Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

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

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

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

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Contents

Hohenems[edit]

Just last week, I was in Hohenems, Voralberg, Austria, for the 2019 World Gymnaestrada in Dornbirn. I had tried to book a hotel in Dorbirn but the whole city was fully booked. So I booked a hotel in nearby Hohenems instead and travelled by train to Dornbirn.

I just noted that there isn't an article about Hohenems on WikiVoyage. Should I start one? And if so, how do I go about it? JIP (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. See Wikivoyage:Plunge forward. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I created Hohenems for you. For future reference, just click on the redlink, then above the editing window you can click on the type of article (city in this case) to add the necessary headings in one click. Ypsilon (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I have also added a pagebanner. Let me know if the image in the banner does not represent Hohenems. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Great achievements there, guys - but will someone add actual content, or should this go directly to VfD? :) -- andree.sk(talk) 08:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing issues[edit]

Hi all, I'm trying to reply to a post on my talk page, but Wikivoyage doesn't let me and instead throws an error message: Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Block evasion. Is anyone else also getting this issue? 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. Try your reply again now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The bug is still there, whatever you did wasn't able to fix it. I still can't comment on my talk page. 2001:630:E4:4220:F908:D1D0:2CB3:80F9 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I have seen your comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Listing editor: invalisection[edit]

I just tried adding Q66048967 as the Wikidata item for Muan's aviation museum, and I get this error when saving:

Error: An unknown error has been encountered while attempting to save the listing, please try again: invalidsection

What is the problem? Thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I just did it with no problem using the pop-up listing editor. AlasdairW (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Just happened to me again on Mokpo, when adding a new listing. Syced (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - August 2019[edit]

Some help is being requested for cotm. With over 100 guide articles with links shown as numbers it is going to take effort from a number of contributors to make these articles look more presentable. What we are talking about is this type of edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Noticed a number of listings using the phoneextra= parameter that does not work. Numbers when valid should be added to phone= with a comma separator. Have added the search option to this months cotm list. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a tour app to Wikivoyage[edit]

We are building an open source tour app that provides an easy way for users to create and take tours with a cell phone and would like to explore ways that it could help Wikivoyage. There is a working version of the app for iOS on the Apple App store and instructions at exsilio.org. The app could be a useful adjunct to Wikivoyage allowing new uses for material produced by the site. Users start a tour in the app, follow a map, and a page pops up on their phone when they reach a point of interest. The page provides an image and information (text or text to voice).

The source code is openly available on GitHub and we'd welcome a collaboration to improve it and find ways to link it to Wikivoyage content. Please let me know if you're interested. ChufiBandit (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

We have several pages on working with various other projects, e.g. Wikivoyage:Cooperating with Wikidata. Search for "Wikivoyage:Coop" will give a list. Should someone add one for Exsilio?
You can use almost any WV material with attribution; see Wikivoyage:Copyleft for details. I think all the text is under CC-by-SA 3.0, but we use stuff from other projects -- notably Wikimedia Commons & Open Streetmap -- that have their own licenses. Pashley (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Great! Arep Ticous 11:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I looked at the Coop pages but couldn't find a way to ask to be a collaborator. Issuing our code under CC-by-SA 3.0 is no problem. I'm particularly interested in finding people interested in collaborating -- building tours and suggesting improvements. One obvious need would be to build a seamless way to connect with Wikivoyage content. Any suggestions gratefully accepted.

I think the closest things we have to tours are Itineraries. Could those articles somehow fuel your app? Would changes here help?
Fiction tourism, Literary travel & perhaps others (suggestions, anyone?) also have stuff you might use. Pashley (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we include a warning box at USA?[edit]

Per https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/06/gun-violence-america-prompts-growing-list-countries-issue-travel-warnings/Justin (koavf)TCM 22:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not the entire country but if there are states or cities where crime and gun violence is particularly high, or if they have an established association with antisemitism, white nationalism, etc. it may be worth a mention. It would have to be comparable to other destinations which have a warning box. Otherwise mentioning it in "Stay Safe" is sufficient. Gizza (roam) 22:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Related discussion at Talk:Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States#Some_governments_issue_warnings. Pashley (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No. The United States is a huge country, with many regions where crime is not rampant. High crime rates should be explained in stay safe, and IMO, should only include caution or warningboxes in extreme cases. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, a mass shooting can happen anywhere, and there is no way to predict where it's going to happen. It's purely dependent on luck. And if you're wandering whether or not the U.S. is a war zone, at least in the areas a tourist is likely to visit, it is not. Most of the gun violence occurs in very poor areas that are of little to no interest to a tourist. So at this point, I will say a warning box is neither helpful nor warranted. The dog2 (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Mass murders are up, but overall homicides are down drastically from a couple of decades ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of which, although I think a warning box is overboard, I think it may be worth considering if a mention of white nationalist terrorism in the "Stay safe" section is appropriate. I don't think it is rampant, but if you believe the statistics, it seems to have gone up in the past few years, and the vast majority (98% in 2018, if I'm not mistaken) of terrorist attacks in the USA these days are committed by white nationalists. That said, as a tourist, even if you are not white, I still think that it is quite unlikely that you will be caught in one, so that brings into question how useful such a mention would be for travellers. The dog2 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel this discussion is a little hypocritical. A travel warning is a travel warning - it is not up to us to decide how to interpret it. Interestingly, we do not have travel warnings for the US and Israel but Myanmar, Karabakh, the West Bank and many others where dangers to travellers might be equally high/low.
The US is a gun country, let's face it and I reckon we are all on the non-IRA side. I think it is just fair to all travellers, especially non-English, to emphasis this and recommend caution.
Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much all of the above. USA does have 'challenges' with gun violence, but these are best addressed in 'stay safe'. Travel warnings are more appropriate for literal war zones or a recent uptake in violence. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, that's how I feel. Myanmar is a rather different case, since as I understand it, Muslims are being thrown out of the country (making it dangerous for Muslims to visit, I assume). I think, with the white nationalist issue, it seems to be an increasing problem and we'll have to watch how it goes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────In the case of Myanmar, it's just the Rohingya people in Rakhine State. If you're a Muslim tourist visiting Yangon, that is not a problem. In fact, quite a significant minority of the Indian community in Yangon are Muslims, and there are mosques in Little India to serve them.

And with regard to crime, both South Africa and Brazil have higher violent crime rates than the US, and we do not have a warning box in those countries' articles, so no, one is not warranted in the USA article. The dog2 (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind then about Myanmar. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to Ceever's point. I think it's reasonable to mention the warnings in "Stay safe", while putting them into context. Because if you think about it, there's no doubt that during the Second Intifada, there would have been a travel warning about terrorism in Israel, although the danger has always been much greater to be killed in a road accident while in Israel than to be killed in any of the wars or acts of terror. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The United States is too big to paint with a broad brush. Crime and gun violence rates vary greatly across the country. A similar approach should be adopted for other countries where the danger is confined to a few parts of the country (if it is the case that only one state in Myanmar is dangerous). Gizza (roam) 02:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, sensational mass murders are up, while the number of homicide deaths is way down. That's part of putting things into perspective. And though the U.S. is much safer per driver/passenger hour than Israel, road accidents are a way, way more likely cause of death than a gunshot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the way to do it will be to say that there has been a rise in white nationalist terrorist attacks in the past few years, and that the locations where they occur are random and impossible to predict, but as a tourist your chances of being caught in one are slim. The dog2 (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and that deaths from homicide are also way down, in spite of the public impact of a string of high-profile mass shootings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I unironically think all our driving articles should come with warning boxes, but I know it's not a viewpoint that'll ever get majority support. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually see your point, but at the same time, I think drivers should understand the high level of risk that comes with that mode of transportation before they read our articles. We are not responsible for someone's crash of bad driving, as dangerous as it may be. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
By the way, should we move this discussion to Talk: United States of America? I think that will be a more appropriate place to continue this. The dog2 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Tough question. I personally think that makes sense, but my decision would rely upon what others think. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the US article needs a warning box for this. In spite of the fun and sensational claims that they're "mostly white nationalists", most of the listed mass shootings do not seem to have any political or ideological bent at all [1] as many are described as escalating from private disputes and arguments. I think the Stay Safe intro describes the situation best "Headline-grabbing major crimes give the U.S. a reputation for crime", but perhaps a short sentence for acknowledgment purposes could be added to the "Gun" section. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
In minor cases, do we know? I agree that we don't need to go all-out on this, but the racist violence issue should be covered somewhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. A warning box is overboard, but facts are facts. While it's true that globally, Islamic extremism is responsible for the most terrorism-related deaths, in the U.S., it is white nationalism that is responsible for the most terrorism-related deaths. Not all mass shootings are tied to a particular ideology (therefore, those are not classified as "terrorism"), but among those that are, these are the facts. The dog2 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
How long has that been the case? It seems that "white nationalism," as it is called, has grown over the last couple years. Probably since the Charlotte incident. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My understanding is that statement was true as of 2017 and I think 2018. Of course, the statistics for 2019 are not out yet since the year isn't over. Speaking of which, while there has been no official statement on this, there are indications that the Dayton, Ohio mass shooting may be a left-wing terrorist attack, since the shooter's social media posts indicated sympathies for violence in the name of left-wing causes. Of course, even if true, that's just an isolated incident, and if you look at the bigger trend, there have been far more white nationalist incidents. The dog2 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the proposal then to add a brief statement about domestic terrorism, gun violence, or both? The two are related but by no means the same. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
At this point I'm quite ambivalent about whether to add anything at all, but if anything is to be added, I lean towards white nationalist terrorism. If you look at official statistics, there's no question it's been on the rise in the past few years, but that said, it's still not prevalent enough for us to need to warn non-white vistors away from the U.S. The dog2 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@The dog2: But it's not for us to say: if several places that we think provide reliable and valuable travel advisories publish them, then we don't need to otherwise vet or second-guess them: we should just republish them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Some other nations have issued travel advisories. Trump threatens to retaliate against countries like Japan, Canada, Uruguay that issued travel warnings Pashley (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Another: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/08/countries-offer-travel-warnings-over-us-violence-and-racism-donald-trump-threatens-retaliation.htmlJustin (koavf)TCM 17:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that we are duty-bound to post travel advisories from countries that are deemed generally more or less reliable in issuing them. The issues surrounding them can be discussed in a bit more detail in United States#Stay safe, but we don't have the option to ignore a travel advisory from Canada because it's for the U.S., rather than Somalia, Israel or wherever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on the warning box at Somalia, the only foreign department with a travel warning is NZ which has a yellow light: https://www.safetravel.govt.nz/north-america I recommend adding this to the top of USA. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
We should do so, absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Official government travel warnings tend toward needless alarmism even in the best of times, and the more polarized and contentious international relations become, the more politicized such warnings tend to get and the more they need to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there have been several recent mass shootings that have received extensive media coverage, but are travellers to the U.S. really in more danger now than they were last year, two years ago, five years ago? The lack of any concomitant increase in the overall murder rate during that time period suggests not, or at least calls for a more nuanced approach to the topic than these overly simplistic warnings provide. I'm no fan of Trump, and believe me, I sympathize with the desire of other countries' governments to stick it to him, but unfortunately our focus has to remain on providing travellers with the most accurate and unbiased information possible. If a warningbox for the U.S. has been unnecessary heretofore, then it remains unnecessary now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
We as armchair travel guides are not better equipped to judge on a case-by-case basis. If we assume that State Departments X, Y, and Z are reliable, then why are you second-guessing them now? New Zealand says that travel to America is more dangerous than Canada and less so than Mexico: sounds sensible to me. Either you think that NZ is generally not reliable or they are and if they are, then you shouldn't cherry-pick which travel advisories you personally think are bogus: let readers decide. Since ttcf, give them the information and the citation, and let them decide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not cherry-picking reliable vs. bogus travel advisories; I'm prioritizing unpoliticizable hard statistics (i.e. the overall murder rate) over easily politicizable (and indeed frequently politicized) government warnings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That hasn't been our policy. If it becomes our policy, perhaps we should delete every governmental warning that we lard numerous articles with. If we'd post a New Zealand warning for Iraq or Afghanistan, what gives us the prerogative to omit their warning for the U.S.? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Iraq and Afghanistan are literal war zones, and the need for a warningbox on those articles is self-evident. I'd actually be fine with letting the text we place in those boxes speak for itself rather than supplementing it with links to specific advisories issued by specific countries, but with the U.S. we have the additional question of whether a warningbox is necessary at all. Again I would point to the lack of any statistically significant change in the U.S. murder rate that would warrant a travel advisory being in effect in 2019 that was not in effect in 2018 or previous years. As terrible as these mass shootings are, the cumulative effect is still a drop in the bucket compared to the dangers faced by travellers in many other countries for which we don't have warningboxes, and that's something that's not based on anything other than hard numbers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The point about statistics is a good one that I've made upthread, and it can be made in "Stay safe", but I think there's a fairly decent argument for some kind of warning for tourists, which is that while murders in general are down, mass-casualty murders are up, and tourists tend to congregate in places where there are big crowds, thereby exposing themselves to more danger from that kind of murderer. Moreover, though it's statistically a very small risk, it's still a bigger risk than in most other developed countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think this information can be covered as a section under "Stay safe". I'm a non-white foreigner living in the U.S., and I get to go about my daily life without incident for the most part. You can argue that that is because I live in a blue state, but I've also travelled to rural areas in solidly red states and never run into any major issues. So in short, a warning box is overboard. I am OK with mentioning mass shootings and white nationalist terrorism in the "Stay safe" section, but if I'm still comfortable letting my parents visit me here, we clearly do not need a warning box. In any case, you are far more likely to get murdered in South Africa or Brazil, but we don't have warning boxes in those countries' articles, so I just don't see how I could be convinced that one is required for the U.S. The dog2 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Mass shootings have been in the news lately, and it's natural that travellers will have heard about them and be curious about the dangers they face. We absolutely should include something about them in "Stay safe". But if we include a warningbox, then we endorse the idea that travellers are somehow more likely to become victims of gun violence now than they would have been before, yet the numbers don't bear that out. I understand the argument that mass shootings are more likely to occur in places where tourists congregate than shootings in general, but as Thedog said, the risk is still miniscule compared to other countries like South Africa and Brazil for which we don't have warningboxes, and the idea that the U.S. and other developed countries ought to be held to more stringent requirements for avoiding warningboxes than developing countries strikes me as a case of the soft bigotry of low expectations vis-à-vis the latter. There are many developing countries, notably Indonesia, China, India, much of the Middle East, and even some African countries, where the murder rate is comparable to that of the developed world, so the logic for a double standard is questionable in any event. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Justin, the NZ website lists word-for-word identical warnings for Albania, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden in Europe. About the UK and several other countries, it says the same thing and adds a warning about crime or civil unrest. Would you reproduce the same warning on all of those countries, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If we think NZ is reliable. If your argument is, "They have lots of these things indiscriminately" then we should remove them entirely. What we shouldn't do is have to hash out which individual ones we think are meaningful or not. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
We are a guide for travellers by travellers. Our job here is not to parrot what governments say, regardless of whether it's the New Zealand government, the Chinese government, the U.S. government or whichever other government, but to provide the most reliable and accurate information to potential travellers based on what's happening on the ground. So if there is a conflict between what some government says and what the situation on the ground actually is, I think we should most certainly follow the latter, because that is actually what is of concern to travellers. So yes, we absolutely should be allowed to judge whether or not a government's travel warning is fair when deciding whether or not to incorporate it into our articles. Blindly following some government's travel advisory without verifying whether or not it matches the actual situation on the ground is doing a disservice to travellers in my opinion. And think of this carefully. If the U.S. is really such a dangerous s***hole that a warning box would imply it to be, do you think I'd still be here? Unlike the Americans in this discussion, I have the option of packing up and moving back to Singapore should it ever come to that, and my family will do everything they can to get me out of America if it ever becomes that dangerous. So if I feel safe enough to continue living in America, why should we be unduly alarmist and warn potential tourists to stay away? The dog2 (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"What we shouldn't do is have to hash out which individual ones we think are meaningful or not" is half of my argument. The other half is that travel advisories are routinely issued, or at least the language in them is routinely exaggerated, for political reasons. Together, they add up to the conclusion that we should regard all government-issued travel advisories as potentially politically motivated and therefore dubious, and avoid implicitly taking sides in political disputes, either by using the existence of government travel advisories as a rationale for adding a warningbox to a particular destination or by linking to government travel advisories within warningboxes. There are plenty of other ways for us to determine the real situation on the ground in any given place, to decide whether or not a warningbox is appropriate and if so, what information it should contain. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Because the subjective experience of one person is inevitably different than someone else. There are plenty of (e.g.) black persons in America who think it is dangerous and outright hostile to them. I personally know a white American who doesn't go anywhere except work and the grocery store because she is afraid of mass shootings. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
If we don't regard any government's warnings as reliable, we need to adopt a policy of not quoting or linking to them, and then we'll have to use some other justification for why we mention "controversial" things like genocide in Rakhine State of Myanmar (that is, controversial because Burmese people deny the facts). Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we completely disregard government warnings. I'm saying that we can and should try to make an assessment on whether or not those warnings are fair. As AndreCarrotflower said, governments often issue travel warnings for political reasons, and that includes governments that most people would deem reliable. For instance, I visited Myanmar back in the day when the U.S. and virtually all Western governments had travel advisories advising people not to go there. In reality, it was no more dangerous than visiting Thailand or Vietnam, which most Western governments did not have similar advisories for. The dog2 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I get you, but I think it's very important for us to have on record in some non-temporary place a clear statement of what our policy on government advisories is. I should say, I completely agree that travel warnings can be unreliable and biased. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the comment ACF made when this discussion got going earlier on the 19th. What matters is the situation: as he has stated in a different way, a travel warning to Iraq is one thing, but the US is another. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I think if a government has issued a travel advisory to a particular country, that can be a good signal that the issue is worth looking further into, for instance with a conversation like this one. What I'm against is the idea of not bothering to do our own research and instead taking those advisories at face value. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Anyway, moving forward, it appears that we do have a consensus on writing something in the "Stay safe" section, just not a warning box. Should we just proceed with that? The dog2 (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing that nobody objected, I went ahead and added the point under "Stay safe". Please feel free to phrase it in a better way if you can, but what I've tried to do is to cover the issue adequately without being unduly alarmist. The dog2 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Admins, your attention[edit]

@SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!, Ground Zero, Andrewssi2: please take a look at the latest note in Special:AbuseFilter/45, where some important information has been shared. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also @Mx. Granger, Traveler100: because Template:Ping can only handle five usernames at a time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
also Gizza. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion continues, at least on my part. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Gizza (roam) 22:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I’ll take a look. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would like admins to take a look at abuse filter for consent. (Scroll down to the bottom upon going to the abuse filter page.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Me again, now at #43. I think I've stumbled upon something, or someone, I should say. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Save your changes" popup appears again after clicking "Publish changes"[edit]

I edited Tokyo/Roppongi (the whole page, because I had to move a listing from a section to another), then pressed "Publish changes...", added a comment and pressed the "Publish changes" button of the popup, like I often do on other Wikimedia sites.

Strangely, the popup appeared again, without my comment. I pressed the "Publish changes" button again.

Thanks to the history tab I know that my change has been registered. Strange bug though. I am on Firefox 68.0.1 on Linux.

Cheers! Syced (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It does not always happen: I was able to post this message normally. Syced (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
That's happened to me, too. It seems like it mostly happens when I've been editing for a while (and then it starts happening a lot). I've just nerd-sniped a pair of devs into looking into this. I can't promise a quick fix, because figuring it out apparently involves setting up a log, which means extra paperwork, and then waiting for it to happen again, but they're on the track.
Syced, can you tell me what web browser and computer operating system you were using? I encounter this primarily in Firefox. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Whatamidoing (WMF): Thanks! I am on Firefox 68.0.1 on Ubuntu 19.04 Syced (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, that had often happened to me... When I edit pages usually after I press publish changes it don't bring me to the page, but instead, the "save your changes" pops up again. But I'm not using Firefox, I'm using Google Chrome. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 03:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
SmileKat40, can you tell me more? Can you make it happen on purpose? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot make it happen on purpose, as I edited the Mexican cuisine page trying to make this happen, but usually when this happens it is on pages that I frequently edit, such as Space and a little while ago, Moon. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 06:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was just destubbifying Ulfborg and then I came across the same problem. Seems like this doesn't only happens on pages that I frequently edit. The SmileKat40! (*Meow* chat with me! | What did I do?) 06:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Just happened to me again on Mokpo, then I got a popup saying there was a conflict (most probably with myself since nobody ever edits that page). Syced (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for help removing all dead links from the Hebrew Wikivoyage[edit]

As of now we currently have many articles on Hebvoy that contain listings imported through the years from the English Wikivoyage without being fully checked and fixed, and therefore many of them contain dead links (mostly because the businesses have closed, different websites, etc).

I was wondering, even though it is a different wiki... since I do not have the technical skills to acomplish something like this completely by myself (I assume one needs to use a bot to do so).... would any experts here by any chance be willing to help us out at Hebvoy by getting your bot to run on the entire content of Hebvoy so that all the dead links would be removed? (instead of having them just be tagged with the template template:dead link) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that we don't remove dead links by bot. Instead human editors review them to try to figure out if (a) the establishment has closed, (b) they've changed their website, (c) they still exist but no longer have a website, or (d) some other problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I can confirm what Granger says is correct. Our bot flags dead links, and then we have to use our brains and hands :) Whether it is technically possible for a bottle to do all you're proposing I don't know.
How easy would it be for non-Hebrew-speaking Wikivoyagers to find flagged listings in a sea of Hebrew text? Because you might need people to chip in rather than bots.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok... so which user is capable of running the bot which flags dead links? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Wrh2, I believe. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Price notation[edit]

There's been a long-running dispute, across a number of articles, regarding how to denote prices that start with a base figure, e.g. 'from $100' or '$100+'. Another editor insists on the first method. However I have found nothing in the manual of style that states the second alternative cannot be used, and indeed it is a commonly-used format not only in print but online. It seems to me that this would be a matter of personal preference – are there any other opinions on this matter? StellarD (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In some places "$100+" is used to mean "prices from $100 (and up)", in others it's "$100 plus tax". "From" is a short word, so there is no need to use a symbol to replace it. I don't see why this is a big issue. I can try to remember not to make this change in StellarD's articles, but I don't get this being a thing to bring to the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Does it matter which one we use on a certain article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
We could also use "≥$100" or "$100 and up". When possible, I'd prefer specifying an actual range, because the difference between "$100 to $200" and "$100 to $10,0000" is significant, but I understand that might not always be feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has mentioned the potential wording "at least $100." How would people like that one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
While I wouldn't start an edit war over it, if a range isn't known (as is often the case with hotels), I'd definitely prefer "from $100" instead of "$100+". That usage of "+" has no mathematical or literary basis, and is just sloppy writing. While we do use abbreviations such as days of the week in listings, WV is not so constrained for space like a printed guide that we need to use awkward and potentially unclear symbols instead of a short English word. And there's no reason to use "at least" when "from" is 3 letters and a space shorter and is already perfectly clear. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Why does it need to be one or the other? Unless there's confusion about what's meant, just leave it be. There's such a thing as overstandardization. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I prefer "from $100". I think that "at least $100" has a slight implication of being expensive, and looks odd when used with prices which are a good deal - "the campsite costs at least $5" doesn't look right (but "the hotel costs at least $500" is ok). It is not important, but is better that adjacent listings use the same wording. AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If the meaning is that there are various prices and the lowest of them is $100, I think "From $100" is best, and "$100 and up" is fine. Whether I would change any other usages would partly depend on how pedantic my mood was at the time, and whether I was aware that the editor who wrote it had a strong preference for it. Nurg (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: adding the Hovercards feature to the English Wikivoyage[edit]

The feature was finally approved and implemented at the Hebrew Wikivoyage on August 5th. See how it works by going to this article (for example) and hovering the mouse pointer above any blue interlinks.

I myself think that this feature is perfect for any Wikivoyage edition and therefore I wanted to suggest that it would be added to the English Wikivoyage as well. But what does the Engvoy community think? Do you think this feature should be added or not? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If I have understood what you are suggesting, it is already available here. In preferences set check the box in: Appearance - Reading Preferences - Enable page previews. It is enabled for readers who aren't logged in. There has been some discussion here on how the preview image is chosen, as it is often a poor choice, like a view of the airport or railway station. AlasdairW (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, i didn't know that. Why isn't it on for everyone by default? I see how for many articles it puts a bad thumbnail. Is there any way to choose which exact image will show instead of listing all the images it should exclude? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
We had a discussion about this at the beginning of this year. I wasn't there to see the end of it, but this, combined with other issues people were having with the previews led to it being changed to an opt-in feature rather than an opt-out. This might have been to do with this issue. I don't believe the original complaint has been solved yet, so I personally do not see a reason to make the previews an opt-out feature yet.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we should follow his advice. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hovercards/Page Previews is currently available here to logged-out editors.
If you have NAVPOPS enabled (available to logged-in editors only), then it's automagically suppressed for your account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
We Chinese Wikivoyage need this feature, ויקיג'אנקי, Can you provide how to make this feature on Wikivoyage?--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Has the topic of the upcoming re-branding of all Wikimedia sister projects been discussed here yet?[edit]

I was made aware recently that the the actual rebranding of all Wikimedia sister projects (including Wikivoyage) is much closer/real than I realized.

From what I gathered so far, it seems that the general plan is to make all sister projects have the Wikipedia brand much more prominent, to encourage many more people to be aware of our efforts and be active on the sister projects as well. I even had a thought that maybe this move is aimed at the core Wikipedia editor base to encourage more Wikipedians to expand the sister sites as well (maybe more prominent Wikipedians would help out if Wikivoyage would be called "Wikipedia's travel guides section" or something like that and would apear as a sub section of Wikipedia instead of a different domain). Either way these are just my guesses, so the change might not be that extreme.

You could read the official recent Wikimedia documentation about the upcoming rebranding here.

Does anyone have any more information about this topic? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at meta:Talk:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review/brainstorm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the discussion had back in February, when this was raised for the first time. I didn't partake then, since I was dead neutral on the matter, but consensus then seems to have been to leave it for a while, as some slight rebranding had just taken place at that time. It's been almost half a year since the end of March, when the discussion then ended though, so perhaps it's a fair time already to raise the question once more.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You'll see plenty of familiar names from Wikivoyage (self included) partaking in that discussion at Meta, so yes, we're fully abreast of the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Is discussion still ongoing (and if so, exactly where)? If not, what is the likely next step that the WMF will take? -- John Broughton 00:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The Board usually has a meeting at Wikimania, and I think this was supposed to be on the agenda. Probably when everyone is recovered from travel, we'll hear more. m:Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review/results might be the most recent thing posted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing visibility[edit]

When performing this action, Wikivoyage:Deny recognition now shows up. I added it as an option. That change is only local, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked Special:Contributions/SelfieCity and the page I adjusted is MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
You might want to re-think that. Saying that you're denying recognition to someone is, itself, an act of recognition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Well then, that leaves the question of what to put down as a reason. We have very specific parameters as to when it's appropriate to revdel for reasons of recognition denial, and those cases generally have nothing to do with copyvio, libel, doxing, or the other reasons listed on the drop-down menu. Remember that the vandal himself is not the only, or even the primary, intended audience for those edit summary tags - they mainly exist so that fellow editors on Recent Changes patrol can understand the rationale without having to view the edits for themselves, which the MediaWiki software makes quite a cumbersome thing to do in the case of deleted revisions. (I see this as especially important because revdel is a somewhat more heavy-handed tactic that's not generally used for these types of purposes on other WMF sites. I like the link to the policy page on the drop-down menu option as a way to emphasize to less active editors who may have missed the discussions where this policy was created, or to those who may be more active on other wikis, that all these revdels are indeed covered by Wikivoyage policy rather than being a case of abuse of sysop tools or whatnot.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe "Vandalism"? Or maybe no information in the log at all, since no comment would be the most effective form of denying recognition? I grant that this might make other admins more likely to review your decision to revdel, but that's not really a disadvantage. Doing so gives everyone confidence that the tool is being used well, and helps spread information about what others think is a reasonable use. Furthermore, as this is an experimental process that applies to a very small subset of users, and only when the number of edits is "overwhelming", it seems be unlikely that the absence of a public reason would create an unreasonable workload. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I am arguing that an edit summary is worthwhile and I suppose the same applies to the logs. I do not believe such log entries would be an award the vandals would seek. --LPfi (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone with advanced technical skills willing to help install a couple of gadgets at Hebvoy?[edit]

Unfortunately the only user at the Hebrew Wikivoyage with the advanced technical skills and vast knowledge about importing+installing gadets has stopped being active recently due to currently being very busy in his life.

We currently need to have a couple of gadgets imported from other wikis and installed at Hebvoy and I am far from being capable of doing so myself.

I tried to contact prominent Wikpedians at the Hebrew Wikipedia whom are considered the experts in this matter but unfortantely no one was willing to help me with this from the handful of people whom have these capabilities there.

Is there maybe anyone here at the English Wikivoyage with advanced technical skills and experiance with importing+installing gadgets... whom is willing to help us at Hebvoy import and install a couple of gadgets? (If there is anyone willing to help I'll make sure to request that you'll get the Interface administrators permissions there so that you would actually be capeble of doing this at Hebvoy). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

ויקיג'אנקי, which gadgets has your community decided are necessary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @ויקיג'אנקי: I have provided you with a Code about ShareArticle. Basically, Wikipedia is rarely willing to help us with Wikivoyage. The Wikivoyage community in any language really needs to help and assist each other on their own team.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Search results out of data[edit]

Would appear that search results are not updating to recent edits. There is always a little delay between making an edit and seeing the results in a search, but this is usually minutes not days. Anyone know hot to address this topic?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be working fine again. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Flags and coat of arms[edit]

Is it okay if we can add flags and coat of arms to articles? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say 'no'. This isn't Wikipedia. Flags and coats of arms may be interesting, but are not important to travellers. In most countries, the observant traveller will figure out what the flag is pretty quickly. The coat of arms is just trivia. Ground Zero (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Depending on the individual situation, it could be a matter for 'Respect'. We all know examples, and don't need to go there now, but there are certainly some cases when a traveller knowing the meaning and use of a particular flag can help grease the wheels in certain places.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
By the way, French Wikivoyage has the practice of using flags/COAs alongside the article's name, as part of the pagebanner. I quite like the look, though wouldn't advocate us copying.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Could this be a travel topic? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
"There are also some cases when a traveller knowing the meaning and use of a particular flag can help grease the wheels in certain places" -- I don't know know what those cases would be. There would also be cases where knowing a country's national anthem/flower/sport/head of state would be useful, but if we include everything that may be possibly of use or interest, we end up with too much information, and not enough focus on travel information. We don't even include the national language(s) in the infobox, which is far, far, far more useful information than the flag. Why are we talking about adding flags before talking about adding languages? Because a small group of people love flags, that's why. I'm one of them, but I don't want to inflict my geeky hobby on Wikivoyage. Let's focus on what travellers need instead of adding cruft to our country-level articles which are often long and unwieldy. Ground Zero (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to get into examples, but since you've asked (well not really, but...): when and where is the Confederate flag "appropriate"? How may a traveller behave around people waving the neutral Catalan flag or the pro-independence one? What do the uses of the Union Flag, the Tricolour, or the Red Hand mean in Ulster? (I do not want answers to these questions or a discussion of the issues raised here - they are just examples). As I wrote, they could be a matter for 'Respect' in certain cases, i.e. where a traveller could put their foot in it by being ignorant. In those few cases, it would be useful to have an image or description of the flag in question.
Please re-read the thread. Nobody has proposed adding flags to every country article's infobox at the expense of flowers or languages, nobody has even specifically asked to focus on country articles over region / city pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I read that into the discussion because the original question provided no specifics. I can see there being a reason to include a flag where it is an issue of staying safe,, such as your examples, but not as a general practice for countries, regions, cities. The matter should be handled on a case-by-case basis, not as a general discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I can agree with that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
When you arrive in a country you may start to see the flag on signs, sometimes starting with the signs directing people to different immigration queues. Technically it is only the traveller's own home country flag that he needs to recognise, but I see no harm in introducing the flag in country articles. However as flags are used for political purposes, we should only do this on country articles, and only where the official recognition of the flag is clear. Flags for cities and other regions have more chance of being controversial, and so I don't think we should show these. AlasdairW (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Flags that are culturally significant should be mentioned. A US history article should explain the Flag; otherwise, waste of time, unless it is a respect issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Ground Zero. In the vast majority of cases a traveler doesn't need to recognize flags (except one's home country flag or maybe the flag of a protecting power), and I foresee this starting unnecessary debates about countries with limited recognition and subnational regions that we treat as countries. When there is a specific issue that travelers should be aware of, it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis, as is already done at United States of America#Respect. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with Ground Zero. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
We actually used to have flags and coats of arms in the pagebanners, just like French Wikivoyage still does. I don't remember where the discussion was to remove them but I'd would rather have kept them and would certainly not object to reinstating coats of arms or at least flags for countries. The flag is the first thing you see when arriving into a foreign country (or for an island or entity with a strong local identity, the local flag), so I can't understand why they need to be censored from our articles. Ypsilon (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we have debates about which flag to use for Kashmir? Do we use the flag for Transnistria? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to have a flag for all articles, though, for example there is no flag that could represent Central Europe. So if there is a flag that could represent the whole Kashmir region (flown both in India and Pakistan as of the present day), it could be used in the Kashmir article, otherwise not. Our articles for the Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir would of course have their own flags if such flags exist (e.g. this one for Azad Kashmir, just as in its Wikipedia article).
The Transnistrian government has defacto control of the area called Transnistria, regardless that no UN member has recognized it as a country. We correctly state that in the article, which is breadcrumbed directly under the Balkans instead Moldova. So I find it logical to use their flag in the Transnistria article. Ypsilon (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we should go on a case-by-case basis if we want to add flags. Not every article has to have all the same features. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you ask me, I don't mind having flags in the country articles, but it should not be in the sub-national articles, with a few exceptions such as Hong Kong and Puerto Rico. However, the question this raises is what do we do with disputed areas? That is a hole we probably do not want to go down into since it will probably result in heated and travel-irrelevant political debates. The dog2 (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I oppose including flags in any article, for this reason. It's enough to have a global policy of recognizing all reasonably stable de facto independent countries as simply countries. Including their flags provides another level of recognition totally unnecessary in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Update on the consultation about office actions[edit]

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Listing editor showing currencies instead of content[edit]

  1. Go to Wakayama#By_bus
  2. Click "edit" on the Willer Express listing
  3. Observe that the content is "USD EUR GBP AUD CAD CHF KRW", instead of the content you would see by editing the source.

Reproduced everytime on Firefox 68.0.1 Ubuntu. Thanks! Syced (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage API?[edit]

Does the Wikivoyage have an API for everyone to use?--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The generic wikimedia API... -- andree.sk(talk) 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Fog...[edit]

Currently a stub in Severe Weather... Is a wider article giving explanations and possible regions where it occurs viable? If not I won't start one.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it could really support its own article. It's a hazard, albeit a relatively minor one with the application of common sense, and it's certainly not a tourist attraction! By all means expand the fog section of the Severe Weather article, if there's anything else to say.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Severe weather is a lowercase on the second word, if you need to link to it in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe we also have Air pollution, which is a relevant topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Spam blacklist[edit]

Could somebody please tell me how to find our blacklist for touts and spammers? I have triggered the filter several times tonight trying to add the website of a taxi firm to Farnborough. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It's funny — I've been doing some wikidetective work lately and your edit summary actually made me suspicious. Then I realized! Maybe I need to stop over-thinking Wikivoyage problem editors?? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist --Traveler100 (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

New tools and IP masking[edit]

14:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Medical Museums and collections?[edit]

I note that we don't yet have an article on Medical collections and related musuems that are open to the public.

A quick web search found a few UK based ones, but I was sure there were some anatomical collections in Europe as well.

Would Medical Museums and collections be a viable topic? Assuming someone was able to write an appropriate introduction. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably. You could include anatomy collections, such as the preserved (skinless) bodies at https://bodyworlds.com/exhibitions/#permanent WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is relevant, but there are several landmarks related to John Snow in London. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is often considered to be the father of modern epidemiology, as marked out the home addresses of cholera patients on a map and was able to trace the source of the epidemic using that data. The dog2 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Shameless plug for the UB Museum of Neuroanatomy in North Buffalo. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd probably just call it Medical Museums and explain in the article that it includes anyplace with significant collections. The "and Collections" makes the title unnecessarily long. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, since we already have a Museums article, I could suggest creating a new section in that article that can be branched off into a separate article once it gets too long. The dog2 (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Not sure it'd be a good idea to start listing individual museums in that article. Powers (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking... Does anyone want to start writing a lede for an article, to scope it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Replacing the climate graph with Template:Climate data[edit]

As everybody knows, a year ago the climate table was replaced with what most people here thought was the best thing since sliced bread: the current climate graph.

Myself I prefer to read the information from a table rather than the current graph setup. Not to mention that it often creates additional whitespace in the articles (or pushes down things like photos and dynamic maps below it), as mentioned in Template talk:Climate, and at that talk page some people also have found it not mobile friendly, not web browser friendly, sunlight and sea temperatures not showing up, and one commenter found it overall strange displaying temperatures and precipitation on the same chart. The concerns have gone unadressed.

Now I don't actually have a problem with the graph... as I've simply moved over to using the data in Wikipedia articles for climate information whenever I've needed it for working on climate sections in articles, looking for which months a destination would be suitable to feature on the Main Page and otherwise. In Wikipedia, as you probably know (example), the data is in a tidy table instead of along a set of rectangles going up and down. The colors, which according to some are not too aesthetic, actually show the information in a larger context (shades of red, orange, beige for temperature, different shades of blue for precipitation days etc.) so you can visually compare climate charts from different cities and regions. In the current version you can really only compare months in the same chart (same city) "at a glance". User-friendliness, information at a glance and such were the reasons to move over to the current table.

I've at a few occasions thought about opening a discussion to import the Wikipedia climate template, but never found time (also I know nothing about coding and the technical side of templates). But now, RogueScholar has started such a discussion and also implemented the WP climate table in a test article (Venice), plus it has previously existed in at least one other article (Las Palmas).

Granted, the whole thing is bigger but it can be collapsed (talking about collapsable templates, one thing that could be worth bringing over from Russian Wikivoyage is the collapsable dynamic map). Perhaps not all sections in the Wikipedia table are necessary to use here but I guess not all of them need to be used (also in the current climate table we have the options of adding sea water temperature and whatnot). But again, there are a lot of options in that template that a traveler could find useful like UV radiation (sunny locations), rainy days in each month (tropics and other rainy places), and sunshine hours (frequently overcast/foggy locations, far northern and southern places).

Thoughts? Ypsilon (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The chart version also came from WP, from w:Template:Climate chart, which is used on over 1000 pages (although w:Template:Weather box is used on 16000).
Personally, after living with it for almost exactly a year, I still hate the chart. I strongly prefer the climate table that it used to be: it's much easier to read and interpret, and doesn't suffer from weird problems of not fitting properly on mobile devices, overlapping bars for temperature and precipitation, difficult problems scaling the Y-axis, etc. It even has horrible display problems on its own documentation page, FFS!
I would be very happy to return to any table-based format rather than the chart. Whether that's the old table, or a new one with colored backgrounds in each cell like Template:Climate data, I don't have a strong preference. I do think it's better as a sidebar item than a huge inline chart. The new one takes up a lot of space, even with text size reduced, so it should be trimmed down. Most places only have avg high and low temps (no mean) and rainfall height (not days), with some adding snowfall height, and I think the sets of data the old table supported are generally enough for a travel guide; anything else like UV index or days of rain can and should be conveyed in prose. Displaying converted temperatures in parentheses probably contributes significantly to the width; it would be better to use the abbr mouseover from the old incarnation, or use a "show conversion" link that either drops down to reveal the converted table like the current chart does, or simply a toggle for °C/°F that replaces the numbers in the table with the one you click. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In the end, the graph template can be fixed/extended too - just saying... Or you can even copy-paste the html code and adjust the few broken graphs. Or overlay them manually with additional 'facts'. -- andree.sk(talk) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Graph for me, in the spirit of 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Whatever you guys decide, just don't argue with "it often creates additional whitespace". The table pushes the whole article and visually completely splits the "article flow" (like the embassy table, that is now hidden in most articles)... I'm not sure what's to hate about the graph, but I may be skewed, because I look at such a graph every day in a weather forecast app. -- andree.sk(talk) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Like User:Andree.sk, I prefer the graph. While I really like those tables you mean, Ypsilon, I don't think all the information is necessary for the traveler — in most cases. If a place has an exceptional weather statistic not revealed in the graph, then I think it would be OK to use the table. The graph wasn't perfect originally but nowadays I think it looks quite good, and modern, in our articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I much prefer the graph status quo, though certainly concede that they have issues that should be resolved. Going back to tables just because a relatively new template has some bugs seems a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I think the graphs are connecting and will connect better with travellers than big, complex tables will. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Don’t tout red linking[edit]

Why is it doing that? This is showing up as a red link on my iPhone 6S. Does it red link for you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason it's a pain in the neck to italicize or bold-ify text when editing on my phone: because iPhones default to curly quotes, but the apostrophe in Wikivoyage:Don't tout (and those used to denote bold and italic text in MediaWiki markup) are straight. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's terrible, isn't it? Couldn't we create a redirect to fix that problem? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s terrible for iPhones to edit “defectively” by default. And since we can’t expect people to all somehow change what their iPhones do, it’s imperative to fix the problem in MediaWiki markup. Or should I simply stop editing every time I am without my laptop and/or without Wi-Fi? That’s not a solution, but at present, others not on iPhones will have to do followup edits after me... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you - you inspired me to finally seek out a solution to this problem. On your iPhone, go to Settings > General > Keyboard and then turn Smart Punctuation off. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Now, if I could only find an easy way to place my cursor in the middle of any word on my iPhone... Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That issue with the cursor is literally one of the most annoying features of Apple products. Fortunately, 'my' iPad -belonging to my former employer - 'had to' be returned last week (oh, the pain!) as part of moving on to a new job.
I've made the redirect, as we should do our best to make Wikivoyage compatible with all operating systems. Off the top of your heads, can anyone remember any other policy page titles with an apostrophe, that may default to the fancy curly type on iOS? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
What about Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub? How does that work with the other kind of apostrophe? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Travellers’ pub. It was redlinking, but not anymore.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Thundering! Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The "wrong" versions of "Don't tout" and "don't tout" should also be redirected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to do this comprehensively, then there are about 325 titles in the mainspace (including redirects) and 39 in the project space (including four redirects). I'm not sure that every single one of these needs a redirect from curly quotes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say that anything in articlespace can be redirected as and when it's needed. It would make sense to do the policy pages, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

page creation error with visual editor[edit]

Not sure of the cause of the problem but there is an error with creating pages in visual edit (not wiki source) mode. Change to visual editor, if you are not using it, create a new park article then change back to wiki source mode and look at the page in edit. It is not adding template for pagebanner but some code of page banner. Anyone know where the error is? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Is it an issue a user can fix after s/he has created a page? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
This problem still exists. Difficult for a new contributor to understand how to edit in wiki source mode. At the moment I am editing new articles to fix the problem. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
True. Let us know how things are as the issue progresses. If this is still a problem in a few days, we definitely need to take some action. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Honiton a good example of the kind of issue you're facing? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes and Zakouma National Park would be another example. Try yourself, create a page with test name (you have the right to delete a test page later) while in visual editor mode, then switch to wiki source editor mode and look at the page in edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

"Don't visit" list...[edit]

Do we have a summarised one , based on Warning boxes?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't support such a list. As a travel guide, we among other things present safety information - and then leave it to our readers to choose whether to go to Country or Region X,Y or Z or not. To put it another way, this is a travel guide, not a "don't travel" guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan's concerns, but for maintenance purposes see: Category:Has_warning_box and Category:Has warning box with out of date warning. A warning box may only be on an article for a few days to warn of an industrial dispute, or for several years as a result of war, and I don't see any value for the reader in a manual list. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Warningboxes are good, but they do not mean that a tourist must not visit a place. We don't want to get too negative about warnings. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I sometimes wonder whether we go too far with some warnings. We should not forget that, while most editors here are Westerners, we are writing for a global audience of people who can read English. For example, few Westerners (but not none) might be planning trips to Iraq at present, but for people from culturally similar neighbouring countries, visits to parts of Iraq are likely much less daunting, and it is not our place to discourage them from going. Nurg (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, though it's better to be on the careful side than not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think Wikivoyage should ever be warning people not to visit a place, but we should absolutely let readers know if a major government advises against visiting a place. If the UK Foreign Office says "don't go there", that is important information for readers to consider making their own decisions. But we don't need a separate list. Warning boxes are sufficient. Ground Zero (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree completely, and you said it better than I did. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To reference the previous discussion about the USA article, I would say that government warnings not to go to a place in and of themselves are not grounds for us to put up warning boxes. Whether you like it or not, even Western governments sometimes issue such warnings for political reasons, so the determining factor should be what the situation on the ground actually is. If it is a war zone, we should have a warning box saying that it's a war zone. If gay people are likely to be lynched by the locals, we likewise should have a warning box saying that. But the mere fact that the British government issued a warning not to go there is not sufficient grounds for a warning box. And so, to the point of this thread, no, there should not be a "Don't visit" list. Warning boxes in the destination articles are sufficient. For instance, I put a warning box in the Uganda article stating that extreme homophobia is rampant, but if a gay person wants to visit Uganda despite that, it is not up to us to stop him from visiting; he still has every right to make that decision for himself. The dog2 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems a consensus has been reached. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Warningbox[edit]

I added the following to the top of the Japan article to warn of a coming cyclone:

{{warningbox|According to [https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/western-pacific/2019/tropical-storm-fourteen?map=forecast Wunderground's hurricane forecasting] and their [https://www.wunderground.com/wundermap Wundermap], a tropical cyclone is headed for southern Japan and will strike within the next several days. Be cautious if you plan to visit southern Japan.}}

It is displaying as just WARNING: {{{1}}}. Why is it not working? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the syntax problem is, but I think you should add a date to the text. What does "in the next few days mean" to the reader? I'm finding text that was added in 2005 that tells readers what has happened "in recent years". It's not helpful. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll do that — but first, my goal is to get the warningbox working. I will add a date to the Florida cautionbox. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If you go to the Florida article, you will see that I have upgraded it to a warningbox. That is because I do not think the cautionbox allows you to add a "lastedit" paramater. (At least, I didn't see any mention of one at Template:Cautionbox.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately, Template:Cautionbox gave me the answer to the original question. I needed to add a "1" for the second parameter, like this:
{{warningbox|1=According to [https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/western-pacific/2019/tropical-storm-fourteen?map=forecast Wunderground's hurricane forecasting] and their [https://www.wunderground.com/wundermap Wundermap], a tropical cyclone is headed for southern Japan and will strike within the next several days. Be cautious if you plan to visit southern Japan.}}
I have also added the day the warningbox was updated to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time, if you want to record some information in a MediaWiki template (MediaWiki is the software we use), but you don't need it to show up in the article, you can use any old made-up parameter. Templates normally ignore unknown parameters, but any editor who looks at the wikitext will see it. This is useful for adding dates, explanations, etc. that will only matter to another editor. It's good that these boxes support |lastedit= but if they didn't, you could write something like |date= or |note-from-me= or whatever you liked for the convenience of other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Or use a parameter name you would like to have supported. If lastedit isn't recognized and you use it, editors will see it (it not showing up may of course cause some confusion), and when the template is edited to support it, the date shows up as intended. The ignoring unknown parameters also causes the need for "1=", explicitly stating a parameter should be treated as a positional one, as otherwise everything up to the "=" that happens to be in the parameter text is treated as a parameter name. --LPfi (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried date= because I thought it did what lastedit= actually does. Could we make date= a valid parameter, with the same effect as lastedit, so it is easier to remember what is the name of the parameter when using it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to do this; we would create the other name as an "alias" for the parameter. Then you could use either name, with the same result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the best thing we can do. However, I don't know all that code, so could you please do it if it's not too hard? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Mapframe problems[edit]

What's wrong with the maps at Bicol and Calabarzon? They just show up as white for me, in both Firefox and Safari. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: They are empty: just {{mapframe}} with no geocoordinates. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Calabrazon is empty too but does display for me. Maybe lacking info at Wikidata? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't think the lack of geocoordinates is the problem—many articles, such as Negros, have mapframes with no geocoordinates but still display the map just fine.
Oddly enough, Calabarzon now displays for me too, though I'm sure it didn't 15 minutes ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of the dynamic maps seem to be broken currently, probably some wikimedia server outage... -- andree.sk(talk) 05:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is because of broken mapshapes. The shapes are added by a JavaScript script which had to load external data. If one of these data is broken the script stops working. That's why the map is empty. The script stop is a known problem. I tried to get the mapshape data manually, and I got the response: "password authentication failed for user \"kartotherian\"". This should not happen. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The mapshapes in those articles showed white for me as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the problem is now solved. --RolandUnger (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Guide for new editors[edit]

I had an idea today that we could create a page with project page links organized for new users. This wouldn't be the same as the standard welcome message on talk pages, as it would take several different Wikivoyage project pages and arrange them from least advanced to most advanced. A new editor can go through each project page one by one, like a tutorial. I have created a start at User:SelfieCity/Tutorial that can be expanded and improved.

The idea is that we could link new users to this to aid them in learning how to contribute, and more importantly, become an informed member of our community. It's along the lines of ThunderingTyphoons! idea of having mentors, which never really got underway but did result in the creation of the Arrivals lounge. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems like just one more page to confuse people with an unclear hierarchy. The front page already has a bunch of links to WV:Plunge forward, WV:Arrivals lounge, WV:How to edit a page, etc. WV:Welcome and WV:About also point to quite a few pages.
I doubt too many people on any wiki read much of anything before they start trying to contribute. However, the problem here is that there are quite a few pages that are all cross-linked without much hierarchy. Maybe that just means we need to add a navigation sidebar to WV:Welcome and several other pages, so that alongside the wall of text there's a nice blue box to show that there are other pages worth looking at, and organize them into a sensible order. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
My concern is that quite a few of our new editors start editing articles, hardly ever participate in any discussions, and often just fade away. We need some kind of route to making these people active in the community so they can hopefully become patrollers and administrators. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello
Have you heard about the Growth team work? They've created some small tools that help newcomers to make their first steps.
So far, 3 features are available:
  • Help panel: allow newcomers to find help and ask questions while they edit.
  • Welcome survey: learn what topics and types of edits newcomers are interested in.
  • EditorJourney: learn what workflows newcomers go through on their first day.
A fourth feature will be available when those 3 are deployed: Newcomer homepage.
Those features have been developed for Wikipedias, but could work on your wiki. They would be a good addition to your tutorials. I let you browse those links and if you think it would work, please ping me back.
Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela mapshape[edit]

Not all of Venezuela is showing up on the dynamic mapshape. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I have checked, and it is still not working. Should a Phabricator entry be created? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Just checked one of the missing mapshapes with help of the OSM Relation Analyzer. At least this one is a closed contour in OSM. So the problem seems to be related to the Kartographer extension.--Renek78 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Most incidents don’t kill you or cripple you"[edit]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-04/world-s-most-dangerous-countries-to-travel-to-aren-t-that-scaryJustin (koavf)TCM 00:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to this article, which at first I would have dismissed; however, it gives insight to an aspect of world travel I normally wouldn't give a second thought. I wouldn't take the whole article as Gospel, but I would certainly consider much of it, as it is written well by someone who obviously has vast travel experience. I'm not sure we can apply this information to Wikivoyage articles, but I think we can apply it to our attitudes when we edit here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but continuing the earlier "Don't visit" discussion: those government advisories have an immediate practical effect, because your travel insurance will have a standard clause excluding any cover for travel against such advice. So a turned ankle or cardiac collapse would be all at your expense, ruinous if it came to a medevac. Grahamsands (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I think that only applies to the most stringent warnings, and even then the results may not be total cancellation. I looked at one policy which said that it would not pay for "political evacuations" if there were warnings of political unrest, or medical conditions caused by some travel-warning-related things (e.g., injuries from acts of terrorism, Ebola if your home country said not to go there because of Ebola). I got the impression that they were concerned about the "Avoid unnecessary travel" and "Do not travel" levels, rather than the "Exercise caution" level. I didn't see anything that suggested that they'd deny coverage if you sprained your ankle in a museum; the limits seemed to be focused on warning-related reasons. They seemed more concerned about Pakistan and Afghanistan than in places with milder warnings, like France, Germany, and Mexico. But they were willing to give me a quote for Afghanistan anyway, so there must be something they're willing to cover there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I'll reply a bit on a tangent, but our experience with medical insurance in the U.S. would cause us to be a bit cautious in assuming that a company that claims to insure something absolutely wouldn't try to weasel out of paying anything if needed. In other words, the fact that someone gives you a quote for Afghanistan in no way proves they'd pay out if you needed that. But I'll take your inference that they are at least suggesting they would. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
True. In fact, I'd expect them to try to weasel out of as much as possible. It could be that, in practice, the Afghanistan quote would cover only "lost luggage" or something similarly trivial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Back-tracking to Justin's article, another consideration is that upgrades to warnings get shouted from the rooftops, but downgrades pass quietly by. At some point in recent weeks the UK has put almost all of Lebanon into green, including Baalbek and Byblos which were long red. The world won't notice until the country's tourist agency launches a charm offensive to win back its lost trade. Grahamsands (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a very interesting thought. On that note, could we include a dynamic map, somewhere on Wikivoyage, showing which areas of the world are "green" and which are "red"? Perhaps it could be included in Stay safe or a similar article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
That is a massive job, and a huge oversimplification of a complex issue. For example, at the moment I would happily travel to Hong Kong if I arrived on Monday and left on Thursday, but I would want to avoid being there at the weekend, as protests generally occur at then. Unless you can create a bot to read 5 or more government travel pages daily and update the map accordingly, we should leave this to others. AlasdairW (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Dubrovnik banner[edit]

Hi all, I made a mistake in Commons by overwriting a picture with a cropped version, which was then used as the page banner for Dubrovnik. Later I reverted my mistake, created a whole new copy and linked to this one in the article. But somehow the original version of the picture is still shown in the article. Anybody knows why? --Renek78 (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sorted it. There was a syntax error in the pagebanner on Dubrovnik ("File:" was included), so it was fetching the banner from Wikidata, which still had the old entry. I have updated both the page and the WD entry. AlasdairW (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, stupid mistake! Thanks, AlasdairW!--Renek78 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
When I (originally) added the new pagebanner, I simply copied in the filename from the earlier image and did the Commons/Wikidata work. It probably would have been wiser to let Renek78 do the work, but 1) I didn't want to seem lazy and 2) I'm impatient some of the time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
You did nothing wrong at all, Selfie City. 100 percently my mistake when I created this page banner in Commons and then making a syntax error in Wikivoyage. Thanks for plunging forward regarding the banner. --Renek78 (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Quality ratings on mobile[edit]

I've been browsing WV on mobile a bunch recently, and one thing I've been missing is the quality ratings (star, guide, outline, etc.) at the bottom — they're a really useful piece of context that helps me discern whether to treat what I'm reading as authoritative collective wisdom or the musings of the one editor who's ever been to the place. Would it be possible to add these to the mobile edition? Sdkb (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

They're not missing on my mobile browser (Chrome). The template only displays in a basic text format, but it's still enough to know what level an article is. Which browser are you using? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I see the text when you expand the Go next section. As you say just text, we need to look at having some form of box boarder around the text in mobile mode. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm now in mobile mode on a desktop computer, and I am using the Firefox browser. The status information is showing up with a border as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Oops, silly me, I just didn't think to expand that last section. I guess ideally the box should appear outside that section, as it's not part of "Go next", but that's a more minor issue. Sdkb (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hacks for keeping clean clothes on the road[edit]

https://www.latimes.com/travel/story/2019-09-02/readers-laundry-tips-clean-clothes-travelingJustin (koavf)TCM 16:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Tea urn (or sterile rubbish bin) + water + detergent. Leave your clothes suspended from a taught rope in there while driving. It worked for Steinbeck, though he did have an enormous custom van and so plenty of space.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Any useful information should be added in hygiene and body care or laundry. Gizza (roam) 00:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Maps instability[edit]

There are ongoing issues with the sliding maps at the moment. Site administrators are working on it. Until they are resolved, those maps may take more time to load or fail to load completely. Thank you for your understanding and sorry for the disruption. More info available on the linked ticket. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, JCrespo (WMF). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Chenies Manor House[edit]

w:Chenies_Manor_House - Grade I, Ocassional opening, so worth mentioning as a See item, I'm not sure if it belongs with Amersham/Chesham or given repsective distances with Rickmansworth/ Chorleywood.

I'd like some thoughts on this.

Also does anyone else on Wikivoyage, have a list of Grade I buildings in the UK with public opening? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The posttown is listed as Rickmansworth, so if all other things are equal (distance, ease of access from the population centre - the website mentions no bus service so it's presumably only accessible by car), put it there.
Wikipedia has lists of Grade-I listed buildings by county, though does not mention whether they are open to the public.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
There's (is/was) a Bus (https://bustimes.org/services/103-high-wycombe-beaconsfield-amersham-watford), that runs along the Amersham/Chalfont/Rickmansworth main road, It used to stop outside the Garden Centre. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Rickmansworth looks the closest, and the 103 bus from there goes nearby (15 mins walk) hourly. AlasdairW (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Added a listing. If someone wants to add the bus details, feel free. Should probably add a paragraph concerning the village more generally, It's too small for it's own article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Related:- Where to put a Garden Centre? It's not linked with the Manor House in any way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure Wikivoyage is the place to list garden centres. If for some reason it's relevant to travellers, then the Buy section.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I did add the one at Wendover, previously, but might remove it if the policy is aginst adding them generally, given it's nothing special, apart from the specialist food outlet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Policy on "chain-pubs"...[edit]

In my local area, I've had some good meals out in some local pubs, However, a few of them are chain-pubs, and so I'm reticent about adding them as listings, preferring to add independents. Do we have a policy about semi-chain outlets?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for WV:Boring. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I find chain pubs are less "chained" than chain shops or restaurants. They usually have some local character in the decor and some beer from a nearby brewery, even if much of the menu is the same as the other end of the country. They also tend to serve food later than most independents. As a result I often list them as places to drink or eat. AlasdairW (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I think if it's just a local chain, we might consider things differently - say there are 5 good pubs in a local chain. Or, for example, there are several Rischart bakeries, a few with cafes, all in the Munich area, and they're great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that. Sometimes, a restaurant will have three or more locations within a region, and they do not feel like McDonald's or Burger King at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe we've always allowed localized chains to be listed however, it's best to only list 1 per article so it doesn't look spammy. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to redirect the conversation back to the question, "chain pub", even with local character, doesn't necessarily mean local chain. Wetherspoons is by far the largest national pub chain in the UK. 98% of the food and drinks menu, including prices, is the same, whether you're in Inverness or Islington. But the buildings themselves are often characterful local landmarks, and there are usually 3-5 local beers or ciders available on tap. These are probably worth listing. Some other chains, like Greene King or Marston's are owned by a brewery, so the drinks range is the same in every pub. They may be worth listing if the building is notable, or the local competition is limited, but not worth it otherwise. Others still are pretty much glorified family restaurants - e.g. Hungry Horse and Beefeater, but the food is always terrible and you'll always find a better boozer elsewhere. Not worth listing unless it's the only pub for miles around.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

On a tangentially related subject...[edit]

...I think we need to make it clear on that policy page that WV:Boring does not apply to "Sleep" listings. Every city and town of wiaa-compliant size can be expected to have at least a few locally-owned mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, and bars - but independently-owned hotels are an entirely different story, a miniscule segment of the market by comparison to chains. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I think your suggestion should be implemented as soon as consensus is established here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree, otherwise we'd had to delete pretty much all big hotels (those are almost invariably part of national or global chains), accounting for a huge number of beds in each city. Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is not true everywhere: I was amazed by the lack of chain hotels in New Zealand outside of Auckland and Wellington -- not even local chains. By I expect that it is very true in the U.S., and agree with the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal to exclude sleep. I would also say that WV:Boring should not apply to anywhere that there is only a few places to choose from. If a burger chain is one of only four places to eat in town then we can list them all. AlasdairW (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said previously, I would prefer venues with a local/independent character were what's added rather than 'adverts' for major chains the traveller would generally recognise anyway. Also per a comment in Cuisine of Britain and Ireland there are a few local mixed take-away outlets worth avoiding even if they are nominally independents. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(Aside): The focus on Wikivoyage is the traveller, Would there be any scope on Wikivoyage (or a different wiki) for a shopping guide scoped more at within region vistors/locals as opposed to tourists/travellers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
A different wiki, sure. Not Wikivoyage, though. See Goals and non-goals. You could reuse Wikivoyage content on such a hypothetical wiki, of course.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss massive changes on sites?[edit]

Unfortunately, I have experienced that some of our contributors here massively change the (new) pages of other authors and thereby prevent further development of a page (current example Anastasiopolis). If the person making the changes knows the area well and can contribute important knowledge, that's ok. But in my (old fashioned?) opinion such a thing should be discussed before the change are made in the respective discussion side. I find that a matter of polite interaction with each other. What do you think, what is common behavior here? DocWoKav 15. Sept. 2019

Are these edits what you mean? Those edits are not destructive; there's nothing "massive," as you say in the title of this discussion, about moving content from one article to another, if that change is sensible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if you've placed a "See" listing in a city article for a nearby location and then someone moves it to "Go next" because that nearby location already has its own article, that's pretty much an open-and-shut case per our policy on geographical hierarchy and there's really not much to discuss about it. My suggestion is rather than getting defensive about the content you've contributed being altered or demanding that every little change be litigated on talk pages - which would grind the development of our content to a halt - you should instead get comfortable with the fact that this is a wiki, and people's contributions are subject to redaction or deletion at any time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)