Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Contents


Mobile mode[edit]

As mentioned above most web interaction is now by smart phone. To get more visitors to this site we need to get the mobile app more useful for users and easier to use. Do we have a forum page to discuss ideas and suggest improvement? If not how should this be structured? Would this be a Wikivoyage Expedition page? Sort of ideas I am thinking about see User:Traveler100/mobile, where should I copy/move this to? I have no idea how the mobile app is managed and who controls it. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Wikivoyage app for android and where can I get it? I think it's OK if this is handled in an expedition page. --Zerabat (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@zerabat: There is this one and a European one from m:Wikimedia CH. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Have a great 2017 - goals and projects for the new year[edit]

So this year is invariably drawing to a close and while we have had some successes here at WV, we are far from finished with anything (no wiki ever truly is). I think the past year has been mostly positive for the community (I neither recall any high profile conflicts nor anybody of note leaving, but I may have overlooked something), although it was not a good year for people interested in travel as a whole. War zones seem to be getting worse, not better, and the calls for ever tighter "security", especially in the context of borders bear ill for the future. Brexit may well mean travel between the UK and the EU becoming more difficult. But at any rate our community here can do nothing about those developments and I hope we can keep discussions as apolitical as possible, even if some users might be able to guess the political biases of some others.

So, let us not further focus on what was in 2016, but rather what we want to do in 2017. I think there are some ongoing projects as well as some new ones to keep us busy starting tomorrow.

  1. Develop at least one of American football, Intercity buses in Germany or rail travel in Germany to be ready to be featured
  2. Continue SEO edits, especially to high profile articles (countries, continent(al section)s, major cities) in order to hopefully draw more eyeballs our way
  3. Reduce the number of bare outlines through mergers, deletions and more content, promoting them if possible to usable
  4. Hopefully do some on the ground research for articles on Nicaragua
  5. If possible do some on the ground research on other destinations as well

At any rate, I hope you have a safe and pleasant New Year's Eve (take a piece of advice from a New York Giants fan: Be careful around fireworks) and a good 2017. I would love to hear your plans on wiki, and if you want to share them off-wiki. Guten Rutsch Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: My only big goal is really perfecting Indianapolis and building on all of the hard work that Sarah did and that I have done since. I wish I could have found the time to polish it up as featured for the Indy 500 but it wasn't going to happen with my schedule. I will be more free this year which is exciting. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

PDF download, include map and place button centrally[edit]

Dear fellow enthusiasts

I was wondering whether it might be worth a discussion for the future of WikiVoyage to also add maps from the GPS points of a place to the beginning or end of an article when downloading it as PDF, like Lonely Planet and others are doing(?) I know it is possible to download the GPS marker file, however, I believe, not many people are firm with this kind of thing.

At the same time, could it also be meaningful to have a more direct download icon to each article (maybe together with the GPX download icon). I believe many people have problems finding/noticing the PDF link on the left side and might just print out each page, which add a lot of burden on the environment.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of usability improvements but I'm having trouble visualizing what you're suggesting. Can you give examples, perhaps with screenshots? Powers (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
1) Here is an example of a Lonely Planet page: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/2055215075_3d17498971_b.jpg They always got an overview map with listings for each place. It would be meaningful to have something similar produced automatically for the PDF or Book download you can do with WikiVoyage, now that many places include GPS tags for their sights. 2) Furthermore, for each WikiVoyage page there are two icons in the upper right corner above the page title, one for GPX download, and one for OpenStreetMap view. I believe it would help to also have the PDF download link here, instead in the left sections of numerous links. Maybe also combining it with the book creation opportunity.Ceever (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
We definitely could improve our print options. We don't maintain the PDF feature, however, so I'm not sure how much control we have. It might be worth putting a feature request in. Powers (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There are some discussions about changing/improving the PDF situation going on. mw:Reading/Web/PDF Rendering is probably the clearest explanation. User:Melamrawy (WMF) is probably the best person to ask about it, if you have questions or want to help. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles without Wikidata page[edit]

The articles in this Category:Banner missing from Wikidata don't have a page in Wikidata. If anyone has time to fix it will be appreciated. --Kizar (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hola Kizar, nice to hear from you again! And thanks a lot for running your tool. My answer is late because I was travelling all around Spain :-) Would you mind running your tool again so that I can create the missing Wikidata items? Also, would you mind publishing the source code of your tool? That would allow Wikivoyage to survive even in case you disappear ;-) Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto#Public transit[edit]

Wikivoyagers, your opinions are needed on this brewing talk page discussion. User:Ground Zero feels that Toronto#Public transit is too long, and would rather merge the detailed information into a new Public transit in Toronto travel topic rather than streamline away any excessively fine-grained detail. This pretty much flies directly in the face of wiaa, but I have to admit he's making some good points. What do you all think - should we change policy, or at least make an exception for this particular case?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would raise a similar point about the relevant portion of the London, England article.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I would welcome travel topics on large complex public transport systems. In some cases the system covers a wider area than just a city, and so a separate article would be particularly good. Like with airports, this should be restricted to the really large systems. I would also prefer that we had Toronto public transit, as I think that it would be easier for readers to find the article than Public transit in Toronto. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I also think that public transit systems in certain cities or metro areas (especially when there are many overlapping systems and jurisdictions or tariff zones to contend with) are a worthwhile topic for standalone travel topics. With the caveat that much of this information is liable to become outdated through yearly fare adjustments, new construction or service cancellations and it would be nice (in general, but for this as well) to have some template or something telling us from when a piece of data is and when it has become (likely) outdated. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. We should be able to get transport content simple and short enough so that it fits into a city article. What extra information is really needed beyond what we currently have in London#London Underground (for example) that would warrant a separate article? It's a practical level of detail and scope (if anything, some of it is too much detail - looking at you, 'Photography'), and anything more than that is already much better covered by Wikipedia. The tourist elements (interesting architecture, notable journeys, rail aficionado stuff) of such transport systems should largely go in Urban rail adventures.
Furthermore, if we create an article that just focuses on public (rail?) transport in a given place, there's either going to be lots of duplicate information between the new and existing article, or any reader who wants to get a full picture of how to 'get around' will have to look at two completely different articles. All the road, taxi, biking (buses, boats...?) will be in the main destination article, with the metro, train and tram stuff elsewhere. I don't see how it serves the traveller to have to read something that could turn into the War and Peace of the Underground, just to figure out how to use it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a lot of these points would apply to any branched article, whether it's a "Rail travel" article, or an airport article, or a neighbourhood article. We could always include less, there will always be overlap or duplication, and it could always become out of date. Readers who don't want to read a War and Peace about the Underground don't have to - and it is best if they don't have to scroll past it in the London article. The difference between a WV transit article and a Wikipedia one is that the WV article has to focus on getting around and points of interest, and not include details on history, rolling stock, rail gauge, planning, which would be appropriate for a WP article. Finally, what information isn't useful to or of interest to you may be to someone else. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just done a print preview of the London article, and "Get around" takes up just over 20 pages (of a 67 page article). I think that it could usefully be condensed to 5-10 pages, and have a 30 page London public transport article, but it should be about all public transport, not just the underground. It may also be appropriate to include private transport (car, bike, foot) as well, but that is a detail to consider later. AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Points taken, but I still don't buy it. There has to be a bare minimum of detail in the destination article so that a person with no prior experience of public transport in a city can still use just the destination article's 'get around' section in order to understand how to get around by Tube. They should not have to consult an entirely separate article just to get up and running with the system. Currently, I would say they can do that, with the caveat that some sections are already overlong or unnecessary so that they detract from usability.
What's more, it is for district articles to tell people which Tube stations are nearby to which attractions, and our district articles also have the routes each line takes through and beyond the district at the bottom of the page. What I would support is expanding the 'get in' sections of the district articles, where more detail about a specific station or route is necessary.
I'm a transport nerd, and I would probably enjoy helping to write articles on different transport systems around the world, but looking at it from the perspective of a travel guide writer and not a trainfan, I (a) don't see the need, and (b) think such an article would damage usability for travellers.
Things would be a lot simpler if on desktop you could expand / collapse individual sections of the page like on the mobile version. That would solve the annoyance of scrolling past walls of text to get to the bit you're interested in. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(reindent) Speaking of not redirecting users to separate pages, I wish we could have funneled all our comments to Talk:Toronto#Public transit rather than having half of them here, because if you look over on that other page you'll see a specific proposal that I came up with that wpuld preserve the vast majority of the information Ground Zero doesn't want to see deleted, and would work very much like what ThunderingTyphoons! proposed in his most recent comment for London. Specific information about streetcar lines (cf. the Tube) belongs in the district articles, while information about regional commuter rail (i.e. GO Transit) belongs in Greater Toronto Area#Get around and whichever other region articles apply, with perhaps a brief summary in Toronto#Get in (not "Get around" - very few people use the GO train to get from place to place within Toronto; it's mostly used to get to Toronto from the suburbs and nearby satellite cities like Hamilton, Barrie, and Kitchener/Waterloo), and of course it should be mentioned in the "Get in" section of any articles for said suburbs and satellite cities. Information about suburban transit systems (MiWay, YRT, Viva et al.) doesn't belong in the Toronto article at all, but again in the articles for the respective subregions and/or suburban communities. As far as overly detailed transit information, then, all that's left is the "Fares" and "Transfers and proof of payment" sections, which can be safely streamlined or omitted as information that a) is susceptible to becoming outdated quickly and/or b) that travelers will eventually find out on their own anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I frankly fail to see how spinning of the likes of Rail travel in Switzerland (for which there seems to be ample consensus to do that) is different from spinning of complicated public transit systems of certain metro areas. There are several reasons why our readers might not want to read through pages and pages of that in our main article on a city (e.g. someone who is just convinced that they will take a car everywhere advice to the contrary be damned), but some public transit systems are really that complicated/interesting/extensive that more than would reasonably fit into a single city article can and should be said about them in a travel guide. For instance the way tickets work is not at all self-evident. In some systems you have to swype/insert at a fare gate. In some systems you get it back and have to insert it again in another fare gate upon leaving. In some systems you only have to present them during spot checks, but they are not valid unless stamped, some machines in such systems sell pre-stamped tickets but not necessarily of all types. Day tickets may be valid a precise 24 hours, from the date of the timestamp to the next day x AM (e.g. a day ticket stamped at 0:10 in Berlin on the fifth of January is valid until the early morning hours of the sixth of January) or from the "business day" (which ends at say 5 AM in the logic of the transit provider). And then there are cities where tickets are not integrated or only partially integrated and you will for example need a different ticket for the commuter rail system and the subway (which would surprise very close to every German who take U-Bahn and S-Bahn working on the same ticket system as a matter of course). And that does not even get into where which line goes and how useful a commuter rail system is to visitors who are unlikely to want to use a system that only does commuter runs during rush hour. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You fail to see how the railway system of an entire country (which in Switzerland's case, can be considered a tourist attraction in its own right) is different to that of a city? Nobody is denying that ticketing can be complicated, but it is not ordinarily so complicated that it cannot be summed up in a couple of paragraphs in our 'get around' / 'get in' sections. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That article looks shorter than the London ==Get around== section, and contains similar information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
It also depends upon your audience. Are you writing for people who are transit savvy (e.g., most Germans)? Or for people who've never used any mass transit system at all (most Americans)? Sometimes, it's quite simple ("Every single time you get on a bus, put US $1 cash in the box by the driver. Make sure that you have exact change."). Other times, it's quite complex: you buy the tickets from newsstands, but don't forget to get it stamped on the bus and then keep it with you at all times, and a standard ticket is good for this or any other bus for a total of four stops, but only in the same direction and during the two hours after you stamped it, and if you transfer to the subway, then you have to re-stamp, but you can do two subway stops or two bus stops plus one subway stop – in short, it's a complicated system that even locals sometimes have to think about, and someone who's completely unfamiliar with mass transit (much less the mass transit system for this country) is going to need a lot more help just to be able to manage a simple bus ride.
Overall, I'm in favor of articles that explain large systems. The main article should contain the basics (and specifically enough detail about price and how to handle tickets to get you from the airport to a hotel area by mass transit), but if there's a lot to say, then a very detailed sub-article that explains it for neophytes would be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether the size comparison is accurate but someone once told me Dallas/Fort Worth is as big in area as Switzerland. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If transportation-fans really wish to write separate, detailed and extensive articles about public transportation, I have no strong objections. We should keep in mind, however, that for many average travellers such articles will seem terribly boring and will not be what they are looking for. Whatever we do, the primary information should always stay available in the actual travel guide for a city or country. I've travelled extensively and all over the world - always making extensive use of local transportation. I've NEVER had to read 25 pages of information on how it works in any given place, as other travel guides simply have more concise information. If we have excessive sections, we should trim them. I'm pretty sure even average Americans can find their way around public transportation with an overview of the most relevant information ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to think that average Americans can use mass transit, but it's my experience that most of them never have. 95% of Americans don't use mass transit to get to work. If you've never used even a simple public transportation system, then getting dumped into something as complicated as London's system would be very intimidating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Add the general lack of foreign language proficiency (and the often poor quality and quantity of English language signage) and you have a good justification to go into some supposedly "obvious" detail. Besides that we would be amiss not to mention routes, vehicles or stations that are attractions in their own right. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

While there was a fair bit of support for public transit articles for major cities, I wouldn't say we have consensus. At Talk:Toronto, several people wrote that it would be easy and better to "streamline" the "Get around" section, but no-one has been willing to do so. I cut out some unnecessary parts, and had already done some trimming, but I still think it is too long. If others are happy with the still very long section instead of branching it off, then I'll leave it alone.

Meanwhile at London, User:ThunderingTyphoons! and I have taken turns at wielding a large and very sharp machete to hack away at the undergrowth, and have significantly reduced the length of the "Get around" section, but it too remains quite long. I think this shows the merit of having a public transit article. Ground Zero (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just so people know, I am still convinced the vast majority of these sections can be brought down to an optimal length without the need for a new article, London included. I haven't necessarily finished that job, but am going to be too busy today, tomorrow and possibly after to devote the necessary time. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#DotM voting participation: at an all-time low?[edit]

Same old story over at DotM - not enough votes. Please check out the linked talk page discussion.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian Pacific Wheel Race (bike race across Australia, Perth to Sydney)[edit]

I am looking for the right place to (collaboratively) build route notes for cyclists who want to ride the Indian Pacific Wheel Race course either in the inaugural event in March 2017 or anytime in the future. It would detail what facilities are available to cyclists in the often tiny towns on the course. Does WikiVoyage have (or want to have) a category of notes for suggested cycling voyages? —The preceding comment was added by 23:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC) (talkcontribs) User:Trelevn

Hi, Trelevn, and welcome! It would presumably be an itinerary that you'll want to create, though you may want to expand the article's scope from just competing in the annual (?) race to something that has a more year-round appeal. Presumably people can cycle the route any time of year, even when not racing?
Just as a heads up, when we post messages on a talk page on Wikivoyage, we sign / timestamp our comments. You can click on the blue icon at the top of the edit window (looks like a pencil) or you can type four tildes like so: ~~~~. Best wishes for the article, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
An article has been created at IndianPacificWheelRace, but it needs serious work, first to bring it in line how articles normally look like and second to fill it with useful content. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Huh, looks like our friend Trelevn didn't do anything with the idea. Unless (s)he plans to come back, it's a dreadful non-article with no keep merit - even its name is wrongly formatted. Does anyone actually want to work on it, or can it just be deleted? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dead links bot[edit]

For the first time since last May I'm re-running the bot that tags potentially dead external links with {{dead link}} and adds articles to Category:Articles with dead external links in the process. After 24 hours the bot is up to Den Helder, so I expect it will take another 4-5 days to scan everything. This bot is useful for tracking down closed businesses and for updating stale data, so if there is a particular region you like to look after, consider doing the following:

  1. Enable the "ErrorHighlighter" gadget from the "Gadgets" tab of Special:Preferences. Once enabled you will be able to see dead links and other syntax issues highlighted in articles.
  2. To see a list of articles that contain dead links within a region, go to [1] and change "California|6" to whatever region you are interested in (example: "New York City|6").

Let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Kudos to User:Traveler100 and User:AlasdairW who have already been scrambling to fix dead links as the bot is updating things. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Aw! I was excited that the number of articles with dead links fell below 7000. I started to fix dead links for New South Wales related articles and I was going do it for all of Australia hopefully but now it will take a longer time. Oh well, just more work to do. :) Gizza (roam) 04:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The war against link rot is (unfortunately) never ending :) -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it can at least be made easier by people not including stuff like "/home.html" in links in the first place. Quite often dead links are fixed by just cutting of something like that. Please try and be on the lookout for stuff like that when adding links. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have it on my TODO list to have the bot re-check any dead link of the form "http(s)://www.example.com/(index|default|home)*", and if the link works without the "index|default|home" part to then replace it, but I haven't gotten around to implementing and testing that yet. I did recently run an update that fixes links with extra slashes in the URL ("//") or that have an improper protocol ("htp://", "http//", etc). -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
That would help, indeed. However, the bot also flags a large number of listings for places that have simply closed or changed ownership. I find it a bit depressing... but it's certainly very useful :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Another thing that might be worth taking into consideration (either in a separate bot or in a future update) is a specific type of link squatting that is falsely labeled as a live link (even if the link has been previously labeled "dead") such as seen here (I raised the case of this specific link at Talk:Isla de Ometepe, but I think the issue is broader than that, as this particular design (is it a particular hosting service that does this to previously live domains?) is particularly common so if it is possible and not too much work to implement something that detects those (or simply not labelling any previously dead links live unless by hand) would be useful. Especially if such a link became dead prior to the first bot run but never showed up as dead. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Domain squatters will be out of scope for anything my bot would deal with, unless someone can come up with a simple and reliable way for an automated tool to identify them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Amazing how many have gone bad in less than a year. We had almost fixed all marked bad links for the United Kingdom and it is getting towards 100 again and not even halfway though the alphabet. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it helps to keep our guides up to date, so that's a good thing all around. How many of those links would you say are really dead dead and how many would you say are just the above outlined problem of complicated URLs jumping around? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wrh2: Can you at least tell the bot not to mark links as live that have previously been marked dead (unless they have since been marked live by human editors)? I am more comfortable with a handful of false positives than with linksquatters falsely labeled live links if there is a way to prevent it. Would that be possible to implement? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I would rather not make that change unless there is a broad agreement to do so. Some sites break temporarily, and sometimes people update links but don't remove the {{dead link}} template, so I think it is safest to reflect which links were active at the time the bot last ran. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
+1 for doing the change: I get much more "working" links that go do domain squatters than real dead links. Jlg23 (talk)
I think it is more common that a link becomes live through a link squatter being mistaken for the real deal than for a previously dead link to become the genuine article once more. And while some do forget to remove the dead link template, this is caught when checking up on dead links, whereas false negatives are much harder to catch. I personally tend towards any system that produces false positives instead of one that produces false negatives, as false positives are usually less harmful when it comes to dead weblinks. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in the last month I have been going through the ones marked in May last year as bad links. When I clicked on them, they went to an active web site, in the majority of the cases to domain name squatters. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if a custom edit summary would be a feasible middle ground here. Anyone interested in that problem could look for the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Status update[edit]

The bot has now processed every article. For those interested in helping with cleanups:

Thanks to everyone who has helped with cleanups thus far - a review of recent changes shows that a lot of closed listings have been deleted, and a lot of broken links have been fixed. If anyone sees any bot edits that look incorrect please let me know so that I can fix it before running again in the future. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for doing the update. Now we all have some work to do :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Too true. It's a bad sign when an article like Trepassey and the Irish Loop breaks in a couple of places in the first four days after its creation because the government in St. John's moved the entire parks and environment web site. K7L (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Outdated template, some way for future dates to be flagged once they become past dates?[edit]

So this is potentially two issues and potentially one. I sometimes find information that is obviously outdated but there is either no possibility at all to ascertain what is the case as of now without actually going to that place or there is no time at the moment and it is likely that I'd forget about it later. Is there some way to tag such sections or information as "outdated" with a template?

Another thing is that sometimes things are announced for a foreseeable future but don't happen immediately. Say, a business ceases to exist but still continues to serve customers for a few weeks/months or a new transportation system/line/whatever is set to come online with the next schedule change or at an otherwise foreseeable date, so it makes sense to add sentences like "Postbus will run its last buses on 31.10.2016" or "the new high speed line will come online with the December 2015 schedule change" but those things just look embarrassing when they are still in an article in 2017. I know de-WV sometimes tags those with a template they have there. Is there a good reason not to have a similar / the same template here? And could we then have a maintenance category for "outdated" articles or sections to fix what needs fixing? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw "The new airport is expected to open in 2014...." Ugh. Ground Zero (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It is possible to control content by date, it is done in the {{event}} template. How about a date template where you simply input a date (in words or number format) and it prints in a standard format. Once the date is reached we automatically add the article to a category. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Traveler100 ... Yes it is definitely possible through parser functions currently available. -- Matroc (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that is similar to what de-WV does. @DerFussi: how does it work at de-WV? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] In sv-wp there is a template that is invisible until the specified date, after which it indicates an update is needed. It also adds the article to a maintenance category. It has quite large iw, look at your language of preference. --LPfi (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
What's iw? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"Interwiki", I suspect. That particular template is used on a few dozen wikis. There's also the w:en:Template:As of approach to consider. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Outline airports[edit]

A new user has recently created Abel Santamaría Airport which will likely have to be merged (do participate in the merger discussion). Another recently created airport article - Hamburg Airport is a bit more on the fence, but I would also lean towards it not meeting our criteria (especially since neither Tegel nor Schönefeld have an article and while the justification of Berlin Brandenburg International opening "soon" makes some sense, we should not hold off on creating articles for what might be. Otherwise we can just delete Florida because due to global warming it will "soon" cease to exist). There are also some pre-existing airport articles that are a bit questionable such as London Stansted Airport or some of the others listed here (though this might in part be an artifact of the criteria for airport status that make it hard for an airport without on-site hotels to attain "usable" status). What should we do about them? Ideally we should not have any outline airport articles because they should either be able to be promoted or not meet our criteria. Or do our criteria not fit what kinds of airports should get articles any more? Should we merge some outline airports? Should we change the criteria for an airport to become usable? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As I am seeing only now, the point of changing the criteria for usable status has been previously raised at Wikivoyage talk:Airport guide status unfortunately without much coming off it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Which of the airports with Outline articles in your opinion don't clearly merit having an article? OK, Abel Santamaría Airport, sure, but other than that? I'd argue for the article about Stansted, a somewhat borderline case, to remain in existence, but none of the others look questionable article topics to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
George Bush Intercontinental Airport? -- Matroc (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Airport for Houston with lots of traffic. The "article" is a joke, but I'm not sure the subject isn't meritorious. Obviously, it could be merged for now, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I put a merge-tag on Hamburg Airport Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Copyscape[edit]

Considering SEO/duplicate text as a factor in determining wither to support or oppose DotM/OtBP/FTT candidates: yea or nay? Please weigh in at the linked talk page discussion; this is an issue that's been simmering for a few months now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Should Molokai be converted to a city article?[edit]

I seem to have raised the issue over a year ago at Talk:Molokai to no avail. What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Empty regions[edit]

This category has just now come to my attention and I think there is some cleanup work to do there. Some of those articles would probably work better as city articles, some of them might best be merged, some of them should probably be deleted or failing that redirected. Of course some of them will just need more work being fleshed out and will remain in this category for some time, but it seems there is some high bang for the buck cleaning up in this category. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is Hawke's Bay in that category? It's never been empty. Nurg (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Norwegian phrasebook - split or not?[edit]

I am not an expert on Norwegian, but there is not a single Norwegian language Wikipedia, but rather two separate ones. Given that we have separate phrasebooks for European and American Spanish, should we do the same for "Norwegian"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: True but you would be traveling to different places if you went to Latin America or Spain (or Equatorial Guinea or the Philippines...) and both of the main variations of Norwegian are only used in Norway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I am pretty neutral on the issue, mostly because I know no Norwegian, but I think the two differing standards of written Norwegian roughly correspond to regions of Norway. So depending on which place you go you are more likely to encounter one or the other. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the article in question, Bokmal seems to be by far the most common all over Norway, and the only difference between the two is in writing. There's only one Norwegian language spoken everywhere. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Hm. You could say there are two ways to write the single language, but I think saying there are two ways to write the hundreds of dialects is more correct. Some dialects correspond more closely with one way of writing, others with the other. I think having both together gives the users some hints on the variations also where not directly associated with one of the two, and thus I think it is useful to have both in the same phrasebook. --LPfi (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Boston/Jamaica Plain[edit]

I have proposed on the talk page that this article might be prepared for a feature in the future, but User:ButteBag has requested some aid, which I am not sure I am understanding correctly. Do have a look at the article and the talk page in question and give some pointers. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling all administrators of Wikivoyage's Facebook page[edit]

I'm posting this in the pub for higher visibility.

For various reasons, I recently temporarily deactivated my Facebook account. Before I did, I wrote up the three links and blurbs that our Facebook page usually posts every month for our DotM/OtBP/FTT candidates, and scheduled them to be posted on February 1st, 11th, and 21st, respectively, under the assumption that I'd be back on Facebook by the time March rolls around.

I was recently signed on to my alternate Facebook account, which remains activated but is not listed as an admin of our Facebook page. I noticed that the Facebook post that I'd scheduled to go live today sometime during the 5:00PM US EST hour, announcing Hobart as this month's DotM, hasn't appeared yet. Can someone who's an admin sign on and confirm that the three posts I wrote up weren't somehow deleted when I deactivated my Facebook?

Pinging Ryan, who I know is an admin; I'm not sure who else is.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your post was scheduled to go live at 4:47 PM Pacific, so I've changed that to "publish now" and it is now live. A note to anyone who has suggestions for Facebook posts: please place those suggestions at Wikivoyage:Social media/Nominations. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New edit screen template[edit]

I appreciate the substance behind this:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Edits should not be made for the purpose of advertising or promoting a business or service. Work submitted to Wikivoygage can be edited, used, and redistributed subject to certain terms and conditions.

But what is "Wikivoygage", and where is this script, so that I or anyone else can fix the typo? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. The typo should now be fixed, although it may take a few minutes for caches to clear. MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn generates the message in question. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem; all of us make typos. Thanks for taking care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Quebec Route 389[edit]

I created this article today, and am now wondering if policy allows it to be an article. I have started a discussion here: Wikivoyage_talk:Routes_Expedition/reboot#New-ish_proposal_-_routes. Ground Zero (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleting pointless airline redirects[edit]

So if you have been active on Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion you might know that there are some that interpret current policy as forbidding deleting such utterly pointless redirects as Ryanair, KLM and the likes even while Lufthansa entirely justifiedly redlinks (which would probably also become un-deletable if it were ever created). As the "keep" or "speedy keep" votes are now not focused on the value those redirects provide or possibly could provide to the traveler, but on (an interpretation of) policy, this here is the attempt to change policy. I don't know which explicit wording where would have to be changed to get this needless amount of ballast jettisoned, scrapped and expunged, but I would please change either policy or interpretation of the same to get some consistency in the field of airline name redirects (namely that we don't want them) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Reasons to not to delete a redirect, per Wikivoyage:Deletion policy#Deleting vs. redirecting:
The redirect is a term for which links are commonly created, or is a subject that might otherwise be likely to result in creation of an article that does not meet WV:WIAA.
If one user thinks Ryanair is article-worthy and creates an article or redlink, it's likely others will, too. Rather than having to explain every time that there was a past discussion where it was decided that airlines shouldn't get their own article, a redirect of Ryanair to Flying indicates to someone who might otherwise create an article that a past decision was made to handle that content in something other than a standalone article.
Just as important, redirects are invisible - what does it matter if there are one, ten, a hundred, or a thousand "pointless" redirects on the site, so long as they don't fall into the "when to delete a redirect" criteria in the deletion policy? I struggle to understand why there is any desire to delete them unless they are perceived as doing some harm to the site. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, Ryanair does not redirect to flying but rather to air travel on a budget and iirc the argument against deletion was that there was "merged content" in low cost airlines in Europe which in turn was "merged" into the aforementioned air travel on a budget even though nobody could point to a single line of content from the erstwhile Ryanair article that ended up in air travel on a budget. So "we need attribution for merged content" was brought forth as a reason not to delete Ryanair and for KLM and the likes the reason simply seems to be "They're there, why do you want to delete them?". By the way, redirects are not "invisible" (if they were, what's the point in having them?), they show up in the search autocomplete and as such might make people think we have articles on airlines and induce them to create even more of this pointlessness, much more than simply deleting all the left over redirects and be done with it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussions resulted in the current "redirects are preferred to deletion" policy and are useful background for this discussion:
-- Ryan • (talk) • 19:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought the previous consensus (as invoked here) is that while "real places" are next to impossible to outright delete (as opposed to "merge" and redirect) except in special circumstances which right now only include page creation vandalism (the leftover empty skeletons being gone), travel topics and itineraries are easier to delete on grounds of lack of content. If that consensus does not exist, we may have to be stricter in our rules as to which travel topics or itineraries to allow and we certainly have to change the message displayed at the bottom of outline itineraries. But to get to the topic at hand, while the subject of redirects seems to have come up repeatedly, this seems to be the first time it is not about places Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment that the current policy discussions have not previously focused on anything other than places - I believe that the discussions I've linked to explain why redirects are generally preferred to deletion regardless of subject matter - but I don't want to monopolize the discussion so will leave it to others to comment. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
When I click on a link, I want it to take me to useful information. Linking KLM to flying is going to irritate me and other readers: in virtually every context it will be clear that KLM is an airline, so I don't want to taken to an article about flying if I click on the KLM link. I think it's better to leave airline links red, and let them be removed by wikignomes like me. Somewhere in a related discussion there was a link to Toronto (Prince Edward Island). That piqued my curiosity because I live a more well-known Toronto (not telling which one!) But the linked article told me nothing at all about Toronto, PEI. At least the page was about PEI, but it kind of comes across as a linking error rather than an attempt to be helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a good thing that we have contributors such as Hobbitschuster who desire clear rules around content and management since (I assume) they care greatly about the quality of this wiki. I would just say that many aspects of WV are ambiguous due to many of us having conflicting opinions on policy, and regardless of who is right or wrong in any given policy I would say that the question of 'low value' redirects here does not substantially help or hinder the traveler in any meaningful way. Effort spent discussing this could be far more productively spent on developing better articles or getting involved with DOTM article discussions. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Like Ryan, my interpretation of past discussions, consensus and policy is that existing redirects -regardless of subject matter- should typically not be deleted unless they do harm (although mass creations of redirects should also be avoided unless there's a consensus). In principle I object to discussions about deleting (especially individual) redirects for the reason Andrewssi2 mentions; there's not enough to gain and they cost too much time and effort that would be better spent on other matters. I also feel we shouldn't use VfD to create policy by setting and invoking individual precedents. That doesn't mean I'm in favour of "forbidding deletion of redirects". I have no strong feelings about the airline redirects. I imagine they indeed prevent the occasional creation of airline articles, but Hobbitschuster's point that a redirect to Flying is of no value and thus (through frustration for the reader) harmful in a way makes some sense to me too. The question we need to answer is, if these "low value" airline redirects do more harm than good. I will not stand in the way of deleting them all if there's a consensus to do so- but in that case, they should also be unlinked (as a general rule) because I believe red links do encourage creation. It is important however to separate this discussion from the much broader discussion User:Ground Zero is introducing above. Personally, I agree that a redirect should ideally be to a page where the search term is at least mentioned somehow - but it's not the same issue and would cloud this discussion. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well I do think the outcome of this discussion will apply to all or at he very least most airline redirects. However, I don't think we should end up with a consensus where the creation of certain redirects (e.g. for Air France or Lufthansa) is discouraged but their deletion (at least in theory) prohibited by policy. This would create the very unfortunate impression of "irreversible trolling". Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am personally disappointed with our coverage of airlines, and I would prefer that we did have articles that were reasonable targets for redirects from an airline name - somewhere where I could get a reasonable amount of info about the catering, seat quality etc offered by a particular airline. However that it is a different discussion.
When I follow a redirect, it should be obvious why I have been redirected. If KLM redirects to Flying, then it should mention KLM, even if it is just in a list of airlines. The only exceptions should be for spelling errors and other obvious cases like Airplane.
However some of these redirects are the result of mergers and so need to be retained for attribution. If we don't have a suitable redirect target, then I think that it would be better to have a short stub article saying something like "We don't have an article on the airline KLM, please see Flying for some related information, and see w:KLM for a Wikipedia article about KLM." The redirects which are not the result of merges might then be considered for deletion if there is not an article that is a reasonable target. In the specific case of KLM, a better target might be Schiphol Airport. AlasdairW (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion of whether we should have articles on airlines (in any form) is indeed a whole other story. But if a redirect is a result of a merger, do we have to retain the redirect "for attribution purposes" even if not a single line of content from the originally merged article shows up in the end result? Does that mean if the "article" vsbwöefaöfkny is merged to Moon we have to retain the redirect even if we ultimately throw out all the content that originally came from the aforementioned string of random letters? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We need to keep the article history if its former content is used anywhere on the site. This is usually in the article resulting from a merge, but it could also be in another article, where the edit summary is "moved from Ryanair". So unless we can find an alternative way of preserving this history, like my suggestion of short stubs, we need to keep the redirect, unless we have a way of checking for current use. AlasdairW (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe that we need to keep redirects if any undeleted revision contains content from it. The most recent revision of the article isn't the only thing that matters, because people can still see (and link to and attempt to re-use) previous versions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By the way, the edit history of KLM does not indicate any merged content ever having been there. To make this debate a little less theoretic, this is mostly about this list and this list which I hope includes all the redirects for airline names. There may be others, but I do not know how we would find them through means other than trial and error. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As for Ryanair in particular, this is the only diff that contains anything but a redirect or attempt at a redirect at this location and it lasted in that state for less than two days (which indicates even then the decision to redirect was taken rather fast), this to me does not indicate the need to attribute anything. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You need to attribute it if any sentence or other copyrightable element from that version was ever copied to any other page. How long it was shown on the site at that article title is irrelevant. What matters is whether any of that content ever appeared on any other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at the edit history; none of the content seems to have been moved elsewhere; at least no edit summary indicates that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If the page is merged, that is usually mentioned in the edit summary. If, on the other hand, content is copied, then there is no corresponding edit in the original article, and thus no edit summary. I know no way of checking edit summaries of all articles (e.g. for a given date), and I cannot think of any list of patterns guaranteed to catch an attribution. Thus anything that ever existed might still be in unnoticed use somewhere.
I do not think we have to be too stringent, though. If the page was not attributed when copied, then the legal responsibility is with the editor (until we get a takedown notice). If it was attributed and anybody is interested in the original, we can restore that version on request. I think keeping the old version is important only if it has content likely to have been copied (or otherwise is interesting enough).
Much more important is having a culture of decent attributions when merging or otherwise copying, linking a permanent version of the used page (ugly urls can nowadays be avoided with the [[Special:Permalink/123]] construct, where 123 is the oldid number).
--LPfi (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I fear this discussion has become sidetracked a bit. There are two (at least) separate issues to be resolved here. First, is there a need/benefit/whatever to deleting those redirects, and if yes, is it possible to delete them with regards to attribution issues. The latter (the attribution issues) would have to be checked separately after the first issue is resolved. Unless of course we decide that if there is any single redirect that is kept for attribution reasons, we have to keep even those that don't need to be kept for attribution reasons. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To try to break this logjam, I have proposed a changed to policy here to clarify our intent with respect to airlines. Ground Zero (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

South Tyrol[edit]

I have just now done a bit of redlink removing and merging on our South Tyrol articles, but currently South Tyrol still has a "regions" section with two as of yet unredirected regions still listed. I tagged both of them with a merge tag. If you think there might be a better approach, do raise the issue at the appropriate talk page(s). My approach may have been rash, but there is nothing I did that cannot be undone if it turns out to have been a wrong decision after all, and I don't think anything would have happened for ages if I had just raised it on one seldom viewed talk page. At any rate, do weigh in in the discussion and what to do with the two remaining region pages. A short glance at them seems to indicate they duplicate a lot of content from the main South Tyrol page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Linking to cities versus linking to airports[edit]

In the "by plane" section of "get in" (and rarely "get around") we often have a list of airlines and cities (KLM connects Amsterdam with Atlanta), which in its current form irks me at three different points. First, it should be KLM and second it should be Amsterdam Schiphol Airport instead of Amsterdam. When we look for plane connections and there are airport articles, pointing people to the city article is less than useful to our readers. Now I have been fixing those on and off when I come across them, but the sheer number of articles makes this a daunting task and absent any clear (and enforced) policy or style guide, new editors are likely to presume what the preponderance of existing articles does to be our standard (de facto or not), so which policy where would we have to change to get this at least somewhat known and is this a dumb idea for some reason? Oh also, the third thing of the above that irks me is that the link goes to Atlanta instead of the busiest airport in the world. So can we please at least make this a new policy (or part of the appropriate existing policy) even if actually fixing it will take some time? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The creation of Airport articles has a somewhat high bar, and as such the casual contributor would have no idea whether an airport article exists for city X or not. Therefore to achieve this policy amendment you would have to require all contributors to research each connecting city ( or look up here : Wikivoyage:Airport_Expedition#Articles ) in order to determine if a corresponding airport article exists. I would say that requirement goes far beyond reasonable policy. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I may have been misunderstood here. Even when linking to cities that have no airport articles, it is much more helpful to link to the #By plane subsection of said article (because the point of the link is to tell people there is an air connection between A and B, not that city B exists) and if one clicks on that section, the link is soon found. And if the link is not there, that is a failure on part of the person creating the airport article. What I am saying is that when the topic is specifically how to fly into a certain place, airport articles and by plane sections should be linked, not city articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that should still be a recommendation on the destination template for the 'Get In' section rather than enshrined in policy? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Call it what you want (I am content if it is not a policy but rather a preference or recommendation), but I think we should point that out somewhere (I am raising this here, because I would not begin to know where this might be found). Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
WV:Article templates/Sections#Get in might be the place, but the issue seems more specific than the current content. Is there some yet unlinked page that fits better? --LPfi (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to link to the #by plane section. I thought the point of the link was to enable users to get more info on a connecting city if they wanted. Shouldn't all the info they otherwise need be in the Get in section? We don't link to #by train, #by car or #by bus either. I can see a point to link to a specific airport where there are two serving the city (London Gatwick is quite different than London Heathrow), but otherwise I'm don't see why it's all that useful. -Shaundd (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. If you're referencing a city as a destination, link the city, even if you're talking about getting there by air. We should only link airports (or #By plane) when the airport is specifically being referenced. Powers (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

RelatedSites at Phabricator[edit]

phab:T128326 This issue needs some kind of closure at Phabricator. Unless I am mistaken, this community has had discussions on using RelatedSites a couple of times and has been in favor of it. If we have some kind of consensus here, that would probably resolve the ticket. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support to remove the extension since it is (mostly) duplicating what "Other sites" already does and is no longer supported. There have been a few discussions on this topic in the past, but the only one I found in a quick search was Wikivoyage talk:Related articles#Other projects. Removing the "related sites" extension would mean losing the ability to link to Dmoz in the left nav, something I'd be fine with, and relying on Wikidata for interwiki links, something that others have expressed concerns about. Wikivoyage could easily re-implement any lost functionality with an in-article template (something like Wikivoyage talk:External_links#Example "resources" template), thus allowing customization in the future that wouldn't depend on Mediawiki developers updating an extension. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Does anyone even use the DMOZ links? Powers (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @LtPowers: For what it's worth, I have added some and I think they are useful for an all-purpose out-going link. We've discussed this a few times since WMF adoption and while no one seems very enthusiastic about DMOZ, the general consensus was to keep it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't use DMOZ for anything, and I can't remember the last time I heard anyone mentioning it or recommending it (i.e., for their own personal use, rather than to tell some perceived spammer on the English Wikipedia where to stick it). I don't think we'd lose much by removing DMOZ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal as a link to a commons: gallery page (as provided by Wikidata) is not the same thing as a link to a commons:category: (which we usually create using RelatedSites). Many (or most) topics which have a Commons category lack a mainspace topic gallery page. K7L (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The Commons category is also almost always more useful than the Commons guide, when there is one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland categorized as a country[edit]

The de facto independent entity of Somaliland is now categorized as a country in East Africa. See also Talk:Somaliland and Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy. /Yvwv (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The map in the East Africa article doesn't show it, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Add note to all pages to encourage readers to start editing[edit]

We want to recruit new contributors. For readers entering WV through the home page, there is a prominent note near the top of the page that "anyone can edit" this travel guide. For readers entering WV at a specific article (eg, coming from a search engine), the only really obvious encouragement to edit is the "Edit" buttons, which don't indicate that anyone can edit. Can we add a note to appear reasonably prominently on all pages to notify readers that even they can edit, and to encourage them to do so? Nurg (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There's already a note to plunge forward in the status box at the end (such as {{usablecity}}). K7L (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this a problem with our readers not being motivated enough to contribute, or is this simply a problem with there not being enough readers? It seems like it's common knowledge that Wikipedia articles can be edited easily by anyone who happens across one, and it seems equally intuitive for anyone who happens across our site that it works along the same lines as Wikipedia as far as how to edit a page. I'd love to know if there's a way to find out how many of Wikipedia's readers have ever edited an article, and compare that with our readers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It is unfortunately not very common knowledge that "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" can actually be edited by anyone. The WMF did some simple surveys (a few years ago – typical online donors, I think), and a surprising percentage of them were unaware that they really could edit the page.
A number of wikis run a more or less permanent MediaWiki:Sitenotice that encourages people to edit. I believe that there are ways to show these only to certain user groups (e.g., logged-in editors). There are probably some psychological 'tricks' that we could try to make it more effective. To give a not very relevant example, people respond much better to a "limited time offer" than to "whenever you feel like it". (This explains the marketing approach for a local furniture store that I remember from years ago: they had a heavily advertised "going out of business" sale that continued for a remarkable number of years.) If we wanted to build something around that idea, we could entice people with a "limited time offer" to suggest their favorite restaurant to our editors – by using the "Add listing" button and filling it in correctly (except, of course, we want them to do it all the time, not just today/this week/for a limited time). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting post. I definitely agree with including a message on every page (except user pages and perhaps policy pages and the main page?) that it can be edited by anyone. However, as much as what you say about "limited time offers" makes psychological sense, I can't see a Wikimedia organization adopting that kind of manipulation tactic. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
As the majority of web users today are using mobile devices, I think some easy to use edit tools in mobile mode would be productive. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage this particular opportunity to get more active editors has been discussed some years ago and we decided to add the following template to all of the hebvoy articles that are missing a significant amount of content...

Translation to Hebrew arrow.png
Please help expand this article as much as possible by adding translated content from the corresponding English Wikivoyage article.


...unfortunately, even though the hundreds of thousands whom stumbles across our site know now quite well that their help is needed, to me it seems that this measure hasn't contributed to any significant number of new editors choosing to participate. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of some sort of message on pages encouraging edits, and I like WhatamIdoing's suggestion of a simple, "add your favourite restaurant" feature. Maybe it could even be something as simple as a message saying something like "Is this page missing something? Leave a note here, and it will be added", which then gets readers to use a feature where they leave a note of what is missing, like "Joe's Restaurant, www.joesrestaurant.com", which doesn't add anything to the article, but something like a <!-- commented out --> message on the article, and gets another editor to add it (with templates, and coordinates), and then the editor who added it leaves a message for that reader thanking them and encouraging them to edit other places. This way, the reader doesn't have to take ages finding all the contact details for the place, and don't have to spend time worrying about the write syntax/code for adding the place. I haven't spent ages thinking about that idea, and I'm not sure whether that would be able to work; but a simple way of getting readers to contribute would be good.  Seagull123  Φ  17:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The flip side of your suggestion, User:Seagull123, is that by pointedly encouraging users to do something other than posting listings, we could be creating a lot of work for other editors. Do you volunteer to be in charge of converting most of the hidden text into templated listings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that adding a new listing is probably the easiest thing to do on the site, which is why I was thinking about that.
ויקיג'אנקי, I think that the problem with "Please help expand this article" is that most readers will assume that it's talking to someone else. I suspect that we would get a better response if we said something like
This is Reader Recommendation Week at Wikivoyage!  At designated parts of every article, there are links labeled 'Add listing'.  Do you have a favorite restaurant, hotel, or other attraction that's not on our site? If so, then please click the 'Add listing' button and fill in the form.  Our regular editors will look over your contributions, and if it meets our standards, then it will be accepted. Thank you for sharing your favorites with us!


This kind of approach makes it clear that readers themselves can do this, which is a much bigger hurdle than it should be. (Also, we could set some CSS to make the 'Add listing' button in bold-face, rainbow-striped, blinking text, or make it say "Reader suggestion box" or something instead. This is a really huge problem.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles that could be moved here.[edit]

At Wikipedia, there's a category for pages/sections that could be moved or copied to here, at w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage. There's only 7 pages in that category, but I thought I'd post that here so that you could see if you think they'd be good copied to here. Some of them, like w:Edde, Lebanon, I don't think would be good here, but something like w:Surfing in Indonesia may be good in the Indonesia or Surfing article.  Seagull123  Φ  17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If we look at other articles that were apparently copied here from WP (like This one), it seems clear that a lot of work in reducing redlinks and changing prose has to be made for that to "work". Overall I fear that cooperation between WP and WV could be better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be willing to take on some of the working of refitting articles like Surfing in Indonesia for WV. For example, I would take out some of the history and the famous surfers, remove redlinks, create links to other WV articles. I would need help in migrating it over correctly, i.e., I expect that copying and pasting would be verbotten. Ground Zero (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You have to provide attribution for the license, which could mean as little as providing a permalink to the article you copied it from as your edit summary. (I don't know a more restrictive local policy is in place.)
m:Help:Transwiki has a basic outline of one recommended process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I created a Surfing in Indonesia article with text from the Wikipedia one, and did a fair bit of digging to create relevant links. It was already attracted a proposal to merge it to Surfing, which I don't think would work at all given the state of that articles. I have started a discussion at Talk:Surfing in Indonesia. Ground Zero (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to demarcate "special" listings?[edit]

Hello! I was wondering if there was a way to visually set certain listings a bit apart from the others? If there is a list of 9 restaurants for example, and they are all very nice, but maybe one is a little better, and we'd like to communicate this is the one worth checking out if you've only got time for one stop. Maybe a checkmark, or heart, or star or something? I'm imagining adding a "notable" checkbox in the listings editor under "status" section. I'm noticing most "See" and some "Do" listings I enter get WP or WD icons/links appended to the end of the blurbs. I could see a little heart or something working down there pretty easily. I'm guessing we don't do this already because (if implemented), sooner or later everything will have a heart next to it, rendering its distinction moot. I do think this could be avoided with judicious use however. Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a big (potential) problem there: Who decides which listings get whichever we implement? We have a lot of problems with touts as is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I could possibly get behind a 'star attraction' label for a 'see' or 'do' listing (even then I'd have reservations), but I would not support its use for restaurants. Firstly, it's too subjective (different travellers like different cuisines, styles of restaurant, speed of service...) and secondly it's not very fair to the other restaurants in town. Couple that with the touting issue Hobbitschuster points out, and it doesn't seem workable. If you really think a particular restaurant is head and shoulders above the others, there's no reason you can't say so in its blurb, but to actually mark it with some sort of symbol would be a step too far, in my opinion. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Just say it's a particularly great restaurant and maybe give some examples of particularly delicious dishes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
HS, TT and IK have raised excellent points. I think you would need to address these before you'll get consensus to proceed. Ground Zero (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's kind of arbitrarily "fair" if a restaurant is included in a WV article in the first place, no? Well anyway, you all make good points and I don't like my idea anymore. Specifically, I wanted a way to show here that Wally's Cafe is more "notable" than the other places in the list. (assuming the rest of the listings had blurbs, lol) But, what I really should do, is write in the "Drink" section of the parent page about the relative "notableness" of that particular venue. Kind of like the "Other Destinations" section/list on other pages.
I do wish there was some kind of indicator that says "this is pretty cool" for readers skimming long lists. I feel like no one is going to sit down and read an entire article anymore, with all the ways our attention is fragmented nowadays. Maybe this ties into the idea someone else had about an "I've been here" button. Then once X number of WV'ers click a certain listing it becomes "pretty cool". But then you run into the same issue above with touts, spammers n' scammers. BUMMER. I can't think of a way around this right now. Maybe only users of a certain privilege level can use it? It would definitely have to be used sparingly to have any efficacy at all. --ButteBag (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
There really are good ways to handle this. Look at Manhattan/East Village#Drink for how I handle McSorley's Old Ale House: an alphabetical listing plus a photo, and I even use their own slogan as the caption, because it's a good one, apt and funny. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Ha, nice! And it looks like I have basically already inadvertently done that in JP. There shouldn't be more than one "notable" thing per section anyway. Thank you all! --ButteBag (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Dang, Ikan Kekek, how is that East Village article not a star??? Nice job regardless! --ButteBag (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but it's not complete. I was just thinking of another bar I should add a listing for. The East Village is filled to the brim with bars and restaurants, and it's impossible for any one person to know all of even the notable ones. Plus, the neighborhood has very rapid turnover because of excessive rents, nowadays. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Another way to highlight a listing and draw attention is to bold an important word or two but as others have said, it should be done with the traveller in mind and not in a touting way. Gizza (roam) 11:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!
Outcome: Just use a picture of the "notable" thing. Skimmers will notice it because it's a picture, and the location will be made "notable" because there is now a picture of it. Duh. --ButteBag (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it is not related, but perhaps could be added a parameter to denote the "official stars" of the restaurant or hotel:
  • Dumbledore Pub (★★★). Boston Ave. 230. Irish food and a variety of beers.
What do you think? --Zerabat (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Who gives out those stars and on what basis? And what do they mean? There may be a handful of countries where official definitions of stars for hotels (not restaurants, though) exist, but even there, media are full of stories about them not being checked nearly often enough to be accurate. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is any such thing as "official" stars. Governments tend not to regulate such things. I think we'd want to indicate the source of the stars to show that they are not WV stars. It also lets the reader decide whether to take them seriously -- Michelin stars are one thing, the Boston Advertise/Pennysaver is another. I'm sure there are lots of free papers that are happy to give out stars to their advertisers. Also some use a 5-star scale, others, like Michelin, use a 3-star scale. Ground Zero (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I think current policy is to mention stars where they are meaningful (though never as part of the name) and this would certainly apply for Michelin Stars. However, I don't know any given restaurant with Michelin Stars or where they would be listed. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a perfect use case for the low tech "use a picture" idea. Getting a Michelin star is very difficult. If a restaurant has one, just take its picture and use it in the "Eat" section. Done, perfect, no stars to police. --ButteBag (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be muddling two completely unrelated concepts. The automobile associations print guidebooks which use the term "star attraction" to indicate the few best-known things to see or do at one individual destination (Paris is known for the ☆ Louvre museum and the ☆ Tour Eiffel, Sydney is known for its ☆ opera house, Quebec City is famous for its ☆ 1608 old town...). Attractions, not hotels and restaurants. This isn't a rating system and doesn't award multiple stars to a venue; it just indicates what to see first.
That's entirely separate from the hotel-style ratings, where extra stars ★★☆ (or diamonds, or sunshine) indicate extra amenities or luxuries that aren't at the ★ property - maybe an indoor pool or fitness centre, meeting and convention space, restaurant, lounge, room service - whatever.
The restaurant/hotel star ratings are meaningless unless there's some indication of who issued them under what criteria. A ★★★ Canada Select B&B provides full (not continental) breakfast, hotel-style rooms (en-suite bath and TV's, locks on individual doors...) and a few personal touches while a Michelin ★★★ restaurant is one of the best worldwide.
I'm tempted to suggest that "Understand" be one of the required sections (it's currently optional) and any statements like "Oswego, home of historic Fort Ontario, is notable for its front-line role in the War of 1812" be made there (preferably before promoting the page to 'usable' or higher) to point out why one would go to the city. There's a Best Western? That's nice, but everything is built on one or a few 'star attractions' - things to see or do that are the voyager's reason for visiting. If "terrorise the local wildlife" is the only thing to see or do in tiny Relais-Gabriel, say so. K7L (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

New map section/layout idea[edit]

Hello! I was curious to know what others think of this idea. We could create a new "Maps" sub-section where maps go? Check out this edit for what I'm thinking. (There seems to be a software bug preventing the "See" title from being displayed, so pretend that works.) This could be helpful on other pages where we have both static and dynamic maps. I find both styles of map to (usually) be oddly sized, and they never seem to fit quite right into the text (IMHO). This would also free up space next to the "See" listings, prime real estate for some fantastic photography. This page in particular seems to cry out for a map section. Also people love maps, so why not have a link to them in the top banner thing? Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It would also standardize where maps go, sometimes they are under "Get in", sometimes under "See", etc. --ButteBag (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I like the layout idea, but I'm not sure about putting the map in its own section. I guess maps benefit from wide screens, keeping to show more and in mobile is displayed normally as is today. --Zerabat (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought that we had standardised on putting dynamic maps in "Get around". See Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps, although it is not very obvious: "It should usually be placed right underneath the "Get around" heading". I can see the benifit in having a separate section, but it would be a lot of work to update the whole site. AlasdairW (talk)
The best bit about the idea is expanding the dynamic map across the whole page. There's no reason why that still couldn't go in 'Get around', though. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! Yes, I find the additional space for the dynamic map quite helpful. Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps may say to place maps under "Get around", but that section is missing on Wikivoyage:District_article_template, so where to put it there? Also the "Get around" rule is not used consistently. Maybe a "Maps" sub section could be optional? (like "Other destinations", "Learn", "Work", "Stay safe", "Stay healthy", "Respect", and "Cope"?) Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe the easiest solution is to repurpose "Get around" in district articles, optionally placing maps there? It would conform to preexisting policy, and not require the creation of a new sub section. Static and dynamic maps would be equally at home. Is that cool? --ButteBag (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what I am thinking now --ButteBag (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to give this a shot on a few neighborhoods since it doesn't seem to be a big deal, and seems to conform to policy as near as I can figure. I haven't seen anyone else do this before, however, so opinions may abound. --ButteBag (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Go for it. It will be interesting to see how it works on different articles with different map shapes. The map on that Boston district didn't quite work enlarged; the narrowness of the district - long and thin in a vertical line, so perpendicular to the horizontal width of the map - just looked odd, and wasn't a great use of space. But a map that was wider (maybe for a city rather than just a district) could fare better. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes I selected that article in particular because I knew the "portrait" orientation would look a bit odd, the layout clearly works better for "landscape" articles. The "wasted" horizontal space will vary by screen width, but the vertical space (used by dynamic maps) remains the same. At minimum, a user could at least make out the shape of the neighborhood before scrolling down. And if the map is interacted with (eg.. click the plus once or twice), the additional real-estate becomes quite useful. Plus I think it might look a little odd at first because I'm not used to seeing the map presented like this. Anyway, I'm optimistic. --ButteBag (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the map in the Get around section since, for me, it makes the most sense there. I'm torn about the map being fully horizontal. I think it's pretty, but I'm not sure how much I like the idea of a map interrupting the flow of text. It might just be that I am not use to it yet. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think all people "love maps", but they are a vital part of a travel guide. I also don't think we need a standard separate maps subsection. In most cases that just crowds the menu. Get around seems perfectly fine for maps. I'm not necessarily against the broad display if people think it works better in terms of layout, but I agree with ThunderingTyphoons that on Boston/Roxbury and even on Boston/Back_Bay-Beacon_Hill the extra space is taken up by areas not covered, so the usability seems limited. It's fine to try it out on a couple of pages, but it's surely not our normal practice so before introducing it to too many pages there should probably be a consensus. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thank you for your feedback! I agree maps should definitely go in the "Get around" section, no need for a new section. I also agree about watching the overall map height, the layout will break if the map gets too tall (if anything I'd like it shorter). I am really liking that you can put an image next to the "See" listing. That just makes more sense to me (personally) than seeing a map there. Pushing the map slightly further up the page doesn't bother me, since the map is usually long gone by the time a user scrolls down to "Do". I'm not convinced the greyed out areas to the left and right is "wasted" space, you at least get a sense of location and context. If a static map were ever created for Roxbury (for example) they could live in 50% columns side by side. Ha, even if there was consensus I would not update this style on other pages, don't worry! Thank you again! --ButteBag (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

News from the New York Times - anything we should cover but don't?[edit]

So this article mentions a handfull of new things travel either already in place or soon to come. I am delighted to see that Trans Canada Trail already exists as a WV article, and we generally make a habit of not mentioning new services before they come online (e.g. Brightline in Florida) but is there anything else in that article we should cover but don't? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Trans Canada Trail article "already exists"? Yes, it has been around for two hours now. Glad to see it's been noticed. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I should've said "has been created". ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style: Capitalization[edit]

In sweeping the pub floor today, I moved a discussion on capitalization to the general Manual of Style talk page because we don't have an MOS page for capitalization, whereas we do for Romanization, abbreviations, and other issues. I have proposed a new style page here: Wikivoyage_talk:Manual_of_style#Proposed_new_Manual_of_Style_page_on_Capitalization, and ask that the discussion take place at that place instead of here as the pub is getting crowded. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created the page Project:Capitalization and moved the discussion to Wikivoyage talk:Capitalization. Ground Zero (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Outdated East Africa regions map[edit]

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

What to do with travel advisories[edit]

I'm considering vfd-ing it, but considering the reaction this usually draws, I am instead raising it here. Any idea what to do with the article? In its current form it is little more than an awkward connection of links... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it is useful to have these links assembled, but it is an awkward article - maybe it could become a section of the Stay safe article. Ground Zero (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, having those links somewhere is certainly of value (though the connection of links is by no means complete, and if we were to list 194 travel advisories, the article might never be anything but an incredibly long list and there are no good objective criteria to not list any existing travel advisory), but I am not sure the way the article currently is is the best way to do so. We usually link to some of them anyway if there are extant travel warnings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Travel between Syria and Jordan[edit]

(I moved the following from my talk page to draw more eyeballs, this is the edit we're talking about) Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for your continuous help. :-) Regarding the following warning under Jordan:

Travel Warning WARNING: due to the ongoing civil war in Syria, it is strongly advised not to travel to/from Syria at this point in time

This seems a little arbitrary to me. For one thing, the war seems to be kind of won for Assad with the fall of Aleppo and the support from Russia. Also, I never had the impression that anything between the Jordan border and Damascus is really dangerous because the war mostly takes place in the north and northeast of Syria. There are some attacks on Damascus but it is not a war zone.

I believe we shouldn't just amplify here what mainstream media is teaching us. If you have anything more profound and maybe some links, I think this would be helpful. Also, the decision is on everyone's own side. It might be important to say, that there is a civil war going on and travelling there is dangerous, if this is really the case between Jordan and Damascus, but apart from that anything else should not be our decision. Also, we don't want to indicate that anyone still in Syria must be crazy, which is what this kind of sentence might suggest.

Maybe we should just write something like for Iraq in the first sentence, because this travel guide really concerns Jordan not Syria. Also, this is the chapter where advice on coming in to Jordan from Syria is given, hence, one already must be there in the first place.

What do you think?

Ceever (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I will move this discussion to the pub to draw more eyeballs. I hope that's okay with you Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. A warning box does not make a decision for a traveller; it provides advice. At least, that is how I interpret the phrase "it is strongly advised not to". A traveller can choose to accept or ignore that advice. As far as I can tell, the civil war is still going on, and I think this is a reasonable warning. Ground Zero (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would delete the warning, since it's placed in the "Get in" section, so the reader is presumably already in Syria and is now entering Jordan? --ButteBag (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we should simply replace the whole section with something like "due to the ongoing civil war, normal travel routes between Jordan and Syria are likely not operative, while refugees are leaving Syria to get to Jordan, keep in mind that you traveling this route might conceivably deprive a refugee of the opportunity to get to safety". Also keep in mind that most of our "get in" content is written in a way as to be applicable for the reverse trip (That's why we don't rehash it in "go next") Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I just wanted to avoid too many warning signs, because then we also have to have one for Iraq, and so on. This article concerns Jordan not Syria. "Words create reality" ... but everything is fine with Jordan so far, so let's not deter travellers with shocking images, even though it concerns Syria. Also, interesting way to see it in WikiTravel: "However, due to the current status in Syria you are unlikely to be able to travel from Damascus to Amman via taxi, as anyone out in the open is at risk of being shot by either government-controlled powers or the rebels." :-D Ceever (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Country get in sections[edit]

Should we replace the long and outdated lists of countries (which date to a similar time as most of our currency information did before we recently did something about it) with something like the picture used here? A simple world map maintained by a fellow Wikimedia project is probably as good an information as it is going to get and we will have to spend little work and headache on it. We can also always inform Commons of anything out of date or change it ourselves with our global accounts. I have been adding those to some articles like Suriname but before adopting them in stuff like the Schengen template or globally, I would like to get more support than just me plunging forward by my lonesome. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it can replace the list of countries because:
  1. The map is difficult for users of screen readers - yes we could have alternative text, but that is less likely to get updated than the map.
  2. It is easy to find large countries, but he reader needs to easily and accurately find their own country which could be difficult for smaller ones. (The UK has different visa requirements for those from Hong Kong than for China.)
  3. It needs to be easy for anybody to update. Say a presidential decree introduces new restrictions one week, and a court changes them the following week.
However, it would be nice to have the map as an illustration. AlasdairW (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there some script to extract the information from the map or the corresponding WP article? Because most of the written lists with words are horribly outdated. (And some country articles do not have them at all) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying content from that other site[edit]

Please have a look at the very first edit in the edit history of Seda (Sichuan) - what exactly does our policy say on this issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage and Wikitravel says, in part:
"While content can be legally copied from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage if attribution is provided in accordance with the CC-BY-SA license, such copying is generally discouraged due to the history of litigation between the two sites and due to the fact that having the same content on both sites can penalize Wikivoyage in search rankings (see search engine optimization for more information). Instead of copying text, consider contributing original content written in your own words.
"Legally, content from Wikitravel can be used on Wikivoyage as long as the conditions of relevant copyright licenses are complied with. Internet Brands has confirmed that the content of Wikitravel is under a CC BY-SA license. However, as Internet Brands and the WMF have engaged in litigation, please discuss before moving content from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage. If you do move anything, be very careful to comply fully with the license terms regarding attribution."
Ground Zero (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I would vote against copying content from WT. So I guess I would be in favor of deleting that page, or at least all the content on it. --ButteBag (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also copying pages that are "officially closed for foreign travelers" would not seem to be at a high priority level. (for me) --ButteBag (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I am as some may have guessed opposed to copying stuff from that other site and your point as to the value to the traveler of an article for a "closed city" being limited is well made, but the question does arise whether the best course of action is outright deletion, deletion of the copied text (which would likely leave an empty skeleton at least for some time) or something else. I frankly think we should reduce the amount of content that coincides with other places, no matter which other considerations are made. And I am not sure whether this copying currently complies with CC BY-SA. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing precluding the copying of WT content as long as it has attribution, so its not like we get to vote on it. What you can do is rewrite the content so that we avoid any SOE penalties.
Also destinations that are difficult to get to are covered, including North Korea for example. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the current policy can be interpreted in a way as to require at the very least no strong votes against copying from that other site or even a need for consensus in its favor. And North Korea may be an unusual travel destination, but unless you are a journalist (or otherwise unwanted by the North Korean authorities) going there on a "glory to our dear leader" tour seems actually about as easy as booking a cruise. Of course you'll have to dance their little dance, so to speak, but that's not the same as the Cold War era "this city is so secret no foreigners are allowed in" that apparently still exists in some places. I'm not arguing this is not a place on which we could in theory have an article, I am saying it is not worth us copying content from that other site and thereby validating their propaganda of us being a cheap knockoff and whatnot. I also don't like inviting potential IB trolls putting copied content all over our sites and us having to sift through it and/or make SEO edits just to combat this. We know IB has sent trolls our way in the past, I see no reasons they might not do so with different tactics in the future. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been saying over and over again that this site needs a specific, black-and-white policy against any text copied verbatim from WT. I don't know how many examples need to pile up before it becomes clear that this is a significant ongoing phenomenon and a problematic one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
RE: Hobbitschuster If North Korea is not to your liking then look at Diego Garcia. Again all earth bound destinations are valid, even if you have a tough time getting there.
I'd also prefer no WT content to be copied over, but frankly I don't see that we have a firm basis to reject such contributions. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I have copyedited the article so that it is no longer exactly the same, just mostly the same, and, I think, easier to read. Please be careful about accusations. User:Andree.sk is not an "IB troll", but someone who has been contributing to Wikivoyage since 16 Oct 2016. It appears that s/he also contributes to the other site, and often makes the same edits in both places (although it does not seem like s/he wrote the original Seda article in 2015). For my part, I use Wikivoyage as much for "fantasy travel" (reading about places it is unrealistic to think I will ever visit, as much as for trip planning. See also our Space and Moon articles. Ground Zero (talk)
Also, some of the content for the original article appears to have been copied from our good friends at Wikipedia, whose article pre-dates that of the other travel site, so litigious persons could have a problem raising this. Ground Zero (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did not accuse anybody of being an IB troll. I just wanted to point out why allowing copying may be dangerous. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that the discussion of IB trolls is being raised in the context of a single copying event undertaken by Andree.sk, so s/he may well infer that this is an attack on her/him, which I am glad you say it isn't. I see from User talk:Andree.sk that @Ikan Kekek: has been trying to coach Andree.sk on how to contribute to Wikivoyage, so I think it would be useful to hear from Ikan about dealing with Andree.sk. Let's discuss IB trolls as a matter separate from the Seda article then as I think we agree that the two are distinct issues. Ground Zero (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I almost feel like at holy inquisition :-) The simple motivation was there was no page for this (dare I say - hugely interesting) place for *long*, and I didn't want to start from zero page (I knew nothing about it, wasn't there (yet)). Since all of your content is based on WT, I'd say it doesn't matter whether it's based on an article from 2005 or 2016. Some whole countries were 1:1 copy of WT for 5 years, so what does it matter if someone copies one article by hand? PS: I probably would've been working on this one in the following days, in my tempo - but thank you to all who contributed already. My comment on the policy (if it's worth anything) is below. Andree.sk (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, sorry you're feeling like that. Folks, yes, I've communicated with Andree.sk and found him a constructive and diligent user, definitely not a troll. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Then let's make policy crystal clear[edit]

As I see it there is currently a widespread agreement that copying from WT is undesirable but not an agreement on whether it is currently subject to any preconditions besides those stipulated in CC BY-SA. So as I see it there are two alternatives to leaving policy as is:

  1. Ban all copying of any content from WT and make repeat offenses grounds for banning
  2. Allow copying only after a clear consensus in favor of such copying has been achieved.

I think the former is the better alternative, but some might not be comfortable with such a clear policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that we operate as part of the w:Wikimedia_Foundation , and although the community has the right to define policies relevant to us (such as Wikipedia no longer allowing the Daily Mail to be used as a reference) I am pretty uncomfortable banning creative commons content just because it comes from a site we don't like. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we have to allow any origin of copied content just because it is issued under a license that allows copying? There are probably a whole bunch of sources now passed into the public domain that WP does not want to see copied on its pages (even though they may not have issued a specific ban against them). I know not nearly as much as I'd like to about the implications of our license and our being part of Wikimedia, but I don't think they'd be too unwilling to allow us to ban copying any content from a site that has been in pretty hostile litigation with the Wikimedia Foundation as well as individuals associated with WV. If and when our community achieves a consensus to do so, that is. I think there is if not a policy at least a somewhat common practice to remove copied content on sight from existing articles, but this obviously doesn't apply in this specific example. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Wikimedia mission statement :
.
.The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
.
and the values of Freedom:
.
.An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse.
.
As far as I can tell your proposal runs directly counter to the principles of Wikimedia. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Vague, high-minded platitudes about free content and open sourcing are well and good, but let's not be naïve. This isn't merely a "site we don't like". As Hobbitschuster said above, the case of WT presents a pretty weighty extenuating circumstance - not only did they engage in hostile litigation, but even after they lost in court they continued to troll, disrupt, and otherwise attempt to undermine the integrity of Wikivoyage, using a number of tactics of which this is one. I think Hobbit's Option #1 is not only allowable, but the only reasonable course of action. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll disagree then. The principles are not vague at all, and encourage us to be open rather than insular which is precisely the direction suggested here. I also don't believe the creation of Seda_(Sichuan) was an attempt to undermine WV, and do not regard that as a 'naïve' position.
Seriously, IB didn't behave well at all during the fork and have since made some attempts to undermine us, but draconian suggestions such as this will only harm us long term (which would please IB no doubt) Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I would not consider a policy of banning copying from one specific site "draconian", I also don't find anything in that mission statement that says "oh and by the way, we love copying stuff". I think it is fair to say the page in question was created in good faith, but making it impossible to undo this type of damage even if done with harmful or doubtful intent is really not a good way forward. I also do not see how prohibiting copying from this specific site will harm us in the long run. I think the google penalty (which we can argue back and forth about, but which will only get more entrenched if we start copying stuff from that IB site) is one of our biggest long term challenges as is the general development of wikis overall. There is also the added point that hardly anyone edits that other site anyway, so there is not much stuff they can even theoretically claim to be better than we are anyway. And given that there censoring of our name makes it impossible for us to be copied there with proper attribution, they might use copied content (which they themselves might put here) as some weird sort of recruitment or propaganda tool. I was actually almost convinced that IB has forgotten all about that site they acquired way back when (and which has surely caused them more headache than anything), but us being wishy washy in our "we don't like when you copy, but we are all for it" policy is a downright invitation for anybody wishing to disrupt us getting funny ideas. I also thought that copying content was in the past at the very least grounds for being looked at and told about our relationship with that site. Oftentimes such edits were (partially) reverted as well. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Draconian does mean "excessively harsh and severe", which would be a good way to describe the reaction to this non-threat to WV. Once you have banned a site such as WT with no reasonable justification then you are making it easier to ban other sources on a whim in future as well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is just stupid, sorry. Licensing aside, I'd say the page won't propagate itself on google. I started on WT exactly because it's almost impossible to discover WV, if you don't already know you are looking for it. Perhaps wikimedia should rather invest in some advertisment on pages like tripadvisor - so that you get some links. I reckon that will help SEO much more than the copying of text harms it.
About the "ban copied stuff" policy. Do as you want, but you will probably only discourage people who want to help. Sure, there may be trolls etc. You can probably get rid of such cases by some "soft ban" - like if the thing is copied 1:1 and not touched for let's say 1 month, get rid of it - or prune it to very basics. Andree.sk (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No-one here wants simply duplication from that or any other site, but I have to agree. A full-out ban does seem to be excessive and might well scare off well-intending new editors coming from that other site. It's perfectly natural when you've been working there to think it's helpful to copy content here, being unaware of the SEO issues and the history. I also feel we're engaging again in a long and for many frustrating discussion to tackle a relatively small problem. How many copied pages are really being introduced per year? It's a handful at most. Why can't we simply treat this like we treat all other verbatim copying? It's discouraged, for WT text even more so than for other sites due to SEO reasons, new editors who copy text get an explanation on why it is unwanted and why it is important to write original content. If anyone purposely continues to copy a lot of text despite the explanation and without engaging in a constructive dialogue, we can take appropriate action based on that, since working within consensus is what we do. @Andree.sk, welcome to this little community :-) I'm sorry this feels like an inquisition to you. I hope you understand where all these frustrations are coming from. Looking forward to more (but now original! ;-)) contributions by you. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I second the last part of what Julias said. Andree.sk, you wandered into a bit of a minefield here, but it seems obvious to me that you meant well. We're happy to have you here, and please know that any frustration you may be reading in others' comments here isn't directed at you personally. In fact, you can take heart in that your edits served as a catalyst in making some real headway in solving a larger issue that's been simmering for a long time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding... Pendantic? Naive? How does ttcf apply here? I've thought about this a lot, actually and haven't come to a conclusion. Can someone shed some light on this from his perspective? What would help the traveler the most here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't help the traveller if the traveller can't even find us due to SEO issues. K7L (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This is not a response to whatever seemed to have started this discussion (I haven't looked into it), just a general response. I don't see it as harmful to state contributors should use their own words and not copy-and-paste from other sources. That sounds incredibly reasonable and non-controversial to me. A user who is informed of such a policy should easily be able to adjust, and a user who refuses would be working against the project. I don't see how "original writing" goes against the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement, either. Wikipedia doesn't allow copy-and-paste edits, either. On that site they need attribution and rarely do they simply copy everything as a quote. They, too, summarize. Here, we don't provide any attribution, so we should certainly try to maintain original writing. I don't see where the contention is, but perhaps I'm missing something by not being aware of the catalyst for this discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ChubbyWimbus: "Wikipedia doesn't allow copy-and-paste edits" That's not true at all. Tens of thousands of articles have been generated from census data and the CIA World Factbook as well as incorporating material directly from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some of our sister projects virtually are copy and pasting like Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiquote, and Wikisource, plus Wiktionary relies heavily on quotations for citation. That may not be an argument for copying and pasting here but it's certainly not true that Wikipedia disallows copying and pasting, nor do any of our other projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The w:user:rambot is the worst malicious robot vandal in the history of Wikipedia, spamming thousands of pages with (now-outdated) US Census data. It was shut down at the end of 2004 with extreme prejudice. If it were to return, it would be shot on sight - or maybe shot on site. I'd be very hesitant to use it as a w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS precedent as its operation would not be tolerated on Wikipedia today. The 2012 mass dump of all WT content here will also not be repeated.K7L (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd add to this. You can't help traveller if you prefer empty article over copy (seriously pruned) from WT even in case of most important topics of countries, like Salar de Uyuni of Bolivia. Or does anyone here seriously think that when the first thing about Bolivia is not covered here, the traveller will take this page seriously? Esp. if WT has it in depth... If he turns around, he won't link from discussion forums, blogs, other guides to here - and you get zero SEO points. With copied stuff, the SEO penalty is likely very small these days. I think you'd be better off adding new content, than reinventing wheel... Again, looking at Bolivia - your/our time would be much better spent organizing the country in some traveler-friendly appearance (adding maps, high-level region overview), than discussing if some few kilobytes of copied text in one sub-sub-sub-sub-page will (or not) harm. Andree.sk (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again @Andre.sk: it was by no means my intention to single you out or presume anything but the best intentions, but even I as someone who has not been here for as long as some others have found the problems created by IB and all that comes with it extremely frustrating. IB literally tried to shut down this website before it even came to be and is even now censoring any mention of it. And they have in the past sent trolls our way (thankfully often blatantly obvious ones), so this issue naturally is an emotional one to many here. If - as seems to be the case - there is agreement that there is little to no to be copied from that other site to begin with, I don't see why being a bit clearer about us not wanting that could do harm. And while I agree with User:ChubbyWimbus in that WP does not usually have copy pasted content, they do sometimes have articles or large parts of articles based on old encyclopedias that since have passed into the public domain (Meyers Konversationslexikon is a favorite on de-WP) - which is a source of text we certainly won't need or use not now or ever. As for the sources of our information; ideally locals or people who have been to the place are our main source for our articles. For updating stuff that has become outdated our dead weblink tool has proven invaluable. I sometimes add listings to articles that are devoid of them in a certain category by going to the tourism website, see the hotels and restaurants there and then see their own websites. This is of course not as good as actually going there, but it beats having no listings whatsoever in an article and I have found that the more content an article has, the more edits it attracts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The general (but serious) discouragement of copying is not the issue. However, additional policy explicitly "banning" any copying from WT specifically is likely to provoke deletions on sight and firm talk, which would scare away good editors who were just unaware. We'd be throwing out the kid with the bathwater. It's much better to kindly inform them, help with rewriting such an article when possible and hopefully draw them in. We have tools to stop malicious editors or IB trolls when they want to continue unwanted edits despite that information - the same way we would handle verbatim copying from other sites, as we always have. Besides all that, singling out WT as a "forbidden" source would make us as petty as they have been, and I don't care to give them any such special attention. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
JuliasTravels, "likely to provoke deletions on sight and firm talk, which would scare away good editors" is wild speculation. Though all of us more experienced editors slip up from time to time, as a general rule we scrupulously assume good faith when it comes to new users making honest mistakes. None of that would necessarily change if we made prohibition of content copied from WT an explicit policy - and if it did, the problem wouldn't lie with the policy, but with newbie-biting, which itself is against policy.
Secondly, by way of addressing ChubbyWimbus' and Justin's comments upthread: I have no problem with WV content coped from Wikipedia or other CC-licensed sources with proper attribution, and even given our history with WT, I might be inclined to bury the hatchet with them on the issue of shared content if not for the censoring of any mention of WV at WT that Hobbitschuster mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it remains impossible to copy WV content to WT with proper attribution, I don't feel any compunction about the idea of forbidding the reverse. It seems to me that all this talk about the spirit of fairness and open content is, in this particular case with WT, being employed for the benefit of an illusion of fairness that belies a scenario whose end result is in many ways manifestly less fair than that of a prohibition on copying. Fairness and openness are two-way streets.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the decision to keep or delete something should be based on the quality of this content, and whether it is appropriate for a travel guide. It would be silly to disallow good content, because the eventual goal is to have all good and freely licensed travel-related information in one place. I also think that the amount of good content copied from other sites is normally so small that it should not be visible and should not require any discussion. When it is, it probably means that "some other" travel wikis still are still doing better than this one. --Alexander (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Surprised this is still a discussion. Yes, no-one likes WT, but proposing banning valid attributed CC content from any source is a bad idea. If the content is both legal and useful then there are better ways to improve WV than proposing draconian (yes, correct definition) measures. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Many of the instances of "copying" from WT are actually users copying what they inputted to WT into WV. Surely we're not going to make that a capital crime, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
"Capital crime", "scaring away good editors" - I fail to understand wherefore the leap from "new policy" to "heavy-handed consequences for those who defy the policy". There is an extremely circumscribed range of behaviors for which a user can incur a permaban on the spot - real-world threats, vandalism-only accounts, and a very few others - and if we institute a prohibition on copying from WT like we should, I don't foresee violators of that policy as falling into the permaban category, at least for first-time offenders. I would see no problem with one or more gentle reminders, followed by the usual escalating user-blocks scheme for those who still don't get the message.
To answer the question here: you are correct, copying one's own content from WT to WV would not suffice for an exception to the rule. The reason why is extremely straightforward for those who can avoid getting hung up on the letter of the law. Something I also fail to understand is the stubborn refusal to differentiate between our relationship with WT vs. our relationship with Wikipedia or whatever other site that uses CC-licensed material with whom we don't have a uniquely adversarial history. Of course we value the free exchange of information in the Creative Commons spirit, but can you people really not see how this is a special circumstance that warrants being looked at differently? Do you honestly think any good-faith user who innocently copies text he wrote at WT to this site would disagree if s/he were given a brief primer on the history of the WT-WV relationship? Come to think of it, if you asked such a user what the advantage is to anyone of having the exact same information available on two different sites, don't you think s/he would come to understand why we feel the way we do about it?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Just to try to help you guys with the discussion, perhaps you need some table pro/against (the numbers are just arbitrary) - the above goes in circles currently... Feel free to delete it if it's useless, or adjust values. I'll see myself out :-) Andree.sk (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pro WT content points (1 ... 10) Against -points (-10 ... -1)
CC-BY-SA content normally accepted 5
WT lawsuits/trolling a possibility (depending on how often it happens and how hard it is to detect compared to a generic vandalism) -3
overhead with detecting WT-specific content -1
problems with checking whether WT content is not "stolen" in the first place (but that's with any copied content) -1
more relevant/complete content for the visitors, than empty pages/stubs - also "something" is a better base for editing than "nothing" 8
Big part of WV is WT-sourced since 20xx with minimal changes anyhow.Also WT content gets updated more than WV in some areas. 5
SEO problems (mightn't be too big) -4
Easier to start a page if the editor doesn't know it, than to gather the info from scratch. 3
banning copying might scare away new contributors 3
@Andree.sk, that table would be relevant if we'd be discussing whether or not copied content is wanted. We're not. It's long established and broadly supported policy to discourage all verbatim copying - for a range of reasons. It's a different discussion. The question here was if we need to change current policy on how to handle copying. Regardless of opinions, I think it's abundantly clear that there is currently no consensus to do so. It also doesn't seem like we're likely to change each other's mind. Therefore, I'll refrain from further commenting :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it seems both sides are not moving and repeating the same points won't help.
I would however suggest another path, which is to leave policy well alone and create a new category template that identifies articles that have been extensively copied (including from our favorite WT source) and request a rewrite. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be a useful template. I'd be willing to help with rewrites. Ground Zero (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
For new cases, fine. I'm not sure it would be a great idea to put such a template on all our pages with WT material though... that's probably still 90% of articles, no? JuliasTravels (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The frequency of WT material on pre-fork articles must be far higher than 90%! I was thinking more identifying articles that have a high 'similarity quotient' to their WT correspondence article. i.e. articles that have exactly the same introduction over many paragraphs. Other aspects such as listings would not count towards how similar the two articles were. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be some disagreements over whether edits to remove copied content are desirable. I think the template should be designed in such a way that it can be applied to single sections as well. Sometimes a whole "get in" section is essentially the same it has been since 2011 or even earlier. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I think everyone is on the same page with regards to copied content being undesirable, with just the question of how to respond to it being in contention. We could add a template on a section basis rather than for the whole article. It would make sense. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Salar de Uyuni[edit]

Copyright violation for the last 6+ years?[edit]

Look at Salar de Uyuni. Now, look at www.boliviahostels.com's Uyuni Travel Guide, starting with "Salar de Uyuni Tours and Uyuni Salt Flat Tours". There was a thread started about this on Talk:Salar de Uyuni in 2010! I think that the irregular headings in the itinerary article suggest that it was ripped off from a tour site, not vice versa. If you agree, the solution at this late date still would be to delete the article and begin from scratch. Please state your case at Talk:Salar de Uyuni. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I say nuke it from orbit and start with a blank slate. There seems to be no alternative to deletion, and frankly it is embarrassing that this could escape attention for so long... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at this. I am not sure whether that also introduces back content from the previously deleted copvio. @Andree.sk: I'd advise you to not copy anything from WT at this point in time, until and unless we resolve policy on this issue in favor of allowing copying. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Do the diff, I did copy almost nothing... Only the skeleton of attractions is so far the same, but you can go check [2], I could've as well used that filtered through translator .-) (but didn't...) Andree.sk (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, current policy does not prevent copying of content from WT so no need to 'wait for any discussion to resolve'. Discussing something in the community does not have any impact at all until a consensus decision to change policy has been made.
Clear copyright violations should have that content deleted, leaving a skeleton. I dare say a good deal of articles suffer from copying from third party sources. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you give an example of what you mean by "copied from third party sources"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Knock yourself out --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you be a tad more specific? Maybe give a concrete example? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"A clear-blue lake, coloured by magnesium and manganese" is used verbatim in www.boliviahostels.com's Uyuni Travel Guide, with the exception of the spelling of "colored". Please check everything carefully against the hostel's site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Regardless of how we feel about copying from WT, the article there is also a real copyright violation from a third party, so in this particular case the WT article can not at all be used as a Creative Commons source. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Andree.sk, please help by checking everything you added from WT against the source I cite above and making sure to edit out all copyright violation as soon as possible, since www.boliviahostels.com is a copyrighted site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That was my intention - I only left some generic few-word sentences. Anyhow, even that is gone now... Andree.sk (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. In the future, if you'd like to edit some copy-pasted sentences and lessen the possibility that others may be concerned, you could always do it on your user page and then input it into the destination article when you're done editing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The main page problem in the wide screen(1080px)[edit]

Main page screenshot on 1920*1080px wide
Fix version screenshot on 1920*1080px wide

1920*1080 pixel about wide screen of main page problem, the content frame does not seem to be the same size as the image above, can improve the content frame with the same size?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yuriy kosygin: This edit will fix the main banner. Now it will display with a background color that is the same as the ocean spread across 100% of the screen to any size. I can't edit the DotM banner below it because I don't have permissions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Wow! That good idea! But I don't have permissions... --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I am not an admin, so I can edit one of those templates but not the other (nor can I edit the Main Page). Now why one is protected and the other isn't, I don't know... —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Mmm, I understand.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: has been the one who edited the main page the most in recent times, so he should be able to help once he reads this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about make the 5 blocks the same width and center them? Doing this will create two bands in the sides, but it will look better than the current Main page. --Zerabat (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf:, @AndreCarrotflower:, @Hobbitschuster: and @Zerabat: This is the Chinese version of the solution(Oops!! Chinese version code with the English version is different... I'm sorry!), we will take the lock size without changing the size of the wide screen. In this case, DotM banner does not need to change its size! see before and after.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I have modified the Template:mapbanner and Template:Bottomboxes Code,But... As the main page change middle (mapbanner, DotM banner and bottomboxes), maybe need admin help! Cause I don't have permissions.Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: I'm a little confused: I thought that my edit fixed the problem but then you removed it... And yes, that central carousel needs to be fixed--it can be centered or stretched. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I'm sorry, I might think central carousel can not stretched the possibility...--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yuriy kosygin: You can put anything inside of <div span="width:100%" style="background-color:#XXXXXX;"></div> and then if the thing itself won't stretch, the box it is in will. Plus, if you center the element, you won't end up with whitespace. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Currently I see the map with a black background extended to the right edge of the screen, but the carousel is still at its old width and the blue box is now the same width as the carousel. This looks fairly bad. Did someone change something? Powers (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@LtPowers: Yuri set a max width. Not sure why--this is the opposite of his complaint. Now the map/searchbox at the top and all of the links at the bottom extend 100% (which is probably what we want...) and the carousel in the middle does not. Again, there are two solutions to this aesthetic problem. I'd be happy to help if you need it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do, if you have a solution. Powers (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Not sure how you'd like me to do it but there are two ways to fix it. I can't edit the Main Page myself, so how do you want me to give you the code to fix it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
What options do you have in mind? I don't think stretching the carousel is a good idea given the set aspect ratio of the images. Powers (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Not sure how familiar you are with HTML but it's actually not too complicated and is basically what the other portions of the Main Page do: put the carousel in a <div> and center the contents. I agree that the carousel probably shouldn't be stretched itself because it will distort the images. Again, I can write up that code, if you think it would be helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with centering is that the other elements are left-aligned. I did try adding the div tag you quoted upthread but I couldn't get it to center; I may have the syntax wrong. Or maybe the custom classes used for the carousel are hardcoded to left-align. Powers (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @LtPowers: You could change <div class="jcarousel-wrapper"> to <div class="jcarousel-wrapper" style="width:100%; background-color:#0000FF;">. What do you think of that? It will put a box behind it that will bleed to the right and it has a kind of gradient between the dark blue of the map above and the light blue from the navigation box below. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm. That actually didn't work... I'll have to look at this more. But do you like the idea in principle? Otherwise, I will have to come up with something more creative. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, it sounds kind of weird but I'd have to see it. It seems to me the easiest solution is to keep all three boxes to the same width (whatever the carousel and map are). Powers (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Don't you agree that the hanging whitespace is a problem? For what it's worth, this is not an issue on any of our sister projects--they all expand to 100%. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I did this applying the solution from zhwikivoyage: wrap all the boxes inside a center-aligned div. (If the world map banner does not look good, don't care about it, it's just a CSS issue). Is this what you want to do, or you want to extend all the boxes (mapbanner, carousel banners, discover banner and sister projects) to fit the whole space?--Zerabat (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at Apple Valley (Minnesota)...[edit]

... and tell me what you think of its WV:Tone. I think we don't want that much exaggeration and overselling. What do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I got alerted to this article by its placement on the list of Wikivoyage:Discover nominations and I suggested it be put "on hold" if you want to participate in the discussion about that point (which may or may not touch on the definition of what "Discover" is or should be) please do. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I would vote the tone needs to be turned down drastically. It also appears a lot of writing has been either copied, or heavily inspired by the Chicago pages. Why, if a place has "an embarrassment of architectural riches", would none of them be listed in the "See" or whatever section? ... Actually after looking at the talk page it looks like someone did a send up of a town that they decided "sucks" for whatever reason. I think this is a joke article and would assume all the information it contains is wrong. It should not be featured without a total rewrite. --ButteBag (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please note that I have raised the wider policy issues that go beyond this one entry here and I would like input in this discussion. This (or maybe the talk page of Apple Valley (Minnesota) itself) is for the discussion of the tone of the article, whereas the discussion under "on hold" (which started this whole mess, sorry about that) is about whether or not the "factoid" should be displayed at the main page. If the article was indeed written as a sendup and the town does not even contain architecture worthy of being listed under see, that might change that argument and bring it to a swifter conclusion. Again, sorry for the mess. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Whatever you want to do about it, the quoted factoid is false, as there are no extant FLW buildings in Apple Valley. (and to my (limited) knowledge, there never were any.) --ButteBag (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonetheless, this literary masterpiece is utterly brilliant and we very much have a place for prose of this calibre. If anything, this destination should be featured for a day. It's likely too late to put it in the rotation for March, but maybe the first day of the next month after? It would be a shame for such a gem to merely pass unnoticed, when its stunning vistas, breathtaking scenery, beautiful sunsets, refreshing cool breezes, delicious eateries, mouthwatering cuisine and friendly country inns could become an oasis of rest and relaxation for business and leisure voyagers alike. Truly, there's something for the entire family here. K7L (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I've been hacking away with the chainsaw already. But I have linked the last revision before my onslaught at the BJaoDN page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion? I'd be tempted to revert Apple Valley (Minnesota) to the last version before any unfunny additions, move it to Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Apple Valley (Minnesota), then start with a fresh copy of the template at Apple Valley (Minnesota). That new page could then be used as a dumping ground for all of the boring spacefiller you intended remain in the main article, as each piece is tediously verified.
That's effectively what I was trying to do when I split Blumenort into the current pair of entries at Steinbach#Blumenort and Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Blumenort. An erudite collection of truly original prose at this size should occupy a full subpage instead of merely a single BJAODN entry. Blumenort is a bit more complex as there were multiple versions with different content on the same theme. Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Blumenort is the best available version, the rest was archived at Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#From Blumenort. K7L (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You're right. Let's go with that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
At some point, it is best to start with a fresh slate. I remember Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#Portland (Maine) listing a string of draconian penalties for intoxicated drivers which ended "After a second offense, the driver license will be revoked permanently, not merely suspended, and the driver will be fed to a pack of satanic lobsters." Reasonable enough. Unfortunately, the next editor removed the "satanic lobsters" from Portland (Maine) and blindly left the rest of the draconian restrictions intact. That's worse. In the original format, someone seeing "satanic lobsters" would know this to be a joke and plan their travels accordingly. Someone seeing the "corrected" version would see the other penalties (which may or may not be accurate) and rely upon the information at face value. It was safer to treat all of the contributions of the same user as equally "reliable" instead of just removing the obvious jokes. Drop the satanic lobsters in the BJAODN pot and start with a clean plate, then one knows what's humour and what's verified travel info. K7L (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
That's why I rolled myself back. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've renominated this destination for Wikivoyage:Discover. If the 485-acre w:Minnesota Zoo and its 2500 animals in six climate-themed collections are the primary reason for visiting Apple Valley (Minnesota), the "Discover" entry should describe the zoo – not the nondescript outer Minneapolis-St. Paul host suburb and its entirely-forgettable 1970's architecture. K7L (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

why is all the text in the article Budapest italicized (including the interface menus)?[edit]

? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The likeliest reason for that is someone having put a '' there without putting a closing '' there as well. But I'll have a more detailed look right now. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As you can see from the edit history, I tried to fix this, but could not find what's going on there... Very strange indeed. Even stranger is the fact that the sidebar also appears in italics... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I confess to having edited Budapest and probably having created that problem. I have also looked at it and not been able to figure out what is wrong. I thought it was just me seeing italics, so I left it. Ground Zero (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It's alright, User:Andree.sk to the rescue! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed, Andree. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, Andree. How did a stray pair of quotation marks ¾ the way down the article cause that mess? Ground Zero (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

How important is contact information for listings when considering promotion to "usable"?[edit]

The articles Nablus and Jericho were recently promoted to "usable"; however, both only have a single eat listing which in both cases lacks contact information. Should they be demoted to "outline" until and unless contact information is provided or should policy be adjusted? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's address this in terms of something that runs across the board rather than pertaining to these two articles in particular. But if you're talking about a policy change, I could get behind that. At a bare minimum, I'd say let's require 1) an address and/or directions and 2) a phone number and/or a link to their website or Facebook page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Was I wrong in making this edit? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In the specific cases given there are places to eat with lat/longs so that they appear on the map, and therefore the traveller can get there. Bear in mind that not everywhere has addresses and phone numbers - a sleep listing could be a patch of ground to pitch a tent, an eat listing could be a hot dog stall on the beach. However there must be some way of the traveller finding the place, and some form of contact details if it is something that needs to be booked. AlasdairW (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes but without a website or a phone number, there is no way to make sure in advance the place is still there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, those are very good Outline articles, and yes, I would demote them back to Outline. I can't believe that these cities have only one place to eat that has no phone. There may be a good case for an exception, but I don't think either of these places are good cases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to see whom are the top contributors for a specific article + how much they actually contributed?[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, there is such a tool that does this quite fast (and I am hoping such a tool would help me tremendously in locating the most prolific and knowledgeable "local experts" over at Wikipedia for specific destinations, whom I'm hoping would agree to help expand the parallel articles on Wikivoyage). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup, there is https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=busan&project=en.wikivoyage.org --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andrewssi2. I tried using this tool in order to find out if any Hebrew-speaking "local experts" took part in the the creation of specific top destinations articles over at the Hebrew Wikipedia since the early 2000s... unfortunately, I ended up finding out three things - (1) even prominent articles on Wikipedia, that appear to be very complex, and have been gradually improved for a very long while, aren't very big in size or complex with travel oriented details in comparison to our Wikivoyage articles (2) most top contributions on those Wikipedia articles were actually made in the previous decade (3) to my surprise, in many cases there are very few people whom actually contributed most of the content to each of those articles, and most of those people are the same ~40 most active editors on the Hebrew Wikipedia whom in many cases contribute translations from the English Wikipedia content and therefore it seems that many Hebrew speaking "local experts" were involved the creation of the content, but in reality it usually is only 1-3 translators translating the majority of the content about a destinations they most likely have never been to.
Here's an example of what I mean.... a comparison of the top 10 editors of the Barcelona article in the Hebrew Wikipedia (this has been the most popular destinations among Hebrew speakers) with a comparison to the top 10 editors of the Barcelona article in the Hebrew Wikivoyage:

Top 10 Editors of the Barcelona Article in the Hebrew Wikipedia

Username #1 Minor edits % First edit Latest edit Added (Bytes)
Deror avi 57 25 43.9 2005-02-17, 17:04 2013-04-02, 07:00 15,292 Bytes
ליז'אנסק 11 2 18.2 2007-01-14, 20:13 2007-03-05, 16:11 3,077 Bytes
אריאל 11 2 18.2 2006-09-26, 20:40 2006-10-10, 20:05 2,048 Bytes
רפאל לירז 11 0 0 2004-03-21, 15:15 2004-03-21, 16:27 2,025 Bytes
הידוען האלמוני 5 1 20 2009-02-17, 17:36 2009-02-17, 18:07 1,419 Bytes
Poxsi 3 1 33.3 2008-09-02, 21:33 2011-01-15, 15:47 1,324 Bytes
Hmbr 3 3 100 2010-07-19, 23:06 2010-07-24, 23:01 1,187 Bytes
Tt100 11 0 0 2009-10-05, 19:07 2013-10-12, 09:26 1,060 Bytes
Alonr 4 1 25 2007-05-16, 09:52 2008-01-27, 17:58 1,039 Bytes
62.90.235.244 1 0 0 2004-03-21, 15:02 2004-03-21, 15:02 753 Bytes

Top 10 Editors of the Barcelona Article in the Hebrew Wikivoyage

Username #1 Minor edits % First edit Latest edit Added (Bytes)
ויקיג'אנקי 103 0 0 2013-02-25, 06:00 2017-02-14, 23:30 58,293 Bytes
אלמוג שווד 1 0 0 2016-01-20, 15:15 2016-01-20, 15:15 4,789 Bytes
יעל י 11 0 0 2013-03-31, 08:55 2013-07-27, 19:04 3,154 Bytes
בנימין 5 0 0 2013-03-18, 13:16 2015-01-05, 14:27 2,066 Bytes
Urilei~hewikivoyage 4 0 0 2013-09-13, 22:12 2013-09-13, 23:39 1,019 Bytes
Tzafrir 2 1 50 2013-04-11, 13:42 2014-03-28, 09:30 748 Bytes
DL3222 4 3 75 2013-04-09, 14:27 2014-04-20, 13:06 321 Bytes
Guycn2 1 1 100 2016-12-30, 13:45 2016-12-30, 13:45 248 Bytes
24.1.7.5 1 0 0 2013-05-12, 15:09 2013-05-12, 15:09 1 Bytes
DekelEBot 3 3 100 2014-01-03, 06:53 2016-02-06, 15:00 0 Bytes
As you can see, my contribution alone, on the Barcelona article in Hebvoy, is much bigger than all top contributions to the same article on the Hebrew Wikipedia.
This method might work better for getting English speaking local experts from the English Wikipedia. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Atlanta district reorganization[edit]

Please have a look at Talk:Atlanta; a proposal was made but never implemented. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a list[edit]

Please have a look here for the 12 (originally 14 but two of them were what amounted to a typo) airports that are on the "50 busiest airports by passenger travel as of 2015" list on Wikipedia but do not (yet) have airport articles. Do note that this list is not intended as an endorsement of their creation nor as a rejection of it, merely as an interesting observation and starting point for discussion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Is this an article?[edit]

Hello! I was starting to work on Boston/Outer Neighborhoods, and could only find one "Sleep" listing. It's a bad place in a bad area and I do not feel comfortable listing it or endorsing it in any way. That would leave us with 0 sleep listings and then it's potentially not an article. Can I get consensus to give me a "pass" on this one? There will be a decent amount of other things listed here to make it worthwhile (IMHO). Is there an agreed upon piece of text to use for an empty section? Like "No accommodations are available in Location, please see Main Article#sleep for advice on the best places to stay while in town." Or something like that? Thank you for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't say "there are no accommodations" if there are. I would list it and note your specific concerns with it, e.g., security, cleanliness, Mormons, rather than saying it is "bad". Ground Zero (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: "Mormons"?! —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
When we run into something like Nunatsiavut#Natuashish about all we can do is lay it on the line - yes it's a real place and yes there are serious problems. Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews does make a bit of an exception for venues which are prominently located, widely advertised or which the voyager is likely to find from other sources - and the one lone, dysfunctional hotel in some place which otherwise has nothing would usually qualify. K7L (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The so-called sleep test being taken too literally is a longstanding (though understandable) problem on this site. Asking the question "can you sleep there?" was never meant to imply that any place without a hotel doesn't deserve its own article - it was more meant to help people weed out the types of places that shouldn't get their own articles (e.g. city parks, bodies of water, tiny "dot on a map" hamlets with no attractions or services). If there's no recommendable hotel in Boston's outer neighborhoods, just say so and carry on with the article (but I would also agree with K7L that in a case like this one, we should feel freer than usual to list lower-quality hotels that we might otherwise prefer not to). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I feel like Andre is on the right track--in principle you couldn't sleep on a rock in the middle of the ocean (well, you could but if you're sort of person who does that, you're not reading a travel guide anyway). We avoid negative reviews but we also give information that is useful for someone's safety. If none of the lodging there is really safe or clean, then simply note that and implore travelers to sleep elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
My ancestors might've been crazy enough to colonise a rock in the middle of the ocean. To each their own, I suppose.
Certainly, the "can you eat there" and "can you sleep there" questions have come up often before in a few tiny, out-of-the-way places. For instance, is Cartwright (Labrador) promotable to "usable" if there are few choices available locally after the Cartwright Hotel burned to the ground in 2013? Are any of these tiny Labrador outports promotable to "guide" if a guide article is expected to provide a few good choices and alternatives in each section – and there really is no menu of multiple options in the tiniest villages as they're lucky to have anything locally. For that matter, will the Moon ever progress beyond "outline" until all of the Apollo-era infrastructure is rebuilt or replaced?
There's a distinction between "poor coverage of a viable destination" and "reasonably complete coverage of a marginal destination" that gets lost somehow. We apply (nominally) the same 'what is an article' and 'article status' criteria in a big city as in a remote subsistence fishery outport.
Boston is a different animal, admittedly, from Labrador. If there's nothing in one spot, the next village is a few minutes away – instead of 200km on bad gravel roads with no services under sub-Arctic winter driving conditions. It's easy to say "there's nothing worthwhile in this area other than one bad hotel in a bad location, so try (some other district)". Try that in Nunatsiavut and it's some absurdly-long way away and there's no road. All we can do is lay off the "Achieving euphoria is easy in this virtual Xanadu..." hype and explain honestly and factually why a fun-filled trip to Natuashish might simply not work out as planned. K7L (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I meant like w:Rockall which can just be mentioned at Next-to-impossible_destinations. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If there are a bunch of decent hotels and a few bad ones, there is no reason to include the bad ones. If there is only one hotel, we should include it, identify its issues, and let the reader decide for themselves. I've stayed in a lot of hotels I wouldn't recommend, but for one night at the right price in that location, it was okay for me. I don't think we should decide for the traveller who wants to stay in a particular location that they are wrong and have to go elsewhere. I considered staying a dive in London - a city with billions and billions of hotels - because what was important to me was staying close to a sick friend (fortunately, there's Airbnb). Give them the info, and let the reader decide for themselves. Ground Zero (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How much information do we include about that one hotel, if we're just going to indicate that it's bad and send the voyager to some other district? I've been inclined to leave one sentence (enough to explain that there is a hotel and identify the issues) but not a full listing of the style used for somewhere worth staying. K7L (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is my main question, and I appreciate that I am talking about the weather here and not the climate. Ground Zero makes a compelling argument, list everything and let the user decide. I don't want to do that in this case, however, because I don't want to list a place where (at least) two rapes were reported in 2013. I think the city shut the place down, but I can't confirm. In my opinion I would "serve the traveller" better by doing what K7L says: mentioning there are no listings, and letting them pick an option that appeals to them from airbnb, vrbo, homestay, homeaway, etc, etc, etc. --ButteBag (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Not being able to confirm that is open is another matter. That would be a reason not to list it. There are, unfortunately, rapes even in good hotels, and often more recently than three years ago. We should not be sending any one anywhere. We're not the reader's mom.
If the place were open, I would identify the address, phone, website, and in the content line, something like, "This is the only hotel in the district. Two rapes were reported here in 2013." A lot of cheap, and not so cheap, hotels around the world are used by prostitutes and their clients, and often the clients are not very nice people, so rapes are probably fairly common, even though they may not be reported. Ground Zero (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
We're not the reader's mum, but we are a travel guide. If something isn't worth visiting, we say so or we outright refuse to list it – much like there's no sense putting the traveller on the RMS Titanic if we know the mighty ocean liner is as doomed as doomed can be. K7L (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably not a great analogy: if we had known that we could have stopped it with a concisely-worded warning on our web page. ;-) Refusing to list the only hotel in town because we don't think it's good enough is playing mommy. I fully support not listing bad hotels where there are good ones available. We don't know the reader's circumstances and why they might stay in a hotel we say is a bad one, but we should not make that decision for them. As I've mentioned, I've stayed in a number of bad hotels for good reasons, location being one of them. One place, the only one I could afford that night, turned out to be a homeless shelter that had a "travellers' dorm". It was okay, for a night. As long as we report on the conditions factually, it provides useful information for the reader to make their own decision. Ground Zero (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I tried several sources for finding a hotel in the area covered by the article, and came up with nothing, so I think the scary place is gone. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I totally feel you. It's a bit of a slippery slope once we start saying this place is "bad" but that place isn't. (but that place was legit bad!) It's hard to be impartial when you're trying to rep your set, you know? Thank you again User:Ground Zero for your thoughtful and reasoned arguments. I've added a sentence in the Sleep section now, could someone else have a look and adjust the article status accordingly? Thanks to everyone again for their help. --ButteBag (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That looks fine to me, but I'm an old-fashioned guy: I'd prefer it if you'd at least buy me a drink before you feel me. Just saying. Ground Zero (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this an article: Policy?[edit]

Given the preceding discussion, should these policies be updated to deal with the case where a village's one hotel or lone restaurant shuts down or fails to meet minimum standards?

If we've listed all there is to list for a place (it's all here) but the "eat" section looks like "Bring what you need and leave no trace when you leave. Be bear aware; stored or cached foodstuffs may require bear-resistant containers." is this an article and is it promotable to usable or higher? This has come up before on Talk:Cartwright (Labrador) and again on Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates#Labrador as going off the beaten path often means limited or no options. "What is an article?" has also come up for ghost towns... where's the best place to eat in downtown Glenrio tonight if it doesn't have all the amenities of urban Val-Jalbert? Any conclusions from these discussions (or the one above) should be reflected in policy, or the same questions will continue to arise. K7L (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It is worth discussing this. The 'sleep test' is a pretty imperfect tool and I'd like to see more direction around grouping a few smaller destinations into one useful article rather than feeling every hamlet/ghost town needs its own dedicated article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would second that. There are way too many almost-empty articles that survive simply because they have one or two sleep listings, or a single visitor attraction. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, policy needs updating here, but I'm not 100% sure how the best way to proceed would look. Maybe we need a standalone policy on WV:Wilderness Outposts or WV:Hamlets? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there but instead of "Can you sleep there?" the barometer could be:
  • Must have at least 10(or whatever number is good) listings combined in See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep.
  • Must have enough content to hold a travelers attention for more than 3 hours (or whatever number)
  • Must take a user at least 5 minutes to read the entire article (or article must be larger than 100kb, or whatever)
--ButteBag (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Wikis are built from small pieces. Just because we have few listings currently doesn't mean it's a permanent situation, nor does it mean the article is unworthy of its own travel guide. Childs is a guide article that was featured on the front page. Sometimes a rural-area region with listings and no subpages is appropriate, but certainly not all the time! Powers (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually Wikis grow organically, with the organization and potential merger of articles being flexible. That said it is unlikely we will ever agree on a quantifiable metric that can be used to determine the viability of an article.
One practical example is Jervis_Bay which contains a few small towns within one rural area. It is open for potential splitting in the future, but as it stands it is serving the traveller far better as one article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
As part of growing organically, there's nothing stopping these 'grouped articles' becoming 'ungrouped' (i.e. split back into city articles) over time, if and when the level of information is enough. Wiki or no, keeping hundreds of very sparse articles just in case someone decides to fill them up in a few years, makes Wikivoyage look unprofessional, and I would bet on them putting readers off. They also spoil the chances of any number of region articles ever being promoted to 'usable' status, despite many having enough content to do so on their own merits. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I agree that having hundreds of sparse articles makes Wikivoyage look unprofessional. Just look at Lynnfield and a hundred other pages in Massachusetts alone. I would also argue that "can you sleep there?" is a quantifiable metric. (If there is more than one sleep listing, than it is an article.) I also get that CYST is a rule of thumb and not meant to be taken literally, but it seems like a reasonable number of contributors are making this mistake? That's why I threw out a few suggestions as conversation starters. The question I have about the article Powers linked, Childs, is why isn't it a star? It seems to have a static map and all sections filled out, good images and prose. Nothing seems to be missing. Could it ever be a star? Incidentally, Childs seems to conform to 2 of the 3 criteria I listed, and is very close on the other one. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes,CYST is quantifiable, but often unenforceable because frankly others object to the potential deletion.
And yes, merged articles can absolutely be split again in future if a contributor with serious content wants to give it a go. The traveler is best served by one good article with good content rather than a skeleton article that is easy to create but expecting someone else to do the hard work is not useful at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
A group of outer Boston suburbs is one thing — these likely could be grouped or combined as they're fairly close together — but a truly isolated outport like Cartwright is a very different animal. There's nowhere to merge this. We only have eight pages covering all of Labrador, an almost province-sized geographic area, because there's very little out there except sub-Arctic wilderness. A policy that a guide-level article should be "offering alternatives for where to stay and eat" is viable for a big city, but a Cartwright-sized w:Newfoundland outport might never meet those criteria. It's a tiny place, there really aren't "alternatives" locally for much of anything and the next village might be 200km away.
Likewise, the Glenrio Historic District is (a) on a state line and (b) nowhere near much of anything, which makes it difficult to merge into another article. It's not merely a Tucumcari suburb if half of it is in Texas.
Whatever policy we apply needs to handle both large cities and tiny, isolated coastal subsistence fishery villages... unless and until they get to the point of not being worth visiting (or listing) at all. CYST and the "usable city" criteria assume every village with something worth seeing or doing also has a restaurant and a hotel; "guide" assumes multiple viable options. I don't agree with creating empty {{subst:smallcity}} skeletons for points which could be included in an adjacent destination, but at some point we've listed everything there is to list in some of these outports and the result still looks sparse. K7L (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see a compelling need here to monkey around with a status quo that, in my view, works perfectly well. The flexibility in the current policy is a good thing - it allows Powers to write an article about a worthwhile microdestination like Childs and K7L to have one about a wide area like Rural Montgomery County that's treated as a bottom-level destination, and both of those ways of looking at geography are considered valid on an equal standing. Why proscribe any of those approaches? And, as for the empty skeleton articles that this conversation is really about, I don't understand why people are afraid to take the initiative and plunge forward. Policy already allows us to merge and redirect articles whose information would better serve the traveller as part of some larger article. You don't even have to put them through the vfd rigmarole (in fact, please don't vfd them; you'll only get told for the 5,000th time that real places don't get deleted) - policy states that discussions about redirecting are to be conducted on the talk page of the article itself, but clearly in the case of an empty skeleton that no one has looked at in years that's just a formality, and it's doubtful anyone would object to a user skipping that step. (And I don't buy K7L's above argument that "sometimes there's nothing to redirect to", as with Cartwright (Labrador) - in fact, one need look no further than our coverage of Labrador to find a bounty of creative examples of how to deal with geographically isolated communities that are too small to sustain their own article, such as Nunatsiavut and Port Hope Simpson#Nearby). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree with AndreCarrotflower on this. There's no need to make policy more strict or limiting. The flexibility has always helped us. It's true that deleting is usually not an acceptable solution for skeletons, but creating combined articles or redirecting where that makes sense is, in my experience, typically uncontroversial. While this strategy should obviously not be used for larger destinations which simply haven't evolved into a proper article yet, there's wide support to group rural destinations together. The only issue I would like to raise is that when redirecting, we should probably try to include some kind of mention of the redirected destination in the target article, to avoid confusion. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe that deleting should be an option if there is truly nothing to list. Toronto (Prince Edward Island) redirects to Cavendish and Rustico Harbour why exactly? That destination article doesn't mention "Toronto PEI" because there's nothing in Toronto PEI - it's a random, empty speck on a map that never should have been created. I recall an incident with one user, a "page creation vandal", adding a long list of various pointless specks-on-a-map in Maine which had one bar, no hotel, less than 1000 population; those were deleted, as were some fictional points.
That said, CYST taken to the extreme could create an outcome like Cartwright NL initially being listed because we need it as a jumping-off point to get to isolated points like Mealy Mountains National Park or Eagle River which have no road. There's little here - a village of about 1000 people - but there's nowhere to merge this as the next town down the actual road is 200km away. The Cartwright Hotel burns down? Well, that invalidates the entire destination. It's not a city any more so it gets redirected to some point that's actually further afield than dumping New York, New York into Philadelphia#Nearby. Frank Sinatra did say NY, NY was "the city that never sleeps" (presumably causing it to fail CYST, even though Glenn Miller did provide a telephone number for a hotel) but at some point this is a stretch. Grouping the six Nunatsiavut villages made sense as they are part of the same native first nation and joined to each other by a coastal ferry. If grouping Cartwright (Labrador) to Port Hope Simpson#Nearby makes no sense geographically (short of creating a bottom-level "large rural area" for the entire east coast of Labrador below Nunatsiavut) then we don't do it... even if that means grasping at straws like "tent camping" in chilly Labrador. I doubt we'll ever have a "guide"-level article for Cartwright. There's too little here. We list what we can and move on. It's "usable" but even that is tenuous. One business closure could knock Cartwright back to "outline" at any time.
The Boston suburbs are obviously an entirely different environment. We have some flexibility to group and bundle them, much like city districts, into articles of manageable size. Does CYST require we draw those lines carefully so that each of the districts lands on at least one decent hotel? We sometimes run into districts like Manhattan/Central Park where there is plenty to see or do, a wide assortment of vendors and food, but nowhere (lawfully) to sleep. I suppose we need a bit of wiggle room, as one size does not fit all. K7L (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the discussion! For me the explicitness really helps, and I've compiled a list of what I learned from these comments. Maybe someone with more experience than me can edit some of the relevant policy pages, (assuming these are even accurate at all) I do not dare.
  • A valid (and high quality) article may have no Sleep listings. (examples? Boston/Outer Neighborhoods?)
  • Conversely, a location with only one or two places to sleep isn't necessarily an article. See Rowley, or Boxford (Massachusetts).
  • The flexibility in the current policy is a good thing - it allows Powers to write an article about a worthwhile microdestination like Childs and K7L to have one about a wide area like Rural Montgomery County that's treated as a bottom-level destination, and both of those ways of looking at geography are considered valid on an equal standing. -- Andre
  • Some places, like Glenrio, will remain at "outline" status for years, possibly forever. In other words, articles may be created that even when completely filled out, can never achieve star status. This is desirable and good.
  • Although you will see hundreds of them, we don't actually like having so many bare bones skeleton articles on Wikivoyage.
  • If you found a skeleton article you know something about, please take the initiative and plunge forward. Policy allows you to merge and redirect articles whose information would better serve the traveller as part of some larger article. -- Andre
  • Check out Labrador and its sub-pages like Nunatsiavut and Port Hope Simpson for good examples of how to group content in rural areas. Another good example is Jervis Bay.
  • The traveler is best served by one good article with good content. -- Andrewssi2
Hope I made things better, and not worse, thank you!--ButteBag (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad things are more clear for you now, ButteBag, but I'm not sure which policy page you think should be changed or updated based on this list of established practices and personal statements you made. To change policy, you obviously need a consensus, not just someone's comment, although in this particular case it doesn't seem all that relevant as most things are already covered by policy and status quo as it is. @K7L, while it is policy to not delete real places in principle, I think we all agree there is always some wiggle room for specific cases. TTCF always gives us room to make exceptions. Since those instances are rare, I do think it's perfectly acceptable to require a quick consensus, though. Trying to catch these individual cases in quantifiable policy is almost impossible and hardly worth it. In the case of page creation vandalism, deletions should be uncontroversial - regardless of any usual policies or practices. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! Although I don't agree with all the bullet points I listed above, I guess my goal was to make the status quo of current policy more explicit. The current set of policies evolved over years (I'm guessing), and when a new contributor arrives they are consumed all at once. Since these rules are more "Bazaar" than "Cathedral", you'll occasionally notice a few edge cases that aren't covered perfectly. I guess I was thinking the bullet points above (if reworked by someone with greater domain experience) could be useful as a "tips for n00bs" guide, or the like. I think I've done a not-that-great job of communicating my ideas, so thank you for bearing with me while I learn. --ButteBag (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Going back to K7L's remarks earlier, one change to this area of policy that I would certainly get behind would be to clarify that if we have an article for a small community where there simply aren't any hotels in town to put in "Sleep" (or restaurants/grocery stores for "Eat", bars for "Drink", etc.), but we have already agreed the article merits existence per wiaa, then the article should not be forever stuck at Outline or Usable status so long as it otherwise fulfills the requirements for promotion. I've cited Childs before as the classic example of this; let's look at it again. Wikivoyage:City guide status says all bottom-level destinations at Guide level must "ha[ve] different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking" (emphasis in original). Someone reading policy in an overly strict way would take issue with Tillman's Historic Village Inn being double-listed in both "Eat" and "Drink", and would further hold that double-listing in the same sections a gas station that sells beer and has an attached sandwich counter is an exceedingly weak "different choice", and would likely conclude that Childs should be demoted to Usable. However, we also have Wikivoyage:Guide articles which says "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here", which is clearly accurate in describing Childs. The fact that we hold the latter specification to supersede the former is evident in the fact that not only is Childs' Guide status designation uncontroversial, but we even saw fit to feature it on the Main Page as OtBP a few years back. Similarly, K7L describes Cartwright (Labrador)'s Usable status as "tenuous" because "one business closure could knock [it] back... at any time", but I feel that it handily falls into the same category as Childs. If there's nothing to list, there's nothing to list, and saying so and moving on does just as much by way of providing accurate information to the traveller as any listings would. IMO there's no point in penalizing an article for that reason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this too. Most logical, Captain. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Aggregators[edit]

I have been mulling an idea for some time. It's clear why we don't list aggregators on our sites (by the way, how many g does that word have?), but there are instances where they do provide service to the voyager, for instance I won't look for my flight to Managua primarily using the websites of Delta or American Airlines but using an aggregator (or several) and then comparing the result with the price quote the airline itself gives me.

Now here's my idea; should we have one travel topic that deals with aggregators and lists as many as may be practical while also emphatically stressing that they should not be listed elsewhere? Or is this a bad idea bringing us down a dangerous slippery slope? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, providing that the links are annotated and compared for quality, user-friendliness and value. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I would like to start the article only after some more people have voiced there opinion, for one because I don't know all that many hotel agregators and would like some help on that, furthermore because I am still unsure of the correct number of gs and finally because I think this is something of a departure from policy in a sense and as such should count with more than the approval of two editors. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Can someone explain me with detail what the 'aggregators' are? --Zerabat (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Basically, websites that allow you to search a certain service from more than one source/company. So for example kayak for flights, trivago for hotels and so on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this idea, but we should tread lightly. If the article ends up as a long list of aggregator listings with very little in the way of prose to tie the listings together, I think that would be unfortunate. Better that this article should focus mainly on aggregators as a concept, the advantages and disadvantages of using them (and there are disadvantages; speaking as someone who worked in hotels for a long time, it's pretty much a universal practice to treat guests who booked with Expedia/Priceline/Orbitz/etc. as basically second-class citizens), how to compare prices, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Should {{eatpricerange}} and {{sleeppricerange}} be merged?[edit]

These two templates are basically the same in code except by a minor and default text, which is replaced when is used parameter {{{4}}}. Should these templates be merged into {{Pricerange}}? The difference in default text can be solved by adding an additional parameter. --Zerabat (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

April 1?[edit]

A discussion appears to be open at Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#Getting my April 2017 topic suggestions in early... K7L (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with copy editing and copying/moving (some) listings to city articles[edit]

So User:Benreis has translated a travel topic on Breweries in Franconia - a very worthwhile topic imho and certainly one of the main tourist draws of the region besides delightful old architecture and charming cities and towns.

At any rate, the prose would have to be looked at by someone who's not a German native speaker to fix particularly awkward wordings and some listings would certainly have to be moved or rather copied to corresponding city articles where they already exist.

I will not issue a recommendation either way as to what to do with the redlinks, I will only point out that many of them indeed represent pretty tiny villages. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What struck me was that it would be nice to have some information about how to get from one town to the next, even though it isn't an itinerary article. I also didn't like the left-justified images, just due to the habits and customs of this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I took a stab at a get in and a get around section, but I think some of the background information in other parts of the article should be moved to the understand section and each place should have at least a few words about how to get there (e.g. take the road XYZ from ABC). I think given the topic it would also help to know a rough ballpark figure about public transit (i.e. S-Bahn y/n and rough bus frequencies). @Benreis: what other words would you think should be explained in the "Talk" section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Lonely Planet style "itineraries"[edit]

So this edit introduced an "itineraries" section that does not look like those are "supposed to look" per policy, but it got me thinking - Lonely Planet guidebooks usually have a list of "itineraries" on their first pages that gives suggestions for routes to take if you have x,y or z amount of time and want to focus on A,B,C type of attractions / cities while focusing on geographical area 1,2,3 or the whole country. We have an equivalent of the "highlights" sections at the beginning of LP guidebooks with our nine top listed cities and the way "see" and "do" are supposed to look in country/region/huge city articles. Is this a stupid idea or a good way to provide a significant portion of our readers exactly what they're looking for (judging by the type of questions we get in the Tourist Office at least)? Or are we ill-equipped to provide something like that because we lack the ability to make subjective judgment "stick" the way a guidebook with a fixed number of writers and a boss/editorial board who can issue Roma locuta causa finita type statements (which we can't, never will and should never even attempt). Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

List formatting[edit]

In response to Hobbitschuster's suggestion above, I started copyediting Breweries in Franconia. Every list item was separated by a blank line, which produces a bad HTML and therefore a horrible experience for people using screen reading software (which typically reads not just the "* Content of the listing here" that most of us see, but also a statement such as "List of one item" before it, and "End of list" after it. So w:en:LISTGAPs are bad; we should avoid them.

This problem also seems to be fairly common here, and it's pretty tedious/carpal-tunnel-problems-inducing to clean them up manually. One of my friends at enwiki has a bot that could fix this for us. I'm willing to ask him to do this here, if you all would like to have this work all done at once. The main downside is that, with the proportion of articles that have this problem, the bot will flood your watchlist for a day, if you have your watchlist settings to show bot edits. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize the blank lines were a problem. I'd say sure, why not? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless the bot produces cleanup work to do by hand afterwards, sure go for it. It might even bring some edits to long forgotten articles, who knows? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The code for this is very conservative. I think we can confidently expect zero pages requiring cleanup as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)