Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2021

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

tr.voy is now open[edit]

Check out tr: and say hoş geldiniz to our fellow travellers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's Turkish, for those of us who haven't memorised all the ISO 639 alpha-1 codes. Nurg (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll just say congratulations and happy editing to our Turkish-speaking brothers and sisters! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hooray! It's been a long time coming - something like five years or more in the incubator. I was going to suggest leaving a welcome message at their village pump, but there weren't any other posts and I didn't think they'd appreciate the first post of the live era being written in a language other than Turkish - maybe give it a few days. But best of luck to them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just created a redirect from Istanbul to İstanbul. I'm hoping this doesn't create an international incident. 😀 --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that Turkish/Türkçe isn't listed at the multilingual WV homepage at I don't think mere mortals can edit this page. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm an administrator and I don't see an edit button there. My guess is that only WMF staff could add it to the list of wikis. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bureaucrat and don't see an edit button there, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Whatamidoing (WMF), would you be able to add Turkish Wikivoyage to that page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Those homepages are managed by the admins at Meta-Wiki. template seems to be where the code is stored. I think it's already updated on wiki, but I don't know why it isn't showing in production yet. Someone like DannyS712 probably knows more about this process. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a lag (not sure what it is) between updating the onwiki templates and the live pages changes, but if its on the meta page it should be on the actual site shortly DannyS712 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that it's up. Good stuff. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion"[edit]

Folks, please pay attention when you see that in recent changes. A lot of the time, the photos being deleted (or not deleted) aren't visible on the page, but right now, it looks likely that everything including the pagebanner will be deleted from the Pekanbaru article and a whole bunch of photos will be deleted from Commons just because a sockpuppet has been adding thumbnails of them to sister sites (but I added some to Venice, for example). I think we'd better at least locally upload photos of Indonesia that are being deleted for lack of super-official assurance of total freedom of panorama. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded the pagebanner and the photo of the mosque in Pekanbaru to Wikivoyage, but the sizes are smaller than the original. I don't understand the problem and hope someone else can fix it and explain what you have to do to download the full-size photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The solution was that I had to download the photo when it was fully open, not from the photo page thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
[answering the postings in Talk:Pekanbaru#Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion]
There seems to be a problem in that we don't have enough people that know Indonesian law. The law does not mention FoP, so interpretation relies on whether these photographs are regarded to infringe on the copyright of the architect, which in turn might depend on local tradition.
However, the "precautionary principle" is sound. Wikimedia Commons intends their media to be used also commercially by people who could not afford paying damages or losing an edition of a book because of an infringing photo. Even if that would be the first Indonesian FoP case ever, we don't want it to happen.
Perhaps we indeed should upload locally all photos we use of (new) architecture in Indonesia. I suppose collecting a list of photos and uploading them locally should be a bot job, with the list made in a way where a user easily could tick upload or don't upload for each photo. Are the photos many thousands?
LPfi (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea how many such photos we use. I'm skeptical that the "precautionary principle" is being applied well in a situation in which a country is leaving well enough alone and last I checked, it appeared that the participants in the discussion that actually have expertise and have read the sources in Indonesian don't agree that there's an issue, but I'm not a lawyer. I should say, though, there's also the issue of the need to substitute photos that look likely to be deleted just because they were uploaded to Commons by a sockpuppet. Those photos are not from Indonesia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Those latter images should not be our problem. The uploader being a sockpuppet is no reason for deletion of files on Commons. Some change images to tout their business, somebody substituting their quality images, for whatever reason, is not the form of vandalism we should get overly worried about. The Indonesian images are a worse problem, and I suppose you are right that the problem is in handling the Indonesian law on Commons, but if I understood correctly, there is valid concern. –LPfi (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I get the concern but would defer to the experts. But of course my opinion is not going to carry the day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Impending deletion of nearly all photos of Italy on Commons?[edit]

This is very threatening and must be taken seriously. Look at Liuxinyu970226's comment in this thread and now look at the reference they link. I think we're going to have to upload every goddamned photo of Italy we want to use here, and we might want to consider forking from Wikimedia and declaring that any commercial use of the images on our site is forbidden. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe Commons should be split into two projects: one for the WMF wikis to use internally with a special licence, the other with a full CC licence that anyone (but primarily commercial entities) can use. It seems that the possibility that someone in charge of an ad campaign or editing a magazine may use a photo from Commons that turns out to be non-free (e.g. in a country with no FOP) is having an increasingly damaging effect on the wikis that Commons is there primarily for.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The other thing Commons could do is have a special template that says "This photo may not be used for commercial purposes". But I doubt we're going to get Commons to change. I'll propose it, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: Commons won't be changing its licensing. See m:NonFreeWiki (2). —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand the frustration, but "all our media is free" is a founding principle of Commons. Expecting that to change -- and swearing about it -- is Sisyphean. Frankly, simply allowing non-free media on individual products is controversial in some quarters. Powers (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at the links in a bit more detail, I'm not so sure there's an imminent threat to all the photos of Italy. Liuxinyu970226 certainly doesn't say as much, and there doesn't seem to be an actual mass-deletion process underway or even proposed, but then I don't know the ins and outs of Commons very well. Even if the worst case scenario comes true, don't expect me to be at all enthusiastic about a fork; better to fix the system from the inside than become irrelevant on the outside. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm more or less in agreement with ThunderingTyphoons! about this. I support localizing all our images of Italy as a precautionary measure, but any reaction beyond that is overkill. As to the question of fundamental changes to Commons licensing, if what Ikan Kekek says is correct, and the stark choice Commons faces is to either change its licensing or else 1) allow entire countries to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage and 2) face the prospect of Commons becoming an irrelevancy within the WMF as the individual wikis move more and more toward hosting images locally, then I think they'll find they have no choice but to change. And that's assuming the Italian government wouldn't reverse course in the event of a mass cull of images from Commons (and, ergo, from the much better-known Wikipedia), which would certainly generate negative press about the real-world effects of unnecessarily stringent interpretations of copyright law. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact, upon further inspection, the Commons template referenced by Liuxinyu970226 (i.e. the second link Ikan Kekek cites in his original post) has been in existence since 2012, and the law itself has been in effect since 2004. Occam's Razor says Liuxinyu970226's personal interpretation of which images of Italy are permissible on Commons, as he expressed it in that thread, is not shared by the WMF. Otherwise, the "actual mass-deletion process" that ThunderingTyphoons! notes hasn't begun yet would have happened at least nine - or, more likely, 17 - years ago. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: "allow entire countries to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage": that is the situation at Commons. The WMF can't determine anyone's laws. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: You're missing the point. Regardless of whether countries hypothetically have the power "to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage", as yet no country actually has done that. It's easy enough to be a hardcore dyed-in-the-wool free-media purist when the threat of being barred from an entire country is just a farfetched hypothetical, but would such a purist stance survive if that threat became an impending occurrence? For the reasons I cited, it's very, very doubtful that it would. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"would such a purist stance survive if that threat became an impending occurrence?" Yes. To use media on Commons, it has to be freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States as well as whatever was the original jurisdiction of the creation of said media: there is a 0% likelihood of that changing, barring the United States essentially abolishing the public domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Essentially, you're saying "Commons policy is to only use freely licensed media, and that won't change even if entire countries declare them off-limits because Commons policy is to only use freely licensed media." Not only is that circular logic, it's also quite a naïve view of human motivation. For reasonable people, which I believe most WMF contributors are, at some point preserving the integrity of the work to which they've dedicated so much time and effort becomes more important than stubbornly holding fast to some pie-in-the-sky philosophical ideal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"Not only is that circular logic, it's also quite a naïve view of human motivation..." No, it's not circular logic: I am not stating a premise as my conclusion. I'm saying that Commons only allows media that are freely licensed in the place of origin and the United States; if media are not licensed in the place of origin, then it's not allowed on Commons. That's just being consistent and explaining the most basic rules about licensing media on Commons to you. "For reasonable people, which I believe most WMF contributors are, at some point preserving the integrity of the work to which they've dedicated so much time and effort becomes more important than stubbornly holding fast to some pie-in-the-sky philosophical ideal." It seems like you have fundamentally misunderstood what Commons is: the entire point is that you know that you can use these media without restrictions. If there are some restrictions, then somewhere other than Commons is where that media should be. It could be localized on individual projects or it could be off-wiki but when you go to Commons, you have to know that you can use the media that you're getting with no restrictions other than (at most) -BY or -SA. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The "new" Italian law is about a non-copyright restriction, and Commons policy is that such restrictions do not affect their willingness to host a file. There will just be a warning template. This is from the Commons viewpoint a restriction similar to trademarks or personality rights, something that the reuser has to take into account, possibly filing a request to the Italian authorities before using the file – or knowingly ignoring Italian law on the matter. –LPfi (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, Liuxinyu970226's deletion rationale is invalid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Justin, the proposal for a "non-free Wiki" is more complicated than simply tagging some images as non-commercial use only. I don't really see a clear advantage in farming out local use of exemption doctrine based on fair use and important educational purposes when the only issue is that a file can be used for any purpose other than making money. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I'm just suggesting that there is an existing proposal to fix this issue in a systematic way rather than the piecemeal, panicked response offered here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Justin Do you mean NonFreeWiki? It is not much of a solution to this problem, I think. Fair use rationals depend on a file being in use, so you cannot store good files for potential use there. In most cases you have to find the image and upload it, just as you now upload it locally.
For the hardcore dyed-in-the-wool free-media purist issue, I'd say that it sometimes works. We wouldn't have GNU/Linux without them. WMF showed a similar stance when Wikipedia was blocked by Turkey. And Commons has lots more of free media than it would have if "free" hadn't been a requirement. Of course, not all contributers to Wikipedia and Commons are hardcore privacy-and-freedom-of-speech or free-media purists (most are probably "reasonable" it-works-so-who-cares types), but the movement has attracted quite a few of the hardcore ones.
LPfi (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
At least this bunch of files is looking more likely to be deleted. We need to upload any of the ones we want to keep locally. Fortunately, there are many photos of Italy on Commons - for now. So as long as they're not all deleted en masse, we're likely to have options. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The argument in favor of deleting those files specifically doesn't seem to have anything to do with FoP in Italy. We at Wikivoyage have our own problems with sockpuppets, and I actually think it would be a nice show of solidarity to at least attempt to find other images to replace those for use on our site. As for a mass deletion of material from Italy, I feel confident in saying we have nothing to worry about, regardless of Liuxinyu970226's misconceptions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that trying to find suitable replacements for those photos is a good idea. I had meant to include that in my post above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikiProjects[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have just reached out to WikiProject Portugal (w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portugal#Wikivoyage), hoping to entice participants of that project to contribute over here. I wonder if anyone thinks that similar outreach to other geographic WikiProjects would be fruitful. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In cases such as Portugal where there is already a Wikivoyage in the local language, we should be directing them there and not to en:. pt: is even more badly in need of new contributors than we are, and the same is true for most non-English Wikivoyages. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and agree with you in principle. PT WV is basically dead, as evidenced by their Recent Changes. I am not confident enough in my Portuguese to contribute much, and the broken listing templates deter me from even trying. However, educated people in Portugal (and other Lusophone countries) are often conversant in English, as it's a required subject in school. They also recognize that English is largely a lingua franca among those most likely to travel internationally. People contributing to an EN WikiProject would seem to be the sort of folks who might enjoy contributing here at EN WV. I wouldn't advertise this on PT WP or other languages, though I would cross-advertise same-language WV and WP instances. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I did something like this once before on Wikiproject:Ireland; it didn't result in any interest expressed or in any apparent increase in edits to Ireland articles. Let's hope Wikipedia's lusophiles have a bit more gumption about them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're reaching out in the English-language Wikipedia, then editing at the English-language Wikivoyage makes most sense even if they usually edit and add content related to Portugal. You may meet people who are interested in the country for one reason or another but are not fluent in the language. The best way to attract editors at the Portuguese-language Wikivoyage would be to go to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. Gizza (roam) 21:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Thanks for doing that. It's a low-traffic page, though, so it might be better to have equally low expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I also think we lack Aussie and Kiwi editors too. TravelAroundOz (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Potential user to keep an eye on[edit]

There's a guy out at enwiki who's just come to the community's attention for writing a number of bizarre travel guides on exceptionally small towns. You can read all the dirty details here. I have the sinking feeling someone trying to get him out of enwiki's hair and noticing the details of his articles is going to point him at Wikivoyage, so I'm just giving a heads-up to the broader community that if this guy comes here we should at least be watching him. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That discussion, where all the admins seem to think they have the right to belittle the user in question, is a good reminder why I'm not more involved in Wikipedia. Having said that, thanks for the tipoff, and let's hope the user doesn't discover Wikivoyage (frankly, let's hope none of them discover Wikivoyage, as they come across as bullies).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
w:Draft:Nugunek is a useful example of this contributor's work, and why we should be on the watch. The reader is told that "Nugunek is a town in Turkmenistan without earthquakes.", and given a table of sunrise and sunset times for the first and 15th days of each month. That would not be a useful travel article. Let's hope they don't find us. Ground Zero (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ground Zero:, okay, I'm booking my flights now. :) SHB2000 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It would be useful if it had some content useful for travel. SHB2000 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think any of the information in the article belongs in a travel article, so that leaves it empty. An empty article becomes useful only if someone adds travel-related info, which this user is not doing. Ground Zero (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hope he doesn't even know about Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the only good article that would be useful would be w:Draft:Bromley, Victoria, which I will start to work on with no research from This way, we hope he doesn't have good reason to come here. SHB2000 (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Forget about it, the village has only 56 people and is nowhere close to Cooladi. SHB2000 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet, Ground Zero:, I see the user is blocked on enwiki. SHB2000 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Unsurprising. For what it's worth, there are people here in good standing who are blocked on enwiki, and indeed I'm pretty sure that's true for every Anglophone sister project. But I've been following the discussion on this guy there, and it's turning out about how I'd expect. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately only blocked on enwiki. Hope no one points both Fram or TableSalt342 here. SHB2000 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally. after reading this, we don't want them here. SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Sort of related to this: One of the things that I like about Wikivoyage is that the community is basically good people. We all have different strengths and interest areas, but we try to help each other out, and even when someone has a bad day, or we have a disagreement, people try not to be nasty or hold grudges about it. I sometimes get to this page and feel like I've somehow lucked into finding a whole group of reasonable adults on the internet. Thank you for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
"and feel like I've somehow lucked into finding a whole group of reasonable adults on the internet" - What about User:AnglaisEP's students?
Anyway, I have a similar number of edits on 96% are reverting vandalism. There's more vandalism on enwiki per minute than total edits per minute here on WV. SHB2000 (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, Considering that KevRobbAU has retired (meaning no personal admin attacks on User:Ground Zero) I'd sort of agree with you there. SHB2000 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)