with a Third World passport[edit] (koavf)TCM 21:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning a user[edit]

When I mention a user I write it like this:


Besides {{ping}}, are there any other, easier ways to type in a reference to someone's user name? Just asking in case I've been doing it the long way all this time. Thanks. Selfie City (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There's also {{to}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm using the normal wikicode editor (not the visual editor), and I think it's very easy to click the link icon above the editing window, type the user name and click insert link. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and pagebanners[edit]

Why are we farming out more and more of our banners to Wikidata? Some reasons in support of keeping the information locally are:

  1. It would make changing banners easier and quicker; edits made on Wikidata can take anything from a few minutes to several hours to become visible on Wikivoyage, leaving you uncertain as to whether the edit was successful.
  2. In the time lapse described above, a Wikidata user could have reverted your change, with good reason: it's not their job to understand or cater to the needs of our wiki.
  3. The longer editing process and delay described above are unnecessarily confusing, especially to newer users. This goes against our general tendency to keep things simple: minimal use of templates and images, no photo montages, a relatively restrained bureaucracy, etc. Furthermore, you shouldn't have to know how to use a completely different wiki in order to effectively edit Wikivoyage.
  4. As far as I know, no other wiki uses pagebanners (the other Wikivoyages excepted, but not even all of them do). So hosting banners centrally does not benefit other projects
  5. Keeping banners in Wikivoyage also means that the different language versions can more easily use different banners for their version of an article, as decided by that wiki's community (the Hebrew Wikivoyage seem to like to do their own thing in this regard).
  6. If Wikidata policies towards the banners they host were to change, we might lose control of them completely.

Any thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason not to put the banner image name on Wikidata but I always enter it explicitly on English Wikivoyage. Are you saying that the file name is being removed from Wikivoyage pages or is it just the case that there is one on Wikidata due to a different language user entering it there? --Traveler100 (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, no file names have been removed from WV. Nonetheless, putting the name on Wikidata (whoever does it) results in all of the problems described above. Having the name on Wikivoyage doesn't override what's on Wikidata; in fact it's the opposite. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
That sounds not preferable. How would a user on wikidata know the style requirements (7:1 and at least 2100 x 300 pixels) here on wikivoyage unless they specifically went looking for them? DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, in fact that is why I decided to post this here, after removing a badly-proportioned banner from Shillong which had been posted to Wikidata. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know entering a banner image name on the Wikivoyage page overwrites the Wikidata setting. And this should definitely stay. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, it's not quite as bad as I thought. We can, in fact, change between custom banners locally without changing what's on Wikidata. However, if you try to use the Default Pagebanner, as I have done at London, the banner listed on Wikidata remains visible. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry for wasting people's time on an issue which is far smaller than I first realised; most of the problems listed above are not actually an issue, except in the case of wrongly-formatted banners being added to Wikidata, and there is no alternative available so we want to use the default. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. These issues crop up any time we allow a Wikivoyage article to be dependent on anything hosted on some other wiki - whether it be Commons or Wikidata. We might find a great image, use it in an article somewhere, then have it randomly disappear - with the only notification to us that it was nominated for deletion on Commons being a User:CommonsDelinker bot removing the image: link from the article after it's too late and the image is already gone. tried a version of the {{listing}} template which could populate the fields from a Wikidata listing; they found that the {{vCard}} was breaking when Wikidata admins mistook the records as "not in use" and deleted a few. We're also open to the same issues if we allow {{mapshape}}s to be hosted on Commons; there was an incident a while back where Commons users were accusing us of being liars and worse because some of our content "shared" there contained (lat,long) co-ordinates which looked to be derived from OpenStreetMap, an open source which needs to be reusable. And then there's the whole question of whether content spread across two or three wikis is more difficult for new users to maintain, as the structure is less understandable than one where everything's held locally on the one wiki. All of this is nothing new and it's all been discussed before. K7L (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a few notes....
  1. "edits made on Wikidata can take anything from a few minutes to several hours to become visible on Wikivoyage". Untrue - the data are used right after you regenerate the wikipage.
  2. "it was nominated for deletion on Commons" ... what's the usual reason? I'd say copyright issues or similar? In such case, you cannot just copy it to WV and pronounce it OK. Copyright applies also here.
  3. "We're also open to the same issues if we allow {{mapshape}}s to be hosted on Commons". Again, rather than copying suspicious stuff to WV, you should rather explain the source and license of the data at W-commons? (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. The purge function is hardly general knowledge, especially not if we speak about new editors. I suppose new editors need not change banners, but it is awkward anyway.
  2. I suppose the problem is mostly with some admins at Commons, who are quite trigger happy. They might delete a file because the permissions were stated (or evidence provided) in a way they are not used to, or other formalia. Or they think a file is not in scope (although files used over here are per definition in scope). You can usually get the file restored through an undeletion request, but you have to note the deletion and know the processes.
  3. The case hinted at had no copyright problems, but the deleting admin did not trust the uploader about the copyright status. It is quite frustrating that a file that has been on Commons for weeks (or years) can be deleted after five days with only a message at the file and the user talk page when an admin thinks there is not enough evidence. If you do not check the pages (or your e-mail, if you have it notify you) every few days, you'll likely just find the file gone.
I think Commons does a splendid job most of the time (Swedish Wikipedia does not have local files, because we trust Commons to do it better than we could). Still, loosing a file or having to fight for its restoration is unpleasant to say the least, even if one has to deal with it only a few times a year.
--LPfi (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)