Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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


GPX track download?[edit]

Special:Upload currently lists permitted file types: tiff, tif, png, gif, jpg, jpeg, webp, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, ogv, svg, djvu, oga, flac, opus, wav, webm. Would it be worth asking that Wikimedia add .gpx as one of the valid file types?

I could see it being useful for providing downloadable tracks for itinerary (the {{GPX indicator}} link on every page downloads just the article's POI's); that data could then be loaded into GPS units and taken on the road.

We seem to be accumulating novelty itinerary for roads which don't actually exist cross-country (such as Oregon Trail and Route 66, which are popular as fiction). The missing chunks are bridged by sending the voyager onto a long list of real highways (so "US66" in the Texas Panhandle ends up mostly on I-40, for instance). Those quickly become hard to follow; "it's not on my GPS" is a running joke in Cars (2006 film) for a reason. K7L (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, silence. I'd wanted to upload GPX for Oregon Trail before it becomes the featured travel topic on the 21st, but I guess I can't? K7L (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@K7L: Hi, I apologize for the late response to your question. This type of feature was brought up a few years ago in Phabricator and there are links in that ticket that explain how a GPX file can be uploaded. However, the GPX file would need to be converted to GeoJSON before being able to be displayed on a map in Wikivoyage, as I think you're trying to do in your question above. DTankersley (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There already is a GeoJSON track on the map in Oregon Trail#Prepare. That track was created by taking a National Park Service itinerary, tracing the turn-by-turn road directions on GPX Creator, then converting to GeoJSON for inclusion in the article. The documentation at Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps is rather limited (and was merely updated from GPX to "...and then convert to GeoJSON" as an afterthought to accommodate mw:Extension:Kartographer) but the map was added to the page in time for the article to be featured.
My question was how to make the original GPX available for download, for instance to allow the voyager to load the points into a handheld GPS unit. This was what Garmin originally intended as GPX's role when they first promoted the format. Attempting to use modern roads to re-create an 1843 ox-cart trail is a convoluted mess, where the voyager needs the information in a form which they can bring with them. A map which only works on the desktop while still online isn't very portable. I did try upload to,_Independence_MO_to_Oregon_City_OR.gpx but the only way to link to that file from here appears to be a full external link; the media: or file: prefixes just generate a redlink.
Admittedly, I'd prefer to avoid depending on items hosted across multiple wikis (commons, wikidata, now this...) as that makes articles more difficult for new users to maintain or update and risks breaking content if the pieces hosted on other WMF wikis are deleted (which has happened with both wikicomons and wikidata in the past, and will happen again). We need to be able to store both GPX and GeoJSON here, locally. K7L (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't the track, when inserted into the article as GeoJSON, just simply be part of the GPX which is already available for each article containing all the mentioned geo-tagged POIs? We should maybe just extend this functionality. But who can implement such a change? Ceever (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly Ceever! GeoJSON and GPX only have minor differences. It shouldn't be too hard to add it to the gpx for each article. That would improve Wikivoyage by leaps and bounds! Imagine a suggested city walking tour is just a download button away and another 5sec later you have it in OsmAnd or any other navigation app on your phone and can follow the track. Nobody would ever use a paper travel guide again. --Renek78 (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Improved search in deleted pages archive[edit]

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this:

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles needing attention[edit]

I usually tackle every day some of the articles listed under the various error categories (Articles needing attention)
Have noticed in the past few days that 20 or more titles are being listed under this category.
99.9% have no error and to clear the listings from this list I have edited and replaced the article (no changes to article)
Am noticing recent listings under this category - Appears with use of template mapshape following a template mapframe - The pages themselves appear correctly. To clear those listings from this category I simply added the optional parameter type=geomask to the mapshape template. (New Haven as example) -- Matroc (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The first problem is known since about one month and is connected with the usage of Wikidata. The real cause is up to now unknown. Several causes like Lua, Wikidata Lua interface and parser failures are discussed. At the beginning we thought that this was connected with the change of Lua modules processing Wikidata data. But the errors occur also at other times. Most of these errors cannot be seen maybe because of a new parser run while calling the article. It is correct: the only way now to remove these script errors is to make a so-called null edit. --RolandUnger (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Share your thoughts on the draft strategy direction[edit]

At the beginning of this year, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire people across the entire movement. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups have discussed and gave feedback on-wiki, in person, virtually, and through private surveys[strategy 1][strategy 2]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 3]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

In July, a group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team took on a task of synthesizing this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The first draft is ready. Please read, share, and discuss on the talk page. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize this direction through August.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Listing editor for mobile view[edit]

Today I wrote a letter to Andyrom75. But I will call your attention to this problem, too.

Now about 50% of all accesses to Wikivoyage are done with mobile devices. But nobody can use the Listing editor.

The main reason is simple: Two necessary libraries are missing: jquery.ui.dialog and jquery.ui.autocomplete. Within the wikis, we cannot do anything to activate them.

There are three alternatives:

  1. Rewriting the complete editor with OOUI libraries. This means a really big effort.
  2. Rewriting the jquery libraries. This means a big effort, too. With a medium effort I could rewrite jquery.ui.dialog, but rewriting jquery.ui.autocomplete is really difficult.
  3. Trying to add both libraries, jquery.ui.dialog and jquery.ui.autocomplete in the Resource Loader package [By the way, gadgets are not working in mobile view, too]. These libraries are part of the desktop package but not of the mobile package. One cause of doing this is to reduce the traffic, on the other side both libraries are deprecated. We had to open a task at the Phabricator to let add both libraries to the mobile package. To do this we need a strong backing by the communities.

Jon Robson from WMF told me that /resources/Resources.php is to be adapted in the following manner:

return [
         'group' => 'jquery.ui',
     'jquery.ui.dialog' => [
+        'targets' => [ 'desktop', 'mobile' ],
         'scripts' => 'resources/lib/jquery.ui/jquery.ui.dialog.js',
         'dependencies' => [

The 'mobile' target is now missing.

Do you think that the Wikivoyage communities are willing to give us this backing for a task at Phabricator?

-- RolandUnger (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I for one would love the listing editor to be available on mobile. But all that technical stuff went right over my head... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, while not connected to this on mobile, and it may not be the right place for asking this, would it be possible to be able to add "fax" to the desktop listings editor? For me anyway, I can only add a fax number if I am editing an existing listing, and there is already a fax number provided. But yes, a mobile listings editor would be great!  Seagull123  Φ  18:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Fax is a default blank field if you use the wikitext editor. However as I last sent a fax more than 5 years ago, I doubt that there is much demand for it on the listings editor. I was beginning to think that it was about time to remove all fax numbers from the site, as they just look out of date. How many faxes have you sent in the last year? AlasdairW (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've sent zero faxes in the last year. The last was probably about five years ago. I suspect that use might vary regionally, though, so perhaps it's still useful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing them still in use in certain narrow contexts, such as doctor's and solicitor's offices – possibly in the mistaken belief that a fax represents a tangible, scanned document of some legal weight. Nonetheless, actual fax machines (as opposed to fax modems) are dying due to widespread abuse to transmit unsolicited advertisements, which the victim has to pay to receive and print. Certainly it's a technology that deserved to die a quick, painless death by now (as scan-to-PDF e-mail produces better quality without the need to keep obsolete dial-up modems on-line) but it seems instead to be dying a very slow, very painful death. If a venue lists a fax number, I shall include it in the {{listing}}, but for most non-hotel travel listings it'd be rare to need to send fax to these venues. K7L (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that mobile users even more than desktop users would like to have them on their mobile devices. When you are at a place that is not listed, it would be very helpfull to have a dialog to add such a place specially for inexperienced contributers. It might be helpfull too to have a button in that dialog for "current GPS position". --FredTC (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Roland, we can surely back this proposal, but how? --Alexander (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage on Facebook[edit]

Ryan's apparently indefinite hiatus has included his resignation as an administrator for Wikivoyage's official Facebook page, leaving me as the only remaining active one. It probably shouldn't be that way. Does anyone else want in? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Just curious given that I haven't checked out the WV FB page. How busy is it? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I enjoy commenting on and liking the WV FB page posts. The workload seems manageable (three posts a month, one each on DOTM, OTBP and FTT). I can commit as long as there are other people available as a backup. My editing patterns are unpredictable and I cannot guarantee being active on the 2nd, 12th and 22nd of every month (which is when the posts seem to be made). Gizza (roam) 03:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not a problem for me to continue to update the DotM/OtBP/FTT posts on our Facebook page. Ideally, though, these shouldn't be the only things our Facebook account posts. Wikivoyage:Social media prescribes that "posts may include... major feature updates to Wikivoyage and other interesting travel news or activities", and to that end there is a nominations page where we're supposed to suggest tidbits that might be rebroadcast on our social media accounts, but it hasn't seen any use for some time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm good point. The WT Facebook article (with more likes and followers than us) posts blog and news articles related to travel too. Maybe we can do that and/or post quotes that inspire people to travel. Another option is to post more content directly from WV other than one of the three usuals but would still need to be of high quality (ideally at least a guide) and relevant in some way. Gizza (roam) 13:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to admin the FB page. I was doing WT before the migration. Powers (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Idea: Currency and measurement templates[edit]

There is an endless debate about how to express currency, and measurement such as distance and weight. One option would be to use standardized templates. Instead of writing amounts of money in plain text, we could use the template {{Currency|USD|17}} which would return the text "$17" by default. A reader could use a script which would insert conversion to a currency of choice, returning for instance "$17 (14,38 €)". The same could go for metric and Imperial units. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would only be keen on this if we could make the listing editor do this automatically. If it could detect which country the listing is in from the breadcrumbs and convert a listing price=$17 in the US to {{Currency|USD|17}}, and one in Australia to {{Currency|AUD|17}} then it would be great. Otherwise it would be irritating to replace one keystroke with seventeen. AlasdairW (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely think that's a good idea plus we discussed storing conversion rates at Wikidata so that they will automatically update. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that readers don't use scripts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I also wonder whether it's a good idea in general. "A bus ride costs 0.867 <your home money>, and you need to have exact change" is not as useful as "A bus ride costs 1 <local money>, and you need to have exact change". How often would it actually be helpful to know your home currency instead of (rather than in addition to) the local cost? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
{{USD|17}} giving $17 has existed for a while now, but only inserted as test directly once so far in article. Used as part of the exchange rate tables when we centralized to rates editing. See {{Exchangerate}} and {{Exchangerate/list}} for more information. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
For measurements see Wikivoyage:Measurements, were some template such as {{km}} and {{ha}} are explained. For example {{km|2}} gives 2 km (1.2 mi) --Traveler100 (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Does such a tool/bot exist or can it be created?[edit]

For the purpose of exporting+translating A LOT of content from the English Wikivoyage to the Hebrew Wikivoyage by myself, I need a simple tool/bot which would enable me, by a push of a button, to completely erase/clean the content that currently exists in 6 different parameters in all of the Listing templates on any given page I will import/translate from the English Wikivoyage to the Hebrew Wikivoyage (the removal of the content would of course be either done in my userspace on the English Wikivoyage or on my userspace on the Hebrew Wikivoyage... and not on any articles in the English Wikivoyage main space).

Having such a tool/bot would save me A LOT of time, as it would help me significantly speed up the process of exporting/translating Listings to the Hebrew Wikivoyage (at this point I import+translate all the listings manually, which means that I have to spend a lot of time manually removing the content from the following 6 parameters - Hours, Price, Content, Checkin, Checkout, Directions in all the listings I translate (I have chosen to remove the content in those specific parameters at this stage mainly because it takes a lot more time to translate the content for those specific parameters, and therefore, in order for me to be capable of importing/translating many prominent listings by myself, this is necessary... otherwise it would take me forever to import/translate all the most prominent listings in around 1,500 - 2,000 of the most sought after articles).

Do any of you know, by any chance, if such a tool/bot exists in mediawiki/Wikivoyage, if such a feature exists in any specific external software, or can if such a tool/bot can be created for this purpose? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We'd normally do something like this with a semi-automated script, rather than a bot. I don't think any such script exists, but I believe that Wikivoyage:AutoWikiBrowser could handle it.
However: Hours, price, checkin, and checkout seem to contain pretty standardized content (for most of the entries). I wonder whether we could get a script that translated the simpler ones for you? Something like "11AM" could be converted into the Hebrew equivalent through a search and replace mechanism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is helpful, but when I translate articles from other languages in my user space I use the "Search and replace" function to change parameter names. Open "Advanced" in the editing window and click on the lone icon with a magnifying glass, paper and pen to the far right. Enter what you want to replace in the upper box and what you want to replace it with in the lower, click replace all and proceed with the next thing you wish to replace. Click save when you're ready (or make intermediate saves every now and then) example. Perhaps this could, to some extent, be used for what you need to do. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and ϒpsilon - I am already using a similar "find and replace" script on the Hebrew Wikivoyage (it was initially created for the Hebrew Wikipedia to fix all the common spelling mistakes) to translate all the templates + common parameters (and other common words/phrases) from English to Hebrew in one click of a button. In the last 4 months I have probably managed to import the basic "raw" listings, with the help of that script, of around 140 articles. (I manage to do around 1 or 2 articles per day usually). I am aiming to do this for around 1,500 articles, so I need a faster way to do it.

WhatamIdoing - trust me, most of the content in Hours, Price, Content, Checkin, Checkout, Directions varies in style and content, and therefore there is no reliable way to quickly translate the content for those parameters in one process (I will translate them all one-by-one in the future, once I finish importing all the basic "raw" listings.

Thanks for the tip... I'll try AutoWikiBrowser (can anyone confirm if it is indeed capable of automatically cleaning the content from certain parameters with a push of a button?). Do you by any chance know any specific user/s that might be able to create such a semi-automated script which would be used for this purpose?

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You can see a good example here of the extensive amount of content which I have to remove manually when cleaning the content from the parameters Hours, Price, Content, Checkin, Checkout, Directions - from a 98,076 BYTES article to a 60,892 BYTES article. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the article I am working on today... so I still plan to translate all the names of the places in all the listings before the day is over (from English to Hebrew). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Impressive working, I must say! If all else fails, some text editors (for programmers?) might allow more advanced searching and replacing text, say between every "checkin=" and following "|". ϒpsilon (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Which specific text editor has such a feature? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I've no idea, but as replacing parameters is probably something many programmers (among others) need to do on a daily basis, I'd imagine a functionality like this has to be present in some text editors (tried to google it but didn't found anything). ϒpsilon (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
vi and emacs are the classic ones in Unix, and yes, they do regular expressions. Then there are sed & al, which are made for automated edits. At least emacs has keyboard macros (in addition to more advanced programmable ones; keyboard macros seem to suffice for this task). Learning one of these editors well does take some time, so not necessarily worth the effort for one project, but they are really efficient when you know how to use them. Regular expressions are a concept on its own, usable in many contexts. --LPfi (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@ויקיג'אנקי: I know that this can be done with regular expressions but I'm pretty ignorant of how that works. I've fiddled around with them in AWB before but only with help. I imagine that someone can help you there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
An alternative might be to comment out the text that you don't want. You could use search and replace to change hours= to hours=<!-- and }} to -->}} , or do this on a entry by entry basis and change some of the | to -->| . I also recommend looking into good text editors that let you record macros - I use pspad - a macro can be used to insert a comment start after hours= and then jump to the end of the line and insert a comment end. You may also be able to do this with a word processor Word or Libre Office etc. AlasdairW (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

On de-WV they talk a lot about Wikidata integration of their listings (presumably creating a Wikidata field for the opening hours and so on) but don't ask me about technological details... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The only real solution I found so far[edit]

Thanks for all the tips given above. Unfortunately, none of the above tips are relevant for this (I actually don't know about AWB since I don't got access/permission to use it)... as I need to be able to easily only "clean" the content of six parameters - Hours, Price, Content, Checkin, Checkout, Directions (while any sort of global "search and replace" would replace everything in the code (so, for example, while it is easy to change the parameter "hours=" to "hours= <!--", it is almost impossible to change the "|" to "--> |" only at the end of those six parameters.

After searching for a solution on Google I came across the following recommendation for anyone using Notepad++ to accomplish this. While this solution is a bit more complicated than one click and done (it involved probably around 10-15 clicks AND paying A LOT of attention to see that nothing of value was erased, YET, this actually helps cut down the time involved in importing articles that contain a lot of listings). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In emacs I'd use a keyboard macro that would search for the first of the keywords, move beyond the "=", mark that point, search for the "|" and delete back to the mark, then search for the next keyword etc. (in practise, I'd put the first search last, so that I can see what is going to get deleted before pushing Go). Where there are several listings after each other, so that I can see that nothing goes wrong, I'd give a repeat number (^Shours^U5^X^E would run the macro on five listings starting at an "hours"; ^S=ctrl-S etc.). With regular expressions you can avoid having to check every match, but you have to think hard instead. For your job thinking hard and using sed (or awb or perl or whatever) would probably be the most efficient solution. --LPfi (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Removed comment as issue was found -- Matroc (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to use an offline editor to use regexes. Use the 2010 WikiEditor, click "Advanced", find the find-and-replace icon (right edge of toolbar in LTR languages) and tick the box to "Treat search string as a regular expression". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Userpage script[edit]

You could try the script at User:WOSlinker/comment listings.js. I've set it to only work on userpages. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Thank you so much!. בזכותך חודשים רבים (ואולי אפילו שנים!) מהחיים שלי לא יוקדשו יותר להעתקה + הדבקה בלבד (translate sentence with Google Translate to see funny comment). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The first article on the Hebrew Wikivoyage which was significantly expanded with listings that were automatically fixed and imported thanks to WOSlinker's new script ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi, everyone. One topic that comes up a lot in discussions with new users is edit summaries (namely, the need to post one to credit quoted material from Wikipedia or to explain a non-obvious deletion). However, I don't know of any link I can include to a page or section of a page that explains what an edit summary is or how and when to write one. Is there anyplace that currently deals with edit summaries? If not, we should create such a page or section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a short description on Wikivoyage:How to edit a page. It should be changed to reflect current (best) practices. I added a section on attribution with permanent links. --LPfi (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
w:Help:Edit summary has some useful content, although it doesn't mention using the summary for attribution. I think that this wikipedia article could usefully be used as a starting point for our own. AlasdairW (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
LPfi, thanks for helping with that. AlasdairW, my feeling is that w:Help:Edit summary is way too long for our purposes, though whatever truly useful content we can glean from it is fine, because why reinvent the wheel? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Botched disambig for San Jose[edit]

I created San Jose (disambiguation) because I though such a page hadn't existed. Turns out it did under San Jose now I can neither move it to where it belongs, nor raise the issue on the talk page, as that redirects to San Jose (California)'s talk page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster - I commented out the redirect - should be able to move now? Please verify San Jose (disambiguation) -- Matroc (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
When you get redirected, there should be a link to the redirect page at the top of the page, before the content. Why was there none on the talk page? I was able to get there and comment out the redirect by using the URL (that URL should have been in the non-existing link, cf other redirected pages). --LPfi (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
When a redirect has been edited, it cannot be deleted by non-administrators, and thus nothing can be moved by ordinary users to replace the redirect. Also otherwise only the target of the redirect can be moved there, so administrator intervention is needed when a move involves more than moving back and forth among alternative names. --LPfi (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm a kind of lost here, I'm not sure what you're trying to do. Do you want to delete "San Jose (disambiguation)"? If so, I don't think that's necessary. "San Jose" is a disambiguation page, so just redirect "San Jose (disambiguation)" there.
Or do you want to move "San Jose" to "San Jose (disambiguation)"? In that case: have an admin delete "San Jose (disambiguation)", and then move "San Jose" to "San Jose (disambiguation)". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It is no problem to have "San Jose" as the page with a list of destinations, but probably a good idea to have a redirect to it from San Jose (disambiguation). The disambig option in the page banner will then work. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
When "X" is a disambiguation page, it's probably best to always have "X (disambiguation)" redirect there. That way, people don't need to guess or check if there's a "(disambiguation)" in the title before linking there, and people won't think that not a disambiguation page when there really is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the disambiguation should always be under x(disambiguation). Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That may be what you think but recommend discussing first, there are a few thousand pages like this. Also cutting pasting over a redirect all contant of another page is not the way to go. Page should be moved so that edit history is preserved. This may be a good idea but should have some agreement and be done correctly. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Locomore, Leo Express and Flixbus[edit]

Okay the following may be a bit complicated and it has implications for Rail travel in Germany, Intercity buses in Germany and destination articles along the Berlin-Wolfsburg-Hannover-Frankfurt-Stuttgart corridor.

Locomore has gone bankrupt after barely five months of operation in May - they just had too little capital to absorb the early losses, especially competing head on with DB who simply added departure right around the time Locomore trains left/arrived on several of the stations. But Locomore has since been in talks with various national and international companies to restart service in some form or sell off assets to cover debts. Well, Leo Express (a Czech private rail and bus operator active for years in Central and Eastern Europe) expressed interest and a deal was struck. In seemingly unrelated news, Flixbus had long registered an internet address under "flixtrain" and recently filed the paperwork necessary for a subsidiary under that name to run trains. Well Leo Express has a pre-existing cooperation with Flixbus and thus the tickets will now be available on the Flixbus website apparently with a symbol indicating that a train and not a bus is booked. Locomore had at the time of its launch announced that it had already secured "dibs" on several other routes (if you want to run a train on German tracks you have to pay DB Netz and tell them when and where and how, the latter well in advance) and it is possible that Flixbus/Leo Express will expand in the future. At any rate, trains are planned to run again starting August 24 of this year and tickets can already be booked. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A shame that Locomore did not work but the journey time was a little long and not having enough capital to get through the first few years in business shows some lack of business sense. Anyway, all that is relevant for the articles is what routes and services are currently running and links to the correct web site. Who owns what and their economic history is something for Wikipedia. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Booking is already possible via the Flixbus website. The first few tickets reportedly sell for 9,99€ Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Requests (brought from Wikimania)[edit]

Hi there. I've just arrived back home from Montreal. Had some nice talks and meetings. One big fan (his whole family) of Wikivoyage visited me at the community village. People like the listing and map features as well. Congratulations to all of you guys. I have three short points to be discussed here in your community. Got two messages on the poster:

  • Please add more links to Wikipedia
  • Please add information about accessibility to your listings as well as information for all disabled people (e. g. blind and deaf travellers)

I talked with Ziko about travelling information for kids on wikivoyage. It's missing on almost every article (at least on WV/de as far as i know). -- DerFussi 11:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I must ask what is meant with "more links to Wikipedia"? We have a link in the sidebar for every article where a WP article exists. But as for inline links our policy on Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia is unfortunately rather strict and there'd have to be a consensus to change it, which has been elusive in the past. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
As for accessibility, you are of course right, but I fear this just reflects the demographics of our userbase... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
As for children, we have Travelling with children and the likes of Venice with children, but I think having a "for children" subsection in the see or do sections might be better for medium size destinations than dedicated x with children articles... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
A "for children" subsection to See and Do would work for attractions directed towards children, but also e.g. many ordinary museums do a good job, and moving those to a separate children's section is wrong. A "one floor is planned for children, with possibility to e.g. build brick walls and timber houses or equip and ride or drive a full-size wooden horse" would suite, and perhaps "the exhibits are made more lively by a story of a 9-year boy experiencing the places in their heyday", but sometimes it is difficult to describe the place such that parents can deem whether it suites their children, at least without being overly wordy. And then we have all the Cope issues. --LPfi (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Most printed travel guides solve this problem by using small icons 'children-friendly'. Alternatively (or additionally), a separate subsection can be created, where children-friendly places are listed (in prose) explaining how they cater to children. --Alexander (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
That may be so,but good prose in the content tab should enable all our readers - including those with children of varying age - to make an informed choice as to whether they would like to spend their time (and perhaps money) at a certain place. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
People without kids don't need to know details of kid entertainment, and people with kids need a quick overview of 'where can I go with kids'. The solution I menioned will address both aspects, and it proved to be very useful in printed travel guides. On the other hand, cluttering listings with additional specialized information is hardly useful to anyone. --Alexander (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The needs of a one year old are vastly different from the needs of a teenager. Plus there is stuff that adults enjoy that can be fun for kids (and vice versa). Have a look at the listing for the "phaeno" in our guide on Wolfsburg. Would you rather we segregate it off into a "for kids" section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Science museum is an obvious case. You don't need any description to understand that it will be interesting for kids. I am talking about non-obvious cases. --Alexander (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
A long time ago, the Wikivoyagers of that age decided against having a separate section for LGBT travellers on the basis that most of what they are interested in is the same as everybody else, do we identify in the listing if a venue caters specifically to LGBT people. I think this approach works well for child-friendly listings. There are some that will be of no interest to people without children (a playland, for example), but most (parks, museums, etc.) are of interest to those with or without kids. Parents know what to look for when reading travel guides. Ground Zero (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
They do not always know what to look for, and that's exactly the point. In a history museum, you never know how academic it is, whether it simply displays objects with long and boring descriptions, or it also features small games and quests where kids receive a list of questions to find answers and "win" a small prize in the end. Technically, such an information can be added to the listing, but it will make the listing longer, while being relevant to a fraction of readers only. In my opinion, it is better to have a 'children-friendly' icon and, if necessary, a separate section saying that museums XX and YY offer games, whereas museum ZZ offers a quest for children. This will save a lot of space and largely improve navigation for a city with 20 or 30 museums, where you have to decide which of them are suitable for kids. --Alexander (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the optimal solution varies, depending on destination, content and editor. The symbol probably says somebody at the museum actually thought about children, but not much about whether the games/quests/whatever suite my children. Similarly about mentioning what museums have them in a separate section. A sentence or two about what a specific museum does well for them is much better, and I think it is not too much in the listing, and useful to have there if most museums do something well, but in different ways. The academic vs innovative may be of interest also for childless adults. Then of course also mentioning audio guides, accessibility etc. makes it not one or two sentences but perhaps five or more. If we want to cater to different groups we should still afford that. On the other hand, if the city has three or five top sights for children, and many museums that are hyper academic, then a Children subsection might be a better solution. --LPfi (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
About the links to Wikipedia and RelatedSites, what do you think about the external links template proposal from Wikivoyage_talk:External_links#Update proposal. --Zerabat (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
If "traveling with children" had it's own section, as well as "LGBT" travelers and "travelers with a dissability" a lot of pages might seriously expand in size if we duplicate information in those sections. Maybe it would be simpler to just add (suitable for X) at the end of regular listings, or have some kind of searchable tag? --Willthewanderer (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It's probably more relevant to provide specifics. McDonald's (the fast food chain) would always get tagged as being "suitable for children", but the words "has a playground" are far more informative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
What's useful and what's fluff? Every venue wants to claim to be "fun for the whole family", "ideal for business and leisure travellers" and offer "something for everyone". Perhaps the default should be that any venue (except bars, gambling dens, pornography or sex clubs) is presumed to be marketed to all ages and we note just the exceptions – such as the "adults only B&B" or the museum which teaches everything at a "grade one" primary school level. If there are many kids at a location we say so if they are disturbing other guests or if a venue is marketed only to a specific demographic in some non-obvious manner. Do we need to say that North Pole (New York) is demographic-marketed to little kids if the only notable resident of this tiny hamlet is Santa Claus? K7L (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage talk:About#Travel guide showdown has a fairly long discussion about different "special interest" topics. I think that there have been other discussions, but this is probably the longest.
I think the overall conclusion is that if you know something is good/bad for a particular group, then mention that fact in the listing. "Mention" doesn't require being obvious: A quiet restaurant is good for people who are hard of hearing, and a place with a lot of stairs is inaccessible for most wheelchair users, but it's sufficient just to note that the restaurant is quiet or that there are a lot of stairs, without labeling that information as only being relevant to certain categories of travelers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with mentioning suitability or otherwise in listings, generally by just stating the facts - hotel has 3 floors with no lift, or has a garden with a swing. However it may be worth having a separate section in the main page of huge cities for children to summarise which museums etc are good for children among the 50 scattered around 10 districts - a "Bring the children" section. It may also be appropriate there to link to any city specific parent websites. AlasdairW (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Well Venice with children for one could use some love. What about other ..."with children" articles? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Growth of the site[edit]

It's my perception that the number of edits on this site has grown quite a lot. A few years ago, it used to be fairly easy for me to patrol the entire site every day. Now, there are so many edits that the result of trying to do this has me, in Emmette Hernandez Coleman's words, "working too hard". (I realize there was a somewhat different context for his comment, but it fits here.) I think that's wonderful and something to celebrate! But what it also means is that anyone wanting to patrol recent changes to articles will now have to either pick some areas to keep track of or do ad hoc work, as the spirit moves them.

So two questions come to my mind: (1) If you're someone who likes to patrol recent changes, do you have a strategy for what subject matter or types of edits you concentrate on? (2) You don't need to be an admin to patrol changes. Do we need more admins, or do we need more people taking it upon themselves to patrol changes? Either way, I think we should remember to thank everyone who does this work recreationally, because it's so important for the quality of the prose on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I usually just patrol things on my rather large watchlist and/or look at new user contributions. Pashley (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem when I patrol recent changes is that I tend to get sidetracked a lot... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Not always a problem. I often look at linked article that haven't been edited in some time, start reading, and find problems that had been missed before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I always hide autopatrolled edits (the ones without red !'s next to them). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I normally ignore those, except in articles that are particularly interesting to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do a bit more, what is the most efficient way of patrolling changes and keeping a sensible watch-list? I'm honestly not sure what I'm getting notifications for at the moment --Willthewanderer (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you see the small red exclamation points next to some edits in "recent changes"? If not you've not yet been given the status whose name I keep forgetting... If you do see them, you can get rid of them by clicking "mark as patrolled" on the relevant diffs. Only do this of course if you see no problems with the edit in question. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
There are two statuses, "autopatrolled" means your own edits don't get the ! and "patroller" is the one you keep forgetting. K7L (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage and Wikitravel links to Alexa ranking, which shows that we are slowly closing in on The Other Site. This year they virtually ceased to develop. /Yvwv (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
How reliable are Alexa ranks, though? And what do they actually measure? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The rank is based on an estimate of unique users and pageviews. While not exact, it can reveal long-term trends. /Yvwv (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Does this mean that search engines are finally beginning to stop penalising us, at least for all the content that originated here in the half-decade since the WT/WV split? I tred Google for "Oregon Trail travel guide" and Oregon Trail here was the featured snippet. K7L (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Tangentially, it would be even better if more new editors would stay as regulars. Many new editors make some great edits for a few weeks or months (perhaps writing up one single article from scratch to guide status) and then vanish again.
Concerning patrolling recent edits, when I come to Wikivoyage I always first go to Recent changes to see if something interesting has happened lately out of plain curiosity and I virtually always have Recent changes in another tab, refreshing it every now and then. Nevertheless, unless if it's an article I think seems interesting or probably vandalism (e.g. obscene edit summary or edits by known vandals) I tend to ignore them. I can't remember if I've ever clicked mark as patrolled, but I do remember inadvertently hitting rollback at least on two occasions.
For the other site, do have a look at their recent changes to see how well they are doing. I'd say we don't need to worry about them :). ϒpsilon (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Side question: Is the change in volume at Special:RecentChanges a recent/sudden thing, or has it been getting slowly larger over time?
Also, how many of you are using the Beta Feature "New filters for edit review"? How is it working out for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit stats[edit]

Are there up-to-date stats? I've looked at but they seem to go only to May 2017, not only for WV, but also WP. Nurg (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


I have talked with a guy from Wikitongues. Maybe it is a useful feature to add their videos to phrasebooks or country articles. This is an example for Texas German -- DerFussi

Is there any content on that site? If so, how does a user find it? There's no obvious way to do so from that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
It sounds from their blurb like their main goal is to help preserve languages that are dying out. For all I know there might be exceptions, but in general such languages will not be of much use to a traveller & will not be for the languages we create phrasebooks for. I do not think we should "add their videos" in the sense of putting copies here. Nor should we add them at Commons; they have a procedure for that & it does not apply to all their material.
But, yes, linking where appropriate would be a good idea. Pashley (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Although it is not related to this thread, I have looking around their website and I think that they are hypocrites, because they pretend to "save" the endangered languages of the world, but their website and processes are all in English only. Long live Sheakespeare our Lord. --Zerabat (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zerabat: They offer content in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish as well. Don't know what you're talking about. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

IATA code redirects[edit]

It seems that recently a lot of redirects have been created for the three letter IATA airport codes. Unless I am missing something here there was never a consensus or a discussion about this. However, this may in essence mean creating hundreds of new redirects. Should we have a debate on this before we do it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No objection in principle to creating the redirects. My only question is whether this risks creating circular redirects, now that the {{IATA}} template is implicitly turning the three-letter code into a clickable link. For instance, I create SUXSioux City and then edit Sioux City#By air to read "Sioux Gateway Airport (IATA: SUX) has nonstop service twice daily on American Eagle to Chicago-O'Hare." The link ultimately (through a redirect) points right back to the current page, in this example Sioux City, but because it's hiding behind a redirect it looks pretty and blue. These circular redirect links are not hugely harmful, but are rather useless. K7L (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a request to have a preference in the IATA template to disable the links. Probably would be a good idea to do this on the target page. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I remember I once suggested doing it for airports that actually have their own articles, JFK and the likes, and it was deemed a good idea. Not sure if we need to do this for all airports in the world (I noticed that the redirects created over the last few days mostly were for small airports). ϒpsilon (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The idea is to direct people from the page that mentions the small or medium sized airport the city page where the airport details are, i.e. the closest location to the airport or its namesake.--Traveler100 (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I have worked out how not to have the redirect on the airport article page and allow for abbreviations for airports that match more well know ones such as USA and RPC. Also plan to change the format so that the IATA text is smaller and mouse over the TLA shows the full name of the airport or city article. Is currently in sandbox, will make live once I have checked a couple of things. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Now a little smarter, {{IATA|JFK}} now shows JFK IATA. If the TLA is a redirect then the end target page will be displayed on mouse over. If the template is used on the airport page (or city of the airport) no link will be given. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Antarctic redirects[edit]

So there have been a lot of redirects for the likes of "x's claim in Antarctica". Should we have them? After all they overlap and "de facto control" is pretty murky down there... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the Wikipedia article on w:Territorial claims in Antarctica. But (unless I'm missing something) none of the redirects are in the format "x's claim in Antarctica". They're what you'll find in the Wikipedia article: Ross Dependency, Australian Antarctic Territory, etc.
I created a lot of those redirects today, but a lot of them were already there. And I don't see a problem with them. Yes, a lot of the claims overlap. But they all redirect to the appropriate Antarctic region article, and they are nominally "countries" (in the same way that Hong Kong and Porto Rico are countries). If we were talking about articles, it'd be a different question; I don't think they deserve articles. But I think redirects are appropriate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Come to think of it: A benefit of redirects like these is that they discourage the creation of articles. And we probably don't want an article for the Australian Antarctic Territory, East Antarctica can cover that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing redlinks[edit]

So I pulled some redlinks from Oita (prefecture) to the talk page and was accused of "trolling behavior" for doing so and it was alleged that there is policy and or consensus to never remove any redlink ever for any reason whatsoever. Is that so? And if so should it be changed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say "for any reason whatsoever", but your reason as you've stated before is that you find them to be ugly/aesthetically unappealing. You've admitted that this is a "pet peeve" of yours before and you have continually been told to leave redlinks or create articles. I don't personally see any need to delete redlinks for legitimate places that should/could have articles. But let's have the discussion again and see what people say this time. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In many cases a solution would be to create redirects from the names of hamlets or other tiny places to the article that has the redlinks. In that article, leave those names in & bold them, so someone who searches for a village & lands there can see why. This gets rid of the red links, avoids creating silly articles, and handles the case of someone who searches for some obscure place because grandad immigrated from there or fought in some battle nearby or whatever. Pashley (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that could be a good idea for some places that are so small they don't merit an article. For places that actually should have an article, though, I'm not so sure—I think the presence of the redirect discourages editors from creating the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is sometimes a good solution (For one example, see Talk:Carpiquet.) but not always.
Sometimes it is better to just leave the red link or to create an article even if it is only a stub. If the place is significant, you can find it on WP, & at least put in geo co-ords, IsPartOf & a WP link. Pashley (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is getting off-topic, but when it comes to redirects and articles for multiple towns vs redlinks, I believe redlinks are better left alone until someone with real knowledge about the place and surrounding area can sort it out. Merging towns or creating redirects in order to get rid of redlinks is bad practice in my opinion. There isn't much reason to "meddle" in such a way and it can create a mess if the sorting is found to be nonsensical (and they can require admin intervention to change them depending on how it is done). I've said this in other discussions, but redirects definitely can discourage article creation, so if you don't know an area, it's probably best just to leave it as is rather than forcing action just because there is a redlink. I'll also point out though that those in the Oita (prefecture) article are quite large and well-known cities that can definitely hold their own as articles. It can't be assumed that redlinks are a sign of anything about the location; it only means we don't have an article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
To me: It doesn't look like redlinks, and how we should handle them, are the real issue here. This looks like a conduct issue, and not a content issue. I don't know who's right and who's wrong; I don't really care to investigate it enough to figure out the rights and wrongs. But like I said: This looks like a conduct issue. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I too am of the opinion that the redlinks should be kept, if the potential article they point to would pass the wiaa test and especially if they have one liners, which would give the reader an idea of what the place is about even if there is no receiving article. Vidimian (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If the place would make a valid article, that is there is something worthwhile seeing and somewhere to sleep, then it should be kept a redlink until someone creates an article with some content. That does not mean create a stub because that is just annoying browsing through links to empty pages. If it is a small hamlet with no place to stay then delete the redlink or if it is a place you may expect someone to search on then create a redirect to the next settlement. A redlink is saying an article is needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

There have been several region articles or the likes with dozens of redlinks that may cause the perception of a need to subdivide the region, yet the region article is not developed at all and only contains a scarce number of actual articles. What then is the harm there in removing the redlinks? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In some cases, such as Åland, transportation is a big issue, so going to a redlinked island for a local attraction and sleeping in the nearest city (i.e. the capital) is not an option. In such cases listing the attractions (or accommodations) in the region article is little use, unless grouped in a way better done by actually creating outlines for any place for which you want to add a listing.
For other places listings are better created in the existing articles, or in new articles covering more than one of those places. In those cases one should create a sensible subdivision, be it of subregions or "cities". State what places intended to be covered in a (red)link if you remove the redlinks to close by destinations. It is clearly stated in our guidelines that we should not create holes in our hierarchies.
In some cases there is a clear need of subdivision on the long term (cf Burundi). You might not need the redlinks yet, but it is much easier to create a new article if the intended subdivision is clear. And I see little difference between just mentioning provinces (or any other subdivision) and redlinking them. The former is a little more visually appealing, the latter a little easier for newcomers intending to create articles.
--LPfi (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Should these articles keep on being classified as World Heritage Site articles?[edit]

Most of the articles that are classified on the English Wikivoyage as World Heritage articles (that have a WHS category and WHS symbol in their banners) either are about a single site that has been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, or are a city/town/village which contains at least one site that has been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. Nevertheless, we ALSO have the following exceptions I listed below (which I am suspecting might have been classified as World Heritage Site articles by mistake by new editors) that are about much larger areas (such as wide regions/districts of a country or even a country).

Because of this, I wanted to suggest that we reconsider removing the World Heritage articles classification from all of the following articles I listed below:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)I can come to think of at least two reasons why these articles have the WHS icon. Sometimes the WHS is composed of tens of different components/sub-sites spread over a large area (one or several regions). Secondly, a WHS might be located far away from any place that has an article or could merit an article; especially true for natural attractions this is not uncommon. Also, please refer to the See section in the articles; articles that have the WHS icon should have the site(s) located in the article's domain listed.
This is by the way the reply to the question you asked in the thread right below; a site is not always located in just one city district but spread all over the city (and the component might not be as significant when looked upon out of context, that is apart from the other components making up the WHS), wherefore it's most practical to keep the symbol in the main city article. However in the case that the site is located in just one district, then the symbol, just as any listing, should be in the district article rather than the main city article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It's reasonable to assign at least one UNESCO icon for each listing on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Usually that would be on the article closest to the actual heritage being listed, whether it's a park, a city or just a large rural area covered as a city/bottom-level destination. The UNESCO icon for "Rideau Canal and fortifications" is on the Rideau Canal itinerary, not on Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Merrickville, Smiths Falls, Newboro and Kingston. The icon for Waterton Glacier International Peace Park appears on an extraregion and on the two constituent parks, but not on North America as the containing region. Red Bay is listed at Forteau, a ridiculously-large but sparsely-populated rural area which covers a few villages across the entire mainland side of the Strait of Belle Isle. The other side of the strait, Newfoundland's Great Northern Peninsula is a similarly-ridiculous large rural area which bears the UNESCO icon for the Anse-aux-Meadows Viking archaeological site. Mistaken Point, as an archaeological site somewhere along the 200km-long Trepassey and the Irish Loop, is more of the same.
I see that many of the places listed above are region articles. If there's a park, an itinerary or a group of small rural villages (which we're prone to treat as one "city" if that gives a bottom-level destination of reasonable size) then by all means move the icon to the more specific article. If it's notable enough for UNESCO, it's notable enough to get some mention in Wikivoyage below the region level - if not as a village, then as a park or an itinerary. I wouldn't remove the icon from the region article until the appropriate destination articles have been created and the icon moved there; a UNESCO-listed destination with no bottom-level article would be a good candidate for creation (either on its own or as part of a wider rural group of villages) or for nomination on Wikivoyage:Requested articles. This list may find many articles which should exist, but which aren't yet on en.voy. K7L (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I can reply for the cases of Ticino and Graubünden. They both have two sites each, of which only one is covered at a bottom-level article (Bellinzona). In the case of Ticino, I suggest we leave the symbol there until maybe an article for Mendrisio or something closer to the Monte San Giorgio site is created. For the Graubünden case, I added the UNESCO symbol to Engadin as that's where the Benedictine Convent of St. John at Müstair is located. As for the Albula and Bernina lines, being train lines, they go through several regions within Graubünden and even Italy, so I really think the main Graubünden article should probably stay listed. Drat70 (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't these articles also be classified as World Heritage Site articles?[edit]

Usually, when a city contains at least one site that has been classified by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, the article about that city on the English Wikivoyage is classified as a World Heritage article (it has a WHS category and a WHS symbol in the banner). Nevertheless, we ALSO have the following exceptions I listed below (which I am suspecting haven't been classified as World Heritage Site articles because no one has noticed this up until now).

Because of this, I wanted to suggest that we reconsider adding the World Heritage articles classification to all of the following articles I listed below:

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but if we do that then the UNESCO flag will become mostly worthless. What information are we trying to convey is we say New York City is a UNESCO site? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Andrewssi2 - So you are saying that we should refrain from classifying ALL city articles that have sub articles about UNESCO World Heritage Sites as UNESCO World Heritage Sites articles? Or should we only make the main NYC article an exemption while having all the rest of them classified as as UNESCO World Heritage Sites articles? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on UNESCO, so do please correct me if I'm wrong about this. As far as I can tell, New York has precisely one UNESCO site, the Statue of Liberty ( w:List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_the_United_States . New York city has a population of over 8 million.
So it is just my opinion that one statue doesn't confer UNESCO status over an entire city. However if our rules say that is how it should be then I won't object. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
If the site is just in one district (which is the case for the cities above) or perhaps two, it's best to have the icon in that/these district's article. On the other hand, if one site has parts in a lot of districts/spread all over the city (like the Banks of Seine in Paris), then it makes sense to have it in the city article. In the same way, if a site is spread over a region (especially with cities and towns that don't have articles on their own) it makes sense to put the icon in the region article. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Every place should belong to one (and only one) non-overlapping bottom-level destination article. This may mean splitting huge, Paris-sized cities into arrondisements, boroughs or districts. This may mean grouping a small city and surrounding rural villages together (so Picher OK, a ghost town, appears at Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby) or treating a huge, Anticosti-sized rural area (one village and a hundred miles of provincial parkland) as one bottom-level entity. Red Bay (a tiny coastal outport with a UNESCO-listed archaeological site) is listed at Forteau, which covers the entire southern coast of Labrador. Unless UNESCO has added the entire region to their lists, placing the icon at the region level is merely a stopgap until the appropriate local bottom-level article (or an itinerary, for something like the Rideau Canal or a historic rail line) can be created.
Our existing policy is to push individual {{listing}}s out of the region articles (which should only be an overview) into individual destination articles. A destination notable enough for a UNESCO listing should have a local article of some sort, even if it groups multiple rural villages as a single "destination". K7L (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I arranged all the UNESCO sites in 2015 (back then more than half of them weren't mentioned anywhere) listing each of them in at least one article. I tried to be as careful as I could with creating new articles, yet still someone thought it was a bad idea creating a lot of new empty articles. Perhaps for WHS that are spread out (e.g. "Belfries of Belgium and France" made up of 56 components) it would be best to have just one travel topic article for the WHS and list all of the places there. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no reason to create empty articles; presumably you're creating the page because there's something to see or do which you want list there? K7L (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm afraid articles with just one see listing in them will be regarded by some people as "empty", especially if someone creates, say, twenty or fifty such articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here. But I'm not seeing anyone on those talk pages actuality saying that it's a problem for you to create articles to list the UNESCO sites. An editor asked you about the articles on your talk page, you explained and addressed his concerns. As for the conversation that editor started at the Deletion policy talk page: He never mentioned you or your UNESCO work, until you brought it up. And when you did bring it up, everybody was supportive of your work!
If an editor has an actual objection to what you're doing, it's up to him to speak up. Otherwise, I think you can go ahead. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The point is that this sort of article creation raises some red flags, thanks to editors like "pcv" and perhaps also the Telstra vandal, and you then have to explain what you're doing. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, I myself am not a fan of creating new pages for stuff that would fit into already existing articles. To get back to the issue at hand, I still think that if there is a WHS made up of a great number of components we should describe them in one article (be it a travel topic for that WHS, like the Painted Monasteries, or in the region article (by the way, as a rule our region articles generally suffer from a lack of content)) rather than creating several new articles that usually end up with just that see listing. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Actuality, I did miss something: The timestamp. Those discussions are from 2015, I thought they were current discussions. I didn't sleep well last night. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] So a couple of comments: (1) Sure, in districted cities, it's possible to put the UNESCO symbol in the article(s) for the district(s) that have UNESCO cultural heritage sites. (2) Just what is the harm in having the UNESCO stamp on an article for such a major tourism draw as New York City? Do you think having or not having one will have the slightest effect on how many people visit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek - my question was what do you want to say with the UNESCO symbol on New York City? If we add symbols and icons and other visual effects to articles then they should mean something relevant to the traveler. If it isn't relevant then it devalues the UNESCO symbol and clutters the article.
ϒpsilon mentions that Paris has Unesco sites spread across it, which makes the Unesco symbol relevant at City article level. New York with only one site, I (fully respectfully) suggest not Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize New York wasn't already marked with the UNESCO symbol. I would suggest putting it in only the article for Manhattan/Financial District, because that article includes a listing for the Statue of Liberty. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Statue of Liberty is indeed the only World Heritage Site in New York, and the logo is already in the appropriate article. Sydney and Seoul, again, have more than one site but if my memory serves me right each of them is confined to exactly one district, so the symbols are better located in those districts. The case with Paris, on the other hand, is different; there is one site, Banks of the Seine, that continues across six or seven arrondissements of the city... ϒpsilon (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Merging "stay safe" and "stay healthy"?[edit]

Given this, which is apparently correct based on the big city article template (but still weird, given that other articles put information about hospitals under "stay healthy"), should we find some new category in which to put both with a name indicative of both being present? After all, stay safe and stay healthy sections tend to accumulate WV:Obvious material and be rather short besides. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We may put hospitals in "Cope" (a catch-all section for everything from laundrettes to diplomatic high commissions) if the article lacks a "Stay healthy" section. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it should mention this expressly. K7L (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Stay safe and Stay healthy usually overlap a lot, and a merger would make sense. The standard format has far too many headlines, compared to the 7±2 format. As a bonus effect, the merger would increase divergence from The Other Site; improving SEO as well as impression of originality. /Yvwv (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Which new heading should we chose? I don't really like "cope" tbh. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Put me down in support of maintaining a separation between "Stay safe" and "Stay healthy" when that's logical. Concerns about crime are quite different from information about clinics or locally endemic diseases.
As for "Cope", is it better than "Miscellaneous"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Well in the linked example, a hospital is listed under "stay safe", so the current layout already partially goes against your concerns, Ikan. Or am I mistaken? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You are not mistaken in your observation. I am in favor of using "Stay healthy" whenever it's relevant, regardless of what level of hierarchy the article is at, whereas current guidelines are to conflate "Stay healthy" with "Stay safe" at lower levels of the hierarchy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"Stay safe" would be a good name for a health & safety category. The travel topic Stay healthy could be a sub-topic to stay safe. /Yvwv (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think health is a sub-aspect of safety. I think both are sub-aspects of "stay in one piece". But I have yet to find an elegant verbal phrase for that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Two confidentiality and privacy items that recently came up[edit]

I am not really active at Wikivoyage. I am an administrator on Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and the Wikimedia Incubator, and am most active on those projects and some other Wikipedias. As I was doing some new page patrol on Incubator recently, I came across a user who was active here, among other places. As it happened, this user was distinctly a minor, and gave his/her age along with other identifying information on his/her userpage here. I removed the age information, then ran into two distinct confidentiality/privacy issues here on Wikivoyage.

No confidential way to reach an administrator here[edit]

I had hoped to reach an administrator here to ask him/her to Revision Delete the information that I had deleted from that user's userpage. On many, if not most, Wikimedia projects, requests of that nature are supposed to be made by email or IRC channel, so as not to leave a trail of bread crumbs on-wiki for potential predators to follow. However, I could find no such off-wiki contact point available for Wikivoyage.

It seems to me that something like this should be available. The best way, I imagine, would be for someone to create an email account, whether on a free service or at, that could be monitored by administrators. Another way would be to make sure that all administrators here are reachable by email. Now, I can appreciate how a sysop may not feel s/he ought to need to open his/her email address to just anyone who feels like using it. I don't disagree; the email address I use for this purpose is one I use for almost nothing else. But contributors who want to reach me privately from the wikis where I am sysop (and some others) can do so.

I also understand the point of view that wiki business should be conducted on-wiki. Under most circumstances, that's true. But anyone here who has worked on some other Wikimedia projects knows that there are certain circumstances in which more confidential communications are appropriate.

No particular policy on handling "privacy-breaching, non-public information", especially where minors are involved[edit]

When I reached an administrator on-wiki on the subject, the administrator was reluctant to agree to my revision deletion request, on the grounds that there is no policy here, and apparently no specific overarching policy from Wikimedia in general.

Policies and guidelines do exist on some projects. See, for example:

On those projects, at least, there is wide latitude available to administrators, oversighters and others to remove "privacy-breaching non-public material", especially that of minors. To be sure, in no case is the removal of such information required. At the same time, at least on English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia, removal of such information is strongly encouraged.

In the particular case at hand, the user in question provided a sufficient amount of information so as to make himself/herself an easy potential target for a predator. I would not like to see that happen. So I would simply ask this community to give its administrators some latitude to remove information in order to protect the privacy of a minor—even against the minor's will—if the administrator sees fit.

Thank you for hearing me out. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

First, many of the sysops here have e-mail option activated. I am one. There is no problem to reach a sysop off-wiki if you really want to.
Second, nobody would ever notice this particular contributor and their age, but you draw a lot of attention to this case and mediate something that you seemingly intend to prevent.
Third, your actions look like censorship and imposing certain criteria that may not be relevant outside of your country and culture. It would be best to contact the contributor and check whether disclosing the age is their concious decision. Unsolicited corrections to user pages are highly inappropriate. A few previous instances of such censorship are in fact quite memorable, because they immediately preceeded the migration of Wikivoyage to where it currently is. --Alexander (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggested StevenJ81 that he gets in touch with the user and asks their opinion. It will be most natural if the user decides about the content of their userpage and revision deletions. --Alexander (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have done that.
I would still like to hear what others may have to say about this question, though. I think we should be more protective of our youngest contributors. At very least, I think that we should have the freedom to act promptly, even if we ask the user at the same time what his or her preference is. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It appears meaningful to me to adopt such policies of WP, especially since apparently they have more comprehensively reflected on that issue. It feels irrational to me that such reluctance is shown here. And this reluctance is clearly visible in the above answer of Alexander, the latter two arguments are kind of thin – no hard feelings. Hence, I am in favour of a more pro-active approach and support StevenJ81's view. Ceever (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The links to en-wp did not convince me there is any thought-out policy over there. I think they hint about some feeling there is a problem with young editors, or young editors known to be young, but I did not see what these problems are thought to be or that any real solution to such problems was offered. And nothing says we have the same problems en-wp might have. An adult praying on children would get much more out of his time on fora directed to youngsters than here, so I suppose the problem is mostly theoretical. --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
These seem to be the relevant portions of the links that are working (please be aware that the link you are giving for Simple Wikipedia does not work): (now fixed)

Privacy-breaching non-public material, whether added by yourself or others, may be removed from any page upon request, either by administrators or (unless impractical) by purging from the page history and any logs by oversighters (see requests for oversight).

Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information should be informed of the potential dangers of such disclosure. They should be advised that disclosing personal information is a bad idea and is potentially dangerous. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.

"May be removed upon request"; "may be used in appropriate cases". Hardly definitive. A better case could be made for someone who posts an exact address or telephone number. Name, age and place of residence can be a matter of pride. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that it is worth considering that the needs of users of this site are different from that of Wikipedia. For instance WP has articles about secondary schools, which may raise particular issues with younger editors. It also is much more likely that knowing age in addition to username and edit history would lead a reader to guess at the real world identity of an editor on WP than here. I think that protecting editors from unintended disclosure of contact details is an important issue (maybe Wikivoyage:User page help could be expanded), but I don't think that knowing the age of another editor is a problem. AlasdairW (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for protecting children, but this is not the case for us to hang our hat on. For instance, four times a year my hometown newspaper publishes the full names and grade levels of all the students in my town's elementary, middle and high schools who made Honor Roll for the quarter. That's already far more information for a predator to potentially exploit than what the user at issue revealed about him- or herself. Simply by virtue of Wikimedia values, I think it's imperative that any policy we institute for the protection of children or other vulnerable editors has to be informed by respect for the free exchange of information and the freedom of speech that all our editors, including children, have. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Should we revert any edits to "protect" children from revealing their names on their own user pages? One could argue that hiding this information is disrespectful to the children in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure. If they want to, they can do it themselves. The one child who actualized the issue has been contacted on his/her talk page, which I think is enough. Generally such edits could be reverted at once, if deemed to be obviously unnecessary, but there might be cases where letting personal info remain deleted (and get it revision deleted) is appropriate – phone numbers and other unnecessary detailed contact information might qualify. Until the info is revision deleted one should avoid messages revealing that private info is available. --LPfi (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion and proposal[edit]

In the event, the other user involved was happy to have that information removed, and an administrator has hidden the history (at that user's request) for privacy purposes. All well and good, all within the rules.

It is clear to me after reading the above discussion that on this wiki, as a rule, the users at very least feel that the right to free expression outweighs privacy concerns of this type. So be it. Still, I continue to have concerns as to whether or not we shouldn't, at very least, strongly encourage such users to think again before adding such information. Freedom of expression and privacy are both important overarching issues to keep in mind, but there is also the strong possibility that younger, less mature users may act more on whim or instinct than on principle, at least at first. (So can the rest of us, but we're adults.) So to that end, I would still suggest the following:

  • If the user involved states that s/he is below age 16 (or there is a clear presumption of that, like "I'm in middle school"), then other users may immediately remove that information from the user page.
    If that happens, the user should immediately be asked—by email, if available, or on-wiki otherwise—if s/he wishes the information to be restored. If so, fine: restore it. If not, it can stay removed. (And I think that if the user is that young, and agrees to keep the information removed, then it can be presumed that it should be revdeleted also.)
  • If the user involved is 16 years old and up to majority, it is probably good practice to ask that user the same question. But the information should not be deleted until/unless the person agrees to it.
  • For any user who is a minor, really specific information (phone number, street address) should be handled under "remove first, then ask". Even for users who are adults, it's good practice to encourage them not to put information like that on-wiki, usually.

Personally, I have no problem with people revealing their names on-wiki if they wish to. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Related WMF policies: wmf:Terms_of_Use/en: "[Prohibited activities include]: Soliciting personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18 for an illegal purpose or violating any applicable law regarding the health or well-being of minors." and wmf:Guidelines_for_modifying_CheckUser_logs: "A Wikimedia Foundation employee may modify or delete the logs of CheckUser activity only if there is a legitimate privacy concern. A legitimate privacy concern includes... when information identifying a user as a minor (under 18 years old) is revealed in the CU log." —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the above sounds fine; in fact, I think "really specific information (phone number, street address)" should probably simply be removed and revision-deleted without further ado (a practice which does have precedent on this site). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia sites are not bound by w:Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, but enwiki oversighters generally do remove and oversight any statements that an editor is below 13, on sight. Highly identifying information of a minor (phone number, address) is generally oversighted too. And there are certain things that are oversighted regardless of age (credit card number, passport number... sadly, some people have done it before). --Rschen7754 01:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to indicate my age; let's just say I'm old enough that my credit card number is "IV". K7L (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Columns for references[edit]

18:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This function is totally irrelevant for this wiki as en-WV does not use references and never plans to use them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hobbitschuster: Did you realize that this is a mass message across WMF projects? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I gathered as much, but there is something in there about "notifying if it's not good for our wiki" or something... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Just checking. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It has long been my assumption that this change was largely irrelevant to the English Wikivoyage. However, I've re-checked and found that in the mainspace, this will affect the appearance of the experimental article, Motorcycling#cite_note-1.
It will not affect several other articles that use cite.php's ref tags: Berne#cite_note-1, Dutch_phrasebook#cite_note-.2Fi.e.2F-1, Quetta#cite_note-1, Providencia#cite_note-1, Sagay#cite_note-1, Ratnapura#cite_note-1, La_Redota#cite_note-1.
Outside of the mainspace, ref tags are mostly used sparingly on talk pages, but there are a couple of sandboxes and userpages that will be affected, e.g., User:Vidimian/Hotels in Istanbul and User:Rubyyadav. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

At the Hebrew Wikivoyage the EDIT button next to each listing has never opened the visual interface that lets the users edit all the listings' fields. This hasn't been a big issue until earlier this year when I started to import+translate a massive amount listings from Envoy. Whom would be able to help fix this technical issue on Hebvoy? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to know this as well and how this feature was ever implemented at Wikivoyage. I would like to reproduce it elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Open or Closed Days[edit]

These [edit notes] state: "it probably makes more sense to shows the hours and days something is open, rather than the hours it is open and the days it is closed." but I disagree. As a traveler, I don't want to waste my time trying to figure out that it's closed on Mondays with "Open Tues-Sun". It's much more traveler-friendly to simply say "Closed Mon". It's to the point and doesn't require ANY thinking on my part. And there's no confusion to say "Hours: 9AM-5PM (Closed Mon)." I can't imagine anyone thinking that 9AM-5PM is a listing of closed hours just because we state succinctly the day it's closed. To me, it overcomplicates the straight-forward "closed Mon" to say "Open Tues-Sun" and make me "do the math" to find the missing day. Is that policy or is it something that differs depending on the author? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Me too. Pashley (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the "(Closed Mon)" format is better. When something's only closed one day of the week, or on weekends: The "Open Tues-Sun" format is overkill, it just makes things more confusing. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
WV:tdf does not address the issue directly, but I've been thinking of proposing something there to make it explicit. The one example that provides any guidance is "When combining days with time, put the days first: M–F 10AM–2PM, not 10AM–2PM M–F." Note that it does not suggest using "closed Sa Su" instead of "M-F".
All of our formatting is about the open times. Why make an exception where it is closed one day, but not two, three, etc.? I do not think that "Tu-Su" is more complicated as it tells me when I can go, not when I can't go. Just as we wouldn't say "closed 10PM-7AM". Ground Zero (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
A good rule of thumb to follow is that ttcf supersedes all other policies, and I think a case like this clearly falls into those parameters. I would stop short of establishing a policy that says we must speak in terms of when a place is closed rather than open depending on how many days of the week it's open, etc., but I think it's fine to do so in this case, and to tweak listings appropriately when it makes sense to do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course the traveller must always come first, and that has to be the basis of our policies. In this case, the policy is not clear, which means different people are taking different approaches. Inconsistency only makes Wikivoyage harder to read. No traveller wants to go to a restaurant or a museum when it is closed, so I think that putting the traveller first means telling them when it is open instead of telling them when they can't go and making them do the math to figure out when they can go. So:
Tell the reader what days and hours a place is open.
Instead of:
Tell the reader what days and hours a place is open, unless it is closed one day a week, then tell the reader what day it is closed and what hours it is open.
Ground Zero (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This of course would be especially helpful in cases where a culture has a clearly-defined weekend and a business is closed thru the standard work week. Maybe the standard format for hours but at the end (Closed Mon.)? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Coloured text doesn't meet accessibility standards - I think it may screw up readers, and it certainty causes problems for people with partial colour-blindness. As far as cultures with standard work weeks, then I guess we have to indicate what those work weeks are then identify the exception, or just go with Tu-Su, which seems pretty straightforward. Ground Zero (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Which is why it is not only colored but also strong text. Accessibility just requires that you don't only use color but it doesn't prohibit the use of color. Also, no one is black–red colorblind. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
But will anyone not understand "Tu-Su" when we list opening days and hours? I really fail to see the problem here. Our readers aren't stupid. Do we need to shout at them with colours and boldfacing? Ground Zero (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the bold red text would be too attention-grabbing. I think it would make the information stand out as the most prominent part of each listing when readers are scrolling down the page, but it's really not the most important thing about a POI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The use of colour would be excessive and detract visually from the page. As for black-red colourblind? I have a monochrome laser printer which resembles that remark, and our Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals do hold that the print version matters. On "closed days" in general? Note them if they're scheduled in time slots where the venue would reasonably be expected by the voyager to be open. A bank or credit union being closed on Sunday is too common to be notable, while, for most churches, being closed on Sunday would be exceptional. K7L (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
No colors or boldface, but mentioning what day(s) something is closed is natural and helpful. I see no reason whatsoever to limit it to one day. "Closed Sun-Mon" is a perfectly reasonable statement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not anywhere near as convinced as Ground Zero seems to be that strict consistency from page to page is a vitally important issue, but I suppose that's a discussion for another time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It is why we have a style guide in the first place. If we think it's okay to let a thousand flowers bloom, them we can do away with the style guide, article templates, are other organizational aids. I think that having as much consistency as possible in a cross-border project makes it easier for travellers to find their way around our guide in the spirit of ttcf. Ground Zero (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it as a black-and-white thing. As I see it, the style guide is a set of suggestions or guidelines rather than rules, and is (and should be) intentionally vague to allow writers plenty of room to craft articles that are, to a certain extent, tailored both to their own writing style and what makes sense for the individual destinations. Frankly, I think that hyperstandardizing all of our content into a rigid template could only be detrimental to the project. The last thing we should want to be is a McTravelGuide. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviations for days of the week[edit]

An aside I find interesting is that most people in this discussion are using three-letter abbreviations (or even four), as in "Open Tues-Sun" and "closed Mon", not the one or two-letter format our policy at Wikivoyage:Time_and_date_formats#Days_of_the_week currently mandates.
It has always seemed obvious to me that the three-letter forms are more readable & should be used everywhere. Is it time to re-open discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Time_and_date_formats#Days_of_the_Week? Pashley (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree that using 3 letters for days would make reading easier. Open up a new discussion if you think it is worth the effort. I assume we have few readers still using analog modems. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikivoyage_talk:Time_and_date_formats#Expanded_short_names_for_days_of_the_week. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Understanding of the word "millennial"[edit]

The world millennial has been used to describe something that has existed for at least a thousand years; millennial city, millennial heritage, etc. Today, it is however more frequently used for people born in the 1980s or '90s. Should Wikivoyage still use the word in its original context, or would that be confusing? /Yvwv (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need a dictionary of travel-terms. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of words in English that have two or more meanings. I don't think we need to have our own dictionary. Besides, the obvious name, Wikidictionary, is already taken be a sister project. And Wikivoyagedictionary is too long. People can also look up words at Merriam-Webster's or the Free Dictionary or Oxford Dictionary. We should focus on being a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Or just put a word into a search-engine, that will usually give you a dictionary definition. In most browses: You can double-click a word (to highlight it), right-click it, and the drop-down menu will give you an option to look up the word in a search-engine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Any time anyone reads a word they find ambiguous or confusing in a particular context, they can change it. I'm not sure we need a general site-wide guideline for this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
We need fewer, not more, restrictions on what words we are and aren't "allowed" to use at Wikivoyage. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
What kind of restrictions are there on what words we're allowed to use? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower, if you think we have too many words to avoid, you might want to address that at Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid. I don't think we have too many of those. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think ti should always be clear from context which is meant. However, that said, we have to keep in mind that - at the very least - a significant minority of our readers are non-native speakers. Perhaps more than at Wikipedia. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we need a Simple English Wikivoyage (if there isn't one already) for non-native speakers, like the Simple English Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Millennial is only used in 27 articles including here, with different meanings. Personally I would prefer not to use millennial city, but instead say "1000 year old city", or city "granted city status in 2000" as appropriate. AlasdairW (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think we are stretched thin enough as is. Who would be writing the articles there to begin with? And who would enforce the rules of simple English as opposed to plain old English? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of spreading ourselves too thin, we're now thirteen comments deep in a discussion about when it is and isn't appropriate to use the word "millennial". Do we really not have any bigger fish to fry than to vocabulary-police a word that is used a grand total of 27 times on this site? If you're reading an article and you come across a phrasing that sounds awkward or ambiguous, for heaven's sake just plunge forward, edit it to your taste, and get on with your life. We don't need to build a new policy around every minor copyedit. And we certainly don't need to make it the subject of yet another insufferable longwinded debate. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
True. That said, the question about different language versions might merit debate at some other time and place. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I must say it's confusing to me why having a Simple English Wikivoyage (or a Simple English Wikipedia, for that matter) for non-native speakers would be preferable to simply having them contribute to the Wikivoyage in their native language, many of which are in pretty dire need of improvement. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, that a small wiki is less likely to attract contributors which is kind of a vicious cycle. And there are other reasons besides that to mostly contribute to the English language version and not that of another language. That said, I never quite got the point of simple WP and would not at this point in time advocate a simple English WV. Some users seem also to wish to edit here because there are more people who read the articles here than in their native language. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The Other Site's community collapsed around March; and since then, our Alexa ranking has been closing in on theirs. This community is growing, and the site looks better for every day. Still, we should not hurry to launch a Simple English Wikivoyage. /Yvwv (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A problem with a simple WV is that you need to master a language quite well to write simply and to correct awkward wordings. Thus it cannot rely on non-native speakers. With a decent fluency it is easier to contribute here, and to read one version and contribute to another is complicated. The simple version is viable only if there is a big group of volunteers writing for a group other than themselves (mostly teachers, I'd suppose). You need a really large editor base on the whole for such a subgroup to be big enough. Perhaps you could have a simple sv-wp if you really wanted to, but anything smaller than that has little hope.
That said, I think we can have our lively tone and still be usable for much of those having English as a second language. Just remember that you are writing also for them, and avoid jargon and restrict references to Shakespeare and contemporary lyrics to contexts where they do not hinder understanding the important points.
--LPfi (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(indent) Wikivoyage is already very simple. Places names, opening hours, price, phone number, directions, website... Can't really make them any simpler. Basically the site descriptions and things like "Understand" are where we could get "wordy" but all the most pertinent information is available and easy to navigate even for most people who don't know English at all. I would not recommend giving any consideration to ESL learners/speakers when writing. Most of them can figure out the meaning of something if they're interested, and if they can't, they're more "English students" than "English speakers" and that's not our problem. Avoiding obscure references or location-specific jargon to me isn't for ESL speakers but just common sense practice. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Frankly, I think the more we at the English Wikivoyage go down the road of making concessions to readers of limited English proficiency, the more we enable the continued neglect of the other language versions of Wikivoyage. If we had a Simple English Wikivoyage, that would contribute to the phenomenon even further. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I also oppose the idea of a "Simple English" Wikivoyage and consider it a poor use of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I also oppose having a "Simple English" Wikivoyage. There are only two simple English projects: wikipedia and wiktionary. Both of these can much more usefully cater for children and English learners. However two projects have Simple English main pages: commons and wikispecies. It could be useful for us to have a Simple English main page (and if people want a few (less than ten) travel topics) - this might give us some more traffic from simple WP. AlasdairW (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I do not think we need a Simple English version, or our own dictionary. However, I think we do need to consider second language readers in our writing style. All of it is judgement calls of course, but there are places where, for example, avoiding phrasal verbs & other idioms is possible and would be a good idea. Pashley (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone ever been to an American football game?[edit]

American football is about to be featured on the Main Page in late November. But there's still one thing missing; information about the experience as a spectator at a game. To quote myself from the nominations page: "Is there something else a "newbie" who plans to go see a game should know; how about those stadium amenities and are there perhaps some other fun things than tailgating parties?". As well, per another user's comment at the article's talk page "info regarding how one gets to the stadium and what tends to be available shopping/eating/drinking-wise be incorporated". Overall, it would be great if somebody who actually has ever been to a game could have a look at the article and comment on its nomination. --ϒpsilon (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I've been to several, even had season tickets back in the day. But in Germany, which is really not remotely the same. NFL, not so much, sadly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am working on this tonite. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Here are my edits, which I hope provide some useful context. (Note also that AndreCarrotflower had some fine additions in the middle there, too.) If you think that there's more that I can add, please {{ping}} me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work so far everyone, I just upgraded the article's status to guide. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A relevant Humble Bundle[edit]

Note that proceeds can go to the WMF if you choose them as a charity. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Page banner discussions[edit]

Several page banner discussions are going on. Share your opinions in Talk:Central Asia, Talk:Bangladesh, Talk:Plains (India), Talk:Japan, Talk:Rome, and Talk:Kashrut. /Yvwv (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As well as Talk:South Asia. /Yvwv (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:North Africa, Talk:Mumbai and Talk:Samarkand for some subsequent banner discussions. /Yvwv (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments banner contest[edit]

Dear Colleagues,

similarly to what we have done for Wiki Loves Earth earlier this year, we are now running a banner contest for Wiki Loves Monuments. The banners should depict a recognized cultural monument (which can be a part of a panorama) from a country participating in the contest this year. This blog entry is a good starting point, and the contest rules are summarized here. Banners related to pages where they do not currently exist or are not of a high quality are particularly welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Huge metro systems[edit]

Some years back we had a policy that airports did not get articles. Then we revised it so really big complex ones could & started Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition, devised a template, and so on. There have been problems, but overall that seems to have worked fairly well.

What about large complex metro systems? The one that provokes me to ask is w:Shanghai Metro with 14 lines, 364 stations & around 10 million riders a day. Our current coverage is at Shanghai#Metro_cards and Shanghai#By_metro, both moderately long sections. I'm thinking a separate article might be a good idea. WP has articles on most of the lines, e.g. w:Line 2, Shanghai Metro, and most of the stations. Some are stubs, but most OK. I do not think we need go into massive detail; our article might consist mostly of links to WP.

Getting a good map might be hard. We had one but deleted it when it became horribly out of date some years back & now we just link to the map on the official site. WP has a nice one but it looks out of date to me. Pashley (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

London Underground used to have an article. /Yvwv (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Bay Area public transit has an article. And I don't think either should limit ourselves to just the "metro" component. In cities like Berlin, the S-Bahn is just as important as the U-Bahn. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
There is Trams in Melbourne, although that is more for tram spotters than those wanting to get around. AlasdairW (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Public transit in the Bay Area is really complex—more than 20 different transit systems with different policies and structures that link up to and compete with each other in various ways. With so much information to cover, I guess I can see why it might need its own article. In contrast, the Shanghai metro, while large, is pretty simple to use. My memory from travelling there in 2015 is that once you get the hang of how the cards work, it's pretty much like any other metro system. At first glance, I think the current information in the article plus a good map looks like enough. What other traveller-relevant information would be included in a separate article? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have argued, unsuccessfully, for splitting out some "getting around" information from articles like London, where it seems to make the article unwieldy. Having separate articles on metro systems, however, seems to be duplicating the detailed articles at Wikipedia. Can we not just link to those articles, which will be updated more frequently than can be expected here? And why would we have articles on metro systems, but not light rail and bus systems, which, for some cities are far more important? Ground Zero (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
No matter the size and complexity, there's a fundamental difference between airports and transit systems. wiaa describes the type of airports that get their own articles here as being "the size of small cities", and I think that's key. Like cities unto themselves, airports are places where travellers might stay for lengthy periods of time; where they might be required to provision themselves with food or drink, where they can shop, where they might even find a bed for the night. None of that is true of transit systems. I'm tolerant (though not particularly enthusiastically so) of Bay Area public transit as an exception to this rule for the reasons Granger mentioned above, but in general this is a Pandora's box I'd prefer not to open. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose most metro systems are integrated with other public transport, so these articles might be more useful as Public transit in ... Then again, in most cities with complex metro systems visitors should avoid trying to get around by car, so separate public transit articles should still be read by most visitors. The separation would thus not be very useful, except in cases where the transit system covers an area that does not follow boundaries of our geographic hierarchy. --LPfi (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You can buy plenty of stuff (including food) in public transit systems like the Mexico City Metro... And public transit systems not aligning with "our" geographical boundaries is "all of them" in Germany. There is not a single Verkehrsverbund that aligns with our geographic boundaries. The one that comes closest covers all of Brandenburg and Berlin together under one umbrella. Have a look here for what I mean. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft strategy direction. Version #2[edit]

In 2017, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire Wikimedians. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups discussed and gave feedback[strategy 1][strategy 2][strategy 3]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 4]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

A group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team synthesized this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The second version of the direction is ready. Again, please read, share, and discuss on the talk page on Meta. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize the direction.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A cautionbox for a featured article[edit]

I've just had to add a {{cautionbox}} to Oregon Trail#The Dalles in our current featured travel topic. I realise this was discussed before as a hypothetical "what happens if we feature a city and it gets hit by disaster while it's on the front page" but this is a bit more moderate as it's affecting just the final leg of a lengthy cross-country trip across three time zones. Oregon has been hit by wildfires, something which got missed among all the you have died of dysentery jokes as it happened after the article was already showcased in the FTT slot. K7L (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Downtown Shanghai[edit]

I recently created this in response to discussion at Talk:Shanghai#Oh_what_a_mess.21.

Could it become a destination of the month? I think yes, but probably not without some other contributions. Discussion at Talk:Downtown_Shanghai#Guide.3F_Dotm.3F. Pashley (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It needs a banner & I don't do image stuff. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pashley: Do you like it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes! Pashley (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think Downtown Shanghai would make a fine DotM and it's well on its way. However, the article is woefully underdeveloped past the "Buy" section. "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" should contain something more than just one line apiece directing readers to the district articles. The local specialties of Shanghainese cuisine are already covered in some detail at Shanghai#Eat, but surely we could give folks a general overview as to e.g. where the main dining/nightlife districts within downtown Shanghai are; whether a particular district specializes in a particular type of place; how much one can expect to pay for a hotel room or hostel bunk, and so forth? As well, listings in "See" and "Learn" need to be devolved into the district articles and replaced with generalized overview statements as above, and "Go next" could use expansion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have now fixed some of the issues Andre points out, but maybe not enough. I do not agree that 'listings in "See" and "Learn" need to be devolved into the district articles' since for travellers the downtown area is in effect one big district. It makes sense to split hotels, bars & restaurants into the smaller districts since there are so many & people may need to find one in a convenient location. However, it does not make much sense to me for things that there are few of & that people usually travel to, like tourist sights or schools. Pashley (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you want an exception to usual Wikivoyage structure. Are there other articles where you'd apply a similar setup? On the face of it, I have trouble understanding the idea of listing everything except for sights in given articles, if that's indeed what you're proposing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The stuff in question is all things I moved from the Shanghai article, where it certainly did not belong, into Downtown Shanghai, where I'd say it does. Some of it is also mentioned in district articles & Downtown_Shanghai#See is full of links to those, but I'd say listing things here at overview level is OK too.
I cannot think of another article where I'd want to do exactly this, but I think where to list attractions & whether they deserve mention in higher-level articles is often problematic. One example is Metro_Cebu#See which I wrote versus Cebu_(city)#See which used to have info on several attractions outside Cebu City, and Cebu_Province#See which I think is still a problem, Pashley (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The normal procedure is to have the listings at the lowest level and then mention major sights at the next-higher level. On that basis, it would be normal to put the listings in the district articles and mention them without a listing in Downtown Shanghai. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I've now done that for most of See. To my surprise, quite a few listings did not exist in district articles, so I moved those and did some merging for the others. Pashley (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, in nearly every case where a merge was done, both listings had some useful info but neither had all of it. This looks like a rather strong argument for having only one listing & linking to it elsewhere. Pashley (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I've run out of steam, at least for a few days. This would be a good time for other contributors to jump in, as some already have. Downtown_Shanghai#Parks still needs things moved, perhaps also Downtown_Shanghai#Get_in (though I think not) and Downtown_Shanghai#Learn. Everything needs review. Pashley (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Metric Imperial conversion templates[edit]

Is it right that we currently only have those for distances, not for speed or weights? They might be helpful. Also, is there any way to teach them sig figs? I don't want my "about 100 km" or something of the sort to come out with seven digits behind the comma. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

{{km|100}} produces this result: 100 km (62 mi). Ground Zero (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Added speed, will look at weights later. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Well most of the time "100 km" is rounded to a higher degree than 62 miles is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that any of our readers would be confused by this conversion though. It's not like it's seven digits after the decimal, or something like that. Ground Zero (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is anyone using these instead of just {{convert}} (which sure enough covers volume, speed, area, etc.)? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Because they are more self-explanatory. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
yes it is about less characters, easier to type and clearer to read. Weight now done. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how anyone would be confused by {{convert|100|mi|km}}: if you know even the most basic wiki syntax, that's pretty obvious. Plus it's only a few characters longer ("convert" versus "km") and it means we use one template instead of several dozen--including ones that would presumably be redundant like {{inch}}, {{cm}}, {{mm}}, {{yd}}, {{m}}, {{mi}}, {{km}}, etc... This just all seems like a very bad and wasteful idea. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
And if you don't know basic wiki syntax...? Frankly, I don't understand the point of these templates anyway. It's simple enough to look up a conversion and enter it manually, without needing to worry about the intricacies of template syntax. Powers (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
So we have three different ways of providing conversions -- the "convert" template, their individual templates, and entering them manually. This means that editors can use whichever method works best for them. Sounds like a good, flexible approach. Ground Zero (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ground Zero:, Actually, the obvious solution (which I'm embarrassed to admit I only just now realized), is to have {{km}}, {{inch}}, etc. all just redirect to {{convert}} or act as a wrapper template for it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping someone from inserting "Note that the werewolves are only two miles from the capital region..." rather than "Note that the werewolves are only {{convert|2|mi|km}} from the capital region..." and then someone like you or me can come fix it later. Still a very low barrier to entry and it is definitely helpful to the many millions of readers who don't understand either what a "mile" or a "kilometer" are but do understand the other. This seems like basic ttcf stuff: not everyone knows what a mile is, nor is he always going to have a handy conversion chart, so if someone has a print edition of a Wikivoyage guide (which is one of our stated goals), then being able to have "Note that the werewolves are only two miles (3.22 km) from the capital region..." is presumably very helpful to the traveler. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not debating the advantages of providing conversions. But (ignoring the fact that the conversion templates would, contra our guidelines, make it "2 miles" instead of "two miles") can't we just type "two miles (3 km)"? That's easier for newbies to understand and really no harder than getting the template syntax right. (And keep in mind I'm talking about new editors viewing our wikitext, not necessarily adding it anew.) Powers (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I would think that looking at wikitext here that a template like {{convert}} would be one of the easiest to understand. (Note also that the template can output numbers as words or abbreviations versus spelled-out units, etc.--it is very flexible.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree, I think it's a big help to provide this template. I do like the convert template for it's flexibility, such as being able to show either the abreviation or the full unit. It even seems to have a function to write out the numbers in letter (Template:Convert#Spell_out_numbers:_ten_miles) although that seems to be currently broken. I also think it's quite easy to understand. If I see {{convert|1|lb|kg}} or {{km|2}} I don't think this is hard to understand (as a matter of fact, I think I found out that this is possible after first seeing it somewhere when editing a page). And I also agree that it's okay if a new editor just writes it out without using the template.
Personally if I'm adding information to an article, I'm not going to go to manually add conversions to every unit I add as that's in my opinion not a very good use of the limited time I have to edit. But if takes as little effort as adding one of the templates above, then I (and probably other editors) will be more likely to consistently add conversions. Drat70 (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. If you have to look up conversion charts or formulae to add the conversions it does take time (it also took me quite some time to learn to find them quickly). Although I now know how to translate between °C and °F, I do it manually only when I feel like training my math. The {{C}} & al are simple to use, while the convert template is certainly powerful, but less easy to learn. The only problem with having many such templates is maintenance, namespace pollution and somebody having to make them. Now that they are made I think they harm nobody (as long as the convert template is stable there is probably no maintenance burden). --LPfi (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that I'd want to tie this project to the convert template. It's what the devs call an "overloaded" template, and there's occasionally some talk about dropping support for all of the (few) overloaded templates. I don't know how serious that talk ever is, but it does make me wonder whether spreading the use of that template is such a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You guys have to find a conversion table to convert "two miles" into an approximate number of kilometers? Sure, if we're talking about the height of Mount Everest in feet and meters that's one thing. But splattering our guides with convert templates for small, rough measurements like "two miles" seems excessive. Powers (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's useful for things where it actually matters. If it's "500 metres walk" then I agree, we don't need a conversion but for things such as driving distances, distances for hikes or especially temperatures, I think it might be a good thing to have rather exact conversions. Another thing is that you might overestimate the proportion of people outside the US which know approximate conversions. As those units are mostly only used in the US I don't think there's common knowledge of how much this is. I for one, can approximately convert km to miles (times 1.6) metres to feet (times 0.3), but ask me about gallons, pounds or even Farenheit and I have no idea. Whether this is done by the convert template or the simpler templates doesn't matter in the end, but I think we should have a convenient way of converting these without having to look it up. Drat70 (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
IMO looking it up isn't as difficult as it used to be. In Safari, if you type something like "12 km to miles" where the URL is, then it tells you the conversion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

PDFs, OCG and Electron[edit]

Hey, since Wikivoyages care about PDFs, an update: You can't use OCG to create PDFs after 1 October. This is because of technical problems, and we're not happy about it. You can use Electron instead, which is how most PDFs are created. Electron will get some missing features prior to 1 October. You can create books but the create books functionality will not have all planned features until November or December. You can read more at read more on /Johan (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we’ve discovered we were wrong. In a couple of weeks – October 1 – the function to create PDFs from articles you have added to a book will stop working temporarily because of the technical problems we're having. We’ll work on getting it back up again. We aim to have it up within the next few months, but honestly, this has been forced upon us and it could take longer. We apologise.
Creating PDFs from single articles will work as previously stated. You can follow the work in Phabricator: phab:T150871 and phab:T175853. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Just over Six weeks, possibly less until some of the pre-Halloween October events. If anyone's interested this article could do with some 'seasonal' attention.

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I Will also note that Día de los Muertes is a red link. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It should be Día de Muertos (in Spanish--in English, it's Day of the Dead). —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pondering on adding Fashion as a requested travel topic ...[edit]

Thoughts on adding Fashion as a Travel Topic?

Major destinations would be London, Paris and Milan in Europe I think, but I have a feeling someone would need to go into more depth about what's around and price ranges? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not a subject that I know much about, but a quick search shows 3 fashion museums in England, and w:Fashion week and w:List of fashion events shows that thee are plenty of events. Have you been to any of these events? Is it possible for a traveller to visit without receiving an invitation? AlasdairW (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, certainly can be a travel topic. Assuming the purpose is to travel to experience and/or buy fashion. Have a look at Purchasing a kimono --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Depends, there are some events that are "open", compared to the private shows intended for fashion industry and press.
Yes, it would be a valid topic. Anyone inclined to do the work should plunge forward.
There are lots of possibilities outside Europe, too. I think Shanghai, Mumbai and New York City are the main fashion centers for their respective countries; I'm not sure to what extent that should be covered in city articles & linked from Fashion vs. covered in Fashion, or what the center(s?) would be for other places.
Shanghai#Clothing covers some shopping options. Hong Kong and Singapore are famous for good cheap tailors. Montreal and Russia have furs, Inner Mongolia has cashmere/pashmina and down products, etc. I'm not sure where to find good leather. Pashley (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
For a starter, write a new section of the clothes article. /Yvwv (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
My only experience with fashion week was having to pay €500 a night for a hotel room in Milan. So a guess date a useful even for those not interested in the topic. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Well there would be a split between Clothes for practicality, and Fashion for fashions state.

Museum wise, two locations I can think of right away would be the Costume gallery in the Victoria and Albert Museum (South Kensington, London), and the costume musuem in Bath, which may already be mentioned in their respective articles. I am not the person to write a stub as I don't know enough, hence I was going to add it to requested travel topics. I will do so in the next few days. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Museum has a big, excellent fashion wing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Paris has la Cité de la Mode et du Design. Seems to be event-based, rather than permanent exhibitions, but still lots going on at all times. There is of course also the new incarnation of the Design Museum in London, which has fashion as one of its focuses. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Musée de la Mode de la Ville de Paris - no permanent collection, but regular exhibitions.
Musée des Arts Décoratifs - looks like the V&A in that it has a mixture of art, interior design and wearable fashion. One of the current exhibitions celebrates 50 years of Christian Dior. The same Google search "musée de la Mode" returned dozens of results in various cities. Apparently fashion is a big deal in the Francophone world, who knew? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Toronto has the Bata Shoe Museum. Pashley (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Düsseldorf is also known for fashion. Or something about Königsallee or something... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad news for sleeper trains in Europe, yet again...[edit] I think they are mentioned in a few city articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Press for the WV app[edit]

In the Irish Times :-) Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice to be in the press, but it's a pity they make "Wiki Voyage" out to only be a public transport advice app. On the other hand, transport is clearly something we're doing right and that is getting noticed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File Spam[edit]

Can we please do something about the people spam-uploading files here? Maybe some minimum number of edits before you can locally upload a file? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the spam an actual upload, or is this someone merely editing the image description page and writing gibberish on it? K7L (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
K7L, I assume Hobbitschuster is talking about the persistent problem we've had of users uploading pirated movies and music files to Wikivoyage. This is a problem that's apparently been cropping up all over the WMF. There's a simple solution to this problem - disabling uploads of all but static image files, which are already disallowed per policy - and it boggles my mind why it hasn't been instituted yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that User:CKoerner (WMF) knows who can do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all! There'a few things at play here. I hope to give a few links to explain what is being done in general with regards to illicit file uploads and what I need from you all to stem the tide here at English Wikivoyage. First, this is a known issue and is being worked on elsewhere in the movement. Here is the most useful task I can point interested folks to. There's work going on to address related concerns like files not being purged after deletion. If you see issues like this, please leave a note here or in Phabiricator so folks are aware.
Two questions I have for you all. What are the file formats we wish to prevent? Do we have community consensus to block these uploads? (I think we would, but I need ya'll to say so!) I created a task to track this work. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikivoyage:Image policy#Image formats and #Other media, the only file formats that should ever be hosted locally are JPEG, PNG, and SVG. All other files should be blocked, and I would think that the fact that we have a preexisting policy already in place that says files of other formats don't belong here is functionally equivalent to consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Andre here; all formats except those we use for images should be blocked.
Beyond that, I'm inclined to think we should restrict uploads even in those formats somewhat. No anon uploads, only logged in users? Only autopatrolled users? Only admins? Even just disable file upload completely, force everything to Commons? Either of the first two would be fine with me, with a mild preference for the second unless it is hard to do. I suspect the last two would cause problems. Pashley (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Files should always be uploaded to commons unless you have a very good reason for uploading it here instead. In some case photos need to be uploaded locally for copyright reasons, also if we discuss problems and upload screenshots, it is better to upload them locally. But I can't understand why we should let people upload audio and video as this kind of media isn't allowed in our guides in the first place? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikivoyage_talk:Vandalism_in_progress#Prevent_video_uploads.2C_maybe_images_under_certain_conditions --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah ha! It looks like there is an abuse filter for media file uploads. I can't see the contents of the filter. Andrewssi2 could you please let us know if this address the concerns folks have mentioned here? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Evidently the filter is not effective, as just a few hours ago User:Ikan Kekek had to manually delete another boatload of files in one of the formats ostensibly covered by the filter. Frankly, rather than relying on an abuse filter that, even if it were effective, could be subverted easily enough by simply switching to different file formats that the filter doesn't cover, it seems a lot simpler to just limit uploads across the board to the three aforementioned approved formats. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, can we please do that? This file-upload spam is annoying. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe that I have fixed it (I tried uploading some open source offending file types, and they are not getting through.
Frankly the easiest way to fix this is just to edit Special:Upload to prevent these uploads. It is not right that we have a page that explicitly permits .ogg files to be uploaded (and actually states that clearly) and then have to prevent said .ogg file in the abuse filter. Any idea who to talk to for this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
No, a special page (like Special:Upload) cannot be "edited" as if it were content. There is a setting in mw:manual:LocalSettings.php on the servers that can specify which file types are accepted, but that's not part of the wiki content. Our users don't have access to change this; WMF might be able to do so on consensus if a phabricator ticket were opened. The actual boilerplate text displayed on the special pages sometimes is in the Mediawiki: namespace (as these "canned" strings need to be translated into multiple languages for localisation) but editing those wouldn't change the functionality. The abuse filter might be the path of least resistance? K7L (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The abuse filter is certainly the easiest way, and it is not like Special:Upload gets a lot of use anyhow. Just don't like seeing functionality broken in this way. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Chris filed a Phab task for it, and I just leaned a little on it.  ;-)
You don't need abuse filters. The devs will happily do this for you. What they usually want is a sort of quick "All in favor of the Wikivoyage:Image policy, say 'aye', and all in favor of copyright-violating spammers, speak now, or forever hold your peace" thing. They've gotten burned a couple of times by a person asserting, "The community says X" when the local community said no such thing, so they usually want a link to a discussion, so that if there are objections later, they can say, "But it looked like there was a consensus..."
So: "All in favor of the image policy?"
You can put me down as supporting this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Aye. But maybe it would be clearest to have a separate subthread just for votes, for the sake of clarity?Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to make this easier to point to (I doubt the developers would want to read all the thread above) I have created : Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Proposal_to_change_Special:Upload_page Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing . We have our voting recorded here : Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Proposal_to_change_Special:Upload_page - can you please take this forward for implementation? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the link. (Anyone who's interested should feel free to add your name, too.)
The next step is waiting for an interested dev. I don't know how long it will take: maybe as early as next week if the right person has some time on his/her hands, but could be a couple of months, too. Any volunteer who knows how to write the necessary patch is welcome to submit it: it's not just something that paid staff are allowed to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I found an interested dev! The wonderful Matma Rex has submitted a patch and it should go live on Monday. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Matma Rex, CKoerner (WMF) & WhatamIdoing ! Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This is done now. Matma Rex (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Matma Rex. That is going to save us a great deal of trouble now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dorint Hotels[edit]

So there is a user who freely admits to working for the hotel chain mentioned in the headline and who has created or edited a lot of listings for them in recent times. He's not spamming or touting as such, but he's still a bit too eager about mentioning the location and whatnot of the hotels. WHat say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the edits? I don't think we can fairly discuss him without seeing the edit history. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Contributions/Discotizer. Is I think fine but as Hobbitschuster points out some of the descriptions are close to the limit and occasionally require editing. Have pointed the user to the appropriate policies. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Traveler. The guy seems co-operative so far and willing to take your advice on board. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
We have a sorta-kinda policy for chain restaurants (WV:Boring) do we have or should we have one for chain hotels? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

On another note, I think the hotel listed in Bitburg is quite somewhere else if the geo coordinates are right. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bitburg hotel is 11km from the town centre, which I have added to the listing, but we don't have any nearer destinations. In general I don't think that we should have a policy against chain hotels. If there are several chain places to eat, it is enough to know that there are several, and I can easily find one when I arrive. However hotels are normally booked in advance, so I want to know before I arrive. If there are too many hotels (much more than 10) listed then the chains can be the first to go. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlike with restaurants, contact information and price ranges are essential data for accommodations. And even within a chain, quality and amenities can vary widely. Powers (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Travelling with a mental health condition[edit]

Fellow Wikivoyagers,

Noting a dearth of information on mental health-related travel advice at Wikivoyage, I have plunged forward and started this travel topic article. While it's certainly a sensitive issue, hopefully you'll agree that it's sufficiently travel-related to be helpful to our readers. For source material, I used a mixture of online resources such as this page (and indeed the odd sentence or expression might be identical to the source - sorry if these have been missed), as well as reflecting on my own experiences with mental ill health while travelling and trying to write advice that my younger self or people in similar situations would find useful.

While I have taken the liberty of giving the article usable status, please note this is the first travel topic article I have started, so forgive any formatting or style issues, should they exist and by all means downgrade to outline if that would be more accurate. I also hope none of the content is offensive or otherwise inappropriate to WV, although of course I have not written anything I believed was either of those things.

As the article has now been moved out of my sandbox into mainspace, all edits and comments from the community are encouraged. In particular, there are no images at present and just a boring old default banner.

Thanks for reading and happy Friday,

--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I salute you for starting the article. At some point in the future, we may eventually want to split the article, because there are so many different mental conditions with radically different symptoms, but let's see how things go with this article, first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that. Splitting had occurred to me too, which is one of the reasons why I avoided naming any conditions in the article. Personally, I don't think we should get too technical, as this is after all a travel guide, not the DSM-V. We should tread very carefully with naming and advising on specific disorders, as we don't know who's reading and what they might do with a bit of bad 'advice' written by a team of travel writers pretending to be psychiatrists. Hope that seems logical; I'm quite tired. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Should similar articles be considered for other health conditions - ie. Handicapped or Diabetes etc. -- Matroc (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this. I realise that this is a difficult topic to write about. For medical topics I think that we should provide some links to "official advice", such as the NHS site listed above, IAMAT mental health whitepaprers or this FCO site (in these topics having references might be appropriate, but that is not our style).

Should Wrh2Bot remove "dead link" templates?[edit]

User:Wrh2 has started running Wrh2Bot again to tag new dead links, and I'm sure I speak for everyone in saying this work is much appreciated. I have a concern, though, which is that the bot removes the "dead link" templates from links if they no longer appear to be dead. Apparently this is to address the case where a website is temporarily down but later comes back online, but the problem is that often these links go to domain squatters, as in Charlotte and Barbuda. I think it would be better for the bot to leave the templates there for human review rather than removing them. What do other people think? Past discussions: 1, 2, 3. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, as that exact thing happened on one of the Buffalo district articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a 3rd option, one that might get us the best of both worlds. Add a parameter to the template, so that the bot can say "I don't know if the site's back up, or if a squatter took it". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a very useful bot for keeping this site up to date. Also agree that it should not remove the template automatically if link works on second test. I have also come across a good number of domain squatters on testing. Either do not remove or if not too much effort a separate parameter or category. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wrh2: Ryan, understand you want to take a break from WV (although you are being missed). Would it be possible to make the code available on the site (in your user area maybe) and some instructions on how it should be run? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Marker or listing for Airports[edit]

Hi all,

In the last days and weeks, there have been systematic edits regarding airports in "Get in" sections, converting marker templates used in text paragraphs to listings. A few examples are: Malmö, Edinburgh, Hamburg. I contacted the person who made these edits and he/she pointed to the following policy that he/she is following: Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Small and medium sized airports.

I think this policy/these changes are not ideal, since they randomly separate text about the airport into two parts - the text that is part of the listing, and the text that is not. Listings so far were self-contained, which means all the information regarding the listed item were mentioned in that listing. In my view, using the marker template (how it was done until now) makes more sense (its documentation states that it is intended to be used in text paragraphs) and also looks more appealing. However, if people insist on the above policy, then a clear definition of what exactly belongs into the "content" parameter of an airport listing should be agreed on and added to the above page. I currently don't see any advantages in making these changes, but maybe someone has some good arguments in favour. Thanks for your input. Xsobev (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, policy shouldn't make a blanket preference of one over the other. Like most things on this site, the question of what works best for each individual article is what should take ultimate precedence. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The word policy gives the impression that it is written in stone, if you think a page can be written better then change the text. For information, what I am trying to do is highlight the key text and city article for small and mid-sized airports that do not (and probalby will never) have their own page. On the city page for that airport I have made it a listing, in some case added more information in other hoping others will expand. On other pages that reference the airport I am keeping as simple text or a marker with the {{IATA}} template so that it links to the main article section on the airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for your replies. I think it is important to have a set of clearly defined guidelines (maybe "policy" was the wrong word to choose) that people can follow, when they edit a part of Wikivoyage. Traveler100, you mentioned consistency as one reason for your edits in our discussion earlier, which I agree is important for the traveler, and generally agreed guidelines help improving consistency. (I don't say that these guidelines cannot be ignored if there is a valid reason for it.) Also, I didn't just want to go ahead and change the text in Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Small and medium sized airports without having a discussion about it. I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I want to know what the best practices are to edit parts of Wikivoyage -- it only creates extra work if I enter information in a specific format, and someone else has to go and change it to something else. Xsobev (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there should be listings, but we should not overly separate and spread out the information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see a general tendency towards using the listing template. Most of the parameters in the listing are obvious, but what should the "content" parameter contain?:
  • nothing (always leave it empty and have all the content about the airport immediately following the airport listing)
  • everything (airlines flying to the airport, facilities at the airport such as Wi-Fi, ground transportation to the city center, historic information, ...)
  • parts of the text describing the airport (but what exactly?)
Also, what should go into the "directions" parameter? Putting ground transportation in there is clearly not a good idea, since it usually is quite a lot of information. Adding the location of the airport (north-east) and distance to the city center would be an option.
Should a bullet point be used or not? (I would say not, since it integrates more nicely with the rest of the text if content about the airport follows outside of the listing).
On a related note: It would be great if the IATA code would also be shown (in addition to the full name) on the dynamic maps, when clicking on the airport listing. Xsobev (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The brainless saga of Berlin Airports, part infinity[edit]

So as you may or may not know, the long awaited political earthquake that was German elections took place on Sunday. On that same day, there also was a referendum on whether to keep open Tegel airport. Now for background: I bought a plane ticket in 2012 that already had an airport listed as the destination that does not yet exist (instead I flew to Tegel) and the mayor of Berlin was Eberhard Diepgen, the chancellor of Germany was Helmut Kohl and the guy in charge of Brandenburg was godknowswho, when all those people and a few others agreed on the following: Berlin gets a new airport. All remaining airports shut down at the latest half a year after the new airport opens. Until this new airport opens, there are to be no major investments in airports that will be shut down regardless. Now the FDP (if you're American, think Libertarians) has been struggling and together with Ryanair and car rental companies, they launched a collection of signatures to put a measure on the ballot "urging" the government of Berlin to "do whatever it takes" to keep Tegel open even way beyond its best before date. Of course Berlin cannot unilaterally go against what was agreed two decades ago by three different governments, the current mayor of Berlin thinks keeping Tegel open is a phenomenally stupid idea, and keeping Tegel open requires major state money to be spent - which should be anathema for the tax-cut party that is FDP. At any rate, roughly 55% of those voting in Berlin voted for the whatever it is that it actually says, and now the city government is officially bound to abide by the non binding text of the ballot measure that does not even propose a law of any kind. The travel related bottom line is likely to be, that Berlin will continue to have two airports for some time. Maybe even after BER (the new airport) opens. Or not. Who on earth knows? There'll likely be court cases. And in court and on the high seas, Zeus only knows what will happen. The outgoing (federal elections, remember) minister of transportation said days before the vote that "he could imagine" Tegel remaining open, but he has already taken on a job within his party caucus, which is next to never held concurrently with one in cabinet. Nobody knows what will happen next, but given the traffic figures and the somewhat unique design of Tegel, do we at long last need an airport article on it? Even in the face of it possibly shutting down anyway? Or even being forced to shut down before BER opens (which would be some glorious historic irony)? What would we do with the article were Tegel to shut down? At any rate, I tried to do the developing slow motion train wreck (or rather plane crash) justice on the Berlin page, but my obvious bias may have seeped through. If you have questions, I probably know more about the subject than I would like to... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Tegel or BER of much importance for travellers? Everyone I know (all North Americans or people employed in Asia) who wanted to visit Germany flew to either Amsterdam or Frankfurt. Is it different from within Europe? Did I just miss a possibility? Pashley (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Berlin is unique in being an important international capital city without a significant international airport (owing mostly to the division of the country during the GDR years and the gravity of Frankfurt being the gateway to Germany).
Fixing the Berlin airport situation seems both important and very problematic, but ultimately the background isn't important for travelers to Berlin. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The situation with an important capital with a comparatively insignificant airport is not that unique (think Canberra and Ottawa). We need to keep the article up to date, there's not much else we can do. If TXL shuts down and you can't fly to Berlin, we need to put in a caution box that travelers have to fly to Frankfurt, Hamburg, Munich or some of the small budget airline airports in northern Germany. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
But in all the other cases of an important country with second class airports in its capital (to which South Africa might be added, where Pretoria is not exactly home to the biggest airport), the capital is actually a fairly "minor" city by comparison. Berlin is the biggest city and if we were to judge by metro areas, Ruhr does not exactly contain a major airport, either. That said, Air Berlin (which is now bankrupt and in the process of godknowswhat) did have a fairly extensive network through Tegel, which they intended to move to BER (said move not having occurred being among the cited reasons for the bankruptcy). TXL as of 2016 figures has roughly above 20 million pax per annum. A third of FRA, but certainly in the range of some airports for which WV does have articles. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Düsseldorf has a massive airport and is close to the Ruhr, so there's probably little motivation to build any large airport in the Ruhr region proper. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Frankfurt Airport isn't too far away, either. Overall, Germany has too many airports (especially too many small town airports that think two flights a week to Antalya are worth millions in subsidies), but I digress. At any rate, should we create an article on Berlin Tegel Airport? And if so, what should be done if and when it shuts down? I think we should create and article on the BER if (when?) it opens, though... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure Tegel needs an article. It's really quite simple to go through security there, it's a smallish airport that's easy to walk around and understand, and I'm unsure transportation to Berlin can't just be dealt with in the Berlin article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I flew to Tegal once (from Munich), and have to say an interesting airport. Not sure it merits an Airport article though. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Advanced search tools for editors[edit]

Hi! I am wondering whether there is, or whether someone could create, a multivariable search function on wikivoyage. In essence, what I want to do is to generate a list of articles by status, breadcrumbed within a certain region, listed by number of page view hits. For example I would like a list of outline articles in Sweden by number of hits. This would make it much easier to see which pages travellers actually use, and to concentrate editing to these pages which are both frequently visited and have potential for easy improvement. Thanks in advance! MartinJacobson (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

w:project:PetScan might be worth a look. K7L (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

MartinJacobson - which of these options interests you most...
1. The most popular tourist locations within Sweden according to the English Wikivoyage readers ?


2. The most popular locations within Sweden according to the Swedish Wikipedia readers ?


3. The most popular locations worldwide according to the Swedish Wikipedia readers ?

Another question... Do you plan to use this information to decide which articles on the English Wikivoyage you plan on significantly expanding/improving ... or to decide which articles on the Swedish Wikivoyage you plan on significantly expanding/improving?

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would add that if you are most interested in seeing which articles about Swedish tourist destinations are of most interest to international+domestic travelers for the purpose of expanding articles on the Swedish Wikivoyage, my best recommendation would be the second choice ("The most popular locations within Sweden according to the Swedish Wikipedia readers") since the Swedish travelers are more likely to actually know which locations are the most interesting ones. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if you need any help with that. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
First, thank you K7L! w:project:PetScan gave me article status and region (and page size), but I couldn't find any pageview statistics in PetScan. I was however able to manually cross PetScan with pageview counter. Secondly ויקיג'אנקי, I am interested in improving the English Wikivoyage. (As most Swedes read English domestic travellers are served just as well by an English guide, while few international travellers will be able to use a Swedish guide).MartinJacobson (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
MartinJacobson - Okay... just to double check - you are only interested in seeing what the most popular tourist destinations within Sweden are according to the English Wikivoyage readers, right? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
ויקיג'אנקי This far I have mainly edited Swedish destinations, but that not out of principle but rather out of convenience and comparative language skill (most editors can research in English while fewer can do so in Swedish). I would be just as glad to update and improve the most frequently visited (outline) articles world-wide if I could find relevant information about those destinations. MartinJacobson (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I ended up creating three different lists for Martin. Anyone interested in seeing them (You might find the outline articles list especially useful/interesting) can find them here. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much ויקיג'אנקי! This will be very helpful! MartinJacobson (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Hindi edition of Wikivoyage was launched a couple of days ago![edit]

Just wanted to mention, since it hasn't been mentioned here so far, that the Hindi edition of Wikivoyage was launched on September 25th. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hindi & Urdu are pretty much the same as spoken languages but written utterly differently, with a Sanskrit-derived alphabet for Hindi & Arabic/Persian for Urdu. Is there any reasonable, preferably automatic, way to translate between the written forms?
Really good translation software might give us an Urdu edition of WV free. Anything reasonable might be helpful to anyone wanting to start an Urdu edition, & by allowing Urdu speakers to contribute might improve the Hindi edition as well. Pashley (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations on the start of the Hindi site, and Godspeed to all who are editing there! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Pashley, translating or transliterating the content across Hindi and Urdu might not be feasible. In addition to script, the technical words of Hindi and Urdu are different, coming from Sanskrit and Arabic/Persian respectively. While it shouldn't in principle affect a travel guide that much compared to say, an encyclopedia, I've noticed the technical words have started to creep in. The name of the site is "Wiki Yatra" while the word used in Urdu (or in informal spoken Hindi) for "journey" or "travel" would be Wiki Safar. To an extent, yatra sounds a bit like "voyage", not as natural to say as travel. Anyway, hope these words are kept to a minimum so moving content makes more sense (in the real word in the cities at least, English technical words are becoming increasingly common). Gizza (roam) 02:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Pagebanner syncing to Wikidata[edit]

Having uploaded several hundred pagebanners over the past month, I've come to wonder why none of my banners are getting automatically synced to the Wikidata listings for the pages. I think this is a missed opportunity, not for enWikivoyage per se, but for all other-language Wikivoyages using pagebanners. I know that the template fetches the banner from Wikidata if no image has been specified in the template (i.e.: {{pagebanner}} instead of {{pagebanner|Pagebanner default.jpg}}), but I am not sure if there is a bot or whatever dedicated to syncing the banners to Wikidata. This leaves me with the following questions:

  • Is there any means of having the pagebanners automatically synced to Wikidata? The only thing I can see this depending on is my naming of banners (-Wikivoyage Banner while -banner is advertised as the correct way to name them), but I doubt that that's the case.
  • If the answer to the question above is no, then shouldn't there be? Many other-language Wikivoyages do not use a preset banner image in the template (File:Pagebanner default.jpg is what we automatically insert into the template when using the quick copy/paste templates). They instead choose to fetch them from Wikidata if one is available. We are significantly ahead of many other-language Wikivoyages, and they can benefit from our banners. Only problem is that we don't let them yet and have their editors go through the manual task of checking the English version for a banner instead. Wouldn't it be better for all if we would sync the banners we've made and implemented to Wikidata?

-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but I found Wikidata rather problematic for banners. We go through enough drama sometimes discussing a banner change, and having 'stealth' changes through Wikidata would not go down well. I don't support forcing us to move our banners to Wikidata. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that was not what Wauteurz suggested, rather that banners would be added to Wikidata automatically (when inserted in an article or when uploaded to Commons). That would make the banner appear automatically in those projects fetching their banners from Wikidata by default. It would not affect us. A bot could easily do that (I do not know whether there is such a bot now), perhaps checking the banner has been at least a week on en-wv to guard against vandalism. Fetching the link from Commons is more difficult, as the coupling between banner and article is not always obvious, at least not for a bot, and I think fewer people monitor the categories on Common for inappropriate images (those monitoring last changes there worry about copyvios and out-of-scope files, not about the appropriateness for a certain use). --LPfi (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: I do not want our banners to be fetched from Wikidata. Instead I'd like for our banners to be synced to Wikidata, meaning that syncing only goes one way: If we have a banner image set, then the Wikidata listing will get that same image in the Wikivoyage banner parameter. We, meaning enWikivoyage, will not be affected. LPfi brings up an aspect of this that I hadn't taken into consideration yet, namely vandalism. I would agree with them that several days after the change of the banner image, it can get synced to Wikidata, as a week or so is plenty of time for the banner image to be verified as non-vandalism (I honestly think that 24 or 48 hours is plenty already, as the change will be well out of sight on Special:RecentChanges).
I see two ways of achieving syncing of banners via bots, namely one where we check edits to Template:pagebanner here, set that change aside, and check back some time later to see if it has been changed again, if not, then the image can get linked in Wikidata. The other option involves reading the file usage paragraph on Commons some time after the file's creation or checking all banners in Commons' Wikivoyage banners of~-categories for changed file usage, then checking when the banner was last edited on enWikivoyage, and if that's been longer ago than x days, then the bot can link the image to Wikidata. The latter option however, involves three Wikimedia projects (enWV, Data and Commons) instead of two (enWV and Data), making the first way of tackling this seem the more obvious way.
Again, I doubt a bot for this purpose exists at this point in time, as I have yet to have come across a banner linked in Wikidata that hasn't been added manually. Also, if anything, I want this to not have an effect on our pagebanners. Template:pagebanner might check Wikidata listings, but by adding File:Pagebanner default.jpg as the default specified image as we are doing already and blacklisting the default banners for the bot to sync, I think we can overcome any problems here from occurring.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a day is probably enough. The prime problem that I see is how the bot will find the edits to {{pagebanner}} without checking all edits. If there is no good method, then it would perhaps be better to use database dumps instead of querying the servers. That would mean quite some delay. How often are new dumps published? Another method is for the template to have a hidden category, which the bot can check. There may be still other methods. --LPfi (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't answer anything about database dumps, but I can point at Category:Has default banner and Category:Has custom banner. Using them we can make a list of pages having a default banner at one point in time, and having a custom banner the next time they're checked (say, for instance weekly or bi-weekly) is only a partial solution as you're not capturing changes such as Custom_banner_01.jpg to Custom_banner_02.jpg. Instead, we might be fine with just checking the edit notes. Checking edits alone can filter edits to paragraphs (as pagebanners are only ever used outside of page paragraphs at the top line of the article) and edits to other namespaces that are not of interest. The edit notes, furthermore, can be filtered for words such as "banner" and "pagebanner" to create an overview of "Banner-related changes". This does require all edits to banners to have an edit note attached. We can't guarantee that, but we can still resort to database dumps every time they roll around, even if that happens every three months or every year.
Either way, my knowledge of bots is quite limited, so I'll tag the only person I know on here that does - Ryan, if you'd be so kind as to give some technical insight as well as your view on this, then please be my guest :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
We have Category:Banner missing from Wikidata, but for some reason I can't post an internal link to it - see [1]. This has 1,184 members, which shows that it is a while since the bot was run. AlasdairW (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: If I understand correctly, you're saying that the bot I am looking for does exist, but hasn't been run for some time? If so, who would I need to get in touch with to have it put back into action?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know the details of the bot, but have a look at the very bottom of Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. AlasdairW (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I remember, User:Syced operated the bot. --Alexander (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Alexander and AlasdairW. I've found one reference to the banner bot on Syced's talk page, but he never replied to it. I'll get in touch with d:User:Kizar, who has ran the bot linked at the Banner Expedition before. I'll check with him whether the bot can be ran somewhat more regularly.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
One obvious disadvantage of the one-side synchronization is that English Wikivoyage does not receive any updates on page banners and often uses mediocre banners when much better options are available. This is the case for many of the Russian and Eastern European regions, where lots of high-quality banners have been uploaded in the last 3 years. Compare, for example, Ulyanovsk Oblast with ru:Ульяновская область, and Krasnoyarsk Krai with ru:Красноярский край, not to mention Crimea and ru:Крым. --Alexander (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
If the bot is used just to add banners on wikidata where none is referenced from before, it will not have any such drawbacks that I can think of. Updating the entry with better banners is much more convoluted, and probably requires manual action, at least (there are other problematic cases) if the existing entry was not that which was replaced on en-wv.
For updates, that is a separate question. People with interest in some specific article might want to look at banners, illustrations and content in articles in other languages, especially the one in the native language of the region. It would be helpful with some mechanism notifying (on the articles talk page?) about banner changes on Wikivoyage and Wikidata, new articles on the subject (destination) appearing in other languages or such articles being significantly expanded. May be a general mechanism could be introduced, but a bot could handle much of this.
--LPfi (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Since Template:Pagebanner already fetches a banner from Wikidata, it wouldn't be much of a hassle to get it (the template) to add the banner to a category such as Category:Banner not equal to Wikidata. If we get that going in all other-language instances of that template, then we can compare the outcome of those categories to see which pages have other banners than specified in Wikidata, as well as see which other-language instances of the article have different banners. Ideally we'd get a recurring bot to compare these categories and produce a list of Different pagebanner articles in one of it's userpages. At that point, people could browse through that list and compare the banners, pick their favorite and edit them manually (or in someway notify the bot of their preference and have it change it universally, but that seems somewhat too tedious). I haven't got a clue as to how realistic this solution is, but it's a solution.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
We already have category:banner missing from Wikidata. Do we need another category for basically the same task? K7L (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@K7L: I am well aware of that category's existence. The category I posed above however, collects the pages that have a different banner than is listed in the Wikidata listing, whereas missing from Wikidata reports the pages that have no banner image specified in the Wikidata entry. I'll most likely make a list of what I would want from a bot should a new one be created.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a new bot?[edit]

After some digging around I found that d:User:Kizar, who controls the bot, is rather inactive [2] [3]. Seen as how the bot responsible for the banners does not seem to be open source, isn't this a good time to gather what we would want out of a bot for this purpose should we want a new one, and possibly request a new one that is open source and can be activated by multiple users to ensure that the bot stays accessible?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I contacted Kizar but indeed s/he is even more inactive than in 2015 it seems. I also tried to do it myself using HarvestTemplates but my query does not make the difference between generic banners and custom ones so it is not usable. Requesting a bot is a good idea. Syced (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

New bot proposal[edit]

As announced, I have made a rough list of what I look for should a new bot be requested. I don't mind being the person that ends up stepping forward and actually request the bot to be created, but I do wish to have some feedback on whether or not my view on this is shared by all of us.

The bot requires several core functions, sorted below by importance:

  1. Synchronise en-Wikivoyage banners of articles to the associated Wikidata listings in the page banner-parameter (P948) where that isn't the case yet (i.e., sync the pages in Category:Banner missing from Wikidata to Wikidata).
    • We only want the banner to be synced if the addition or change of the banner has been done more than 48 hours before the check. If not, add the article to Category:Articles with recently changed banners and have the bot come back to these first as soon as it gets restarted for another go.
  2. Check the pagebanners on en-Wikivoyage articles with what is specified in the associated Wikidata's parameter (P948). Should the two differ, then update the Wikidata listing, should the banner have been changed >48 hours before the check.
    • Again, we'd like to have the opportunity to verify. Therefore, if the time between change and check is less than 48 hours, add the article to Category:Articles with different banners than Wikidata. Once again, should the bot be done and be set back to work, it will first check that category, verify that all is good, do what it must and go on as usual.
  3. Find articles that have different banners on other-language Wikivoyage articles, and add these to Category:Articles with different pagebanners elsewhere. After this, manual review can be done to determine which of the banners is better for the article on ENWikivoyage.

The points listed above should only be done when initiated by a user that has been whitelisted to do so. Note that multiple people must be able to operate the bot, though not at the same time per se. Features 1 and 2 I recon can best be done simultaneously as it is calling the same pages in both tasks. I recon the bot can have an internal whitelist of who can initiate it and I plan to use that so that the bot doesn't fall into a limbo of non-usage, leaving the categories it is responsible for unattended without anyone being able to do something about it without doing the manual tasks themselves, as is the case now (October 2017). My general line of thought here is that the bot should always be able to be controlled by at least one active user.

Debatable points:

  • Should pagebanners get added immediately if the user is an Autopatroller or above? I think the best means of measure here is to check if the edit to the banner has been marked as patrolled. I'd like to make this a feature as to not crowd the categories (they probably will see very few members either way) should traffic and participation on Wikivoyage rise in the future. See this feature as a means of future-proofing. Autopatroller and above seems a good rule of thumb as they "are less likely to need help with formatting and following policies", as stated on the description page for the user group.
  • Is adding categories for the articles that turn out to have be created less than 48 hours before the bot checks the article a good measure to take? Should we rather have the bot leave the page alone if the article qualifies as recently edited?

Once more, please verify this view on how a new bot should work according to me. I would like for all involved to support the addition of it once the bot's creation gets requested. -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree - I do not think wikidata should override code on Wikivoyage. If there is no banner on the Wikivoyage page and is one on Wikidata then yes good idea, but if there is a different one on Wikivoyager than that named on Wikidata there could be a good reason for it. Such changes should be manual and maybe after discussion in the talk page. If there is a banner on WIkivoyage and non mentioned on Wikidata then that would also be OK to automate. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Traveler100: I might be mistaken, but I can't find any point in which I mentioned that a Wikivoyage article banner will be overwritten based on Wikidata parameters, and neither do I intend to make that a feature. Can you tell me what let you to believe that that is a goal I wish to achieve with a new bot? What I did say, however, is that if Wikidata and Wikivoyage should have different banner images specified, then the bot should overwrite the image specified in Wikidata.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I programmer reading $1 will synchronize the data. It does not state "only when default is current recent Wikivoyage value. Computers do what you say not what you mean. The sentence need to be much clearer if you think I am misunderstanding what it is asking for. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly against #2, because it means that English Wikivoyage community has some super-authority over other language versions, who typically call banners from Wikidata and do not try to store everything locally. #3 is largely irrelevant for the same reason. --Alexander (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: It isn't my intent to give ENWikivoyage authority over other-language edition, and I believe my wording is somewhat lacking in that aspect. I've reworded #3 somewhat to better reflect that. I see how #2 can be a bad change. What might be the better option then, is to give the Wikidata parameter multiple statuses, one referring to ENWikivoyage, the other to the other-language version and making sure that Template:Pagebanner can deal with this, preferring one language edition over the other, should multiple entries exist for the parameter.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Wikidata is designed to store information used by several projects. It does not make sense to duplicate on Wikidata something that is used in English Wikivoyage only. I don't think it will be approved by Wikidata either.
In fact, I have to say that I do not understand this peculiarity of English Wikivoyage about page banners. Is the concept of page banners here different from other language versions? Obviously, not. Are there many discussions about page banners? Not at all. We have 5 times more such discussions in Russian Wikivoyage, which is especially striking given the smaller size of the community. Does the English community participate in page banner contests and harvest new high-quality banners? No. So why not to use page banners from Wikidata like everyone else does? --Alexander (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with #1 only. I believe we should not ask for #2 or #3 as it would lower our chances of getting the bot implemented quickly. After #1 is done, we can start asking for additional things, but in my opinion #1 is a hundred time more important. Syced (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye[edit]


As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Collaboration of the month update Oct. 2017[edit]

Re-energising of this project is going well. August fixed all phone number errors on the site! September, 386 edits from 12 different contributors, has improved the Chennai article. This month's goal is to have no city articles at guide status with broken external links. With help from all this should be achievable. So please join the effort. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Monarch Airlines declared bankruptcy[edit]

So apparently the fourth or fifth biggest airline of the UK went belly up. Given that they are mentioned in a bunch of articles, I thought this might be of relevance Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) ː

I have removed some of these. One complication is that the US Monarch Air Group is mentioned in some articles, and is a different company. AlasdairW (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Book reference for the whole country[edit]

Since it is possible to create books from WV articles, should we maybe properly create and have one full book for each country available, listing it right at the beginning of each country, so that users do not have to go through all the relevant articles, but simply download the book?

This could be a template linking to the book, whose pages are defined by us, a link to all relevant GPX files (or even a summary GPX), and potential sites left out from the book. The latter I think is necessary, because there could still be stubs lying around which I would not necessarily add to such a book.

What do you think? Ceever (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is in principle a very useful idea but 1.) it would introduce overhead and 2.) I'm not sure how frequently it would actually be used. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

WMF refuses to spend resources on Wikivoyage[edit]

Today it became known that WMF defined Wikivoyage (as well as a few other sister projects) as the "lower impact project" that "does not merit proactive investment". After some noise from our side (talk page), the "lower impact" definition was removed, but the rest did not change. This definition distinguishes Wikivoyage from so-called "emerging communities" with which WMF "should spend more attention and resources".

It remains unclear what this definition exactly means, because different WMF staff members communicate fairly different information (see the talk page) on what "proactive investment" is, and how far-reaching the consequences can be. In the worst case, no technical features dedicated to Wikivoyage will be introduced, and no financial support will be given (e.g., one won't get a scholarship, grant, or Wikimania talk if it is related to Wikivoyage). Let me emphasize that this does not mean WMF wants to get rid of Wikivoyage, but the Foundation makes a clear assessment of Wikivoyage as a project that "does not merit support". This can also be the first step of expelling Wikivoyage as a burden for the Foundation, although statements of the contrary were, of course, made by the WMF staff.

I don't know what we can do about this, other than express our strong dissent about such a decision. The strangest part is that transparent and measureable criteria have been used in the assesment of countries and languages (more than 10 active contributors, a criterion that several language versions of Wikivoyage will surely pass). In contrast, among the projects only Wikisource and Wiktionary were chosen as "effective" and "successful", and all the rest is clearly identified as useless, but no criteria were provided. --Alexander (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your advocacy with WMF Alexander. I would agree from that discussion you linked to that there is a lack of enthusiasm from the WMF team as well as indeed conflicting statements around their support for Wikivoyage.
That said it does seem to be mostly disinterest in investing in Wikivoyage, rather than any obvious desire to stop supporting and hosting us. As far as I know (and I may be wrong) there are no missing functional requirements that are impeding our mission here that require investment to fix.
Additionally Wikidata is getting investment and that benefits us as well.
It may be more productive to work on our relations with WMF. I'm not sure where to start on that? Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if there is a plan to stop hosting Wikivoyage, nobody will say it openly until this decision is finalized and implemented. I believe there is no such plan (so far), but the response of Asaf Bartov is dismaying, because it openly says "we don't care about you", which is the first step to further decisions of this kind.
Regarding the work with the WMF, there are no urgent requests from our side indeed, but we have several pending map issues, and many other things, especially the outreach, could be done together should there be interest from their side. --Alexander (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I think this is much ado about nothing, and if the WMF does indeed have plans to stop hosting us or anything of that nature, badgering and antagonizing them as was done in the thread on Meta certainly won't help our case.
I would also like to know what sort of investment we need that we're not already getting? Perhaps the WMF's stance can be taken as an acknowledgement that we as a community are fairly self-sufficient and low-maintenance. That can't be bad, can it?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If you write articles and select them for Destination of the month, you do not need any investments indeed. However, broader activity requires resources, and we have listed many of such issues during the strategy discussion. Not all of them are specific to Wikivoyage. For example, offline version is a much broader development, but it should be customized to our needs in order to be useful. --Alexander (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe we should scale down our ambitions to a more realistic level. Look, your argument might be more persuasive to me if the WMF were some huge megacorporation that raked in billions of dollars a year in profits yet refused to reinvest any in its product. But in reality, it's a not-for-profit in charge of a group of hugely popular websites that require vast amounts of resources, and that has only so much money to work with. Obviously the money it does take in has to be triaged where it's needed the most. I love Wikivoyage, but I'm not blind to the fact that we're a drop in the bucket compared to Wikipedia and some of the other Wiki-sites. It's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think there's anything unfair about it, or that we're being singled out. Our importance relative to the other WMF sites simply is what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Some further thoughts: Our importance relative to the other WMF sites is not a static thing, either. Wikivoyage may be a small community, but it's at least active, which is more than can be said for a lot of the Wiki-sites that the WMF put in the same category as us. Furthermore, as has been reported elsewhere on this site, Alexa rankings over the past year or two indicate that the slow-motion death of Wikitravel continues apace. At the present moment, Wikitravel still gets a good deal more user traffic than us, but that will gradually cease to be the case as their information becomes more and more outdated and overrun with spam and touting. It stands to reason that Wikivoyage will be the new destination of many of those disaffected former Wikitravel users, especially given the superficial similairities between our two sites (use of the same MediaWiki software, etc.) Meanwhile, pageview statistics for Wikipedia and many of the other large Wiki-sites are gradually declining (down about 50% since 2012, in fact!), so perhaps it's only a matter of time before Wikivoyage's profile is raised by comparison and we'll be in a better position for the WMF to justify proactive investment in us. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Andre, I think you argue with the points that I did not make. I don't say that Wikivoyage should receive more attention than Wikidata or Commons, but in fact Wikidata and Commons should receive more attention than they currently have, and we will benefit from this too, see our contribution to the strategy discussion.
The current discussion is about something different. We put big "developed" projects aside, and compare smaller projects to decide which of them should be prioritized. Then we see that any Wikipedia with more than 10 editors and more than 750,000 speakers gets on board ("emerging projects") and Wikivoyage does not, although we have way more than 10 active editors and a huge language community behind us. Do you think it's fair? --Alexander (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: You wrote, "e.g., one won't get a scholarship" but the FAQ on the linked page says that (emphasis added) "Also, investment in emerging communities (e.g. grants given, staff visits, mentorship, stakeholder groups) will be tracked and reported on by the Community Resources team. (this has been tracked since early 2016.)" What, in principle would be a thing that Wikivoyage needs in particular? E.g. work on maps continues in MediaWiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't understand your question. Is it about scholarships? I don't know how they are distributed exactly, but it reads quite clearly that the "emerging communities" will get most of it, and we are not treated as an "emerging community". As for the technical features, there are many, see the current discussion on my talk page, as well as our contribution to the strategy discussion. --Alexander (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsirlin: I've obviously stayed up too late. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Scholarships would be nice, but hardly vital to what we are doing here. Also we've been going on WMF since 2013, so in 'internet years' I don't feel we that qualify as an emerging community any more, and possibly WMF is saying that we are running fine as things are.
If we really want to look on the paranoid side of things, I honestly think that it would take WMF much more effort to wind us down than leave things going. It isn't any significant infrastructure and hardware to keep a DVD sized travel wiki running. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is troubling that Wikimedia seems to have adopted a "we don't care about Wikivoyage" approach. I also don't quite understand why some rinky-dink 11 contributor wiki in a made-up language should get more attention than en-WV. I know that de-WV was for quite some time carried by a Verein (an action so stereotypically German, it's almost offensive), and maybe that's something worth looking into "just in case", but I think we as Wikivoyage could benefit from - for example - being able to fetch data for listings automatically from other language editions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

A clarifying point. The article Alexandar links to on Meta is not representative of the Foundation's investment as a whole. It is specifically part of defining a specific team's focus on "emerging communities". The English Wikivoyage in particular is quite healthy. This is good. Myself and other WMF staff continue to work with you all here with product features, bug reports, and updates on what's happening across the projects - things that benefit this project directly or indirectly. Asaf, the gent in charge of helping define the term "emerging communities", is merely reflecting "This reflects status quo", which if you agree or don't, is just stating the current situation for his efforts, not demoting Wikivoyage in any way. Please, I want to keep working with you all. Let's remember we're all on the same team here. Ckoerner (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ckoerner, phrases like "Include as "emerging communities" the moderately successful sister projects that have higher potential impact" clearly demote everything that is excluded from the list of "emergent communities". Wikivoyage has been classified as having lower impact and not even moderately successful. I don't think such phrases make any good, no matter how many times you and your colleagues try to soften them. But the most interesting question for me is how this assessment is done. What makes the project (not the language, not the country, but the sister project) an emerging community? --Alexander (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Alexander, you sound upset and I'm not sure there's anything I can say to make you feel better. I'm sorry for that. To your question, please take a look at the page on Meta again. Asaf, and the folks engaging in discussion on the talk page, are trying to figure out the answer to your question. There is presented rationale. Folks might not agree with it, but an attempt is being made to assess the situation - in the open with participation from whoever shows up. I would personally love to see the foundation have resources to proactively support every project, in every language, and beyond. I also know that resources are limited and we have to think about where we spend them for the largest impact across the entire movement. It sucks and I understand why you are frustrated.
If you want to argue with folks, that's not going to get us collectively very far. If you want to argue for Wikivoyage - that it should be considered an emerging community and receive proactive support from the Community Engagement department (rather than the current investment) - then let's do that together. There's a lot of smart people here on Wikivoyage. Organize and make the argument that this project should be included. It doesn't mean it will, but it's far more productive than what's happening now. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
CKoerner (WMF), it's hard for me to make an argument when the very notion of the "emerging community" for sister projects remains undefined. Therefore, I am really curious to see this definition. --Alexander (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

On a meta-level it seems very unclear what exactly the WMF is trying to communicate and it would appear that some here may misunderstand what you're saying or not saying. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It just seems that the distribution of grants and scholarships from this part of WMF for emerging communities will likely exclude Wikivoyage in future. It may seem unfair to some, and you can read into that what you will, but I don't see it as the first step on the path to removing support and jettisoning Wikivoyage from WMF. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit unclear on what this "emerging communities" project is or what it's supposed to do. That said, my concern is that a "deprioritising" of specific, individual projects may be occurring on a broader scale. If it eventually impacts things like MediaWiki extensions and WMF technical development, we're vulnerable. There are quite a few extensions, like the page banners, various sidebar links to "related" content, mw:extension:Kartographer and mw:extension:Geocrumbs, on which we are absolutely reliant – but which aren't in widespread use (or any use) in other WMF projects. Development of these features could easily, silently grind to a halt... and no, this (euphemistically: "‎Projects: rephrased for clarity") doesn't make anything more clear. The original was clear enough, while the revision is deliberately ambiguous and clarifies nothing. We're not a priority? Say so... and give us some idea of what that means in terms of technical support for new project-specific features. We do need transparency in this regard. K7L (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. See also the discussion here. First,
The Maps team has tried to support Wikivoyage throughout and continues to work with the communities on issues and requests as they are brought up
Two days later,
If and when we get the chance to expand the functionality of maps, we'll be sure to reach out to the Wikivoyage community to get their feedback, concerns and desires for improvements
Of course, all WMF staff members are keen enough to create an impression of their interest in Wikivoyage, but the message behind it emerges clearly. --Alexander (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow, this seems like a big overreaction, guys. My understanding here is that by "proactive support", the WMF is referring to work to bootstrap an "emerging community" from little activity to robust activity by investing in outreach efforts. It's "proactive" because the smaller communities don't have the volunteers available to research their needs and request help from the WMF grant process. Wikivoyage, on the other hand, is large enough and active enough that we can advocate for ourselves and don't need "proactive support"; our support is "reactive" and outside the scope of this initiative. Powers (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it though? Other than very weird - and not tailored to us - bot dropped messages on here we don't seem to be getting much attention from WMF. Certainly less than some tiny WPs in made up languages. And as for "emerging" communities - well they could try and launch es-WV into relevance. For such a large language, the community is diminutive... But if I don't misread WMF they have totally excluded even the possibility of any WV version being so assessed...Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you do misread. Where do you get the idea they've walled off that possibility? Powers (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Here one reads Exclude from "emerging communities" all Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikispecies projects, in all languages. Isn't it clear enough? --Alexander (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
"When considering a given project in a given language in a given country, all three axes matter, and it is sufficient that one axis is emerging to be eligible for 'emerging communities' support." That means that a Wikivoyage language version could be included if its language or country meets its criteria. And even if one doesn't meet the criteria now, it may in the future.
This "emerging communities" initiative is a replacement for WMF's previous "Global South" campaign. They're looking to outreach to underserved populations and put money where it's going to do the most good to grow those communities. English Wikivoyage doesn't need that. Powers (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You are the first person who reads it this way. "Wikivoyage is excluded in all languages" means it is excluded, and at least the responses of Asaf Bartov on the meta talk page leave a clear impression that Wikivoyage will not be included in any form. Moreover, the other axes do not really help us, because most Wikivoyages belong to the developed communities language-wise and country-wise, even if they are dormant as Wikivoyage communities.
Now to your statement that "English Wikivoyage does not need that". First, we don't know what "all that" means. The proactive support is vaguely defined. As you can see from the statements by Maggie Dennis (WMF) on the same meta talk page, they hardly draw a clear line between the proactive and reactive support, especially in terms of the grants. So any support will be reduced. It has to be like that in any grant system, where demands always exceed the resources available.
Finally, you say that English Wikivoyage does not need outreach in less developed countries and in countries with less developed Wikimedia communities. This implies that English Wikivoyage targets travelers from a few developed countries and is not interested in locals' input even from less-developed European countries, let alone remote places in Africa or Asia. I don't agree with that. --Alexander (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that my concept of what they're trying to do is closer to their intent than "Wikivoyage sucks, we're not going to provide them any support." I suspect much of the confusion arises due to exceedingly poor word choice on the part of the author, whom I suspect is not a native English speaker. Powers (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the 'issue' is down to lack of interaction between this community and WMF as a whole. The reason is that we haven't actually needed to talk much (and vice-versa). As I asked before, I'm willing to hear how WV members can enter discussion with the wider WMF community in a productive manner. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, if WV folks would like to talk, about this particular conversation or in general, I am happy to help foster that communication. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well apparently Hindi WV has just been launched and it might conceivably need the same kind of help that a small WP version might need. Will WMF even consider such support? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a "go listing" thingy to the standard edit box[edit]

Right now in the standard edit box there is a one-click listing maker shortcut for all existing types of listing (including the "listing" listing) except "go". Can this be changed? And I would suggest a charming little steam engine (like so) or maybe a EMU coming right at you (like so) as the symbol. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


Yamanashi is a city in Yamanashi Prefecture, but currently Yamanashi links to the prefecture. It should follow the many other cities with the same name as the prefecture (ex: Okayama/Okayama (prefecture), Yamagata/Yamagata (prefecture), Tochigi/Tochigi (prefecture), etc) and Yamanashi should be about the city while the prefecture should be moved to Yamanashi (prefecture). I realize that since Yamanashi (prefecture) is a redlink, I can easily do it myself, but since the Yamanashi article will become its own city article, I want to make sure that an admin is not required to ensure attribution is not lost. Does something need to be done before moving the page? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case no. You can do the move, which keeps the existing history in the prefecture page. Then go back to the what will then be a redirect page an simply overwrite the redirect with a city template to start work on the city article. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I just see this discussion, and it is pure coincidence that just a few hours ago I redirected the empty Yamanashi article to Yamanashi prefecture. Yamanashi City is really just a small part of the wide city of Kofu (maybe not legally but in the mind of most people). Yamanashi City/Koshu/Fuefuki should all be covered in the Kofu article, until it becomes big enough that splitting starts making sense. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is "The London Eye" located - at Lambeth or South Bank?[edit]

As of now it appears as a listing in both of those articles. As for as I understand though, it should only appear in the Lambeth article. Please correct me if I'm wrong. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say the opposite actually. It should appear in the South Bank article. It is in the borough of Lambeth, but that is not the same as our Lambeth district article. From Lambeth's Understand section: "This destination covers most of the borough of Lambeth, except for a chunk around Waterloo station that is covered under South Bank. " The South Bank article covers parts of the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark (as indeed the area known as the South Bank does in real life). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
On a related theme, the map on our Lambeth article has territory overlapped with South Bank. Over on Commons, someone had 'fixed' your original version of the map, which was correct, and replaced it with a map which showed the borough of Lambeth rather than the WV district. I reverted to your earlier version, ויקיג'אנקי, and assume it will update within a couple of hours. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed The London Eye listing from the Lambeth article. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice one ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

{{Mapframe}} vandalism[edit]

It becomes a really bad practice that some of our fellow users, more importantly the admins, are damaging layout of this wiki pages by consistently adding {{mapframe}}s without any effort to adjust the parameters and checking how the result of their activity affects the layout of these pages.

It's usually just bare {{mapframe}} is thrown into there, usually into the "Get around" section. But in the most of the cases this changes make damage to the articles structure.

One particular example is the user @Ibaman:, so I wrote once a note at the User talk:Ibaman:

Hello @Ibaman:, the way you were adding mapframes recently to a few pages, in Sicily in particular (Special:Diff/3151032) simply damages their layout. These mapframes bump into another section, "See" in in this case, so if there are any photos in this section they are get pushed into irrelevant location causing also a "domino effect". So you're essentially damaging the work done by other people. That's why I was asking you to be more creative.

Please consider: mapframes are optional. It makes sense to have one at a page if it adds a value and improves readability of a page, not the opposite. So if you're adding one to an article please format and place it accordingly.

BTW If you read more carefully the page you posted a link to at your comment to Special:Diff/3151032 then you'll learn that "Static or dynamic maps are usually displayed in this (Understand) section, if present" Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it#Understand. Also note that this passage does not use a verb must. So again this is a reference to your creativity.

Hope this makes sense. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ibaman didn't bother answering and continued meticulously throwing bare {{mapframe}} here and then.

Now @Andrewssi2: comes along:

Hi, just to say that we do require maps on destination articles. If you don't like the dynamic one, then feel free to create a static one instead. Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Note there is no any reference these, so without any grounds Andrewssi2 throws another mapframe and opens a discussion at the Talk:Tempio_Pausania:

User:Vadp seems to think that adding a map to this article is vandalising his/her work. This isn't how Wikivoyage works since everyone can contribute accurate and useful information. Additionally the status of each article will depend on having a map : Wikivoyage:City_guide_status so it isn't actually optional. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, in Wikivoyage:City guide status the map is just mentioned at the Guide level: "preferably including a map", and it's only at Star level the map becomes mandatory. This article still needs a place where you can sleep before it's even Usable. Also, normal sized mapframes do in my opinion take up a disproportionately large space in short articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
But surely that is sufficient indication that maps belong on articles on Wikivoyage? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Maps in the current form do unfortunately belong in the articles, but AFAIK they haven't so far been so important that we have required them for outline status. Otherwise they should maybe be included in the article templates.
If it was up to me, though, maps should be implemented in an expandable section like they've done in the Russian (and perhaps other language versions) WV and in addition be openable in small windows next to the icons in listings. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

For me @Ypsilon: is quite right there. In many cases mapframes are too obtrusive, especially if used without considering their placement and dimensions. More over they are also ininformative, see again Special:Diff/3292776: POIs make a formless swarm there each of them is indistinguishable from each other and they cover over the poor town's location, so you don't see a thing of it.

So how would you call that? It's a {{Mapframe}} vandalism!

I'm not against a "dynamic map" per se. You just need to be sure it is adding something to an article, not damaging it --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I can only recommend to follow the recipe of Russian Wikivoyage and place dynamic maps into the collapsible environment. Then they do not take place on the page and can be extended to the full page width. Additionally, a button can be used to open the map in the full-screen mode. Such a button is in fact available in the top right corner (across the breadcrumb navigation), but for some mysterious reason this button links to the old map interface (via, which does not support full functionality of the existing map templates.
Current usage of {{mapframe}} can be turned to optional. The in-line map has one major advantage of being visible, but it only makes sense in long articles, where maps do not break the formatting. --Alexander (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I think sticking the mapframe into the "get around" section simply follows Wikivoyage:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Embed_a_dynamic_map, and a consistent location helps the traveler to easily find the dynamic map on the page. Also, dynamic maps (together with the listing coordinates) are one of the best features on wikivoyage, and shouldn't be hidden away. Regarding the structure of the page: as far as I understand image positions are floating and users with different screen sizes (mobile, wide-screen, etc.) will see them at different positions in the page anyway. Xsobev (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the images float, but they should not be too far away from their text. For example, this layout looks very untidy and simply unappealing. --Alexander (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call adding maps to the articles vandalism, after all they're standard things produced by the community, but I myself refrain from adding maps to articles that have little content. It's different with articles that actually have tens of listings. And yes, I would strongly support having the dynamic map laid out like in ru-WV (also see my comments here Wikivoyage_talk:Dynamic_maps_Expedition#Layout_of_maps). --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
If you don't like Dynamic Maps, then by all means discuss them. You do not however own the layout of articles and Dynamic Maps are a completely valid component. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The example Alexander gives above does look less than ideal, but IMO the solution is to move the misplaced photo of a ==See== listing out of the ==Get around== section, rather than to move (or remove) the map.
(I don't like collapsed content, which produces accessibility problems.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the principle of floating images we use in Wiki's makes it impossible to create a perfect page lay-out. Yes, SOMEONE can make it look perfect, but that is on on THAT SOMEONE'S computer with THAT SOMEONE'S graphical preferences, with THAT SOMEONE'S browser, with THAT SOMEONE'S browser preferences, and with THAT SOMEONE'S Wikivoyage preferences. In any other situation it can look quite different. So, creating a perfect lay-out is a waste of time, I think. Photo's and other images like a {{mapframe|...}} are best placed near the text that is relevant to that image. A <gallery> might be the only way to control the position of images in a page. --FredTC (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the problem with the layout (such as it is a problem) is that he tried to add too many photos against too little content and then decided having the map component didn't work for him. Basically add more content or prune some photos. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrewssi2 simply is not able to admit that he's wrong. He was wrong from the start: for what ever reason he decided for himself of something and tried to force others to obey his orders. Many of the articles in this wiki looks clumsy and now I understand why: some of the admins are happy doing mechanical changes to the articles (User:Ibaman in particular, perhaps for the sake of raising their's edit ratings), but they don't care if a page looks messy.

This discussion misses one crucial point: it's not about where to put a mapframe but if a particular page needs it and if it does then how. None of the changes at the poor Temio's page is trying to play with size and the other parameters of this feature. It all looks untidy. My plea for creativity is simply missed.

By my own experience a good photo is quite important as it gives more information than many words. In many cases that's a good photo, not a map, which inspired me to go and see something. You've got an access to a map anyway -- it's just a click away --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not that mere adding a mapframe is wrong, but persistence in making a damage is vadnalism. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet another thing. As I wrote earlier Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it#Understand suggests maps to go into the "Understand" section. It seems to be quite logic: that's where a reader is to find an overview of a destination --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "where you can stick it" should be changed as "get around" is a much more logical place to put a map. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, at the moment you want to go around in a city, you would like to se a streel level map. However, in the Understand section, you want to know where the destination is located inside a larger area (country, region, province, ...). So a locator map is best placed in the Understand section. And also not documented in Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it is the location of another type of map: a region map. --FredTC (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We don't usually use locator maps. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, the example pages I looked at have them (several Sicily pages). --FredTC (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
For bottom-level articles, it would be best to place maps in "Get in"/"Get around" to leave the space in "Understand" free for photographs. For regions (or huge cities which have districts under them) the map showing the subregions should be in the "Regions"/"Cities" or "Districts" section as appropriate. I think we've always done it that way for top-level regions (the region map is next to the region list for something like Atlantic Canada or New York State which has other regions under it); WYCSI should be revised to reflect this. K7L (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record: In my opinion, any article in Wikivoyage without a map is incomplete. Maps have always been, since time immemorial, one of the most (if not THE most) useful tools for the traveler; traveling is about geography, about assessing and making decisions about options and distances and directions and possibilities: it's always best to have a map - even better to have one that can be zoomed in and out and shows POIs in different colors. I really like and stand by our beautiful feature of dynamic maps. I really don't like to see a well-edited article, full of POIs, without a dynamic map; it's INCOMPLETE. I care for the completeness and usefullness of our online travel guide; couldn't care less for my "ratings" (don't even know what are these). I don't and never did take "orders" from Andrewssi2 or any other Admin, it's just a matter of us having been Admins for a very long time, and sharing clear notions of Wikivoyage policy, consensuses achieved, visual style, page homogeneity, and so on. Ibaman (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Vadim Shlyakhov - you are the one who has been been wrong through this whole sorry discussion. You do not own any article on English Wikivoyage and you have insulted me and others throughout. You are trying to prevent the traveler from accessing useful information with maps - I recommend you cease now. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
* I reject the vandalism attribute altogether. Maps are a major feature for Wikivoyage as well as images. I usually don't put in a dynamic map until there are at least 5 or more POIs - where to place a mapframe is in all actuality an open question and generalized suggestions for me are acceptable (Understand or Get Around or Regions or Cities etc.) depending upon what you wish to convey and the various concerns such as type of article, amount of text, visual presentation etc. To make things more complicated - you can place multiple mapframes in an article as well if so desired. (ie. an added mapframe in a See section containing 20+ listings. The unique mapframe showing only those particular POIs or perhaps a separate mapframe for highway/train/route or hiking trail). I would suggest that one use Common Sense in its use and review (examine) the page when used. -- Matroc (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that maps are a great feature. I will generally add a map to a city article if I am editing it and two or more listings have lat/longs. Occasionally I will move the images after adding the map. I usually add maps to "Get around", as I thought that was the preferred position. As an experienced editor I know that I can also get a map from the icon above the banner, or by clicking on the number next a listing, but I know from observing others that most readers do not realise this - adding a visible map to the article is the best way to show that we have a map. AlasdairW (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Maps are essential to any serious travel guide, in order for travellers to visualise where the individual places our guide is talking about actually are, how far they are away from each other etc... it's pretty basic stuff. Given the desperately sorry state of many of our static maps and how difficult it is to create a decent one, compared to the few clicks it takes to insert a dynamic map that updates itself over time, dynamic maps have become an invaluable tool. Frankly, trying to remove valuable information for what seem to be purely aesthetic reasons shows misplaced priorities. We are here to serve the traveller; creating a beautiful-looking article should be a consideration, but it is not the primary concern. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Look, we've come to a pretty clear-cut and overwhelming consensus on this issue; one whose result was, frankly, never in any serious doubt in the first place. Given that, I don't think it serves any real purpose for every last Wikivoyager to chime in on this thread with yet another variation of "WTF, of course I'm in favor of adding maps to articles", and neither is it probably necessary for Andrewssi2 to attempt to clarify a policy to spell out in black and white what should already be common sense. Instead, what we have here is one community member whose refusal to accept a consensus that disagrees with him has led to edit warring and borderline uncivil behavior. If that continues, it's likely a matter for Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, not the pub. But let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet: until we see such a continuation of behavior, let's just let the matter die here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is missed[edit]

So please take an effort to read the following:

This is not about mapframes are good or bad. It's about mechanical adding it without taking care of a page content.

As to vandalism

It happened that quite often my edits in this wiki are quickly followed by User talk:Ibaman is adding unadjusted mapframes.

I've fixed a few of them, but then I'd asked User talk:Ibaman to take more care with this activity and consider placement and parameters of these mapframes as this activity is damaging the article's layout(see above). User talk:Ibaman seemingly didn't care and didn't make an attempt to discuss the issue.

So wrote that I'll keep reverting these edits until User talk:Ibaman put more thinking in this activity

The curious ones could check the logs.

Now Andrewssi2 comes with the same. So I've opened this discussion.

Another issue

is that Andrewssi2 wrote at User talk:Vadp:

Hi, just to say that we do require maps on destination articles. If you don't like the dynamic one, then feel free to create a static one instead. Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've asked to give a reference to the relevant rule, but Andrewssi2 did not, but the statement is not true. I'll skip for the rest...

Any thoughts? --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion went in a completely wrong direction. It also revealed a common misunderstanding that map is created by adding the {{mapframe}} template, and articles without such a template lack a map. They don't. In fact, map is already there when you add at least one listing with geo-coordinates. The map is immediately available by clicking on the colored square in front of that listing, or on the map icon at the top right corner of the page.
Making map prominent by embedding it through the {{mapframe}} template may work in some cases, but in many cases it does not, and Vadim tries to articulate that. First, maps in articles like Dublin are a mess of markers. Such maps are not particularly helpful at this low zoom level, and they are not helpful at all when you read through the article and want to understand where my POI #15 is. A prominent map button opening a full-screen map will achieve exactly the same result without taking a lot of space on the page and shrinking the text to a narrow column.
Another example are articles like Olbia where the big and prominent map takes place of images that are much smaller in size. In my opinion, this layout sets wrong priorities. Travel guide should lure the traveler to visit a destination. One travels to a destination because of nice images, not because of the map. On the other hand, if I am not going to travel, map is of no use for me anyway.
Page layout is a further concern. Even if it's hard to create a layout that would be equally good for all font sizes and screen widths, articles should look tidy, and with big mapframes they sometimes don't.
Altogether, throwing large mapframe on every page is not a good solution. There should be some flexibility behind using mapframes. --Alexander (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
"A prominent map button"? Would this be something like the links to the individual region maps in Trans-Canada Highway? I think they were {{maplink}}. As for requiring maps in articles? They're not required for "usable" city status, but should exist in "guide" articles and must exist for a "star". K7L (talk)
Yes, kind of. In Russian Wikivoyage, we have two of such "buttons", one right after the banner (opens map in the new window) and the second one after the first paragraph, before Understand (collapsible map). --Alexander (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I think many of us would appreciate it if User:Vadp would stop the blame game. It does not help your arguments when you are singling out individual users and accusing them of vandalism, and furthermore threatening to edit war with said users. Above all, none of this makes other editors (such as myself) want to try and engage constructively with you. So that's all I'll say to you for now.
Alexander, I agree to an extent that to write a travel guide is to try and entice the traveller, but we have to remember that Wikivoyage is not just used by prospective travellers who are researching a destination from the comfort of home; we also cater to people on the ground, who are already travelling. I personally often use WV destination articles when I arrive somewhere; if there's no map embedded in that article, that's a serious problem. Photos must be able to fit around practical information such as listings, infoboxes and maps; if they don't fit in with the other essential stuff that our travel guide offers, then they should be the first thing to be removed.
That the map on Dublin is a "mess of markers" signals to me that Dublin should really be split into districts. It is not a reason to remove Dublin's map.
Despite saying all that, I am interested in this idea of yours: "A prominent map button opening a full-screen map will achieve exactly the same result without taking a lot of space on the page and shrinking the text to a narrow column." Other editors, is there a reason why we don't do this? The requirement for a printable article doesn't affect this, because dynamic maps don't work when printed anyway. As far as I can see, it's the same principle as on the mobile version, where each page section is closed by default until the reader chooses to open it -- ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I personally often use WV destination articles when I arrive somewhere; if there's no map embedded in that article, that's a serious problem.
Why? Can't you click on any of the colored squares in front of the listings? --Alexander (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I can do that, yes. But I, as a Wikivoyage editor with close to five years' experience on this site, am not representative of the average reader, who (we must assume) does not edit here. How is someone supposed to know, unless they discover by chance, that clicking on one of the coloured numbers takes them to that place on the map? Furthermore, looking to see the precise place where a particular listing is located is not the only use for a map, but I think you know that already. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and a prominent map button may help in this case. At least as an alternative to adding mapframes everywhere. --Alexander (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I use myself this wiki (and hence my frustration) in the field using a mobile or a tablet. For such a small screen you need a separate window with a map otherwise it's not possible to read an article.
mapframes could be useful to indicate a location of a destination. But if POI markers cover up the later one completely this feature becomes uninformative.
By the way, someone could be interested to have a look at another wiki where we do tend to have builtin map frames. They are located close to the top of a page, so they are less obstructive to rest of the page and these maps are stripped off the POI marks by default. While if a full window map is called up it does display the page's POIs. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone should have look at the Bonifacio -- this is outrageous! --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's only outrageous because someone input the wrong co-ordinates for the second 'do' listing. That's not the same as {{mapframe}} itself being in any way inherently broken. K7L (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone should check a preview before submitting a change --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but the failure to do so is not worthy of anyone's outrage. Powers (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, agree, perhaps not a correct word, but then that's done repeatedly over my edits, I felt, may I say, irritated. --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, Vadim, you don't own the edits, the community does. Get over this. It will make you happier and healthier. Ibaman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


I've just had a look at this page. It doesn't appear to resolve the issue. It doesn't say that:

  • that's the one who's adding a map is responsible to make it fit to the page layout;
  • the content of such a map must represent something meaningful, i.e. the map is readable: the reader can see the destination's features and the location of each POI marker clearly.

Apparently it will remain the same: someone puts a lot of effort to develop a page, then someone else adds {{mapframe}}, makes the page look messy and thinks that's a valuable contribution.

That's quite discouraging. Frankly speaking I don't see how I could continue with this --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • If it's any comfort, some years ago I spent a lot of time (weeks) fine-tuning the St. Petersburg article visually. It looked stunning on my screen. Then I went to a friend's house, to show off my Wiki-code skills. When we opened the page, it looked like crap, totally out of tune, showing several little glitches I had worked so hard on ironing out... It taught me a lesson: what really counts in the articles is the carefully collected/processed/redacted written information, this is the real precious content. Pics are secondary. Dynamic maps are very new, a work in progress and need of much programming, fine tuning, discussion and consensus-making until it will maybe start to look as polished and professional as Wikivoyage deserves. However, speaking now just for myself, I don't propose to be rid of them "in the meantime", as they are NOW so useful for the traveller and handy, and easy to use and zoom in and out, that these qualities overcome their "ugliness" and make them INDISPENSABLE to bottom-level destinations. Ibaman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks I do appreciate you answering back. Apparently we're not sharing the same taste, although that's not a reason to kill each other. But well, after what happened to my efforts at this wiki I'd better to seek for some other options for my passion -- travelling --Vadim Shlyakhov (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to make a point here: I share Vadim's view on the un-necessity of arbitrary dynamic mapframes, and I understand his frustration.

  1. IMHO, adding a arbitrary dynamic map does not automatically make the article better. It clearly depends on the circumstances, and distribution of GPS markers.
  2. Many people use non-browser based maps/apps anyhow, so they won't probably care are about a mapframe present or not in WikiVoyage articles.
  3. Other people, I encountered, print out travel information instead of using the fancy online tools, WV has. Even more reason to have a (static) mapframe in place that shows something reasonable and understandable at first sight. Here is a quote from Wikivoyage:Map: Wikivoyage pages are designed for offline use, and therefore static maps are more useful in that regard.
  4. The map frame does not work with PDF and book export. So, what are we talking about here regarding the necessity and usefulness of maps when not even fundamental functionality is given in the first place?
  5. Maybe an arbitrary dynamic map makes an article more valuable, maybe not. But you know what makes an article definitely more valuable and even adds additional value? A readable and thoughtfully created mapframe.
  6. What is confusing to me. Why is it that hard to invest 5 minutes to create a more valuable mapframe? Isn't that what we are really here for? Instead WV is sometimes filled with such quick and unthoughtful manifestations of unnecessary bureaucracy, destroying beauty and readability in the process, just for the sake of the contribution counter and personal laziness. (Something similar happened lately when the North Estonia article in three subsection was "spammed" with an ugly remark box that listings should not be used on region level. How is such blind and wild activism helpful for the traveller?)
  7. I understand and already have often encountered at WV myself that even though one has a different point of view, it makes sense what the majority of active people think here, especially if it creates consistency. However, when it comes to something like this, which is not written in stone, I really believe, WV would do better to appreciate the effort of editors (especially newer ones) and be less punitive in its opinions. (Didn't we just lately discuss, how to less deter active and useful new editor?)

TFR, Ceever (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You're conflating at least 2 issues. The "movetocity" template is not useful to travellers per se, that's true. However, the result of having detailed listings in guides for specific localities instead of region articles, which flows from the placement of that template, is good for travellers. If I want to find things to see and do in Yonkers, I'm not going to look in the articles for Westchester County, Metro New York or New York State, and if there are specific listings in any of those articles, they should be moved. If you don't like the "movetocity" template, what is your alternative? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The obvious alternative is for the editor who finds listings that should be elsewhere to just move them to the best place, instead of issuing demands via template. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

How to use maps in articles[edit]

Now that we have established the (blindingly obvious) fact that adding maps to articles is of great benefit to travellers in destination articles, I am drafting a short policy around it here: Wikivoyage_talk:Map.

There seems to be some space to discuss exactly how maps are supposed to be used in articles, so please contribute any constructive comments. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-competent Wikivoyager requesting technical assistance.[edit]

Hi, all. Earlier on, while editing, I must have pressed some button or other, either on my keyboard or on the WV interface itself. Not a great help to you, I know. But now every time I try to type some fairly common symbols into the source editing window, for instance asterisks * to create bullet points, those square bracket things [[ to make hyperlinks, the funky wavy brackets {{ for inserting templates, equals signs === for section headings etc, some other nonsense symbols appear instead. My colons ː are also all really faint now as well, which is oddly emasculating. So without waffling on too long, does anyone know what I'm talking about? Has anyone done this before, and if so, do you know how to fix it? This is only a problem on Wikivoyage; Wikipedia etc are still working as normal. Would anyone be super-kind and help me? ː-) faint smiley --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Pub help 2017-10-09.png
ThunderingTyphoons! - This sounds similar to something that happens to me from time to time. Try this. Hover over the text editing screen and then click on it. You should see a small keyboard icon at the bottom right corner, as depicted in the screenshot at right. Click on it, and make sure "Use native keyboard" is selected. If it happens again, just press Ctrl+M and all should be well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrew, that's solved the issue. Can see how it would be easy enough to switch keyboards without realising. Thanks again, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can't save listing[edit]

Trying to submit something from the listing editor, I get this message: "Error: An unknown error has been encountered while attempting to save the listing, please try again: invalidsection" Not very informative. Is there some place where I can post a screen shot to have someone look at it? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter Chastain, which article were you trying to edit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to add an Eat listing to San José (Costa Rica). Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this (well concealed) touting?[edit] I would say yes, but didn't want to revert without consulting. --Renek78 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, touting. It's always the same phone numbers and hence companies. Please plunge forward and revert. Ceever (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing editor: Autofill from Wikidata[edit]

German Wikivoyage listing editor filling fields automatically (in yellow) using Wikidata

The German Wikivoyage listing editor fills fields automatically (in yellow) using Wikidata. No need to press a button, and it does not overwrite any existing data, so it is faster and safer. Could we have this too? :-) Syced (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very wary of ceding control of our content to Wikidata to that degree. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I can only see benefits to adding an image from Wikidata to a listing that has no image. Same for the other details. Once again, it does not overwrite anything. Syced (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the fact that it doesn't overwrite existing data. That's something which I really don't like from the current method in our listing editor, which will overwrite manually added coordinates etc. Drat70 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Syced, Drat70 - the discussion below about Commons deleting dynamic district overview maps is a perfect example of what can happen when we cede too much control over our content to another project. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
AndreCarrotflower: Keep that argument for when we move all of our listing details to Wikidata ;-) For the time being, it is about importing public domain data into our English Wikivoyage, and as you know public domain data present in our English Wikivoyage can only be deleted by us. Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
At the German Wikivoyage we programmed our listing template completely anew. This was necessary to support data import from Wikidata. There are now more than 20 parameters which are supported. Nevertheless, authors can keep full control of the data: they can decide if and which data should be imported and they can manually overwrite all data. Storing data at Wikidata gives authors of our smaller Wikivoyages the opportunity to use these data more easily. The easiest way to prevent data deletion is to use them. Instead of images and map data, there are usually no problems with copyright, and you can watch data change in the same way as we did it in this wiki. To have an imagination what can be stored and used already today please have a view to Dorint Charlottenhof Halle (Saale) hotel. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, the automatic filling is not done by the listing editor but by the listing template. The editor only shows which data are available. So you can overwrite them if necessary. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I think filling in stuff from commons or wikidata should always be done by hand and not automatically. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Copying around listings coordinates/images/etc between Wikivoyages is not the best use of our limited manpower, I believe. Syced (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic district overview maps will be deleted[edit]

I have created plenty of dynamic district overview maps and saved them in Commons. All of them are going to get deleted soon, because the district borders were traced using OpenStreetMap as a background image. OSM based files are apparently not allowed on Commons, since OSM has no CC0 license. This work took me lots of working hours. Is there anything we can do about it? Cities with those maps include Singapore, Madrid, Dubai, Munich, Kuala Lumpur, Amsterdam, Milan, Saint Petersburg and Copenhagen. If not then I'm out. Don't wanna waste my time on something, which gets deleted later on... --Renek78 (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's such a common Commons scenario. I wrote a response there. Others should do it as well, preferrably along the same lines, and I really mean you should go and write, not sit here and wait until others do it for you. The more people voice their oppose, the less chances that the files will be deleted.
The ultimate solution is storing map boundaries outside Commons (even on Wikidata, which is 100 times more adequate than the Commons community and infinitely better organized), but I don't know how to talk WMF into making this possible. --Alexander (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Renek78, a piece of personal advice, if I may. Every time you upload something on Commons, write it is your 'own work', unless it's explicitly done by others. Any additional remarks you leave will be used against you, sooner or later. That's Commons. --Alexander (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Alexander, thanks for your support and hint. I already wrote at this location. Not sure where it's better.--Renek78 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Renek78, I advise that you create a backup version of your maps either here, in the user space on English Wikivoyage, or on your computer. If maps are eventually deleted, it will be difficult to get them back. --Alexander (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I saved all the maps now on my user page.--Renek78 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"Every time you upload something on Commons, write it is your 'own work', unless it's explicitly done by others" isn't great advice. It's important to list all of your sources for copyright purposes. Powers (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Hiding anything only makes problems appear later in a more dramatic way. Syced (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I do not encourage anyone to take someone else's work and upload it as your 'own work'. On the other hand, I think that attributions make sense only if they are verifiable.
For example, if you go for a walk with your friend, two of you have one camera and make shots together, but it perfectly makes sense to upload all photos as your 'own work', unless your friend really cares and wants to upload files himself. Otherwise, you will spend weeks on arguing, sending and re-sending OTRS permissions, all for nothing.
In the map case, it is not possible to say whether free OSM or non-free Google was used for tracing the boundary, or perhaps there is an algorithm that simply creates a boundary encompassing all POIs of a given Wikivoyage article. Therefore, I think it is better to refrain from any attribution. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The main issue here seems to be the difference between Commons and WMF in interpreting license rules for the numerical data. WMF sees all numerical data as CC-0 more or less by default (see also the compulsory CC-0 licensing on Wikidata), but not everyone agrees with this. I think there is a chance that the WMF staff will interfere in one way or another, either punching Commons idiots for their meaningless interpretations of the licenses, or enabling the CC-BY-SA licenses in the Data: namespace. However, it may also happen that the issue will be stalled. Then it will only be possible to store map boundaries locally. --Alexander (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
We won't be punching anyone. We don't do that here. I've let the product folks at the foundation know about this issue and legal folks have also been contacted to see if we can help clarify some things. Personal opinion: It's very early in the discussion, but I don't think the deletion request will succeed. I think we can deescalate this from "will be deleted" to "may be deleted, but highly improbable". I do like your suggestion for folks also active on Commons to civilly join the conversation. When I get more info I'll let you all know. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Does the link at the bottom of dynamic maps ( Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors) cover any of this? -- Matroc (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, because it only appears when map boundary is displaced. The boundary itself (geoJSON) says it is under CC-0, not under CC-BY-SA-2.0. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF), thank you for your response and participation. The problem here is that the Commons community chooses to start deletion requests and eventually delete useful files, instead of discussing such general issues in a proper setting before pressing the Delete button. Here we are talking about content, which is free and, clearly, can be used in WMF wikis. The whole problem is whether free license A should be used instead of free license B. Unimportant as it is, this discussion may easily end up in the free content being deleted. That's outrageous. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion over at Commons is ridiculous. Some people have too much time on their hands.
A backup plan would be to implement the GeoJSON right into the article. Result is the same. Some new users might be overwhelmed by the huge amount of "weird code" in the Districts section of the article though. Example: User:Renek78/Sandbox/KL. This was a simple copy & paste from the GeoJSON at Commons. If I remove carriage returns in between the coordinates it gets a lot more compressed. What ya think? Shall we do it like this, if the maps get deleted at Commons? I'll go on a 3-days-cycling trip to enjoy the autumn. The guys at Commons should do something similar to come down a little... --Renek78 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Renek78, I do not recommend to store huge pieces of data inside the articles. You can always put them on separate pages and transclude when needed. My original solution for Russian Wikivoyage was storing all boundaries as subpages of Template:Boundary, where map boundary for the article XXX would be stored under Template:Boundary/XXX. This makes it very easy to call such boundaries, you only need to know the article name. --Alexander (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Formerly boundaries and borders were put stored under Template:GPX, so I guess this is the place to put the data.
This discussion and the one in Commons should make it clear to everyone why critical data (boundaries, Main Page banners for featured articles etc.) should absolutely be stored here instead of at Commons. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:GPX has been used for tracks in GPX format. I would not mix it with geoJSON.
Otherwise, I agree that we should store map boundaries locally. Renek78, importing the OSM lines was by all means a bad decision, not for copyright reasons (which are vague at best), but because OSM lines typically contain too many points and will slow down everything here on Wikivoyage. At some point, I played with simplified polygons, cut parts of the OSM lines and stitched them together, but that's quite some work. I am still curious how you did it. Copied the numbers point by point?
If WMF allows CC-BY-SA licenses in the Data: namespace on Commons, the current problem will be resolved. However, it would not prevent similar issues in the future, because Commons deems anything traced from a map as inheriting this map's copyright. On the other hand, it is not possible to prove which map was used for tracing. They can always claim that you traced your boundary from Google and not from OSM, and the boundary will be deleted. Therefore, uploading map boundaries to Wikivoyage should be preferred. --Alexander (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Alexander, JOSM offers an option to download a single element/relation by entering the OSM ID of that element. That's what I used to import it into the map. The problem regarding the big number of points can be solved by selecting the "Simplify way" function in JOSM. It removes excess points without changing the geometry of the polygon too much. If this wasn't enough I often recreated the polygon manually by snapping only to certain points of the original boundary. The largest district GeoJSON has about 70kb, average is like 40kb - quite reasonable, I would say. Sorry again for creating such a mess at Commons. It was a "white lie" ;) --Renek78 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It won't be deleted just because someone claims it was traced from Google. They'd have to show evidence. Powers (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It may be deleted. As you have seen yourself, it took us two days, with at least five accusations toward Wikivoyage editors, before some evidence appeared. Nevertheless, several people voted 'Delete' well before this evidence was provided. Therefore, I would not encourage any usage of Commons data unless the rules are laid down strictly and unambiguously. I started a discussion at their Village Pump, and we can see where it goes, although I don't put any hopes on that. --Alexander (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, per your statement "I am a Wikivoyage administrator, and I am not aware of any copying going on" diff; data copied to Wikivoyage such as User:Renek78/Backup/Copenhagen are not correctly licensed. An examination of Renek78's recent contributions will provide a list of the others. I'm certain you can advise contributors here about which copyright policies apply and how to respect the legal requirement of attribution when Open Street Map data is being copied. Thanks -- (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The boundaries of a province or state aren't inherently copyrightable, much like one can't copyright a fact, only copyright the wording and imagery used to express that fact. OSM didn't create the boundaries of any political entity, governments did. Soldiers then defended those boundaries by force of arms. If OSM were "inventing" borders out of imagination and whole cloth, then OSM would be factually wrong.
I believe we should stop storing anything on Commons, including map data. Demanding that users edit on three different wikis (the local Wikivoyage language, Wikidata, Wikicommons) just to create one article here makes life more difficult for users - including new users. Add to that the not-so-minor detail that, when you folks arbitrarily delete things, articles here break and the tiny advantage of being able to reuse Commons and Wikidata items across languages is not enough to counterbalance the cost to this project of having resources spread across multiple wikis. All too often, there's no notice on-wiki here that someone is trying to delete something there until it's too late. That's hurting the project. We need to bring everything local. Please? K7L (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The data and maps can be hosted here or on Commons, all that is being required is correct sourcing and meeting the legal licensing requirements of Open Street Map. Neither of these things is especially difficult. Even if the Commons:Data namespace stays CC0 only, this does not stop SVG or PNG format map files being created and used instead. -- (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No, they need to be hosted here. I'm not OK with changing the licence of our content from CC-BY-SA to CC-0 through a sneaky back-door approach of moving our data off-wiki. That the external project (in this case, Commons) is deleting our content so that our articles break is only insult added to injury. The placement of this data on Commons should never have been done, and needs to be reversed immediately by the original contributors. Sorry. K7L (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have never advocated moving everything to Commons. Even if local, the copyright restrictions of Open Street Map apply. -- (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The question of who advocated moving the content to Commons is irrelevant, although it looks have gone wrong here: RolandUnger's comment Jan 10 2017, phab:T154908 "We should accept that all traces will be stored at Commons or OpenStreetMap. Traces cannot be copyrighted. Therefore I do not see causes to remove them with rationales as known for images. For this reason we must not store them locally."
If you're now proposing to copyright the legally-defined boundaries of provinces and nations, the reasoning which placed this data on Commons nine months ago is thereby broken and the mistake of placing this data there instead of on the local wiki now needs to be corrected. I couldn't care less who did this, it just needs to be fixed. K7L (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
No one's proposing to copyright boundaries of provinces and nations. What's copyrightable is a particular map's representation of those boundaries. If we copy the data points from another map, that's a potential copyright violation. Powers (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not administrator here (I am administrator of the Russian Wikivoyage), but I do not see why the data should not be licensed as CC-BY-SA.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought facts themselves (such as coordinates) can never be copyrighted, only the way of representing them (e.g. showing borders by the means of purple lines like OSM does in the Mapnik layer). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Facts are not copyrighted, but, for example, making a database out of non-copyrightable facts creates copyright in Europe (not in the US as far as I understand). The question is then which jurisdiction applies (given that OSM is a British company) and what is the originality threshold.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
While the facts that determine a political boundary are not copyrightable, the choice of coordinates that a mapmaker might use to represent that boundary *are*. Even a non-visual representation. Powers (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
A phone number or the time of sunset are uncopyrightable facts, but when a person uses skill and judgment to add a feature to a map, that is not a fact or statistic or even independently repeatable, if it is, as in this case, captured down to a pair of unique coordinates to 7 decimals it is a representation of a legally meaningful creative work. -- (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
False precision in the seventh decimal place doesn't constitute "meaningful creative work" nor does it reflect "skill and judgement". It's just noise. K7L (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The technical detail of the way OSM works may or may not constitute false precision, but the law is clear. It makes no difference whether the creator is using a quill ink pen or a mouse and screen, if they are using their skill and judgement to draw points and lines by hand rather than publishing a an entirely computer generated scan with no possible variation introduced by human judgement, then the creator has a valid claim of copyright. -- (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
They're not using skill or judgement. They're merely tracing a line which was already drawn by governments years or even centuries earlier. This does not create a new, original creative work. K7L (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That is a different point. If the original data can be verified as public domain, then an attempt accurately to reproduce it may also be public domain. It would depend on the case as to whether the person doing the tracing added any significant creative judgements to the way it was presented. -- (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For those interested in whether Wikimedia Commons policy for the Data namespace should allow for maps like exports from Open Street Map (which are already allowed in other formats), a proposal based on previous discussions has been created at c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal to include non-CC0 licenses for the Data namespace. -- (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing editor won't let me save[edit]

A few minutes ago I tried to use the listing editor to fix the dead link for the United States embassy in Montevideo. But when I clicked "Submit", I got a pop-up message saying "Please ensure the email address is valid". As far as I can tell, the listing editor won't let me save my changes unless I do something to fix the email field. I don't know what the best way to fix the email field is, and I would guess I'm not the only one, so I think this feature may discourage people from editing listings (especially new users). If a user is trying to use the listing editor to make a change to a listing, and the listing has some problem (like a misformatted email field) that's unrelated to the change they're trying to make, I think they should be able to save the change without fixing the problem that they may well not know how best to fix. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Just fix in the page source, not the listing editor :)
Although looking t that example, we should list 3 different email addressed (which is the cause of the validation issue). I have no idea which email I should use and therefore the content is nearly useless. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I did finally switch to the page source. My concern is that new editors may just give up instead of trying to figure out if there's another way to edit the listing. I don't know, maybe most of our new editors come from Wikipedia, in which case it wouldn't really matter. But if we want to attract new editors who aren't already familiar with editing wikis, I think it would be good to adjust this feature. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem described is not only a problem of the listing editor. Both the editor and the listing template accept only one email address: please check the email addresses in the article of Montevideo carefully. All three email addresses are linked with the same. In case of the template, this cannot be easily solved. That's why we programmed a module at the German Wikivoyage to handle more than one email address. In case of the Listing editor script you have to change the VALID_EMAIL_REGEX regular expression. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Why would any listing need more than one E-Mail Address? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's the same why we need more than one phone number: maybe one for general inquiries, one for reservation, and so on. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it the problem is not the listing template being able to handle just one e-mail address, but the listing editor requiring a random user to solve this problem before being able to save his or her contribution. The editor should verify only the changed data. Alerts for bad data should be done by visually flagging them (for opt-in i.e. experienced users) and by maintenance categories. --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, that's the point I was trying to make. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Flagging bad data is necessary [unfortunately not done now] but should not be the only solution: a random user can solve the problem himself if anybody will tell him that only one email address is allowed. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Even if the random user somehow knows the problem is that only one email address is allowed, it's not obvious which of the email addresses should be kept, at least not without further research. Anyway, I think it's inherently discouraging if you try to make an edit and the interface tells you, "You can't save the edit unless you fix this completely unrelated problem." —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The end of an era (just for fun)[edit]

Brave passengers board last ever Flight 666 to HEL on Friday 13th. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear Bruce Dickinson is out of work. :( For anyone who doesn't get it, he's the singer in the heavy metal band Iron Maiden (which some people consider "Satanist") but also a licensed pilot who sometimes fly the band, including during one of their world tours. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Free and collaborative audio guide[edit]

Hi, I recently heard about an app for smartphone that uses phone geolocation, searches for the closest POIs and suggests an audio comments about this POI. Interested by such application, I found this app. There are maybe others that work with the same way but I di not find any. I did not find any information that let me think that is free. So I wonder wether you are aware of such free app. If it does not exist, do you think that wikivoyage could play a role? I mean we could imagine to subdivide the information given in the articles by POI in order to provide information need by this kind of apps. As a free project, the descriptions could be improved and translated in many languages. Maybe you already discussed this topic, or similar one, in the past. Pamputt (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That app seems to be free, as stated in French "Disponible gratuitement". The data to make such an app is readily available as CSV at and there is even a JSON API at that allows you to get the information of the Wikivoyage listings around a given latitude/longitude :-) App developers are encouraged to reuse Wikivoyage data as long as they comply with the license. Syced (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. It seems that a lot of work has already been done. Hope that some dev would have a look on it in the future. Pamputt (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:How_to_re-use_Wikivoyage_guides explains the rules for reusing WV content. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, here is a great app that reuses Wikivoyage information on Android. It is free, open source, based on Kiwix, and of course works offline. It has no audio though. Syced (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Time formatting[edit]

I haven't quite understood what is the proper time formatting to be used on the English WV.

Should this also reflect the local situation?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Short answer, yes: Wikivoyage:Time and date formats. Best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Page Banner Glitch[edit]

I am curious to know why some page banners appear in spite of the image link not being to that banner. Look at Miyagi and Naruko, or Yamanashi (prefecture) and Yamanashi. The cities show the same banner as the prefectures but the image links for the banners are different. It seems that the bridge image is meant for the Naruko page and the Fuji picture belongs only on the Yamanashi (prefecture) article. Is this a glitch? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that both Miyagi and Naruko have had the same banner assigned on their Wikidata pages (here and here). You can correct this by changing the linked images in the respective page banner fields. –StellarD (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I followed the link but I have no idea where I'm supposed to edit... Do I edit something within the link? Or is it from Wikivoyage? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
To change the banner for Miyagi Prefecture, for example, go to the relevant wikidata page (it's in the left sidebar of every Wikivoyage article) and scroll down under the section 'Statements' to the field with 'page banner'. Here the linked image is 'Miyagi banner.jpg'; you can change this by clicking on the edit link immediately to the right of this (with the pencil icon) and copy/pasting the name of the preferred file, and then clicking 'save'. You don't need to worry about any of the other wikidata fields. –StellarD (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Should cardinal directions be written out always, abbreviated always or some mix?[edit]

I am asking in part because of this edit to Corsica where cardinal directions are abbreviated. I think this looks inelegant. What say ye? Does the manual of style say anything on the issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Abbreviations implies that style favoring abbreviations should be limited to listings, which further implies that we should use standard English prose style outside of listings. Powers (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please blockade for Alonso menezes, Zuka 2017 and Alonso 2017 of user[edit]

Please blockade for Alonso menezes, Zuka 2017 and Alonso 2017 of user, cause them misusing Commons by sharing nonfree files. and focus as ...2017 or Alonso... new user. thanks!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

These users are all already globally blocked. There's no need to bring a dispute from Commons here if they've done nothing here. K7L (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK! --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File Spam - now pictures[edit]

We have been successful in stopping video/audio spam being uploaded to WV as per Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#File_Spam. The upload page was altered and it stopped that issue completely.

Now it seems there is picture file spam, which is harder to deal with. Given that there are relatively few use cases where a new contributor needs to upload an image file to WV (as opposed to uploading a CC compliant image to Commons), can we add further restrictions as to who can do this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a tough one. If we're going to restrict people from uploading files, our choices (and please correct me if I'm wrong about the following) are either to allow only autoconfirmed users or to allow only admins. The former is too permissive, I think - all the pirates would need to do to circumvent the restrictions is wait a few days after establishing an account before uploading - and the latter is of course too heavy-handed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Actually, that few day cool-off period will probably remove a solid 80%+. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that restricting to Admins would be too much. Observing the patterns of video spam, it does seem the spammers hoard up accounts for use later. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would support restricting this to autoconfirmed users, with regret. Restricting it to admins is IMO ludicrous because there are a whole bunch of trusted users who'd be excluded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
But how effective would that really be? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Some wikis do have their own user groups for this, although of course there's the extra overhead of requesting/adding the group. --Rschen7754 02:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"a project to visualize global weather conditions."[edit]

Interesting application. Open Source with a reasonable license, though for all I know using it here might involve license complications. Hosted on Github. Pashley (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we have some tool that grabs the flight lists of WP?[edit]

So there is a bit of an inconsistency because we never made consistency a priority there, but the "by plane" sections and airport articles sometimes list which airlines do which flights and sometimes they do not. Problem is, those lists tend to get outdated rather fast and easy. Now it appears to me that the WP articles for certain airports tend to have comparatively well maintained lists of the airlines that fly to a certain airport and the destinations on offer. Copying (and maintaining) them by hand is a task worthy of Sisyphus, but having a link to WP and telling our readers "go find out yourself" is probably not ideal, either (though the WP button would be another argument in favor of listing instead of marker templates). Can we write some code that can grab the list and put it in a format that doesn't botch up everything here so we can include it? Or should we just not list any flights at all? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we should not have lists of airlines in the by plane section, but it's ok to have them in an airport article. My reasoning is the same as yours: lists get outdated fast and easy. In the By plane section, if there's an airport article it will probably be linked. I wouldn't be opposed to something automated that pulls it in from WP so long as it's easy to use. DethDestroyerOfWords (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If there is such a tool, I support using it for listing flights in airport articles. For city articles tables of flights are probably a little bulky, unless they can be put in an expandable box (those that are folded away by default that you can see in some WP articles, for example "Airports in Yunnan" and "Airports in China" in w:Kunming_Changshui_International_Airport#External_links). ϒpsilon (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is better not to try and maintain a comprehensive list of flights, even in WP. We just need to describe the main destinations (i.e. City X has connections to most major cities in South East Asia). The travel industry invests a lot of money in online tools that will allow the traveler to work out their best flight options, and there is really no need for us to try and address this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If an airport is served by more than three airlines, there is no point in listing them, just say how many, and mention any that use it as a major hub. Similarly saying the number of destinations and daily flights gives the reader an idea of the scale of the airport - in many cases the airport's website will give the details. Airlines with only two planes serving remote locations are a different matter, these may not show up in online tools and are worth mentioning (e.g. Great Barrier Island). AlasdairW (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Saint_Helena_(island) has just started its one flight a day to Johannesburg, and it is fine to provide detail on that. I'd say anything larger is pointless to track here on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well Wikipedia does try to maintain those lists. Even for the Heathrows and LAXs of this world. And they even have stats for certain flights. And it seems that you underestimate the sheer gall some airlines have in establishing a hub in some place and then turning around with a "nevermind" attitude. Sure, Lufthansa is married to FRA, Delta similarly won't abandon ATL and the classic flag carriers seem tied to their capital hubs. But other than that? Ryanair has made and broken quite a few former dusty military airfields into airports with two, three even more million pax per annum. And now many of them have nothing. And there are still many people who seem to be unaware of a lot of travel options. The success of some businesses seems to depend on customers not knowing of any other options. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up of "Eat" section in articles[edit]

I've started my own version of WikiProjects (well, a smaller version), cleaning up the Eat section of articles, and trying to give more context to the restaurants beyond address, and trying to write them objectively, to NPOV.

Would anyone want to help me on this, perhaps if Wikivoyage had a WikiProject Food (or something similar)?

Currently I'm doing this for:

I'd appreciate the help so we can make these more informative. I've only just returned to editing after months away (my last edit was June). --Walkden861 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Please notice that in Wikivoyage we don't use the NPOV principle; rather our guideline is be fair. I'm interested on what you intend to do, and will check out the links. Ibaman (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I misunderstood. Anyway, what I am intending to try and do is to clean-up parts where there's no description beyond a name and address of restaurant, or fix grammar on the Eat parts. Thank you for the link on Be fair. --Walkden861 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back, Walkden861. This is one of my favorite sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Map layers button missing in dynamic map[edit]

Hi all, when clicking on one of the listing numbers to open the dynamic map, the button for the different map layers (Wikimedia, Mapnik, Relief, Groups, ...) is missing. It is shown correctly in mapframes (both original size and full screen). Does anyone know why and how it can be fixed? Thanks very much, Xsobev (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Technical question[edit]

is it possible to make specific photos non-clickable? if so, what is the wiki code syntax necessary to do that? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For what reason would you like this to happen? I mean, if I see a nice photo in thumbnail size, I would like to click it for getting a large size version. If that image woulde not be clickable, it would be quite difficult for an average user to view the large version. --FredTC (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Voilà: [[File:Lightmatter_chimp.jpg| link= |200px|right|Chimp, but no wimp]]
Chimp, but no wimp
Instead of (including CC link):
Chimp, but no wimp
And yes, there are cases where you would need that, namely for templates and such. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Ceever :) In this instance, this change was necessary so that all the links to all the full screen dynamic maps in the Hebrew Wikivoyage WOULD be clickable... while this image OOjs UI icon fullScreen.svg, right next to that link, WON'T be clickable (see example). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll also add that I decided this Full Screen icon + larger link text were a necessary change for us at the Hebrew Wikivoyage (even though we don't do that here on the English Wikivoyage) mainly because a large portion of the readers nowadays are mobile users, and the important link to the full screen feature (which is probably of more use to mobile users that are trying to retrieve this data on the go) is not very visible on the common sized smartphone. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
One problem with removing the link is that that link is what provides automatic attribution and licence information. If you disable it you have to provide those in some other way, or use images with a licence that does not require them. --LPfi (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not just one problem, it's a major problem and risks putting us in violation of copyright. The chimp picture above, in fact, is already problematic as it is CC-by and requires attribution. We cannot have unclickable images unless they don't require attribution. Powers (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
They also cannot be copyleft with CC-SA or similar, as you need a link to the licence. PD and CC-zero can be used without link. --LPfi (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Btw, I reckon it would be more intuitive to also have the same link for the icon as for the text. Some people will probably desperately try to click that icon. And btw, just create your own icon, shouldn't be that hard. Ceever (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a map expert take a look at Rail travel in the United States?[edit]

As someone pointed out there are apparently still some issues with the map in this article. It would appear that most of the criticisms are valid and can be addressed but unfortunately I am bad at drawing maps. Can someone please have a look? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Generating guidebooks for missing languages[edit]

I am thinking of writing some code that generate a kind of guidebook on-the-fly for languages that do not have a Wikivoyage edition (yet), such as Telugu.

It would mostly take:

  • data from the Wikivoyage listings database,
  • breadcrumb from Wikivoyage,
  • banner and maybe other facts from Wikidata,
  • a dynamic map,
  • a gallery of all images found on Wikivoyage articles

... then embed that in Telugu strings.

Compared to a real guidebook it would be very shallow (zero prose and listing names not translated), but this might be the first ever guidebook about Elmwood in Telugu. With links back to Wikivoyage, this original content might gain us some Telugu readers and incoming links, which could eventually gain us some Google love.

My question: Has someone already done this, so that I don't waste my time on it? Or has someone started something similar?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You might know the Lsjbot project at Wikipedia in Swedish, Cebuano and Waray, creating articles on lifeforms and places. I suppose Lsj could share some useful code and some insight in benefits and probable problems. There were 1M+ articles created. --LPfi (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

City articles without "Understand" sections[edit]

How does such a thing happen? I've come across quite a few of them recently. Us someone actively removing them? Does someone believe they're optional? Can we tag articles that lack them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Understand" was not originally part of the template for small city articles, so those that were created before about 2010 may not have the section. Obviously it is great to add the section if you have something to say about the city, but there is probably little value in adding an empty heading. AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I tend to split them off from the lede in some cases. I don't think I have thus far added an entirely empty "understand" section. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Community Wishlist update[edit]

If you'd like to know more about technical changes and tools, then please watch the presentation at The first presentation, starting around 2:00 minutes, talks about some of the new features in X! tools (like how to find out more about who's editing a page or which admins work in a given area). Other editors will be more interested in Beta Feature for syntax highlighting (around 17:55), and I think that a lot of us will appreciate the Global Preferences (~22:32) project.

Something I learned a while ago: You can speed up the playback for YouTube videos. The gear-shaped settings icon has a "Speed" option. Combining a faster playback speed with the left and right arrow keys (which skip 5 seconds) makes watching these recorded presentations more efficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Berlin - Munich: Four hours[edit]

December 2017 is fast approaching. When that date is reached, travel time between Germany's capital and southern Germany's largest city will be drastically reduced to just four hours. From Nuremberg, Berlin will be less than three hours away. Erfurt will have ICEs going in all directions. I know we have several articles mentioning the "soon to come" service - often with a date - when should we just say it's there now? Oh, and on a related note, should we have routeboxes for ICE Sprinter? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)