Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
  • If you are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge.
  • If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
  • If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment.
  • If you are wanting travel advice on a specific matter see the Tourist Office.
  • If you have an issue you need to bring to the attention of an administrator, try Vandalism in progress.
  • If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead.
  • If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
  • Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.
  • Anything that is Nigeria-related is now meant to go in the Nigeria café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives and celebrations as well as issues with certain articles.
  • Anything that is Kosovo or Albania related is now meant to go in the Kosovo and Albania café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives and celebrations as well as issues with certain articles.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question
QA icon clr.svg

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.
Wikivoyage sysop.svg

Itineraries that need TLC[edit]

Came to mind, but given my mass load of deletions for itineraries recently, I've noticed some "keep" votes, even if there is little content. But I was wondering if we should bring a new page into projectspace (something like Wikivoyage:Itineraries that need TLC) where these itineraries are kept, and if someone wants to work on them, it can. Reasons for this:

  1. Often we don't want to delete the content some contributors have put into these articles
  2. If someone thinks working on it years later seems a viable option, it's there
  3. Often itineraries that were nominated on vfd were worked on for about 1 week

On the other hand:

  1. It still gives the creator incentive to make the article usable, and keep this in mainspace. Otherwise projectspace ≠ mainspace, for readers to view
  2. This page should only be for pages that are more than a useless stub (so a page like Erlian Grassland Tour Loop or Rama's journeys don't go into this page, and should just be deleted)

If the incentive thing doesn't work, I personally feel like if no one touches the article in this new storage page after a certain amount of time (let's say, 3 years?), it can be deleted without a nom.

Does that work better and a better alternative to deleting? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is TLC? LPfi (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tender loving care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that SHB2000's clean-up of dormant itineraries has been a good project, and has resulted in a number of itineraries being improved. Moving new outline itineraries into project space is a good idea. If a contributor starts an itinerary in the hope that someone else will make it usable, we should be able to figure that out pretty quickly. One year in project space should be enough time to determine whether there is interest in working on them or not. Ground Zero (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think our response to a new outline article being created should be encouragement and help in turning it into a detailed, high-quality article, not immediately relegating it to somewhere in project space where it is unlikely to be seen. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy when someone creates a new article with the intent of developing it, although that is better done in User space. Unfortunately what we see mostly is people creating articles for "someone else" to develop. We have hundreds and thousands of stub articles for regular contributors to work on (and I have been adding content to a lot of stub articles), we don't need more added to that list. For example, Kohoku and Miyaki, which were created in 2007 with no content at all, and nothing was done with them for 14 years. These articles don't benefit readers, and stub articles don't make Wikivoyage look like a useful resource. Ground Zero (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I myself have created some of these itineraries, although I've worked on them, and nearly all of them are usable. The only one I've created recently that remains outline (Alpine Way), was created as one of my redirects on Khancoban seemed controversial, and every time I went back to the Alpine Way page, I seemed to get emotional (it was the last place I was, before going into a 108 day lockdown, and every time I even saw a link of "Alpine Way", it seemed to give me pre lockdown memories). I do have plans to merge that page though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this thing does go ahead, would this proposal be a good rough draft on how long things should go where:
  • Outline itineraries that are not famously marked trails (i.e. something like Easy Rider or even Tanami Track) go here after six months, without a redirect. If there's no edits for six additional months, it can be nominated for deletion via vfd (similar what we already do).
  • Outline itineraries that are famously marked trails such as the newly created stub national historic trails go here after 18 months (I would prefer 12 or 15, but I don't think everyone would be happy with that) of no edits without a redirect, and if it remains an outline itinerary after 48 months, it gets deleted via vfd (that is more than enough for anyone to work on it, and the work doesn't get left to Someone else.
  • Once an article becomes usable in this project space, it immediately get's moved out
  • By definition of "no edits", it means actual actual edits about the itinerary, so things like reverting spam/vandalism, fixing typos, simple copyedits, or formatting fixes don't count
This is far lenient, and gives years to work on it. And I feel that our "don't delete famously marked trails" is somewhat used as an excuse to a) not delete the itinerary, but b) also leave the work to Someone else. So basically, it doesn't get moved here immediately and so it does give time to work on it, but at the same time, it forces the creator to make it usable and out into mainspace. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that after 18 months, the original creator has forgotten about it, and it being moved out of mainspace doesn't provide any discouragement. Any one who wanted to work on the itinerary has had plenty of time, but often we want a new user turning up to find and work on that itinerary. Will they find it in project space? By what mechanism? I still believe that the odd outline has a higher probability to be developed than a non-linked trail (this is different from stub travel topics, where the scope and structure is given by the author, not by our guidelines), and that the odd outline does not discourage readers.
One way to make projects space outlines findable would be to leave redlinks in the summary articles (such as United States National Trails System), and give a link to the project space article for users following that redlink (I suppose it could be done with some mediawiki-space magic). That would require the redirect to be deleted.
LPfi (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the goal is. Is it closer to "get pages improved" or "hide embarrassingly incomplete pages"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to itinerary and topic articles, we should not be encouraging article creation by people who aren't willing to make the articles usable. Itinerary and topic articles can bring colour and depth to a travel guide, but they are not the core of a travel guide. Dedicated editors are better off spending time improving destination articles than on itinerary and topic articles that are started and abandoned. Saying that such pages are not part of the guide is sensible if people are uncomfortable with deleting them. Ground Zero (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the reasoning, then why not outright delete them? Because we don't have the courage to do that? I don't like that line of thought. Moving the articles to project space signals that this is something the insiders should take care of – but you say we shan't use our energy on that. Then move them to the creators user space. But is this the way to go also for sufficiently famous marked routes? I assumed we wanted those to be written, i.e. have people spend time on them. –LPfi (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because some people think that someone else will work on these articles some day, so it is worth saving whatever text there is. Insiders can work on whatever they want without regard to what I think. For my part, I think that crappy articles put readers off Wikivoyage, so I work on improving the articles we have. But there are so many articles that need improvement to be useful. I think it is a bad idea to have people creating more articles to be improved by "other people". We don't have enough regular contributors to need passers-by to ge creating more clean-up/article improvement work for us.
This stub article sat for 16 years without any useful content being added. This one sat for 15 years waiting for "Someone Else", as did this one. Ground Zero (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. And sadly that was the case for much of these. While some were actually worked on well, such as Nidaros Path (even to the point where LPfi made a mapline, which is time consuming but makes it usable), a lot of articles such as Mountains to Sound Greenway have remained an outline (although that has been taken care of) end up in the same state as they were before vfd.
To LPfi's "But is this the way to go also for sufficiently famous marked routes?", and under these proposed proposal, it also includes famously marked routes, so cases like National Historic trails don't get away, as they [some newly created ones] are just as useless since it has no travel info. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a long standing one. I personally feel the "notable itinerary" thing is being heavily misused to keep articles, and at the same time, leave it to Someone Else. This is not just for itineraries, but destination articles as well. When I upgraded about 400 articles from outline to usable, almost about 150 of them were stubs that were near useless that it may have been better to not have the article in the first place. I probably improved about 100 of them to bare usable, and redirected the other 50 or so. Such include Houtman Abrolhos, a set of uninhabited islands.
To be fair, I wouldn't normally quote someone who has made a ton of personal attacks, but in this case, KevRobbAU/SCO (since retired) has time and time said that it's better to get articles usable from the very start. And I think we can all agree on that – but sadly that's not the case. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we have too many weak outlines and that new ones shouldn't be created. I prefer redlinks in most cases where an article would be nice to have. Then, when there is some information not easy to reproduce, deletion is a shame (and redirects problematic). Ideally the proportion of weak outlines would be low enough not to give a bad impression, and we could then keep the few that don't get to usable to be worked on later.
If we disregard the historic baggage of existing stubs, I'd hope we could each avoid creating these outlines, and then we wouldn't have to discuss deleting them. Even if one can create an article with some info, the same work put into improving another article will usually be much more valuable and create no frustration in the community or among readers.
There may be exceptions, such as if you travel through part of an itinerary and thus have unique information on it that you want to save in a findable place, but things that can easily be researched on the net should either be put into a usable itinerary or restricted to a Do listing or Do subsection.
LPfi (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain why I'm asking what the goal is. We generally agree on these things:
  • Some pages (itineraries and other articles) are in poor condition.
  • There is more work to be done than volunteers doing it.
  • Pages that aren't in the mainspace normally aren't seen by readers or by anyone else, for that matter. Someone else is more likely to clean up a page in the mainspace than to clean up a page outside the mainspace.
  • Some pages (and some types of edits) are more valuable to readers than others.
  • Volunteers should spend their time making whatever (constructive) contributions they want, even if another volunteer thinks that's a low-value use of time.
There are also things that reasonable people could reasonably hold different opinions about. These things include (but are not limited to) the classic questions of eventualism and immediatism:
  • Is it better to look good or to look like this is a wiki that really needs you to plunge forward and contribute to it? Looking "good" might improve people's subjective opinions of the project, but looking "finished" decreases the motivation for newcomers to contribute.
  • Is it better to have a page (even if it's an unusable outline) or to have only better-quality pages? Having a page, even if it's mostly empty, might improve search engine traffic (compared to no page) and it provides some information (however tiny that amount might be), but having a high proportion of pages with dramatically less content than other travel sites might decrease people's interest in clicking on links to the project when they see them.
We also have a fairly limited number of options for an incomplete page:
  1. We can ignore it (most common action).
  2. We can improve it.
  3. We can merge it to a bigger page.
  4. We can delete it.
  5. We can move it to a different namespace.
Option #1 is the default; it provides minimal information to readers and irritates our immediatists and other reputation-minded contributors. Option #2 is highly desirable but not realistic in most cases. Option #3 can be good but is also unrealistic on a large scale. Option #4 increases the value of the median page that a reader will see, but it provides less total information (because readers see fewer pages), and it irritates our eventualists and similarly minded contributors.
Option #5 is IMO the worst of all options. In this option, we aren't offering whatever minimal value the page had to readers; we aren't getting rid of the poor-quality pages; we aren't improving them – in fact, we are doing something that is proven to ensure that the page doesn't get improved. Someone else might only rarely improve articles, but Someone else never improves "draftified" pages. Then, in a couple of years, we'll all pretend that we are shocked, shocked to discover that these hidden pages weren't improved, and the people who would prefer to just delete them now will be able to delete them then without needing to bother with formalities like nominating them for deletion and seeing whether others agree. (Also, we may get disputes about who is allowed to move the pages back to the main namespace under which circumstances.)
So if your goal is:
  • providing some information to readers, even if it's not much about any specific subject: You want option #1.
  • driving traffic to the site/good SEO (even if people don't stick around because there isn't much information): You want option #1.
  • encouraging newcomers by letting them see how much needs to be done: You want option #1.
  • having pages that we can be proud of: You want option #4.
  • having readers stick around (once they get here, which will happen less often): You want option #4.
The only goal that fits with option #5 is: Eventually being able to delete these pages without so many other editors noticing and possibly objecting. (If that honestly feels like a goal, then the real problem is likely in the deletion policy/process, not in these pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero chance if Wikivoyage ever "looking finished". I encourage you to pick half a dozen articles at random and review them. Even if articles were to start to look somewhat filled-in, the nature of a travel guide is that it needs constant updating. Let's not waste time on nonsense arguments.
I do not think there is any basis to say that "Someone else never improves "draftified" pages". There is a small possibility that a regular contributor will improve a project page, albeit smaller than they will improve an article, so we should not dismiss project pages altogether. I am indifferent between projectifying or deleting outline itineraries.
There are lots of websites out there that encourage readers to contribute. The websites that bring me back are those that offer information instead of an invitation to "be the first" to write a review. I don't think I am alone in that. Ground Zero (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To WhatamIdoing's question, I get the same sentiments as GZ. Infact, I never even wanted to start this thing, but given that the "well marked itinerary" reason is being misused, I sadly had to do this.
The whole purpose of this is to motivate the page creator to make it usable before a certain amount of time. If it doesn't, ideally it'd be deleted in 12 months time, but the "famously marked trail" is being heavily misused to keep stubby itineraries that drive our reader base away. But regardless, IMO, they shouldn't be in the mainspace, driving our reader base away. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, I appreciate your points, but keep in mind that pages on people's userspaces are not nominated for deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time in May 2020 when a bunch of fictional destinations in LibMod's userspace was deleted, but that's a different case since he's banned and globally locked. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And they were fictional. Also, another thing is that draft articles on people's userspaces do sometimes receive substantial collaboration if the host user is OK with that, but usually when they're new. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I'm one of those who would want people to edit draft articles in my userspace (examples such as Australian cuisine). Ideally if there were a draft namespace, I'd do that, but we don't have that on voy so userspace is the only option. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB, what is your evidence that incomplete articles are "driving our reader base away"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you hide a page in the draftspace, fewer editors make any changes to it.
If you hide a page in the draftspace, other editors make smaller edits to the page (and the edits they do make are almost always non-content edits, like rejecting a request to move the page to the mainspace).
@Ground Zero, my basis for saying that other editors do not contribute to draftied articles is some research led by w:en:Aaron Halfaker a couple of years ago. You can read the paper at Look for the section titled "AfC hides drafts from potential collaborators" and words like "drafts see a decreased level of collaboration". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: thank you for that article. I didn't read the whole thing, but it seems to support that view that "There is a small possibility that a regular contributor will improve a project page, albeit smaller than they will improve an article", rather than that they will never contribute to a project page.
Wikipedia's AfC is not the process that is being proposed here since that throws up walls at the beginning of an editor's contributions. What is being proposed here is a way of dealing with projects that have been abandoned by the original author, and not taken up by others. So the concerns the paper raises about discouraging new editors don't apply here, in my opinion. Ground Zero (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This research shows that Wikipedia's AfC process is more effective at getting other editors to edit sub-par pages than doing nothing (i.e., what we have here).
This research shows that hiding those pages in another space is less likely to result in improvements than leaving them where they are.
This suggests to me that the sensible options are:
  • leave them alone, or
  • delete them now.
The proposal to shuffle them into another namespace, keep track of which one(s) were moved when, and remember to come back years later to delete them all is a whole lot of time and effort wasted to produce the same end result. If you want to get rid of them, then just do that.
OTOH, if you feel that you can't justify deleting them, then leave them alone, because leaving them right where they are gives them the best (albeit very small) chance of being improved.
What I don't want to see is us claiming that we are encouraging improvements to these pages while we are actively doing one of the few things that's been definitely proven to reduce the (already small) chance of improvements. If we're ready to give up on them, then let's use the delete button. If we're not, then let's give them the best chance possible, which means leaving them where they are now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoyage and Wikipedia are very different communities, largely because one is quite small and the other is very very big, so the lessons learned from one community are often not applicable to the other. What we do know, though, is that we have a really large pile of stubs started up to 18 years ago that have had no substantive edits since they were started. Giving stub articles "the best chance possible" means greeting a lot of first-time visitors with useless pages that give them no reason to want to spend more time here. For my part, I am happy to delete articles that no-one wants to improve after a reasonable time. I think that SHB2000's proposal is aimed at assuaging those community members who still see a glimmer of hope the Someone Else will rescue these articles someday. I am not one of those people. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WhatamIdoing that doing something just to assuage the opposition is suboptimal, and I think the reasoning behind "never delete real places" is flawed. At the start, the site did want to get a reasonable coverage, and at that point one couldn't be too choosy about what articles to "approve". Wikipedia had a similar infancy. Now, when large parts of our coverage is well-developed, a pile of stubs somewhere gives a bad impression that we can avoid. Still, I think the project page solutions has merits, if implemented well.
The problem with piles of stubs is mostly about mass created city articles and regions without content. For itineraries I don't see the same problem. We have 186 outline itineraries, which is about half of the itineraries and few enough that a single editor could improve them all (although this would be less efficient use of resources). A list where half the entries are usable or better is not a disaster.
Most outline itineraries have sensible names, suggesting they are worth writing. Thus I don't think personal itineraries are an issue any more. Some, such as Markha Valley Trek, have a reasonable Understand, which will not frustrate readers, unless they have high expectations. Those should remain as linked itineraries in mainspace, in the hope on them being improved at some time. Others, such as Congo Nile Trail, doesn't give enough information to be useful at all, and is the kind we are discussing (the author of this one left when some links were removed as touting). Then we have the lists, such as the US trails and Long distance walking in Europe, enticing passers-by to contribute as best they can.
I think the most important step is to nip in the bud: get consensus on that creating stubs isn't making Wikivoyage better (other than in special cases), and avoid having lures in the form of lists of redlinks (give an external link instead, if warranted, such as with the American and European trail systems. We might reinsert the redlinks at a point where we do want passer-by contributions and have enough content that a few weak outlines are no problem.
Then we have existing or newly created weak outlines. Some could be redirected to a Do or Go next listing (the latter not according to current guidelines), based either on the outline or on new research, which would give enough hints for a reader to find information on their own. The redirect name could be saved as a comment in the listing, perhaps as a hidden template field (outline_at=).
Then we have itineraries we cannot usefully link to or include in the articles, as they would be frustrating if linked directly and info for a listing is too hard to find. Those shouldn't be exposed to readers. Those without any usable info could be deleted, but I don't think moving them to the user space of the author does any harm. We could have a page Wikivoyage:Suggested itineraries linking to a category page for weak outlines moved to user or project space (such as subpages of Suggested itineraries).
Although few of the suggested itineraries will grove, I think some might, and this would be a low-cost solution to avoid long discussions on borderline cases, and in cases where somebody gets inspired by a "suggested itinerary" it makes a real contribution.
LPfi (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be the rule that real places of any significance shouldn't be deleted, but a lot of merging is reasonable. Itineraries aren't places, so this doesn't apply to them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally tend to half agree with "real places of any significance" with the key word being significance. Unfortunately, I've had to recently merge articles because someone created it because of one roadhouse or one hotel. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because if that content is merged, the attribution needs to be kept intact. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to merge the article, and then not have a page under the name such as moving it to a different name space, without a redirect, and then fully protecting that page or less favourable, listing all the authors on the relevant talk page (that is not advised as it doesn't tell who wrote what). It's a similar reason to why we can't delete Template:RegionStats/depreciated since the new modified template is based on that template. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of things that are possible, but they mess up the attribution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the risk of someone turning a redirected page back into a separate page is so low that such maneuvers seem like a waste of effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like redirects being turned back into separate articles hasn't been quite so rare here as you'd think. And sometimes it's been done very well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been trying to turn back redirects back into articles using Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item as a starting point. Not every redirect in that category is suitable to be turned back but most are. But I agree that new editors in particular, who are not aware that this category exists won't be turning redirects into articles and are much more likely to expand a stub if the stub exists because it's easier to find. Gizza (roam) 01:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This house believes[edit]

At least three editors in this discussion have indicated their belief that outline/stub/less-than-usable pages drive away readers, or that readers (NB: not anyone participating in this discussion) prefer not having a page about Somewhere at all, compared to having a page about Somewhere that say "Somewhere is a city in Wherever".

Does anyone have any evidence at all for this? Even so much as a friend saying they were disappointed in a page?

Informal feedback at the English Wikipedia suggests that the opposite is true: People would rather have a one-sentence "<Person> is a <profession> in <Country>" than nothing. However, while I believe that editor behavior is reasonably similar between projects, I am less convinced that readers have the same expectations. Readers are unlikely to be using Wikivoyage to try to figure out whether Somewhere actually exists (whereas this is a fairly common use for Wikipedia, especially for people who are in the news for some controversy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence at all that articles with limited content drives readers away. This Lonely Planet article on El Tigre] in Mexico is equivalent to an outline park on Wikivoyage. Only two paragraphs. These types of short articles are very common on the online Lonely Planet version and it hasn't prevented the website from becoming much more popular than Wikivoyage. Likewise with TripAdvisor which dwarfs WV in the travel information space. Big or well known cities will have plentiful information on the key attractions, restaurants and hotels. But smaller towns like Karasburg in Namibia for example, only lists places to stay (equivalent to "Sleep" in WV) and has nothing on what to see, do or eat. They don't delete information or redirect it because there have limited information on the town. Taking away an article with a few listings doesn't build the guide. It makes it go backwards. Gizza (roam) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have evidence that these pages bother editors, as well as evidence that their removal bothers other editors. But has anyone heard from any non-editing readers on this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this discussion. Maybe we should revert to leaving largely blank articles alone and not merging and redirecting them, as long as there is potentially enough content someone could add to a destination article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not having a re-repeat of the "redirect cult" thing. I (and Ground Zero) mostly redirect articles because of the fact that it's hard to make it usable because the place only has a motel or restaurant, and it was left for Someone else to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, back when I was merely a visitor here (or at WT, long ago), what I found really off-putting was not so much articles with little content but empty article skeletons consisting of headings only. Terrible. Looks like someone started something by CTRL+V-ing a template and then just left. I know that's being done on purpose to encourage editors to fill in the blanks. But for me as a reader that looked so horribly unprofessional that I just shook my head and walked away. How could I assume that the two sleep listings are anything but outdated if nobody even bothered to delete empty headings? Took me quite a while to come back and actually pick up editing here on occasion. --El Grafo (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC) PS: I should probably add that at that time I already was familiar with wiki editing through de.wikipedia and Commons. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also had a similar experience. Articles with only no sleep listings nor eat listings. Nope, looked entirely unprofessional as a reader didn't come back until a couple of years when I decided to give voy another go. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo and SHB, I'm interested in your experience. Were you trying to use Wikivoyage for traveling or mostly for reading? If you saw it turn up in search results, did you actively avoid clicking on it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly used to use it when travelling to the US. But yes, if it turned up in my search result, I just skipped past it. It was only when I went to the Grand Canyon where I came to know that voy isn't just a bunch pages full of substituted templates. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you both think there's really no evidence of articles with limited content makes readers unhappy, see Talk:Turks and Caicos Islands. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there was nothing there some time on or before 2007. The article isn't bad now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using that as an example to see how readers get unhappy when they see little to no travel info. While that has certainly improved, there are some others needing TLC. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited access to the web this week, so I can't fully participate in this discussion. I want to make it clear that if I can expand an article from other-language Wikivoyages or Wikipedias, I do that. If I redirect, it is either because there is so little information available that the place does not appear to meet wv:wiaa, or it would be more useful for the traveller to be redirected to an article that has more information. The places I am redirecting are usually so small that there is a negligible chance of a local expert stumbling across our article and deciding to improve it.
I think we have to go back to wv:ttcf. Wikivoyage is here to serve travellers, not the other way around. We should be looking first at how Wikivoyage can provide information to travellers, and not how they can provide information to Wikivoyage. I think that is how we can best attract readers, who will eventually become editors. Ground Zero (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny locations are often not viable articles, even if a local expert did stumble across the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between those searching for Calcobathwoo because they are going there or passing by, and those looking for things to see in Calcodun, which links to Calcobathwoo along other low level destinations. If the region has twenty listed destinations and the eight first of them are stubs, I'd expect you to turn to other sources and never found out that the ninth is a star. –LPfi (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. One of my relatives often traveled to the middle of nowhere for work. Before the days of Google Maps, even "Tinyville is in Central Nowhere" (with a link to the region, which hopefully would have contained a list of cities big enough to have a hotel) could have been useful to him. It would only matter to a very small number of people, though, and for his purposes, a Wikipedia article would be equally useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link, SHB. Here's what the article looked like just before the editor who posted that comment doubled its size. This might suggest that leaving those empty section headings in articles encourages the occasional contribution, but I don't think it's evidence that readers leave Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that I am redirecting are small places that have been sitting without substantive edits for years, many as long as 15 years, i.e., since they were created in the predecessor site. If they have pages in other-language Wikivoyages, they are similarly lacking in any useful content. These are places whose articles in Wikipedia have been sitting without any travel-related content for even longer. And that includes the native-language versions of Wikipedia. We are talking about waiting for a unicorn to come by to add travel-related content about these places.
There are dozens of review websites that invite readers to "be the first to post a review", and there are travel guides that invite contributions. I don't ever contribute to a site that is just fishing for information, even though I enjoy contributing to Wikivoyage and Wikipedia. I don't think I am alone in shutting down web pages that just ask for information. Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the entire conversation so pardon me if I missed a point. Personally, I myself prefer having a skeleton template sections over a non-existing page (but then again, I edited Wikipedia for over a decade so I'm a bit biased). I personally would not have started a brand new page and would rather expand an existing, skeleton page. For example, before I expanded Escaldes-Engordany, it looked like this. And for La Massana, it was much shorter before. Having the page already created enabled me to quickly add contents without worrying about hierarchies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trialing this system[edit]

Would it make sense to see what happens when we projectify about five outline itineraries into this projectspace for three months? I know this is far from the original proposal (where it's much more than three months), but while there does seem to be concerns, this issue is never going to be solved if we don't try new things. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think moving itineraries to projectspace is a good idea, and I oppose implementing it. My experience on Wikipedia tells me that moving articles to a separate namespace where they are hard to find is a way to stifle their development, not encourage it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia's AfC though, and I have also never liked that system. This however, is moving dormant itineraries, that have little to no useful info, left to Someone Else to work on. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the English Wikipedia's AfC; in fact, we have every reason to believe that it will be less effective at improving the articles than the English Wikipedia's AfC process.
Again: What's your goal? Is the goal to get those dormant itineraries improved? Or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a way to find ideas for itineraries might be useful. That could be a Wikivoyage:Suggested itineraries, with links to the redirects, user subpages or whatever. The outlines may also be useful for somebody who is going to write a specific itinerary. Deleted itineraries have the problem of being hard to find, as you don't know what name was used and the search doesn't work for deleted articles. Instead of project space they could be moved to the main author's or creator's user space, to avoid a new category of project pages. –LPfi (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the goal is to get those dormant itineraries left for "Someone Else" get it improved, as this gives the creator motivation to get it usable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get pages improved, then your best bet is to leave them in the mainspace. You might increase the odds (i.e., from slim to small) by communicating with others about specific pages. That could mean making a list on an Expedition-type page (just in case Someone Else ever looks for it) and/or leaving friendly messages for the creators or other significant contributors. (Not all apparently inactive editors are unreachable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An Expedition-type page to coordinate work on itineraries is an interesting idea. Wikivoyage:Itineraries Expedition? Another idea is to post on the talk page of relevant destination articles – for instance, hypothetically, if an itinerary like Walk the London Wall needed improvement, you might be able to find people who could help by posting at Talk:London. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, Wikivoyage is littered with thousands of stub articles left by article creators who expect someone else to do the work of putting travel content into articles they've created. We are making very, very slow progress in doing so. (I regularly find stubs created as far back as 2008 that have had no travel content added.) Second, when it comes to itineraries and travel topics, expecting that the community will populate an article about some idea that a random passer-by has come up with is unrealistic, and not a good way of building a travel guide. Destination stubs are one thing, but if the creator of an itinerary or travel topic can't or won't provide travel content, we should delete, rather than shifting the onus to other contributors. Ground Zero (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the one-year rule for itinerary, which allows them to be deleted after a year if no one is providing travel content, (except for famous, marked routes). I think that existing policy should be enough to take care of any 13-year-old stub itineraries "about some idea that a random passer-by has come up". —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't stop people from creating stubby useless "famously marked trails", do they? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are different issues and should be handled differently. The stubby outlines about random itinerary ideas haven't been a problem in years to my understanding, so bringing them up is building a straw man. Let's instead think about a stub about a famous itinerary, with a quite developed Understand section but without any usable Go – is this a useless stub that should be deleted or moved out of sight?
If we do want usable itineraries, then the first questions to be answered are 1) do we get more usable itineraries by deleting stubs or by letting them alone and 2) do these stubs frustrate readers. The project space idea makes sense only if we answer no to the first and yes to the second, and if we do, we shouldn't mock those who contributed to best ability but without getting the itinerary up to usable. Of course, like with other kinds of articles, we might ask somebody who creates several of them to concentrate their work to get them to usable – but then it isn't about random passers-by.
LPfi (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikivoyage has disappeared from DuckDuckGo" (and apparently Bing too)[edit]

Article here: [1]. Discussion here: [2]. Does anyone know anything more about this? 02:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be accurate. "wikivoyage" search results on Duckduckgo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see Wikivoyage results on DuckDuckGo. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I use DuckDuckGo regularly, and I noticed last week that it wasn't showing me Wikivoyage results anymore. @ChubbyWimbus: what words are you searching for? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this site is now the first search result on Duckduckgo, but it was not showing yesterday. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This site is the first result on Bing, too. Same on Google. This seems to have been a blip that has passed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing any Wikivoyage results on DuckDuckGo. I'm searching for things like "wikivoyage india" and "wikivoyage london". —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me Tai123.123 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's working for me, too, Granger. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the phenomenon may be location-dependent. When I search from an American IP address, DuckDuckGo shows me Wikivoyage results, but when I search from an Irish IP address, it doesn't. I tried two different UK IP addresses, and one of them worked but the other didn't. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Canadian IP address found it Tai123.123 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also seemed to try that as well. It doesn't seem to have an issue with a US IP, nor an Australian IP, but I tried with one UK IP and it didn't. But I don't use DDG much anyway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been updated to note that results are now back. But I think the oddly low rankings of Wikivoyage in search results continues to be a matter of existential concern for this project. I stopped editing as much after looking at pageview disparities between here and Wikipedia, since I want to work on content that is actually widely seen and read. Sdkb (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting broken itinerary redirects[edit]

I recently just tagged a bunch pages of pages that redirected to now deleted itinerary’s (like the TANAMI track), can an admin delete those pages. All of them now have the {{Speedy}} template Tai123.123 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –LPfi (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tai123.123 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making the "buy" section optional in park articles[edit]

As someone who's been writing numerous park articles these days, I often question the need of a "buy" section in park articles. In most national parks that I've been to (about 130 ish), only about 22 of them have places where you can buy things, and 17 of those were in the US (including visitor centre shops), with the other five being in Australia. And it seems rather dull to me having to write, "There are no places where you can buy things, the nearest place is in xxxx". As someone who frequently visits parks, I'd usually expect that parks don't have any shops to buy things, and the nearest place you can buy things is usually in the closest town, unless there's a visitor centre, in which most parks don't. So, proposing to make the "buy" section optional for park articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends entirely on how famous a park is. If I went to a very famous park and had no idea what to do or buy there, I would be lost. Roovinn (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a park has no shopping facilities, it would make sense to omit the "buy" section. Roovinn (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New England National Park was a park article that I recently wrote. It's a guide article, but the fact that there's no buy nor eat listings prevent me from nominating it for star. (eat however, should be mentioned, but I don't really get the reason for buy) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth making it clear to readers, either by writing "There are no shops", or "You can get provisions in the nearby town of *****". Ground Zero (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think that will definitely make things a lot more clearer to readers. Roovinn (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GZ. It is too easy to leave out an optional section, so it not being there doesn't tell me anything, Then I have to check out for myself whether there are souvenirs anywhere, and whether I need to carry all provisions all the way or whether I could get some of them in that last town. For Finland, that "last town" on the map might be, as my Finnish text book put it, "a village the less clever wouldn't even notice is a village", which might indeed be worth telling. –LPfi (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this suggestion. I think that if it's useful to say "There are no places where you can buy things; the nearest place is in xxxx", then that information belongs under ==Eat== (because people need to get food and water more often than they need to get souvenirs or sunscreen) or under ==Understand== (as a more general alternative; "This park is really remote with no restaurants, stores, or fuel stops, so you have to bring everything with you"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Vuntut National Park, which is fly-in only, the sections are combined like this:
Buy, eat and drink
There are no facilities in the park. Bring everything you will need with you.
I think this gets the message across. Since visitors will fly from somewhere, they will know to get provisions there. Ground Zero (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It gets the message across, but it doesn't necessarily get the fuel on the plane. I think combining Buy, eat and drink in one section is OK (if appropriate for a specific park), but leaving out the buy is problematic. One can of course stuff all kinds of things in Understand, but it should already be quite long, with information on the park's significance and nature. –LPfi (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do have guide parks that have that though, such as Sturt National Park. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used "buy, eat[,] and drink" in Blue Spring State Park, for example. In parks this can work quite well, particularly if there is a visitor center or gift shop that sells food and souvenirs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think having the sections is necessary, even if they need to be combined. Informing readers that there are no facilities is just as important as telling them what does exist. If we just delete sections, it could look like an oversight, unnoticed vandalism, etc. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the option of combined sections, too.
However, GZ, when I read "There are no facilities in the park", what I hear is "There are no toilets". From a look at the article, what I need to be told is more like "There are no buildings, no stores, no toilets, no water, and no people". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit the article if you prefer that text. Ground Zero (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just about that article. This might be a good time to again recall the tourists who wanted an exotic adventure in the wilderness, but were chocked when they understood there would be no water toilets (told by a wilderness guide). We might have to give very clear advice in the park template, how to tell "no facilities" in a way that readers really get it. I probably need to check all related articles I have contributed to. –LPfi (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I suppose something what's written in New England National Park may sound better. This is all it has:

There are no shops, cafes, restaurants, bars, pubs etc. in New England National Park, and the nearest are in Ebor, which is 19 km (12 mi) from the park via Point Lookout Rd and B78 Waterfall Way.

Would that also make you assume there's no toilets, or would you only think that when writing "There are no facilities in the park". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Finnish national parks there typically are no shops, cafés, restaurants, bars or pubs, but there still are cooking shelters, outhouse toilets, often cabins, even (self-service) sauna. So one needs to be explicit. When there are no "facilities", I'd recommend linking some article telling how to do it au naturel (such as Leave-no-trace camping or National parks in X). –LPfi (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same in nearly 95% of Australia's 600 or so national parks, except sometimes there won't even be a place to stay (such as Malabar Headland National Park which is only a mere 1.7km2 park) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, which is primarily shaped by the California state park system, a park seems to get a road before anything else. Toilets are next on the priority list, and then potable water. I don't remember the last time I was in a park that could sell something but didn't have toilets and (free) drinking water. There are a few parks that don't have toilets, but they also don't sell things, either. So if you say "there are no shops, cafes, etc.", that doesn't tell me "no toilets, not even a pit toilet or a portable toilet standing on the edge of the parking lot". It just tells me that there are no shops. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. In my experience based on the New South Wales national park system:
  • a rural national park for visitors doesn't even need to have a road, let alone a paved one. Campgrounds and walking trails are next, and wherever there's a campground, there's a toilet and some drinking water available. Lookouts and picnic areas are next. Even if there's all this, a visitor centre is the last thing, and there's only about ten parks in the state that I've seen sell souvenirs
  • in any metropolitan national park, all it needs to have is walking trails, and a toilet or two. Camping, picnic areas and places to eat are for the slightly bigger metropolitan parks.
  • rural national parks not designed for visitors don't usually have roads or anything to see and do, no campgrounds, nor toilets et cetera – nothing, it's just some federal funding to conserve that area
  • state parks come under the same category as "rural national park" in this case here SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National parks – capitalised or not?[edit]

Sounds like a stupid question, but should "national parks" be capitalised in article names (for topics), or not? We have articles such as Finnish national parks or African national parks where "national parks" is not capitalised, and then there's United States National Parks, New South Wales National Parks, Canadian National Parks, Israeli National Parks, Japanese National Parks etc. In short, are we meant to capitalise "national parks" or not? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all a stupid question, and the answer is that the full name is capitalized only when it is officially. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, would that mean that those five articles would need to be renamed? (I'm pretty sure that both the US and the NSW ones are used officially, but not sure about the last three) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was mentioning about those five that I mentioned (United States National Parks, New South Wales National Parks, Canadian National Parks, Israeli National Parks, Japanese National Parks) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This visit Finland webpage I found doesn’t capitalise national park though I believe it looks better capitalized, also thanks for this discussion as I was curious about this when I made the Japanese page move. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland that's using a common noun with qualifier, not a name. The capitalised version might look better when you are accustomed to title case, but on Wikivoyage we use sentence case for the titles. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "African National Parks" definitely looks better than "African national parks" as a title. The Finland National Parks article uses lower case in the title but uppercase in the article. I never really understood why we use "sentence case" for titles rather than "title case". Sentence case in titles looks sloppy, like a child or ESL learner wrote it and is needlessly counterintuitive. Using Title Case for titles seems like such an obvious way to write titles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Finnish article had it capitalised in two places, including the lead. Several contributors, I'd assume. For what looks better, I'll defer to native speakers; as an ESL learner I'm used to sentence case. Just noting that also Wikipedia uses sentence case, there is probably some discussion to be found. –LPfi (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question of sentence case vs title case should be addressed at Wikivoyage talk:Naming conventions. Here, let's stick to the question that has been asked. Under our manual of style, these five articles should be renamed. The US National Parks Service, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Parks Canada, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and National Parks of Japan do not use "United States National Parks", "New South Wales National Parks", "Canadian National Parks", "Israeli National Parks", or "Japanese National Parks" in ordinary text. Some use sentence case in headings while others use title case, but that has no bearing on Wikivoyage style. Ground Zero (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the capitalization isn't official for any of them, let's junk it. I always thought it was questionable to follow official style on this kind of thing, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think title case is much better amoung all articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, Tai123.123, Ground Zero, LPfi, ChubbyWimbus: So... renaming these five articles? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be consistent with current policy, yes. A change in that policy would need a proposal, discussion and consensus at Wikivoyage talk:Naming conventions. Ground Zero (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, decapitalise, as they are not proper names. Nurg (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Done + the UK one as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started the discussion about title case vs sentence case as suggested above. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members[edit]

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee election and selection processes are complete.

The Wikimedia Foundation has appointed two members: Runa Bhattacharjee (Runab WMF), Jorge Vargas (JVargas (WMF). The committee will convene soon to start its work. The committee can appoint up to three more members to bridge diversity and expertise gaps.

If you are interested in engaging with Movement Charter drafting process, follow the updates on Meta and join the Telegram group.

You can read this announcement in other languages here.

With thanks from the Movement Strategy and Governance team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of adding Wikidata to individual listings[edit]

Why would anyone (who doesn't edit) want to click it on. An example of one can be found here (Bhandra Fort) Tai123.123 (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly for doing a quick fetch of data available. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine to do, but what about a Wikidata infobox? I say no, no way, and I will revert that edit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto as well. No Wikidata infoboxes please. That template doesn't even work properly. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikidata page itself is probably just confusing for most users, but in addition to automatically add e.g. coordinates and the Wikipedia link as soon as an article is written (and that article is useful for many), some readers may use it to find a Wikipedia article in some other language when there is none in English. For editors the icon avoids the need to manually copy use the id to construct the address (and not all editors would do that routinely). –LPfi (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you, I didn’t realize it automatically added the Wikipedia page (I thought they had to be added in the wikipedia section). I will probably stick to manually adding coords and Wikipedia as I don’t feel the Wikidata button is useful. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you add coords, and a Wikidata item, then you can send your coords to Wikidata, which helps all the other Wikivoyages that might link to that location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be useful for WP articles too, although I'm not too sure on how that works. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of information will be used automagically by some Wikipedias, including Russian and Spanish (assuming there is an article for the attraction), but not by the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted tables of contents[edit]

Both Pacific War and World War II in China currently show (at least for me, Firefox on Linux) the old-style TOC as well as the one below the banner. The old one is down by the Understand section. I think it should be removed.

I looked at the wiki text & could not see a reason. Can someone fix this? Pashley (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see them on every article I checked, I also feel they should be removed. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pashley, Tai123.123: It used to be able to be fixed by adding __NOTOC__ onto {{pagebanner}} but I've just tried it with no success. Maybe @Andyrom75: or @Omondi: might know how to fix it and this issue seems to be on all language Wikivoyages, so we're not alone. Maybe filing a phabricator task might work. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed a phabricator task. See phab:T295003. Feel free to subscribe to that thread to get email notifications about this issue. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000 @Pashley they seem to be gone now, theyre there for a couple of seconds but then they disappear. Tai123.123 (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the javascript Andyrom75 inserted hides them. But they shouldn't be there in the first place. –LPfi (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until today, the new-style TOC (in the bar at the bottom of the banner) was the default. Put in a banner & the software would automagically both generate the new-style TOC and suppress the old-style one. It still does the new one just fine (I've tested & that still works) but now it fails to suppress the other. Pashley (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, @Omondi:, SHB2000, I've temporary patched it:voy and en:voy. See phabricator for details. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also have patched "MediaWiki:Common.js" on French Wikivoyage and it's also working. Tanks to Andyrom75 --Omondi (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Omondi, Atsirlin:, the bug has been corrected, so now you can remove the patch in your common.js. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyrom75: Yes Done thanks a lot for your concern. --Omondi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyrom75, @LPfi, @Omondi When you are logged out of wikivoyage you still see the table of contents. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok never mind it’s not on most articles when logged out but when I was looking at the Kurayoshi article while logged out I saw the Table of contents. WHEN I logged back in it disappeared ( this was on Ipad) Tai123.123 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cache is likely the explanation for that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tai123.123: logged out I have tried several articles on the main space, on the Wikivoyage space and on the Aide space ("Help" space what you don't have on Wikivoyage in English) and no table of contents was displayed. But thanks for the warning and I would be attentive to this phenomenon in the future. --Omondi (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Omondi I first had a look at Greater Blue Mountains Area, and it didn't seem to have a table of contents only to realise that there's no headings in the first place, but a TOC isn't appearing for me in Kanak culture in New Caledonia, The Flashman Papers and UNESCO World Heritage List while logged out. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, it's normal that Greater Blue Mountains Area & The Flashman Papers do not have the pagebanner TOC (shortly PBTOC), because, the PBTOC is the equivalent of the standard TOC (shortly STOC), and the STOC appears only when there are at least 4 headings (see w:Help:Section incipit).
I see Kanak culture in New Caledonia in a regular way (with PBTOC & without STOC).
Finally the UNESCO World Heritage List's PBTOC wasn't shown because of JamesA's choice (see Special:Diff/2460880). Most likely at that time the PBTOC showed only inline H2 titles and don't the H3 titles in the pop-ups. See now the page. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to work now for Kanak culture now, that issue happens when a page loads for me and my connection is very slow. But thanks for the clarification on the other two though. Makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, although I'm not sure, I tend to suppose that you saw the STOC only because of cache issue. To eliminate this doubt, purge the page before your evaluation (with the dedicated link if it's something that you normally use, or adding "?action=purge" at the end of the URL).
However, all that said, articles in view mode are fine, but I've noticed that in preview mode the bug still persist. I've highlighted it in the ticket to the maintainer, hoping that it can be quickly solved as well. Note: a similar patch to the old one can be reintroduced, but since it's not a critical bug I would suggest to avoid it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That issue of no TOC appearing with a very slow connection has been happening since June 25 this year, but half the time when that happens, the font all appears in Times New Roman. But if I refresh my page, that issue seems to vanish. But it's been a while since I've had that issue, so it was somewhat unusual. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just opened another ticket relevant to the preview mode bug, that for some reason occurs in all language versions except that on it:voy. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mungo National Park nominated for star[edit]

Just a heads up that Mungo National Park has been nominated for star on Wikivoyage:Star nominations#Mungo National Park. Any feedback appreciated. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No description when hovering over links[edit]

There used to be a description when hovering over links but now these appear blank, can someone fix this. I think this may have happened when the table of contents vanished. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still works for me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the pop-up window with an image and some of the article text? For me, there are pop-ups, but the half that should have text is empty. I think they were not divided in that way before, so has there been some kind of change? –LPfi (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see three kinds, the ones I am used to, with or without the text, and the horizontally divided ones without text. Some versions are probably from my cache. –LPfi (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting this note. I've filed a bug report.
If it still works for you, then you might be using the gadget "Navigation popups: page previews and editing functions popup when hovering over an internal link". Try it in a private/incognito window to see the simplified Page Previews (what almost all readers see). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for filing the bug. I get the text on maybe a third of the links, including for pages I haven't visited for a while, so it is probably WMF's cache, not mine, that handle them. An example article and an example link from there seem to be needed at Phabricator. –LPfi (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The ones I see have a photo but no text. Tai123.123 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdlrobson has gotten the bug organized. I don't know how long it will take to get things fixed, but it's starting the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Default Colour[edit]

What is the colour than covers our mapframe if no mapshapes are applied and what is its colour code. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a default colour for our mapframes if there's no mapshape applied, but not too sure. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when all articles breadcrumbed under a country become usable or higher?[edit]

Sorry for not knowing this, even though I seem to have 28k edits under my belt, I haven't been here long enough to know how this works. But back to the point, I have as of today 22:00 UTC+11, finished upgrading all articles breadcrumbed under Australia to usable or higher thanks to the work of numerous contributors (sole exception is Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but that's not breadcrumbed under Australia), but what would happen to the country article? Would it become a guide article or not? (I'm sorry if I sound like I know nothing here, because I've never seen this happen so have no idea) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WV:Country article status lists the criteria for 'Guide' level. Even if they're not all met, getting all those articles up to 'Usable' was by far the biggest job, and a great achievement in its own right.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TT. I would get important destinations like Uluru and Sydney to guide and a couple regions/states to guide in order to make Australia a guide-status country article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I don't see that any other articles need to be guide for a region or country to be guide. The problem is getting the linked articles (regions, cities etc.) up to usable. It seems you now can get any region – or the country – up to guide just by improving the page itself. Having important destinations up to guide would of course be nice. –LPfi (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've upgraded it to guide. Thanks to all of you :) (Uluru and Sydney are already guide though) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 19:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having a look at all of them, all state capitals apart from Perth and Brisbane seem to be a guide article, along with the capital of Canberra.
When it comes to major parks, Uluru, and Kakadu are both guide, and some others such as Dorrigo National Park and New England National Park (not well known) are also guide. Only one star park (Sydney Harbor National Park) and Mungo National Park will soon be there. Great Barrier Reef and Purnululu National Park are usable, but those should be guide articles (might get some help from an editor from Wikipedia for Purnululu and might to the GBR myself.
And then there's good rural towns such as Stratford (Victoria) that LivelyRatification mostly wrote, Kununurra, having been written in the old days of Wikitravel and KevRobbAU/KevRobbSCO's numerous guide articles. Think that's enough guide articles for the country article to be a guide article, but there's never enough guide articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grey dots are now appearing on all maps with railway lines[edit]

Starting from about a month ago, I've noticed that the railway lines on many of our maps are lined with big grey dots. See Hainan, Chengdu and New Taipei for example. Can anyone explain what they are doing there? They look rather unsightly to me and they obscure some of the markers. STW932 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are shaped like markers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed these too. If there were only one or two of them per line, they would be useful for readers to be able to tell which line is which. But with so many of them, they're more distracting than helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity that we can't choose which markers to display when zoomed out. Looking at New Tapei at street level the markers, which are about 1km apart could be useful, but are useless when looking at the whole city. This only affects some cities with railway lines - i don't see anything on Glasgow. On New Tapei, the markers disappear if you delete {{mapshapes|Q714810}} <!-- Taipei MRT line --> :::{{mapshapes|Q7684358}} <!-- Taoyuan Airport metro line --> , which removes the railways. AlasdairW (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that's underlying here, is that the Kartographer extension got a fix about a month ago when these markers started appearing. Their origin is found on OSM, and these markers are stations or stops that are added to the OSM Relation (which is where the shape of the line comes from). I'm not sure if there is a way to have {{Mapshapes}} ignore these and only print polyline elements, but that might be a straight-forward fix. @Matroc: any thoughs?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is as far, as I can tell, originating in OSM -- the only thought I have is that if the data coming out of an OSM relation could be parsed to remove Points when producing a mapline/mapshape? -- obtain the coordinates and put them in data file(s) on Commons. I would not recommend editing OSM directly as this may cause some conflict. Matroc (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the station markers were small, they wouldn't be as disruptive, and they'd still serve their function. I assume choosing how to show them is done in our end. Would it be difficult? –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears on different wikivoyage sites as well (ie. Moscow as an example). The data retrieved from OSM appears to me that we are getting what is called a "Feature Collection" (lines and points - and in future possibly even polygons and not just simple lines. Unfortunately, this OSM process via our templates is not my area of expertise and probably should be referred to developers to look into. -- Matroc (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I detected this behavior of needless pushpin markers for geoline and geoshape objects about one month ago and I opened a phabricator bug report. The cause is that the GeoJSON object returned by the map server contains point objects which should not happen (example: Vienna U2 subway line). There is also the problem that authors cannot modify these pushpins (colors, sizes, etc). --RolandUnger (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see your reply -- Thanks Matroc (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing this at Caldas da Rainha#Get around, which has geoshapes for civil parish boundaries only, no rail lines. I'm not sure what the unnumbered gray markers represent, and if I try correlating to say the geographical center or headquarters building of parishes, it's inconsistent. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican-American history[edit]

This article lists only two sites that readers can visit (a museum in Chicago, and an art gallery in Austin) to learn about Mexican American history and culture. Does anyone know of any other places? Surely there must be more. Ground Zero (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this ever happens, there's one more. Doing a quick google search, there's also apparently the w:Mexican Museum (San Francisco), but apart from that, not that I know of any. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised that there was already a listing for San Fran, but... didn't have anything about the museum. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the scope in terms of dates and powers – just Mexico 1821–1848, or the earlier Spanish period as well? For example, should it include the Spanish El Camino Real stuff, or not? Nurg (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming it's just anything Mexican related in the US, but I'm not too sure to be frank. The original article creator's last edit was the day they created this article, and this looks like another case of something left to Someone else and so I doubt they'll be responding anytime soon. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depending upon your definition (does "American people of Mexican descent" include the descendants of the Spaniards who moved to Mexico when ?), then there could be an enormous number of sites, including everything that happened in US states that were previously under the control of Spain and/or Mexico before 1848 (all California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah, plus parts of Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, and Kansas) or in between Mexican independence from Spain (somewhere between 1810 and 1836, depending upon which event you believe is the decisive one) and Mexico losing those territories to the US in 1848. As Nurg says, this could include all of El Camino Real, and also about half the historic state parks in California, and the equivalent locations in the other states.
If this is meant to be about modern Mexican–Americans, then you'd leave out most of that but want to include things like the César E. Chávez National Monument in California. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are really good points. If we aim to include the entire Latin-American history of what's now the United States, we can include all kinds of Spanish monuments, which would also include the colonial buildings in Santa Fe and St. Augustine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my point was that the article didn't include any sites to visit at this point. SHB2000 and I have added some. If there are loads and loads of sites that could be included, then it would be better to focus on the ones that would be most useful for someone wanting to learn about Mexican-American history. I don't think that a catalogue of every possible site would make for as good a travel article as a curated list. Ground Zero (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have exaggerated, but the article about El Camino Real can certainly be linked to with a comment, and listing the important colonial buildings in former Spanish colonies in what's now the U.S. is not going to produce an uninteresting, exhaustive list, I don't think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is outside of my knowledge set, which is why I posted here asking for help. I hope that editors with more knowledge of this issue will jump in to improve this article. Ground Zero (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we need to decide whether we are covering the Spanish colonial period or not? (And actually, St. Augustine was never Mexican, so it should be excluded, anyway.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bona fide ambition to make Wikivoyage more inclusive, through non-Western and minority point of views, but creating separate articles is not always the most helpful solution. Another option is to add material to existing destination and history articles. Pages such as the Old West could use more description of the Mexican American history of destinations in the Southwest and the Mexican-American war and their subsequent annexation to the United States. /Yvwv (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the present article title the best, or would something like Hispanic-American history be a better title and focus? It's not particularly my subject area so feel free to dismiss this idea. Nurg (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a much broader and more diffuse topic that would also embrace Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Venezuelans, Colombians, Salvadorans... Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The effort for inclusion has taken some detours, as mentioned on Talk:African-American history, as the deficiencies are in our existing destination articles and travel topics. Charlottesville is a lengthy article which has yet to mention the controversies over the Robert E. Lee monument. The same article's description of Monticello barely mentions that Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, without addressing the obvious dilemma. /Yvwv (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's very important to remedy these things! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is this? Still nothing about the Lee monument and the "Unite the Right" riot that ended up in a murder and assaults. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also these edits to articles about D.C. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the concern about "creating separate articles", I think there is an important point that is being missed. A topic article like this one should not have details about a site, museum, or gallery. It should only point the reader to the destination article that does have those details. That means that the full listing should be in the city or town article. For the points of interest I added to this article, I made sure that the detailed listings are in the city articles -- there is no segregation going on here. This is a red herring. Ground Zero (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate charts for caves[edit]

In the process of writing an article about a cave, I'm unsure how the climate graph should look like? Should it have the temperature of the ground level, or the temperature of underground? Most logical thing is at ground level, but the section underground is also just as important to be mentioned. Can't find any other good guide park about caves with {{climate}}. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(It's this page that I'm working on for anyone who's wondering) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For outdoors climate readers can assume the climate of the region applies. You can refer to that information with some suitable sentence. If the caves are in a place with a different climate (isolated by mountains or whatever), then let's rethink. The underground temperature does probably not vary much, so just saying "it's 10°C inside, so you'll need jacket and sweater" or whatever should be enough. Plus, of course, any warnings for flash floods and the like, if applicable. –LPfi (talk)"
Thanks for the advice. I've just included both, but used your advice and used the climate of the region. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ground level is more reasonable. Inside the cave, the temperature is nearly constant throughout the year (especially in deeper parts of a cave). OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I recently reverted two IP edits cause I thought they were by Brendan (the IPs were based in queensland), can someone double check I didn't revert edits by a weel-meaning IP contributer. First revert, Second Revert Tai123.123 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They look good and are likely edits of his. But if unsure, leave it to either myself or Ikan. I also generally use their IP range, but that's not something to look at alone. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SHB2000, It’s also because it seems you and Ikan have been reverting Christmas related edits because it’s by him Tai123.123 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. He did that to Halloween as well, but "Christmas" alone does not merit its own listing. But we do need to be careful when it's an edit to an Australia related article, as it could be another innocent user using that same IP range. (when I lived in Brisbane, I have used some of the IPv4 ranges he uses now, but his IPs come from Maroochydore, and I lived in the north of BNE, so maybe why) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this first. Yes, all the stuff about Christmas is being added (briefly) by him. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I'll revert all christmas related edits from Australian IPs that I see Tai123.123 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's best to be careful about that. There could be an IP trying to add an event for their local town, and these don't necessarily have to be Brendan – but if it's for a non-Queensland/NSW related article, then it's fine. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I’ll let you guys handle the Australian articles Tai123.123 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it's kinda obvious that's him when he does it to country articles or state articles.
But aside, should we do a range block for one week? LPfi? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar with IPv6 addresses, so will leave it to LPfi. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, Tai123.123: Have blocked the /64 range for a week. The block can be extended if necessary, but I don't want to block innocent users from South East Queensland for too long. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A /64 block is what is assumed to be delegated to one user. Practices may vary. I haven't been following up these edits, but those I have looked at seemed to be isolated, or at least not from the same block for any longer times. If you see a bad edit from an IPv6 address, it is usually worthwhile to check Special:Contributions/[whatever]/64 (add the "/64" to the URL while looking at the normal contributions page). You can block the address block from there. If all bad edits are from the same address there is no use blocking the range, but you could find more edits to undo. You could also check with smaller values, such as /48 for a 256 * 2^64 block or /40 for a 65,000 * 2^64 one, to see whether the offending user is IP hopping across a limited number of personal blocks. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to now have a day of peace from him. Hope he doesn't come back using IPv4 addresses... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, probably until Christmas, I'll be blocking the /64 range if he ever seems to use an IPv6 address as the IP will likely not affect anyone else but him. That doesn't seem a viable option for IPv4 addresses though, as he seems to use different IP ranges, and someone else might get caught by it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted edits[edit]

Admins, please have a look at the "Notes" on Abuse Filter 17. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Done Would generally weak oppose that proposal though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had a further idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


--ButteBag (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postal codes for articles about Malaysia?[edit]

Is it on the exceptions list? Just did some cleanups on Batu Pahat, but I'm not sure whether it's on the exceptions list. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you would find them more useful or more irrelevant, if you tried to put that location into your favorite online map program? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't remember whether it's on the exceptions list? We don't usually include ZIP/Postal codes in the first place, except for articles about Singapore or Argentina, but can't remember any others. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we ever specifically discussed country. We did not discuss every country in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Malta and the Netherlands are also on the exceptions list, and a couple of British dependencies, but apart from that, I can't remember any others, nor can I remember which page has the exceptions list. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The UK and Germany are also exceptions. Not sure about Malaysia, but I have no memory of it being one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find this list? --FredTC (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!, FredTC: Finally found it on WV:Zip. It seems Malaysia isn't on it, so will remove them soon SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That page says that merely not being listed isn't, by itself, a reason to remove the postal codes. See "This does NOT necessarily imply that any current addressing information should be removed but rather that a judgement needs to be made about whether a postal code provides any information useful to travellers or is just needlessly occupying additional space in a listing."
Even when a postal code is generally unhelpful (e.g., 99% of the US), it might be useful in a few cases. There are individual buildings with their own postal codes in the US, and parts of California have a problem with "1234 City Drive" being the same physical street but miles away from "1234 City Ave", or "1234 City Dr" and "1234 E City Dr" (notice that "W City Dr" doesn't exist), with the postal code being useful insurance against ending up on the wrong end of the street. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a link to User talk:SHB2000 coming up as a redlink in Special:RecentChanges?[edit]

Title. Don't know why it's happening, nor if it's just on my side, but it bothers me that it's coming up as a redlink. It's been happening since today, and it's only an issue on this wiki, as it doesn't seem to be the case on meta. Screenshots below. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(gallery being updated as I upload a new image of this issue)

I’m seeing a redlink, too. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time to file a phabricator task? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine on my end (it's blue link) OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you've been a red link this afternoon, but when I click the page, it behaves normally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
still a redlink for me :-( SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyrom75: By any chance, do you know why this might be happening? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, it's an interesting and curious behaviour. I've noticed that you changed yesterday the protection of the page, so, if the issue appears yesterday, that's a clue. I've tried to change termporary the protection of the page but nothing happens. I've done other minor tests getting no result. Last "invasive" test I have in my mind is to delete completely the page and recreating it again: first empty, then with the original content, to see if it reset the status of the page, but I haven't done it, because it will delete the public history of the page. Since you are an admin, if you want to try, do it yourself. In any case you can open a ticket on Phabricator but expect long time since it's a minor issue that affect only one user. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might try and move the page to somewhere else without a redirect soon, and then add all the contents back so it preserves the attribution of the page. I'll see if that works. I had a feeling it may be those font tags which I was experimenting with a few months ago (which I just left it alone), but I fail to see how that affects a talk page in Special:Recentchanges. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyrom75: tried moving the page without a redirect and then recreating it. Had no result and it remained a redlink. Guess I'll have to file a phabricator task... SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, a tag, font included, affect the behaviour of the current page, not a system page. Consider that is not just a color change, but the system "feel" that your page doesn't exist (you can see it from the URL associated to that red link). Move a page is different from deleting it because the whole process use different functions. However, if you don't feel confident to try the page deletion (and I can understand it), feel free to open a Phab ticket. --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with page deletion and I'll try that. I might try it after speedy archiving all those discussions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andyrom75: Deletion and restoration didn't seem to work, so maybe I'll file a phab task. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Have filed a phab task on phab:T296374. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SHB2000, now I see everything correctly. Apparently the last test works. Do you still see your talk page as a red link? --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still a redlink for me :( SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also tried clearing the cache as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right, I'll give up... :-( --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to now work when I'm logged out, but still a redlink when I'm logged in. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that seemed only for a few seconds. It's now a redlink when logged out as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now it also is a red link on my Watchlist. --FredTC (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Special pages aren't cached, so there's no server-side cache to clear. When multiple people see the same thing, it's rarely your local cache, so the usual w:en:WP:BYPASS process is unlikely to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia floods[edit]

please see: Ottawahitech (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Featured travel topics[edit]

For some reason It isn't loading Arriving in a new city correctly, when you view it in the visual editor it looks right but it doesn't work regularly Tai123.123 (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The visual editor does not work properly on high template pages, especially the main page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found the mistake, there were two vertical lines in a row Tai123.123 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines[edit]

Thank you for your continued comments and ideas on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines. Your responses have helped to build a stronger Universal Code of Conduct.

If you have not already provided your comments, now is the time as the drafting committee has been meeting to update the enforcement guidelines. The drafting committee wants to consider all comments as they make their updates. Please submit any comments by the end of November. The Committee hopes to finish its revisions before the end of the year, and the revised guidelines will be published as soon as they have been completed.

The next steps for the Universal Code of Conduct include conversations about ratification of the enforcement guidelines. There will be a conversation about ratification on Nov 29.

The Wikimedia Foundation will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees about the ratification of the guidelines in December. The recommendations will inform the next steps in the Universal Code of Conduct process.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-date COVID-19 boxes[edit]

There are currently more than 100 articles in Category:Has COVID-19 box with out of date warning. Please take a look and help bring them up to date if you can. Even updating one or two of them would be much appreciated. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about York, Yosemite National Park, Kingston (Ontario), Guangzhou, Singapore/Sentosa and Harbourfront, Seattle, Naikoon Provincial Park, Metro Cebu, Metro Manila, Los Angeles, Lipa, Las Vegas/The Strip, ... Do they need boxes of their own? –LPfi (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question. I think some of the boxes in city/park articles can be useful, if they have information specific to the destination and aren't just repeating information from the country article. But in some of the cities you've listed, the boxes are so old that it might be simplest just to remove them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they make sense in some cases, but the risk of them staying there without updates is high, so there needs to be a real need for specific information. –LPfi (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is better to remove out-of-date information than to leave it there. I don't think that many cities have restrictions that are different from their state/province or country. Ground Zero (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago Glasgow was in lockdown, but Edinburgh was not. The Scottish Government had decided to vary the measures by council area depending on the local infection rate.
Covid boxes can also be used to report temporary changes which may be commercial decisions - reduced bus services due to less commuters, places to eat closing early as there are no business travellers, or museums only open to visitors that have booked online. For these Covid boxes it might be good to set a longer review period. AlasdairW (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, if an individual city suddenly has no airline service at all because of this, we should say so?
What about the destinations which are basically non-functional once an international border is closed, like Hyder, Alaska? Having no warning at all is nuts, if the only overland route out is Canada and there are border restrictions still in place. It's not a unique case, but it is awkward enough to be a special case. 00:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, say so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg


We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 17:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.


  • Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Questions and answers


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Beach (Texas) article[edit]

Should we merge and redirect it to Galveston? Please participate at Talk:Crystal Beach (Texas). Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need a disambig page as it is at w:Crystal Beach? In addition to the six listed there, the Philippines has at least [3] [4] Pashley (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]