Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates/Sections

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

gastronomic travel: where to start[edit]

Swept in from the pub

From my experience, there's almost no information on gastronomic traveling at Wikivoyage. What gourmet specialties are in each region? How to find authentic places (or even families) to try it? What are gastronomic regions in each country? What are the subtle differences between specialities in this vs that town/region; between countries?

How much this topic is welcome here? Are there already enthusiasts who are idle for some reasons? Can someone recommend any general books on where to start and how to approach? Should we start with a travel topic, or an expedition, or something else? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 23:54, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I make a point of including lots of food info in countries I write about (cf. Singapore, Thailand, Japan, Malawi). The Eat section should at a minimum cover the cuisine and point to areas with distinctive "subcuisines". However, I'm not really sure about how this could be a travel topic -- you can eat good food in any country, yet there's not much in common between a three-Michelin-star restaurant in Paris and the world's best phad thai stand in Bangkok. (Which, for reference, is next to the HSBC building on the south side of Lumpini Park. Open for lunch weekdays only and 29 baht a plate.) (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:41, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
What would we do without you Jani? You crack me up sometimes – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 01:09, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Does it make sense to create some set of recommendations on what a gastronomically perfect article on a destination should include? Whether as a part of Star requirements (not sure) or as a separate list of requirements which we aim to achieve working on an article on a gastronomic side (which looks more reasonable to me). For example, I feel quite knowledgeable in Russian cuisine, but a blank page syndrome doesn't give me an idea of what specifically I can share with those travelers interested in the subject. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
> and the world's best phad thai stand in Bangkok
BTW, does the current structure of Wikivoyage is good for facts like this? How can wikivoyageer find where in the world the best version of (younameit) dish can be found? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:40, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
That's hopelessly subjective information. I think it's the greatest phad thai in the world, but my cousin wasn't quite so impressed by the ambience: it's a concrete shack with only two walls, no air-con and a very open kitchen, facing a major street, and you chow down on your noodles while sitting on little plastic chairs. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I always try to write a good bit on food for an area too. You're probably in good company here. (WT-en) Jordanmills 11:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

OK, let me ask a more practical question for a while. What would you recommend to do if I can't find enough info on cuisine and restaurants of a specific country I am heading to? Typically, all I know before my trip is my budget per day and places I will be likely visiting--and I want to get most of my trip in gastronomic sense. I even don't have any specific question to leave on the country's talk page. How would you approach that? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:01, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that info should be in the Eat section for the country. A description of the peculiarities of the food of that country and perhaps a general description of where to find the food. The reader can then drill down into district/city/city district pages for specific recommendations. (That's roughly what I did for Barbados though I cheated by adding a link to my favorite restaurant for Bajan cuisine!)--(WT-en) Wandering 11:53, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually, I meant "how to start understanding local cuisine when there's no info on Wikivoyage, and I know nothing on the region's cuisine", not "where to stick what I already have to contribute"-- as I have nothing yet. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Uhh... Google? Wikipedia? There are "Cuisine of X" articles for most places in the world there... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

"Talk" sections[edit]

Swept in from the pub:

Is there any compelling reason for a "Talk" section not to be on a city article, if there are legitimate language issues to mention? On a related note, I see Philadelphia has a slang guide under "Cope", which seems odd. Is that an appropriate location for it, or should it be in a "Talk" section? Or is "Talk" just for actual language issues rather than dialects/slang? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:53, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I've always used talk sections to cover local dialects and slang, but I love that stuff—maybe it's generally too in depth for Wikivoyage? It's generally not useful for travel, but I think it makes for interesting travel reading. I've been meaning to write a little bit about Bawlmorese. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:37, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
Not questioning the usefulness of the content, just the placement. And also still wondering if it's okay to have a Talk section in a city article. (WT-en) LtPowers 18:35, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd put information like a Philly slang guide under a talk section, yes. I wouldn't add a talk section to the city template, but I think it's fair to put one in when appropriate. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

close to city: GetOut vs See/Do/Eat[edit]

Moved from Project:Where you can stick it

Following Peter's edit [1], I wonder how we choose whether to put an attraction/restaurant/activity into GetOut vs into See/Do/Eat/Sleep of the city article (or should my question belong to elsewhere?) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 21:00, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

That's a really odd edit, IMO, as the by-section index is supposed to be a reflection of the by-topic index. Anyway, to answer your question, I would say that if the attraction has a full listing in another travel guide, it should probably be in "Get out". If it doesn't, then it should get a full listing in the appropriate section. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:01, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
I think attractions should never be listed in Get Out, it should just be a list of bulleted places surrounding the city. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:36, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, I didn't really think that through. I think Globe-trotter's got the better of it here, although I should point out that that doesn't mean we can't mention prominent attractions of the listed "Get out" destinations. And I think there's room for prose in "Get out", not just bullets (see, e.g., Fairport (New York)#Go next). (WT-en) LtPowers 16:26, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
Oh yes, prose is fine. I meant that it should be about linking to other destinations instead of the section having separate content of its own. But it seems we all agree on this :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:13, 11 September 2010 (EDT)
I just discovered Project:Article templates/Sections, never seen it before. Looks like my question should be better moved here; will do so with a subsequent edit. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:24, 13 September 2010 (EDT)
Done. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:33, 13 September 2010 (EDT)

What about this edit [2]? If the town had its own article, it's clear that it should be mentioned in GetOut. But if it doesn't, should its monastery and restaurants mentioned in GetOut rather than in Vienna's Eat and See? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:42, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

No, Get Out is strictly for other pages that the reader may want to view next. If the destination doesn't have an article (and even sometimes if it does), important attractions should be mentioned in either the nearest article or the next-biggest article. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:11, 14 September 2010 (EDT)
If the destination doesn't have an article, important attractions should be mentioned in either the nearest article or the next-biggest article
1. How to choose between nearest article (you meant nearest city?) and the next-biggest article (you meant containing region)?
2. In that nearest/next-biggest, attraction should go in See, not in GetOut, right? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:53, 3 January 2011 (EST)
1. Usually it will go in the nearest destination's article, but sometimes there isn't one nearby or there are two equally nearby and it should go in the regional article instead (for lack of a better location). Sometimes it could be in both.
2. Yes.
-- (WT-en) LtPowers 21:12, 3 January 2011 (EST)
It feels like it is not clearly explained in the policies--but where is best to stick it? (seems to be more relevant to guidelines on listings, but clarity will also help for #GetOut in this article, if there's no objections on this). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:51, 18 January 2011 (EST)
Where is best to stick what? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:49, 19 January 2011 (EST)
I meant your #1:
Usually it will go in the nearest destination's article, but sometimes there isn't one nearby or there are two equally nearby and it should go in the regional article instead (for lack of a better location). Sometimes it could be in both.
--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:58, 28 January 2011 (EST)
Exactly what I said. There is no universal "best". If there's a destination nearby, it goes there. If not, it goes elsewhere. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:27, 28 January 2011 (EST)
:) I meant in which of policy pages we could best stick this clarification? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:50, 28 January 2011 (EST)
Project:Geographical hierarchy? I'm not sure if it really needs clarification. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:48, 28 January 2011 (EST)

move to top-level Wikivoyage: namespace?[edit]

Just discovered this article, really surprised I never seen it before.

I wonder if there's any special reason (a) for having it under "/" rather than moving into root Wikivoyage: namespace; (b) for not making it more linked-to from various indexes (just added a link from Project:Namespace index#Section content, but that doesn't seem enough imho). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:32, 13 September 2010 (EDT)

Also, just added a link from Project:Where you can stick it#See also. That section clearly suggests these 3 articles should have more distinctive names (and also "speaking for themselves"): Project:Article templates, Wikivoyage talk:Article templates/Sections and Project:Section headers. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:37, 13 September 2010 (EDT)
This page was intended as a supplement to the various article templates, which list which sections go in each type of articles. This page kind of does the reverse -- it explains which types of articles each section is found in. So it made sense to make it a subpage of Article Templates. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:04, 13 September 2010 (EDT)

Road types..[edit]

Swept from the pub:

I'm doing a bit of work around lesser traveled roads, and I'm essentially using the three categories..

  • Sealed road - meaning surface is paved, asphalt, concrete, etc.
  • Gravel road - graded and loose rock surface added and compacted
  • Formed road - just graded, road surface varies depending on terrain.

Are these meanings clear enough to everyone, or are they a local dialect? --(WT-en) inas 23:03, 6 January 2011 (EST)

I don't think it's a local dialect problem, but they are a bit technical—I didn't know formed road off the bat. I would suggest paved road, gravel road, and dirt road, but that may perhaps be my own local dialect ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:13, 6 January 2011 (EST)
I agree with Peter on dirt road vs formed road, as I would understand your 3rd meaning as dirt road, but formed road would be meaningless to me. I would guess that this would be shared by most English speaking South Africans, Can't comment on other parts of the English speaking world. I am easy on paved road vs sealed, with a slight bias to paved. For some parts of the world, you may need a fourth category for a road which is not even graded, or which may be graded on such an irregular basis that you should assume that it has not been graded. In parts of Africa these may be quite important routes. I suggest "Bush road" as a possible term. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 01:50, 7 January 2011 (EST)
It is also called a trek, track or 4x4 track if that is what you mean. (WT-en) Swissbelg 06:32, 7 January 2011 (EST)
In the U.S. we call those "unimproved dirt roads." Not sure if this is in common usage elsewhere. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:03, 7 January 2011 (EST)
"Unimproved dirt roads" conveys the meaning pretty well to me, or maybe even just "unimproved road". "Graded road" or "Graded dirt road" is then another possible option for "Formed road" • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:06, 8 January 2011 (EST)
"Sealed Road" sounds too technical/stuffy to me. I think it'd be better just to say "road" or in the case of differentiating it from a dirt road, just calling it a "paved road". I have never heard "unimproved dirt road" although I'm American, but it definitely gives a clear impression of the type of road. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:01, 9 January 2011 (EST)
"Paved" has the added advantage of including cobbled and other surfaces where bricks, stones or other form of laid slab surfacing is used, which technically may not be "sealed", as the joints are not watertight. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 02:43, 9 January 2011 (EST)
I would support the following designations: "Paved," "Gravel," "Packed dirt," "Unimproved dirt," "Track," "Unmarked." A track is not even a real road, and would require a Land Rover, Jeep or the like (a 4-wheel drive vehicle), whereas an unimproved dirt road would be likely to be passable with care by ordinary passenger vehicles in decent weather (and overly muddy and rutted in the rain). Packed dirt roads would be passable even in rainy conditions, absent flooding or perhaps really big thunderstorms. "Unmarked" would refer to desert, where if someone didn't know where the road was, they would never find it. As an American, I don't know what a "graded" road is. I'm guessing "formed" means packed dirt rather than unimproved dirt, but I'm not sure. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Yeah, I wouldn't consider using sealed unless it was to somehow distinguish it. Like, there are two paved routes that cross Australia east to west. I'm happy with paved, gravel, and unimproved dirt. It would appear their meaning is at least apparent to all. Thanks all for suggestions. --(WT-en) inas 02:59, 9 January 2011 (EST)

I thought the two main categories were metalled and unmetalled roads? Metalled being tarmac or concrete roads. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 16:24, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Roads that are dirt, but graded once in a while, we call "minimum maintinance roads"

Metalled and unmetalled aren't used in my (Canadian) dialect; I've only heard them in the UK. Nor is "sealed" in normal speech, though I think it might be as a technical term. I'd say "paved", "gravel" or "dirt". Pashley (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think Pashley's nailed it; those are probably the most widely understood short words to use. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think many people would distinguish between gravel and dirt road in day-to-day speech. Off the bitumen, and hit the dirt. I guess this discussion has made a clear point that we need to be very careful in our descriptions of roads where the conditions matter, because there is quite a remarkable divergence in what these words mean to people around the world. --Inas (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
US practice is the same as Canadian practice, as indicated by Pashley. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Presenting bus line information[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Perhaps we have had some discussions about this somewhere, but I don't know where to look. How much is too much bus info? My instinct is that this list is too exhaustive and detailed, but I don't really know the best way to pare it down and present it usefully. Is there any guidance available on this? (WT-en) texugo 11:46, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

I agree, and I think our standard "7±2 rule" is a good rule of thumb that can be pointed to in this case. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:54, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
I'm kinda thinking that, in a country like Brazil that has so many different bus companies, it may not make sense to make individual listings of bus companies at all. With every bus company serving a different roster of destinations and routes, there is no logical way to "recommend" 7±2 of them, is there? (WT-en) texugo 12:33, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
No, I agree; I meant if there are more than nine or ten, don't bother with individual listings at all. Isn't that what we did for rental cars? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:20, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm totally ok with that. Perhaps the region article's Get around section can have an overview of the bus companies operating in the area. I think that would suffice. Brazil just has too many bus companies to give local contact info for all of them in every article... (WT-en) texugo 13:26, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

'Get in' and 'Get around' questions[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'm sure that this has been covered somewhere before, but I've looked through the manual of style etc and can't find a definitive answer and there seems to be a wide variety in different regional articles.

What is the best order for means of transport? Alphabetical seems silly so I've been trying to put things in order of the most commonly used type of transport, but this seems somewhat subjective. For example most travelers might arrive in the Kitsap Peninsula by ferry, but maybe not. Is there a guide to this I'm missing?

Google directions default to different modes of transport in different regions. For example in Japan they default to train and bus schedules. Lumpytrout (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Most common comes first, with wide latitude given for determining that. For large regions within the U.S., By Plane will come first for Get In, followed by By Car, By Train, and By Bus. In Get Around, it'll usually be By Car, By Bus, By Plane, and By Train. But each region is somewhat different. LtPowers (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
okay, thanks. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Lumpytrout (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to put in my 2c and say that within city centres, By Train/Metro and By Foot would most likely be higher in the list, seeing as they are the most useful and relevant to travellers and tourists. JamesA >talk 13:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Subheadings for 'Get in' & 'Get around'[edit]

Under "Get around" it says "Use subsections like those for Get in." The use of the word "like" is a little ambiguous but I take this to mean to use subsections the same as those for Get in. At Talk:Ethiopia#Conflicting "standard headings" 118.93nzp has expressed the opinion that "as a general rule, there should not be sub-section headings with the same title." For example, if "By train" is used under "Get around", then something like "By rail" should be used under "Get in".

  1. Does the current guideline mean "Use subsections the same as those for Get in?
  2. If so, what do people think about changing it as 118.93nzp suggests? Nurg (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nurg. If the guideline is ambiguous, then we should change it to be more explicit. The current guideline absolutely means to use the same subsections as those for Get in, and that is how it has been done consistently throughout the site. To my knowledge, it has never been previously claimed necessary to have unique headers for each section, and that suggestion would also require changing the identical Budget/Mid-range/Splurge subsections of Eat and Sleep. I'm sure 118's reason for suggesting it is so that every subsection could be linked to specifically from elsewhere, but we are not really in the habit of linking with such specificity because there is really very little reason for it. Plus it would be ridiculously forced to insist on inconsistent-sounding distinctions like By car/By automobile, By bicycle/By bike, On foot/By foot, By bus/By coach, or whatever. The section names have always been the same, and I don't see any convincing reason to change that. Texugo (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain I saw somewhere a way to link to a specific section when it has the same name as other sections, but I can't recall where. As an alternative, perhaps Template:Anchor might be put to constructive use here. LtPowers (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem 118 points to is real and has irritated me on a number of occasions. I am not sure what the solution might be, though I agree with Texugo that changing to e.g. "By train" in one section and "By rail" in another is not a good answer. At best, that might be OK as a temporary work-around in a few specific cases. Pashley (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Using "rail" and "train" - "air" and "plane" for the same thing is confusing to the reader, and against our standardisation. I agree the anchors are a bit of an issue, but our Internal links policy guides us to avoid those anyway. In any event, a technical problem shouldn't lead us to a solution in changing our article text. --Inas (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Most of the big cities articles have "Orientation" subsection but what does this subsection should really contains? I've put information about the city's administrative districts into Karachi article, is that correctly depicts and serve the purpose of "Orientation" subsection or am I missing something? --Saqib (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. "Orientation" is used to provide some context for everything that comes later, to provide a general overview of what our guide means when it says "near the river" or "on the outskirts". Powers (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
So does it means this subsection is only surround around the geography of the destination? --Saqib (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear what you're asking. The subsection is not well defined, but when it's been used, it's been used to help readers with an overview of the city's layout and geography. Powers (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

By foot OR On foot?[edit]

Yes, I'm talking about the subsection of "Get around".. I've been told by someone with good English knowledge that "On foot" is more appropriate. I also found that some of our articles actually using "On foot". Don't you think we need consistency on this. --Saqib (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"By foot" is correct. "On foot" is more idiomatic, but then it wouldn't match the other subsections. Powers (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that "On foot" is the idiomatic expression here, hence obviously correct. Pashley (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Some things just take "on", like "on foot" or "on horseback". Pashley (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In all of the varieties of English that I'm familiar with, By foot is just plain weird (unless you're talking about how a knotted rope message was delivered - by runner, by canoe, by carrier pigeon...) We used By foot in the early days partly because it was very idiosyncratic English and stamped a very obvious "House style" on our efforts and partly because of the hobgoblin of "consistency". We do need to realise that few people go through several articles and praise us for the wondrous consistency of our subsection headings. (They may well spot inconsistent spacing of amounts and units or price symbolisation - but that's another trivial story)
These days By foot just serves to get us duplicate penalties from search engines vis á vis Wikitravel and give the impression our authors are illiterate. It should be binned and On foot used instead. -- 22:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree that by foot is just plain odd. I would prefer we standardized on on foot. Texugo (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Come on, you want "By plane", "By train", "By car", "By boat", and ... "On foot"? That's just ridiculous. So what if "By foot" isn't idiomatic; that just makes it quirky instead of (pardon the expression) pedestrian.
People! Live a little. Everyone's trying to replace everything we have that makes the site interesting with the most boring, Wikipedia-esque alternatives they can find. Replace custom-designed maps with generic auto-generated dynamic maps! Replace an artistic banner with a snapshot of a statue! Replace our unique "By foot" parallelism with the generic "on foot". Stop being boring!
-- Powers (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see "By foot" as "interesting." I was going to say that my dialect uses "on foot," but I don't know about other dialects. However, if no native-speaker dialect uses "by foot," we need to drop it. And it would be great if you would stop conflating every disagreement with you and concentrate on arguing one subject at a time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't find it "interesting" either. "By foot" is indeed unique, but not in a good way. I'm a big fan of parallelism when we can get away with it, but that just sounds forced to me. Texugo (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I am at a complete loss here. I don't know what to do. Every position I take is opposed at every turn by people who make arguments I don't understand against me. When I try to point this out, I'm told I'm conflating unrelated issues. This is insane. I feel like I don't even know this community any more. We used to have such energy, and now everyone just wants to put in the plainest, most generic stuff they can. It's so sad. I'm sad. Powers (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please don't feel depressed. It is frustrating when you know you're in the right, but I think you can console yourself by recognising that (unlike honouring user's preferences in thumbnail widths) this is a relatively small matter unlikely to be noticed by the vast majority of readers. Wv:tone still enjoins us to use lively, sparkling prose, but our sub-section titles should, as a rule, probably be short and pithy and encapsulate what comes after without being unnecessarily jarring. -- 20:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to maintain our longstanding tradition of having a whole series of "By" titles running down within the Get Around section. It's jarring to have a random "On foot" in there. It may be more idiomatic, but "By foot" is hardly unheard-of, and it fits the implied question ("By what method are you getting around?") better. Powers (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
My response would probably be "Walking." One solution is to eliminate all the prepositions and use Plane, Car, Train, Bicycle, Foot. I'd actually be completely fine with that, if there were a consensus behind it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I prefer a "By" heading for consistency with the other headings. I think an "On" heading amongst the "By" headings would be more jarring than a slightly quirky "By foot". Actually I don't even find "By foot" to be particularly quirky - perhaps I'm just so used to it. It is a heading, not running prose, so a little poetic licence instead of strict correctness is ok. If there was going to be a change, I would prefer "By walking" rather than "On foot". The heading that gives me more pause than "By foot" is "By thumb". Nurg (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
But "walking" is a verb; we're trying to keep "By <conveyance>" as the pattern rather than "By <action>". "By thumb" is metaphorical and I think removing that would be an even bigger tragedy. Powers (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"By <conveyance>"? We're aiming to give tips on Sedan Chair selection or which person the arriving traveller should select for a piggy-back!?! --118.93nzp (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I completely support "By thumb." Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yup, no worries there. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cities vs Other destinations[edit]

In case a region has a few major cities, and then e.g. a number of significantly smaller (like <5000 inh.) towns and villages that are famous for one particular landmark (e.g. a castle, a natural feature), I would suggest listing the others as "Other destinations". Otherwise, it becomes harder to make out which is which, and the list can often exceed 9 items. How to decide whether village 10 is better to feature than village 9?

We may add a section called "Towns and Villages", but I guess this would just be another complication we do not want. "Other destinations" tend to be half-empty in most regions, so this would be a good way to populate them. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

WV has always used "city" in the broad sense. We use the "city" template for communities, villages, hamlets, towns, cities, metropolises of any size, and we list those in the Cities section. Other destinations is intended as a way to list non-community destinations such as islands, parks, etc., and if there are none, the Other destinations section is optional and can be removed. I think it makes sense to show those separately rather that mix them with some cities subjectively judged to be small enough to go there. That would muddy up the meaning of the Other destinations for higher level regions too, and would make it seem like after the Cities section has 9, the OD section could then be filled up with others that didn't make the first cut of 9. Texugo (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, you seem to have an additional misunderstanding too - in the lowest level regions, the maximum of 9 does not apply. Lowest level regions should list all destinations under them. Otherwise places get orphaned. Texugo (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As you know I am not a fan of strict application of the "maximum 9" rule, but I'd rather have two lists of 9 or less than a long list and then a section for a single national park or something.
I am very fine with arbitrary division as to what is a "city" and what is a "small locality". This depends on region a lot. But as a traveller I'd like some guidance as to what are the major urban settlements, and not have to click every link to find out whether this is big or not. Of course this may be buried in various prose-filled sections, but this doesn't help in quick orientation, and this particular thing seems very important to me. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
When we are forced to have a long list like that in a bottom-tier region, I don't mind if the list needs to be segmented, either into vicinities/subregions (preferably) or by size. But those segments should all be subsections under Cities and not go down in Other destinations mixing with other article types and changing the definition of "other destinations" in a way that gives people an excuse to pump more city links into higher level region articles that are supposed to stick to 9. Texugo (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe this will help alleviate the urge to create more and more layers of regions just because "we have too many cities". I believe listing key cities is of paramount importance. Whether the rest are villages, castles, mountains, lakes or national parks will be apparent from the one-line descriptions. We still have most of them lumped together in one section, save for villages, which according to this rule, need to go with "cities". PrinceGloria (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You have a lowest level region with 20-25 communities and 4 parks. 2 options:
  • current way :
20-25 communities, split into 2-4 subsections under Cities
4 parks under Other destinations
  • your way :
20-25 communities, split into the Cities and Other destinations sections
4 parks also mixed in under Other destinations
the term other destinations now includes city articles, so any OD section anywhere which doesn't already have 9 parks or island can now be filled up by mixing in city articles
I'm not seeing any advantage to your way, not even the advantage you just claimed. The same number of things get listed, your way just classifies them more inexactly and makes Other destinations into a catch-all. Texugo (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"My way" *breaks into the Frank Sinatra song*... No, seriously, the way I see it is:
  1. Up to 9 major cities
  2. Up to 9 "other destinations"
  3. If there are more than 9 destinations, we obviously will divide them just like we would divide cities, with headings. With 20-25 destinations, you would probably have "small towns and villages", "parks" and whatever else.
I cannot see how this isn't sensible. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The city/town distinction is very context-dependent. In Northern Canada, we quite rightly have an article for Dawson City (pop. < 2000) and Churchill (< 1000) is a star while the Xiamen article has "by Chinese standards it is a small city — only 1.9 million in the city itself and 3.6 million counting suburbs".
For densely populated areas, I rather like the idea of having a Cities section for the main centers and a Towns and villages section for lesser ones that are still of interest. The main problem would be keeping people from adding listings for insignificant places. Pashley (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I guess our "what is an article" rules do take care of insignificant places, and I guess we should be quite prudent about removing unnecessary redlinks. If somebody can write a useful guide about a seemingly "insignificant" town or village, I see no problem with listing it. But I'd rather have it very clearly separated from the large cities. PrinceGloria (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Currently there is only one top level section for Cities, and we can split out villages or towns under that if necessary or we could discuss adding another optional top-level section for that purpose (in bottom level regions). I'm not concerned about where or if we draw a line between cities and town or whatever; that can be adapted relative to the situation. I'm only concerned with keeping them out of the Other destinations. The proposal at hand would change the definition of "other destinations" from "non-city articles" to "whatever", and in that, I can only see the disadvantage that now somebody can go to the Texas article and pick out 4 more cities to mix with the parks in the list, or go to the British Columbia and replace that last red link and put some little town in the list of parks. It's sloppy organization, and I don't see a reason to make any move towards sloppier organization. Where is the advantage that would outweigh the disadvantage and make it worth the change? Texugo (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's agree on "Towns and villages" then, a village is not a city. What to put in each section and whether a region needs either or both should be up to editors' consensus. PrinceGloria (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The Prince claims above "the term other destinations now includes city articles, so any OD section anywhere which doesn't already have 9 parks or island can now be filled up by mixing in city articles". I'm with Texugo on this one; I do not think it does or should, and I fairly often edit to remove towns listed there. Generally there are other places to put them.
In some cases, a famous attraction like the Taj Mahal goes in Other destinations, but the link is actually a redirect to a city.
In an article for a country or other high-level region, they can listed be in the Cities section for lower-level regions. In a bottom-level region, the exception mentioned above applies and there can be >9 under Cities. I like User:PrinceGloria's suggestion that they be divided with headings where necessary. Pashley (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, PrinceGloria, this discussion has shifted to a proposal for an optional additional top-level section called "Towns and villages" or some such, similar to what you've already done at Black Forest? If that's the proposal, I'm not nearly as opposed to it as I am to mixing Other destinations into the equation. I'd still prefer the segmentation be kept as second-level sections under Cities though, for a couple of reasons: 1) destinations are just as likely to be grouped geographically as they are by size, and we obviously wouldn't make multiple top-level headers for geographical groupings of communities, and 2) in some cases it makes more sense to have more than 2 groups by size — I've seen cases where there are enough blue links that they've been segmented into Cities/Towns/Townships/Villages or other such scheme, and I certainly don't think we need to start using four top-level headings to keep that organized. And in any case, this type of segmentation needs to be limited to bottom-level regions only.
At any rate, if you are actually proposing new top-level regions, this probably needs to go to the Pub. Texugo (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I am supporting a new top-level heading after Pashley proposed it. "Cities" divided into "Cities" and "Not really cities" don't work for me. And I guess this is a more general thing, not only for the bottom level. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You actually think Texas or Russia or Balkans should have a "Towns and villages" section?? And you aren't going to address the two numbered points I just made? Texugo (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am so tempted to "add weeds"... ROTFL, love a bit of comic relief! At any rate, I addressed this if you dig deeper and see that I proposed that I propose that "Cities" and "Towns and villages" can be used both or either of them, whichever is applicable in a given situation. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
go back and read my point again. I'm saying in some cases, it may make sense to segment the list into more than just two sections. Maybe 3-4 different sections for cities, towns, villages, and townships, or some other such arrangement, instead of the two you suggest. (And indeed, if you insist on making the distinction that a village is technically not a city, you're inviting more of these niggly distinctions)Or it might make more sense in other cases to segment into X Valley, Y Valley, lake Area, etc instead of by size. Same places, just a different way of segmenting. I definitely would not be willing to have more than 2 such city sections, nor let us name top level sections according to local geography. If we keep them under cities, there is more flexibility. Texugo (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no practical difference to a traveler regarding which communities have incorporated as villages and which ones as cities (and which haven't incorporated at all). They are all destinations, and they are all "cities" in Wikivoyage parlance. Powers (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Buy wine and food, Which section?[edit]

If i want to suggest shops to buy food or beverages such as cheeses or wine to take home (not restaurants, pubs or similar), which section should i use? Better drink/eat section or buy section?

According to Where you can stick it:
  • farmers' market - Buy
  • grocery stores - Eat
  • market - Buy; or if it's good to eat at - Eat
  • pick-your-own fruits - Buy
  • supermarket - Eat
  • bottled wines - Buy
or, in other words:
  • Buy - farm/orchard/winery produce for takeaway, market (food purchase)
  • Eat - grocery stores, market (dining), supermarket
I'm not sure I understand why grocery stores and supermarkets (which sell food and non-food items) are Eat, and farmers' markets and pick-your-own fruits are Buy, but that's what it says. Nurg (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say it depends on the reason for the purchase recommendation. For buying things like wine and cheese because it is a regional specialty to take home, or just to sample while there, then it is buy. Supermarkets and other markers for that matter which are a recommendation as somewhere to get reasonable prices take-out food, then that is Eat. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If the main point is to feed yourself for that day (whether your eat it there or at the the park or in your hotel room), it is Eat. If the main point is to buy something to take home with you after your visit to that destination, it is Buy. If it could serve for either purpose equally, the default is usually Eat. Texugo (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all! —The preceding comment was added by Gerryino (talkcontribs)

Topic headers in Templates[edit]

move to top-level Wikivoyage: namespace?[edit]

I made some changes to topic headers to discover that I was also changing the template. Since my changes were reverted by Hobbitschuster and invited to place this on the appropriate template, I have created this new section to discuss my changes.

I hope we can have some constructive discussion in order to improve the template. Thanks (If this is the incorrect method/place for this discussion please help me improve by showing a better suggestion.)

-- contribs)‎ 11:11, 06 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The best way to have this discussion is to lay out what changes you'd like to make and, most importantly, why. A debate about fundamental changes takes a lot of volunteer editor hours. I'll state for the record right now that I'm satisfied with the subheadings the way they are and oppose any suggestion that we take up our time debating the use of new terms, rather than doing something I'd consider more productive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Avoid bare redlinks (particularly in "go next")[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So I think by now my dislike for redlinks, particularly those for small places or needless subdivisions of already small regions is well known. But I think there is one case where we cann all agree as to their harm or at least zero benefit to the traveler. That is if "go next" is just filled with a bunch of redlinks and not one word about them. If we (as the page WV) advise someone to go to a place that we don't yet cover, we should at the very least provide a few words about it. So I would prefer

  • Heidenau - a place in the vicinity that mostly serves as a bedroom community and a commuter town


In a "go next" section. Because quite frankly if there are just redlinks with the names of the place what else but leave our pages should a reader be doing? After all, it redlinks because we don't cover it. And the only place where something could be said about it says nothing but the fact that the place exists. In my opinion something like this is not only bad because it makes our guides "look bad" (something that is all too often dismissed as "not a reason" to change certain things), but it is also bad because it serves no conceivable purpose until and unless someone creates said articles.... Which would be a lot easier if there was already something said on them. And last but not least, some of them should simply be dealt with by saying a line or two about them and not linking them, because they just don't deserve their own article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And this one particular Heidenau (if you mean the suburb of Dresden) should not be a red link because it simply does not deserve an article. At least, not an article written in English.
In fact, many places that currently have their own article can be and should be described in a few sentences as relatively unremarkable neighborhoods of a more important tourist destination. --Alexander (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That was indeed the Heidenau I had in mind. And I fully agree with you on the "does not deserve an article" front... This is especially prevalent on articles covering German language places, most likely because de-WV does similar things... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
For a particular example of many of those tendencies (redlinks without any explanation, subdividing already small regions, listing a bunch of very small places) see Allgäu, which definitely needs work put into it, though I don't know how and what exactly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It is also typical for other countries. For example, in Estonia each neighborhood of the Lahemaa National Park has got its own article, although all these neighborhoods are nothing but tiny villages. --Alexander (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't know about this. Though it is not mentioned anywhere in the article... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions needed[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Where can I stick a sight in a nearby city? I'm referring to Bithoor. This place has its own article on w:Bithoor. Policy here states: "if the nearby destination has a page, link to it in the Go next section of the City or Region page" - which disallows red links or so I guess. --Gobbler (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really disallow red links, but if you think Bithoor merits a WV article, you could start one. How far is Bithoor from Kanpur? Sometimes, we create "Nearby" subsections of "See", but it's also fine to put it in "Go next", with a brief description of how to get there and what to see and do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The text in wycsi aside, "Go next" should be reserved for links to other articles, not listings. Powers (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we disagree. I agree that "Go next" is no place for templated listings. The question here is whether you can put a red link there with a very brief explanation of the same type you'd give for a blue link that goes to another article. I think that's OK. What's your alternative? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, redlinks are okay. I misunderstood. Powers (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for comments. I'm also actually wondering if it's OK to add Excursions subsections in any page. I have noticed a "See Section Break" in more than one page. You may want have a look there: Chakarata|, Kamchatka and Gwalior. --Gobbler (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Here I am at odds yet again... I see nothing terrible about using marker templates in the Go next section - with go as type and coordinates... This will put a special icon (suitcase?) on the map and I generally would like to know where some of these "Go next" locations are on the map before I start going through the various articles they may refer to if any... most simply use a wiki listing with or without links - followed by em-dash and some text -- the same effect can be accomplished by using the marker template followed by em-dash and text. Matroc (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you 100 percent --Gobbler (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Other destinations section vs see section[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I was looking at Gangwon and similar pages (Pennsylvania, etc.) - and I have trouble figuring out the difference between the "other destinations" section and "see" section. Both list non-city level attractions like parks, etc. What guides placing them in one or the other? I think they may be better of being merged. Is there a Manual of Style like guide to consult on that? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll let somebody more experienced explain the difference, but as a starter, here is the guide you are probably looking for: Wikivoyage:Article_templates/Sections Drat70 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Usually "other destinations" are destinations, which have or should have articles of their own (non-city areas, parks etc.), which should be mentioned in such a section for them to get into the hierarchy, while the See is about attractions or classes of attractions that could (and should) be in See sections of other articles. I think the articles linked above could be tidied a bit; the parks probably all belong in Other destinations, perhaps See was used to avoid redlinking. --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this kind of section allowed ?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I am just curious that this kind of section Berlin#Prostitution is allowed ? I know that Prostitution is legal in Germany but Is it good information to tourist? I want to ask your opinion. --Berlinuno (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think so, especially as it's mostly warnings. See Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy. Do you find that the section in question runs afoul of the guidelines laid out there? If so, let's talk about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Issues around this type of content are usually around the premise that Wikivoyage does not advise illegal activities, although in this instance there doesn't seem to be any problem. It can be confusing to apply in places such as Thailand where prostitution is both widespread and (nominally) illegal --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Country get in sections[edit]

Swept in from the pub

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

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

Lead section images[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Many articles on Wikivoyage do not have images in the lead section. The mw:Extension:PageImages api uses images in the lead of an article as an illustration and exposes it via an API which many sites use.

If you use the mobile site and do a search these page images are used to illustrate the search result. When I'm searching large articles like San Francisco do not show any. It's a shame and I wondered if there was any way we can rectify that via policy change/edits? We could use images outside the lead section (simple config change) but these are rarely the right ones. There is also an unimplemented solution to use Wikidata but that's not available yet. I'm interested in guidance on how to resolve this! Jdlrobson (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The lead image used to be considered important and was right at or near the top of the page. However, we now have pagebanners, so the lead image has become deemphasized. You're able to see pagebanners on the mobile site, aren't you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that some mechanisms use the fact that an image appear in the lead section to infer that being a useful image to show. With the banner that image is less important for us and, indeed, it is often better not to have any image there (it conflicts with the banner, and combined with a fact box it uses too much space). We should then provide some other means to find what image could be used to represent the article. For our dynamic maps, mobile and for Wikidata we could invent any method, but it would be nice to use some standard that external sites would recognize. --LPfi (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The banner image probably isn't shown in the search results because of the proportions. Jdlrobson, a screenshot of practical applications might be helpful. I'm fixing your link, but I doubt that most people understand how that extension gets used in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes the problem here is proportions. The pageimage favours portrait images as all use cases render a portrait. In absence of the pageimage in the lead I am concluding we should pull from the entire article. Jdlrobson (talk)

Go Next[edit]

Swept in from the pub

An idea.

The mapframe has an option to find "nearby" destinations?

Would it be possible to have something like this for Go Next (with approximate distances) based on Wikidata and geo-data? This would in most instances enable some degree of automated update when destinations get added. At present they have to be added manually to relevant destination articles, which although flexible is time consuming. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussed recently Proposal: Use new modernised version of Extension:RelatedArticles PsamatheM (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Who decides what's related? While Belleville (Ontario) is near Prince Edward County, Rochester (New York) is not. Many "search nearby areas" programmes (such as the one on Craigslist) completely miss the "there's a lake in the way" concept, getting this badly wrong. K7L (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I gotta agree with K7L. There's a certain degree of nuance to the Go Next selections (distances vary, similar destinations might be further away, etc.), which I don't think you can trust an automated program to adequately handle. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree that a manually added Go Next is best. However there is a quick way of adding a list of places in the same region, e.g. on Calgary (Scotland) we have <categorytree mode=pages>Mull</categorytree>, which gives list of all the articles on the Isle of Mull:
Also a good Go next section may list places which are a reasonably long distance apart, but are similar - e.g. Ottawa and Washington, D.C. are 500 miles apart, but as both are national capitals they could be linked in Go Next (an obvious example to make the point, but it is more useful to link places where the link may not be so clear - say other cities with major buildings by the same architect) AlasdairW (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay to have an On Foot section here?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I added this in good faith:-

But maybe it overlaps slightly with Go Next?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking this might be suited to destinations where a nearby one is less than 5km away (with some tolerance), meaning that you can walk there in the morning, find somewhere for lunch and walk back in the late afternoon.

Probably better suited to destinations in the UK, Netherlands, or "district" articles within cities. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You could say that about anywhere. It does not really help anybody. UK has an amazing network of footpaths that area as well. I think it needs to be more specific, a mapped route or something otherwise adjust the duration and add a list to every nearby town and village. So I'd say no, does not add to the information (and half a day for that distance ?) PsamatheM (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed, If it's definitely on a "named" path, I'll consider adding that. Generally I don't think English footpaths have specific route numbering other than internal ones used by local authorities.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In the UK there are two types of "named path"; the "significant" ones like The Ridgeway (90'ish miles), Icknield Way (100+ miles), Peddars Way (50'ish miles), etc. which I'd consider justify a "Get in/On foot" listing/mention (personal opinion). And there are those often created by local Councils, often circular, a couple of miles/couple of hours, given a name, map published on internet and those I'd view as a "Do" activity (again, personal opinion). The general extensive UK public footpath network is so extensive you can pretty well get anywhere, go anywhere, and it just part of the UK. That said there are probably some areas where the extensive public footpath network is a significant attraction (e.g. Yorkshire Dales, Lake District, Exmoor, etc.) but then descriptions/discussion would be very different. PsamatheM (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this section and its content are completely fine and belong in "Get in". Just a small style point: Wikivoyage style is to capitalise only the first word of subtitles, so "On foot". As for overlapping with "Go next", isn't that inevitable, in that any method for getting in could be used in reverse to leave? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, BTW I note some of the articles updated by the other contributor here have had distances and rough direction added. Whilst for the UK this isn't that vital, it's still useful information. Are there places were adding a distance and heading to "nearby" places would be more critical? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The half-a-day comment was based on personal experience, but different people have different walking speeds. I actually like the Distance/heading approach for Go next, but would generally suggest km is used, unless miles is more common in a particular region (like the UK and US.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Distance is important but not the only potentially important parameter. The degree of difficulty of the hike and variations of altitude can be relevant in certain places (think of a hike in mountainous areas of Ladakh or Nepal, for example). Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Excellent point, and whether (in relation to hikes) you would need specialist skills like fording rivers, mountain awareness (which would also be relevant for some hikes in the remoter parts of the UK, like the Highlands, Snowdonia and the Lake District to give a few examples ) or a local guide etc. Sorry didn't really mean to go into as much depth on this discussion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Bit off-topic but reason I'm adding approx distance and heading in "Go next" is that many people use computer mapping, maybe on smaller tablets or even phones. Zoom out and you can lose place names (and will never find the place), zoom in and you can be scrolling around all over the place trying to find somewhere. Approx direction tells user which direction to scroll and approx direction says if long or short journey. PsamatheM (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

City articles without "Understand" sections[edit]

Swept in from the pub

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

"Understand" was not originally part of the template for small city articles, so those that were created before about 2010 may not have the section. Obviously it is great to add the section if you have something to say about the city, but there is probably little value in adding an empty heading. AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I tend to split them off from the lede in some cases. I don't think I have thus far added an entirely empty "understand" section. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes create articles without Understand section and if I'm working on an article for a very small destination and it has an empty Understand section and I've nothing to add, I'd sometimes remove the heading. I don't think it makes sense to have an empty section. I was always under the impression that this section is optional, as Wikivoyage:Article_templates/Sections#Understand says it's 'Recommended' but doesn't say it's 'required'. Of course as an article develops, there is in most cases something to say here, like a bit of local history or at the very least a listing for a tourist information office. Drat70 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Small villages rarely have enough information to impart to be worth a separate "Understand" section. I tend to think our ledes are too short anyway. Powers (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
How much is "enough info"? A sentence or two as the lede, a paragraph as 'Understand'? If we don't have even that much educational content about a destination, it can't be very notable and certainly there's not enough to devote an entire page to such a place.
How small is small in this case? Relais-Gabriel, an outfitter's camp on Quebec Route 389 which we list as the last chance to buy fuel before Fermont, might qualify... but we give it a listing in the QC 389 itinerary, not an entire destination article in its own right. K7L (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I think if we have a sentence or two in the lede and a paragraph in Understand we have no need for a separate Understand section. If more information is added later, then it can be sectioned out as needed. See, for example Fairport (New York) which doesn't suffer from the lack of an Understand section. Powers (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I think just having a sentence as lede and then a new heading with a paragraph in Understand looks visually less pleasing as just having two paragraphs in the lede. Drat70 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Expat section?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

A recent discussion on merging the "stay safe" and "stay healthy" sections made me think that also merging "Work" and "Learn" into subsections of a "Expat" section might be a good idea. First, it would reduce the number of top sections in the articles, making them more readable and in line with the 7±2 ideal. Secondly, it would also make each top-level section more substantial. Seeing top level "Learn" and "Work" sections with only a few lines of information always gives me the feeling that I'm reading an outline, even though all relevant information is present in these few row's. Finally it would also be a natural place to include information which is relevant for long-term travelers without disturbing the rest of the article. The "Expat" section could also include information about how to find local housing, and for country level articles how to get long-term-visas. Perhaps it could also include information about local expat-communities/organizations. Do you think that there is anything to this proposal, or would it just be a slippery slope where the articles grow too far beyond travel guides? MartinJacobson (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is worth considering, could always have sub-sections of Work and Learn if they are of a reasonable size. For Expats would also information on where to buy food from other regions be useful or could that get complicated if starts to be a list of too many different cultural shops or highlighting areas of a town dominated by particular groups. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this would be extremely useful, not just for expats but even for longer-term travelers staying in a place for 3-6 months. I find the focus on travelers visiting a place for no more than two weeks excessively restrictive, as I myself often will visit a place for a month or longer. Things that would be invaluable would include how to obtain longer-stay visas (or even residency visas) and how to navigate the bureaucracy, how to find an apartment, banking issues, laundry services, where to find goods from other regions or parts of the world, where to network, etc. For some countries there are special books and guides for expats, but for many there are none, and I think that having such information readily available in one place would help draw more eyeballs to this site. –StellarD (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea a lot, but dislike the name. As StellarD says, such a section would also be useful for long-term visitors, temporary migrant workers, students on gap years and placements etc... The term 'expat' is nearly always used to describe white, wealthy types, often retired but above all with enough financial capital to live just about anywhere they want. As explained here, you'll rarely meet a poor or non-white 'expat'. I've got nothing against 'expats', by the way, but dislike the hypocrisy of the term enough that I would oppose using it for an official article section here. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "Live", to fit with our other verb heading names? The thing is, I'm having trouble seeing why we need a new section for this—it seems to me that most of the subjects mentioned here could fit into one of the existing sections (laundry goes in "Cope", visas go in "Get in", finding an apartment could go in "Sleep"...). Alternatively, if we wanted to make this a subsection of "Learn", "Work", and/or "Sleep", we could call it "Long-term", "Extended stays", or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't support this proposed heading. If you think about it, all our section headings other than list sections like "Cities", "Other destinations" and "Regions" are verbs: "Understand", "Get in", "Get around", "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", Sleep", etc. "Expat" isn't a verb. We're still talking about things being done, regardless of who's doing them or why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
How about "Staying longer"? —The preceding comment was added by Traveler100 (talkcontribs)
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have separate articles for these. If we want to list the schools that offer study abroad programs, it'd probably be more useful to compile them all into one article. They could still be divided by city/area for students who have such preferences but since course offerings/majors typically override regional preferences by necessity, it's much more useful to have all the options in one place. It would also encourage people to add listings. Making it mostly a list would be best (to keep the project within scope). As far as "Work" goes, my inclination is towards nixing it. Almost no articles even include it, and those that do, don't say much (re: Berlin, Tokyo, Paris, Moscow, Vancouver) and getting into the nitty-gritty of it is outside of our scope. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well it seems as if this discussion is about expanding Wikivoyage's scope, or that's how I've taken it. Travel is not just about people going on holiday or short business trips; it also covers more long-term ventures. If that's what we decide to do, then the best way would be to have all the info in the relevant destination article, whether as a new section (both 'stay[ing] longer' and 'live' look good), or within existing sections.
I don't see much point in "list(ing) the schools that offer study abroad programs". The vast majority of universities in Europe offer study abroad through Erasmus and other similar schemes, and I'd be surprised if a majority of serious institutions in other developed countries didn't do the same. There are certainly innumerable Continental European, American and Chinese 'study abroad' students at my university. So such a list would be far too long to be manageable, and would not contain any information (prospective) students couldn't read in a prospectus.
'Work' may well be of little value in cities, but in countries it could be useful if we allow information on visas, work permits, working culture, etc... ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "Expat" for various reasons isn't a great title (what about "Settle"/"Settle down"?). The suggestion that we create separate travel topic articles for e.g. studying abroad seems like a good complement, but perhaps not a perfect substitute. Many people move temporary or permanently for the sake of their job or to get closer to a long-distance partner. In such cases the destination is already given, and a travel topic article giving you "re-settler" information about a bunch of other cities won't be of much help. I don't really agree with the suggestion that we spread such information into already existing sleep/cope/get in sections, as it risks ruining "the flow of the article" for short-term travelers. I also think that it would be easier for the re-settler to have all information gathered in one place. Otherwise they will have to jump from section to section, and closely read the entire article to know that they didn't miss any relevant information. MartinJacobson (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The information we put in Work and Learn sections should be useful for more than just expats; it should be information of use primarily to short-term travelers. By nature, then, they are necessarily going to be fairly short. A "Settle down" section would have no place in our travel guides, as we're then talking about immigration. Travel guides, which is what we are, are generally focused on transitory travel, not travel for purposes of immigration. Powers (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well then, we'd better delete Retiring abroad... If one of our very best articles can be about one aspect of what's being discussed here, that should be proof enough that Wikivoyagers would do a good job with info related to other forms of migration. And, yes, people who retire abroad are migrants. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Definitely against adding scope creep to destination articles. Working_in_China is an example of how you can discuss living and working in China (for example) that doesn't confuse the main China article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, there are actually two separate but related issues I want to raise. 1) Should "work" & "learn" be merged into subsections of one top level section? 2) If so, should this section also include additional information such as longer term residence? It is fully possible to accept the first proposal but reject the other. In order to better illustrate the proposals (and my view on the proposed merging of "stay safe" and "stay healthy") I made this template. It cuts down the number of top level sections from 17 to 13. Examples of potential additional subsections (related to issue 2) are marked out with question marks. MartinJacobson (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Questions of scope have been extensively discussed before. See Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?/Archive_2003-2013#Scope, which Is not the nnly example but may be most complete. Pashley (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
A very interesting discussion! Powers said something very interesting which I don't think really got enough attention: "We have Retiring abroad because it's about the process of getting there, not about simply being an expatriate.". This strikes me as a natural way to determine the scope for a potential "Stay longer" section. "Work" is about getting a first job at the new destination, not a general guide about how to do your job. "Learn" is about how you register for your first course/semester, not a general guide about how you should do your studies. "Reside" would in the same way be about how to get a fist stable residence in the new location, but not really a general guide to how you maintain a home in the new location. It is about settling but not about being settled. If the scope of a Wikivoyage article is a 3 month stay, then it seems to me that the scope of a "Stay longer" section should be to help you manage the first 3 months in a location if you plan to settle there. MartinJacobson (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I like the suggestion to have a combined ==Stay longer== section for people who are saying longer.
However, separate "Work" and "Learn" make sense in some situations than others. Imagine a small college town: In that case, it makes more sense to have a ==Learn== section and omit the ==Work== one, with arrival-related information such as how to get from the nearest airport to the school, and whether your parents are going to be able to find a hotel room within a reasonable distance if they wait until the week before classes start to reserve a room. All of this could, of course, be part of a ==Stay longer== section, but it's fine under ==Learn==, as it is now.
But the next town over is going to have a brief-training program, and "Stay longer" doesn't make sense for a two-week training program, or a tourist-oriented "Learn to cook while vacationing in Italy" program. So I'm dubious about subsuming all ==Learn== options into a ==Stay longer== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Per MartinJacobson's comments above: Staying someplace for 3 months can be a summer vacation, and I would like to go on record as stating that we absolutely should cover such stays in this travel guide. I also completely agree with WhatamIdoing about the usefulness of finding rooms near a college, but I don't see that as requiring any section other than "Sleep". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Three months is the normal tourist visa length, and I see courses up to three months and accommodation up to that length would normally be covered in a travel guide. Previous discussions have led us to this three month level. If we cover how to move to a place to go to college, or how to move to a place to work for an extended period, we're going off the path of a travel guide. Tripadvisor ban this sort of discussion, and you won't find it in Lonely Planet. But we have plenty of space, and if someone want to write the info, that's all good. But I don't think we want our travellers to have to print out all that extra information for their trip, when it's useful for a very different purpose. Lets keep the main travel guides about travelling somewhere, not moving somewhere. Inas (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
With regards to study, we actually moved a lot of content from United States to Studying_abroad#United_States for precisely this reason. It can be useful for a small section of travellers but doesn't have to be part of the main article at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have come around to the idea of keeping the information separate, particularly due to these last two comments from Andrew and Inas. While it would be a good thing, in my opinion, to have more information about moving abroad, and for trips that last longer than three months in the various ways that we've discussed already, and more, for that stuff to be adequately covered, it would need to be a decent length; such a length would be too cumbersome for an existing destination guide (a country article, no less). ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing order of cities and destinations[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there a reason why cities and destinations should be listed alphabetically according to Manual of style? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to list cities according to its relevance for travellers, starting with the capital? I know this is not quite objective, but at least it prevents less important cities and destination from turning up at the top, where a traveller might end up going without realising it might just be a waste of time. E.g. I would rather see the largest national park on top instead of the smallest just because it starts with an "A".

Could we adjust the manual such that cities and destinations are listed according to its size and relevance?

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have several concerns with this idea.
Such a change in policy would initiate a huge number of discussions about which destinations are more important (just imagine London vs Paris vs Rome on the Europe page; how do you choose?!), and with few exceptions this is always going to be highly subjective. The lists with an upper limit of nine spread throughout the hierarchy more often than not means that cities and destinations are equally matched in terms of importance. The current alphabetical arrangement also avoids many edit-wars / slinging matches over whose hometown or pet article gets to be up top.
"...a traveller might end up going without realising it might just be a waste of time." seems to assume our readers are idiots who don't bother reading beyond the top of the page before going somewhere. If there are people like that, I say they deserve to have a crap time; "failure to plan is planning to fail" and all that. All hyperbole aside, just how likely do you think this scenario is?
Lastly, it is standard practice for all of our lists, whether they be in 'eat', 'drink', 'sleep', 'see' or 'do', to be placed alphabetically, unless there is one among them of overwhelming importance to travellers that it really must be listed first (e.g. Windsor castle on the Windsor and Eton page). Why should 'cities' / 'other destinations' be any different, aside from in the rare case where one non-capital is clearly head and shoulders above the others in terms of tourist value?
If we were dealing with lists containing dozens of elements, I would see merit in your point, but as most of our lists contain nine items or fewer, the chances of an important city / other destination being missed due to alphabetical order are slim.
Again, sorry for the negativity about your idea, but that's what I think.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
No idea what you mean by "standard practice", but I have quite the opposite impression, namely that things are generally listed by relevance and geography – see the various listing of the Old City of Jerusalem. Hence, it is questionable whether this softening of the manual would really have a large impact on many articles. But when I see the Georgia article and Akhaltsikhe, a city of not much relevance, is listed second after Tbilisi, I get the odd feeling that travellers are mislead to believe that this is an important destination.
Other opinions on that matter? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that the 1-liner listing should make it clear what kind of destination is listed, and that we should maintain the simple order we have now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I suppose a more common problem would be missing the important destination because of the items not being in alphabetical order (and the destinations being more than four or five). Here the important one for me may be a tiny place, but with a famous museum in some niche, and I may go wading through several region articles trying to find it. The problem with subjective order is not only the edit wars, but it being impossible for the reader to know whether places are listed according to size, historic importance, popularity among tourists, having the greatest sight or some other criteria. When we want some places to stand out, there is every possibility to do it in introductory prose instead. --LPfi (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In Georgia (country), maybe we could solve the problem by removing Akhaltsikhe from the list and having 8 cities listed instead of 9—after all, the requirement is to have between 5 and 9 cities listed, and there's no reason to force a list of 9 if one or two are much less important than the others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the solution is simple. No need to rewrite policy for such cases. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Go next" sections[edit]

Swept in from the pub

The article Nuremberg has a rather long "go next" section listing stuff some 200 km south. Is this too much? How much is too much? Hobbitschuster (talk)

It's a bit longer than usual, but not problematically so. Buffalo#Go next links to Finger Lakes, which are a comparable distance away. I'd say leave well enough alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, IMO it's not long enough to be a problem, and it's well-organized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Well if you look at the edit history, a lot of those items were added quite recently. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why does that matter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Because I thought "leaving well enough alone" has a built in status quo bias... And the lengthening is not yet very entrenched. But I may be misreading this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me be unambiguous: There is IMO no problem with that section and no reason to shorten it for the sake of shortening it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Perhaps "Go next" in-general could benefit from two non-obligatory sub-section types, e.g., "Day trips" and "Major follow-on suggestions". Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "Further afield" for the second subsection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
"Nearby" and "Further afield" is better still. (See Buffalo#Go next). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
That leaves us with two different and conflicting meanings for the "Nearby" header. It was introduced in November 2012 at Wikivoyage_talk:Small_city_article_template#Buy/Drink/Around_the_region to list nearby villages which don't (and won't) have their own articles but have one or two attractions listed as a subsection of the Nearby section for the closest small city. That leaves "Go Next" for the next place with an actual article.
The usage in the Buffalo articles differs, in that it's using "Nearby" for links to places with actual destination articles ("go next"), not individual rural listings. For something that was first discussed on Wikivoyage five years ago, "Nearby" remains poorly-standardised. If anything, your proposal will leave it in use in two different places in the skeleton to mean two entirely different things.
We have ghost towns like Picher, Oklahoma listed at Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby but, given that the population of Picher has dropped from fifteen thousand people to five people, we're never going to have a full article about these places. K7L (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the sub-sections might be called, let's ensure they fit the mindsets of our readers. Many folks organize land travel by basing themselves in/near a major destination for one or more "day trips" locally; then they move to another major destination. Tour operators are also adopting this. So, let's offer titles for the sub-sections that fit reader travel interests. Regards again, Hennejohn (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A new section[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have a great idea for a new section to add to the format of our articles: a Trivia section. A lot of other wikis have one, it would make our site more interesting, and it would allow us to attract a new set of editors: the guys with all the random facts. Of course, the facts might trigger some SJWs because they hate facts, but who cares, right? What do you guys think? Libertarianmoderate (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage already contains travel-relevant and interesting trivia but incorporates it into other sections. The Discover section on the main page can be regarded as trivia. I don't see the purpose of a separate section. At the most, it could be a subsection of Understand, since trivia would help you understand a destination. Gizza (roam) 03:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Understand is indeed for trivia about the destination, so we don't need a separate section for that. And if the trivia is about one listing, for example "the biggest castle in the world", it'd be mentioned in that listing. --ϒpsilon (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
And for fascinating trivia that are a bit sideways to the main sections, use an Infobox. Grahamsands (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I am quite fond of the infobox, however, they tend to overwhelm places like Montabaur or Bad Ems which are - so to speak "best known for the Trivia" (and in the case of the latter, it would be sacrilege not to mention that damn telegram that ruined Europe) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Inherently, there's an effectively infinite amount of information that could be put into a "trivia" section for any article. What would end up happening is one of two things: either we'd have articles with huge trivia sections that dwarf the rest of the article, or else we'd have to get into the weeds of deciding what kind of trivia is worthy of being included and what isn't. A lot of effort for very little gain. Also, I'm not sure what the non sequitur remark about "SJWs" was all about. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Given that the reference to "SJW" is about "hating facts", I think it's safe to assume that User:Libertarianmoderate is talking about "Some Jerk in the Whitehouse". Ground Zero (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You could think of infoboxes as floating trivia sections, and if done properly (like in the Sarajevo article), a separate trivia section is not needed. But even then, infoboxes should be sparsely used; it is still preferred to integrate the information in Understand or respective See or Do listings. ArticCynda (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think it's okay to have one infobox in an article, but not any more. Generally, info/caution/warning boxes are okay to use but the article(s) in question would look best if only one box total is used. So this would be my advice: it's best not to include an infobox in an article that already has a caution and/or warning box. Selfie City (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, a little brain teaser: how important is trivia? Selfie City (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
One more statement for now. I think Libertarianmoderate's statement that "the facts might trigger some SJWs because they hate facts" (assuming SJW means what Ground Zero said it means) is actually proof that there shouldn't be a trivia section of any sort. It could easily tumble into a political debate and even an edit war for something that doesn't matter much. The "Ronald Reagan was from California" and "Clinton was from Arkansas" trivia statements could easily become problematic if someone, like a vandal, starts inserting "the best President" or something of that nature into the trivia statements. Selfie City (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Where presidents came from is relevant to travellers, and not just because many people visit presidential libraries. We deal with "best president" vandalism by removing it, not by excluding information that is relevant to travel. Ground Zero (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just joking about the SJWs. :-). That's not the kind of facts they get triggered by. They get triggered about facts related to gender and biology. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we would include gender/biology in trivia sections anyway, and if we did, more opportunities would arise for a political edit war. It just doesn't seem necessary to include a trivia section. Selfie City (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Libertarianmoderate, don't poison the well with the political dig at the beginning: it's just a dumb distraction. The question remains if we should include a trivia section. I think that the current method of including fun trivia in listings and something particularly noteworthy as a box on the side are good enough. Having a section will probably end up with virtually empty sections in several articles or very uninteresting trivia populating the guide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ride-hailing Ride-sharing[edit]

Where do we put information about Uber, Lyft, Careem, etc.? As these are parallel services to taxis, and in some places in Asia are becoming integrated with taxis, I propose that where editors are adding ride-sharing info, they be encouraged to change the subsection heading from "By taxi" to "By taxi and ride-sharing". Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "By taxi" is fine. Uber and Lyft are taxis and have been recognized as such by courts and regulatory agencies in places where that has been litigated, though someone could correct me if there are any exceptions. And it should be either in "Get in" or "Get around", depending on what they are more used for in a given place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If we were writing for courts and regulatory officials, "By taxi" would be fine, then. It hadn't occurred to me as a regular user of Lyft (and Careem, these days), that these would be classified as taxis. What approach should we take to make it clear for travellers? Am I alone in not thinking of Uber when I read "taxi"? Ground Zero (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
What about encouraging editors to add a new section altogether, "By ride-sharing". But in places where both are used as one, it makes sense to include both in one section. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe the current term is "ride-hailing", as most of the rides are not shared. If you guys insist, that could be a separate sub-section when necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The "Get in" and "Get around" subheadings are generally worded "By" followed by the type of vehicle, eg, "plane", "train", "bus", "car", "boat", "ferry", "bicycle" - not quite the same are "thumb" and "foot". I'm not sure what term we would use for a ride-hailing vehicle. Nurg (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You do not think Uber when you read "taxi", but is there some relevant difference? We usually handle unlicensed taxis in By taxi, and Uber would either be a licensed or an unlicensed taxi in most jurisdictions. In Finland they chose to licence their cars and drivers after our deregulation. I think most of the bunch are taxis, although with some quirks (and there are more quirks about some "real" taxis). --LPfi (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Ride-hailing" is a better term. I don't think there is any substantive different between taxis and ride-hailing apps, so I don't see a need for a separate section. Maybe I'm old or out of the loop, but I don't call Uber a "taxi". And most of the media discussion I see seems to about ride-hailing as competition to taxi systems, not part of them. If there are others like me, then we should use both terms. If I'm wrong, and most travellers don't distinguish between taxis and ride-hailing, then let's make that clear on this page. But I'd like to see some evidence that the language has changed to call Uber cars "taxis". I don't think Wikivoyage should be leading linguistic change. Ground Zero (talk)

To me, a taxi is a car with a driver which you pay to take you from one place to another. Yes, I would consider an Uber a taxi - albeit the modern version of taxis. If I would be searching for Uber or similar services, I would consult the "by taxi" section. I don't think it's confusing, and I think our lay-out and readability benefit from short headers. If there's a lot of information about ride-hailing, a sub-section under "by taxi" would be useful, though. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, Julia, but can you provide evidence that it is widely held? I will note that Wikipedia article on tacicabs mentions ride-hailing only briefly, and treats it as a separate animal in a separate article. To provide clear information for travellers, I don't think that Wikivoyage should get ahead of common usage. We should follow it. Ground Zero (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not like most "Get in" and "Get around" sections are so long that people will have so much trouble seeing a note about Uber/Lyft/Grab/whatever in a "By taxi" subsection. Maybe in long articles about some of the biggest cities, but otherwise, aren't we spending unnecessary time arguing about a rather unimportant question? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It's about making it easier for travellers to figure out where to look in the articles, and about Wikivoyage keeping up with the changes in transportation options. I don't think it's a waste of time to do these things. Ground Zero (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It might benefit that goal if there were a clear distinction. Now there isn't. At least not in Finland, and I do not believe we can see a global trend where those services would develop into their own clear niche. There is a real possibility that the line between taxis and ride-hailing will be blurred, like in Finland, and we might have a third distinct category emerge. We are in no situation yet to know where things will settle. I think trying to standardise on a new structure now is premature, subsections under By taxi are visible enough to be easily found, and those can be tailored to the current situation in each destination where they make sense. --LPfi (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we carve this in stone, because that's nothing in Wikivoyage is. I'm only suggesting that we reflect the current reality that for many people there is a distinction, and we can help readers find information more easily where there is ride-hailing information being added. In the case of Finland, I think we should expect that many readers of our Finland articles are not Finns, and so may be looking for information about ride-hailing in Finland. It would be useful to explain the situation to them rather than expecting them to know it already. Sigh. It is a bit frustrating that it is contentious to suggest making things easier for many readers. I get that some readers have already moved on from the distinction even though Wikipedia and other media haven't. But these people aren't everyone. Ground Zero (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] I think the main point is that taxis and ride-hailing services belong in either "Get in" or "Get around" or both, depending on what they're most used for in a given place and also how long the article is (if it's really short, there's no reason to mention every taxi/ride-hailing service twice). Whether they are in "By taxi" or given their own section is unimportant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the original suggestion was to change the "by taxi" header where information on these services is added, and I don't think we want to encourage that. We tend to prefer uniformity in our headers unless they makes no sense, don't we? In this case, the question really is if "By taxi" is a confusing or inadequate header to put ride-hailing information under. @Ground Zero, it's possible that our perceptions of this matter are coloured by where we're based. I get your wish to make information more easy to find, but considering that many of our readers are Asians and Europeans, I'm not sure your suggestion will have that effect. The many law suits that have held apps like Uber back in several European countries, and the large amounts of media coverage, have probably connected the public understanding of the platforms to taxis more than in places where the services weren't litigated as much. Also, keep in mind that in many European destinations Uber is active - but only as a more or less regular taxi service with a nice app. Just last year the European Court basically ruled that Uber is a taxiservice and countries can thus oblige the service and its drivers to obtain taxi licenses or be member of cooperations and such. In several countries, this is already the case. On the other side, traditional taxi companies have invested in fancy apps using more or less the same features - so the line is blurred for many European travellers. All in all, I think for many travellers it might actually be confusing to not find information on ride-hailing apps in the taxi section. In the end, however, I have to admit I've taken just one or two "Ubers" in my entire life, so perhaps I should not comment any more ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@User:JuliasTravels, I did acknowledge above the lines are being blurred in many places, but in other places they are not. I was unaware of the European Court ruling, as I subject would be many other travellers. I was hoping that the discussion would produce some evidence of common usage. I offered up the Wikipedia article to support my contention that, for many people, taxis and ride-hailing are different things. Ground Zero (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that, on the contrary, the WP articles show that there is a lot of confusion about the terminology. It has not settled yet, as the market is developing fast. Yes, to many people they are different things, but there are other distinctions that may be more important – I am not sure this is the one to be reflected in the heading. --LPfi (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Uber has been around for 9 years. Maybe it is time that Wikivoyage recognize this. As there is confusion, we should be clear, rather than deiding to use one term ("taxi") that many people would not apply to ride-hailing. Ground Zero (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Another thing that we could do is this (we could substitute "ride-sharing" with "ride-hailing" or whatever, I don't think that matters much):

By taxi[edit]

Content about taxis goes here (excluding Uber, etc.)

By ride-sharing[edit]

Content about Uber, etc. goes here

This could solve the problem. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Where relevant, you could have that subheading. But what taxis should be put in the ride-sharing section in Finland? The internationally well-known TNCs? Those that have apps? Those that do not have published phone numbers? Such a subsection can be good in destinations where the distinction is clear and relevant. But in Finland Uber is regulated like other taxis, while ride-sharing is not. So should Uber be put in the subsection where you suppose to find it or in the general taxi section where its peers are?
Clearly this subheading would not solve the original problem. Having ride-sharing in the main heading explicitly solves it, but I think it is redundant, as Uber is perceived as an alternative to traditional taxis, not to going by bus or hitchhiking, so most people would search for it there. We have not changed our headings because of minivans, tuk-tuks or whatever, which are common alternatives to bus and taxi at some destinations, we just suppose people will find them in the standard sections.
--LPfi (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe "By tuk-tuk" and "By auto-rickshaw" and such are used in some articles. Wikivoyage is flexible enough to tolerate a degree of difference within larger sections. I really fail to see why there needs to be any standardization of where to put Uber, Lyft and so forth. I still don't think this discussion is important, but I don't want some kind of mandate being handed down by "consensus" because I feel bored with this topic and stop taking part in the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If we have "by car" we should also have "by truck", "by SUV", "by station wagon", "by hatchback" and all of the other vehicle types and subtypes. After all, a pickup truck or a minivan is technically not a car... and the difference between an Uber (which basically is a gypsy cab, with varying levels of legality depending on city) and a yellow taxi, or a black taxi, or whatever the official cabs are painted is far less than the difference between an exploding Pinto and a panel van. K7L (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I've asked for evidence that "taxi" is now common usage for Uber, etc., and so far: nothing. Just arguments about how they are really the same thing, or references to regulations or court rulings. I guess that people who don't see Uber as a taxi are just wrong, and we should not be interested in helping them. After all, we're just writing for ourselves. Who cares about helping travellers? Ground Zero (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You've asked for "evidence"? What kind of "evidence" do you want, beyond individual opinions and remarks about standard usage in Finland or wherever? If you want to try to find figures on what percentage of English-speakers consider an Uber a kind of taxi, be my guest, but expecting others to do that kind of research is silly. And the bottom line is, even if you don't think Uber is a taxi service, they're obviously an alternative to taxis and in direct competition with them, since they use cars and drivers and drive you somewhere for pay, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect remarks about Uber/Lyft/Grab/what have you in a "By taxi" section, which is really the point K7L was getting at in his post, by effectively sharply-worded analogy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek was right earlier. This is getting ridiculous. I don't mind greatly if Uber is included in the "By taxi" section or some other section, but what's important is if this discussion results in us having scores of different possible sections like "By SUV" that add nothing of value to our articles. Seriously people, "By station wagon", "By hatchback", "By SUV"? Isn't the advice for traveling by SUV the same as the advice for traveling by car in at least 80% of situations, probably even more for most destinations? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Except that no-one has ever said that they have been confused by "car" and "truck" and "SUV". But in this discussion, we see that "taxi" and "ride-hailing" are considered by some or many people to be different things. As Ikan Kekek says ride-hailing is an alternative to a taxi, i.e. is not a taxi. Public transit, walking and price vehicles are other alternatives to taxis. The Wikipedia article shows, depending on how you read it, that either that the people who wrote it think that ride-hailing is not a taxi, or that the issue is at least still "confused". There are lots of language websites and blogs out there that discuss changes in terminology as evidence of current usage. I thought that someone might point to one of those. But I guess if any of our readers are confused, it's their own fault for not keeping up with European Court ruling and the situation in Finland. We're not going to help them by clarifying things. Declaring there is "no consensus" to change because a user is bored of the discussion is a dangerous precedent to follow. That is a recipe for atrophy and irrelevance. Ground Zero (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
You're misquoting me. I say Uber is a taxi service, but even if you don't think it is, it's - but why repeat something everyone can read immediately above? You seem to be the only person in this discussion who wants to mandate a required separation between the "By taxi" subsection and a different section for Uber/Lyft/etc. Time to drop it, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I see that I quoted you out of context. I apologize.
I proposed dealing with taxis and ride-hailing in one section and changing "By taxi" to reflect that where appropriate. It was SelfieCity who proposed a separate section. Ground Zero (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Book template[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Do we have a template for entries in "Read" sections, like Armenia#Read? If not, i think we should both to encourage consistent formatting, and to emit machine-readable metadata. We could import w:Template:Cite book (which is used in biliography sections as well as for citations) from en.Wikipedia as a starting point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We can only import {{Cite book}} if we're willing to important dozens of other pages. The CS1 template system is a maintenance nightmare, and the possibility that its primary maintainer could get hit by a bus should be keeping people awake at night.
Andy, Wikivoyage has a project-wide goal of using the smallest number of templates possible. Also, it looks like there are only 12 articles using that section, and some of them, such as Bath#Read, merely mention a famous book in the middle of a paragraph. I cannot imagine us setting up a template for use in so few articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
There is {{ISBN}} which is used on a number of page. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are definitely more than 12 such articles. Your regex doesn't account for the space being optional; I found an additional 123 articles just by removing it. There are 72 results just for pages that contain "ISBN" (and a similar number of articles that use Template:ISBN), which is as close as we've come so far to having a hyperlinked book reference, but not all articles that refer to a book include the ISBN. Plenty of articles are probably using a different name for the section, such as Japan#Further reading and South Korea#Further reading.
Also, WV's goal is not to use "the smallest number of templates possible". That number would be 0, because it's possible to write this entire site without using a single template... it's just not very easy to maintain. Per WV:Welcome, Wikipedians#Information and formatting using MediaWiki templates, we use them "sparingly". Sorry to be a stickler, but I think it's important to get the language right for the purpose of this question. I'm not weighing in yet on whether we should bother with a template for referencing books (and what about film and TV shows? Would they get one too?), but there's certainly a dearth of regular contributors on WV and I don't think templates (or the lack thereof) are what's keeping people away. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear I'm not talking about referencing books, but listing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I know (and I should be consistent in being nit-picky about terminology), but it amounts to the same thing. Even if it's just listings instead of footnote citations, it may still need to be written as a module and not a pure template in order to output the metadata, plus it will need a lot of error checking to make sure users enter data in the correct format (particularly author names). On the plus side, do we really need anything other than author, title, date, and ISBN? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ISBN}} is a start, but it doesn't encode other metadata, such as title, and doesn't work for older books which have no ISBN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. I'm all in favor of templates, better and more consistent formatting, metadata, and hyperlinks. And particularly for something that's edited as infrequently as reading lists, I don't think the use of templates would substantially harm editability, although I'll warn you that this template would not be as simple as it first appears: you need to figure out how to handle cases like Buffalo#Read and San Francisco#Read where multiple books by one author are mentioned without repeating the author's name, and books are mentioned in running prose without interrupting the flow.
The issue is that we have very limited labor around here, so we have to prioritize what projects we work on. What tangible benefits would these templates bring to WV? Would the improved formatting or the metadata improve our SEO? Would it help draw more contributors to WV? --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"you need to figure out how to handle cases ... where multiple books by one author are mentioned without repeating the author's name" - 'Cite book' already caters for this. "books are mentioned in running prose" It is not propsed to template these. You ask how a template would benefit Wikivoyage. I propose one because it would benefit our users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I find your response inadequate.
I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm on your side! I'm asking questions that would help you explain to others why we should do this. But if you dismiss what I say and don't answer the questions we're asking, then this is going to go absolutely nowhere.
Look at Buffalo#Read. There are 3 books by Mark Goldman mentioned. Just like we do for listings of restaurants that have multiple locations, we don't repeat the name on each one. You say 'Cite book' would handle this, but I don't see how. If anything, it explicitly doesn't handle this. It's designed for producing a complete bibliography, even if that means repeating the authors' names over and over. If it did avoid repeating them, I would expect it to substitute the rather academic-sounding "Ibid.", but in fact, Wikipedia explicitly discourages the use of "ibid." and prefers to explicitly repeat authors' names. So there's a difference between how WP and WV prefer to style things, and while I'm sure we could make something work here, 'Cite book' does not do this for us.
You've also ignored where multiple people have already responded and said there's no way we're going to use 'Cite book' because its dependencies are way too complicated for what WV needs. A simple text-based template is sufficient.
Look at San Francisco#Read. Multiple entries there refer to several books by an author in running prose. It's only reasonable that if we add the ability to hyperlink and add metadata for books, we would want to do this everywhere, not just in places where it fits nicely into a simple template. Again, I'm sure we could solve this, much like how we have {{marker}} for inline entries that don't fit well as a normal {{listing}}, and sometimes we do rearrange and rephrase text in order to make it fit with our templates. But I'm not impressed by your answer because it comes across as very dismissive, like you plan to do a half-assed job and haven't considered the broader implications.
"You ask how a template would benefit Wikivoyage. I propose one because it would benefit our users."
That's not an answer to my question. How would it benefit our users? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
"I'm not trying to antagonize you." You say that; while at the same time you have told me I need to "figure out" something that I not only figured out a long time ago, but was personally responsible for instigating; you falsely accuse me of having "ignored multiple people", and you tell me my response is inadequate because I answered the question you asked, and not the one you wish you'd asked. And in the process of dismissing me in this fashion, you say I'm "very dismissive", imply that I "plan to do a half-assed job" and "haven't considered the broader implications". If this is you trying not to antagonise: Try harder.
No wonder WikiVoyage is short of volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We should have a template for collecting metadata in a machine-readable format, we should not import w:en:Template:Cite book because 1.) these are not citations and 2.) it is a huge pain to have to maintain all of the dependencies, etc. A very simple template that gives structure to sources (not just books) is handy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Also note that some "Read" sections have been converted to "Read and Watch". Some articles go beyond recommending books to read and include movies, television series and documentaries to help the traveller understand a destination or travel topic. Gizza (roam) 00:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that a number of articles still use noun subheadings like "Literature", "Books", "Films" and "Television" (in addition to the "Further Reading" spotted by Bigpete) instead of the verbs "Read" and "Watch" which are prescribed by our Manual of Style. I'm trying to fix these now though it means the number of articles with books and films mentioned are much greater than the numbers found above. I have no opinion on whether a template is needed though. Gizza (roam) 04:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Not at this point saying we should do this, but what would be the minimum information to handle and display? Feel free to edit this sandbox. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The minimum to display in this template would be just a title field. Everything else is helpful but not necessary. Structured data should be handled a little differently (e.g. creating ISBN links with the appropriate field filled in) but it shouldn't be a template error. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Who benefits?[edit]

Andy, you say that consistent formatting and machine-readable metadata will benefit users. Which users will it benefit? I suppose that "not people who click on the article link on their phones" is the obvious answer for the bit about machine-readable metadata, but who exactly would benefit, and how? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I want to know the answer to this too. In theory I'm open to a new template, but it needs to be justified by the needs of this wiki and its users.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting 'By foot' versus 'On foot'[edit]

In 2014, there was a discussion on whether the walking section of an article should be called 'By foot' or 'On foot'. Reading it now it seems that two conclusions were reached by consensus among participants: 1. 'By foot' was preferable due to following the pattern of 'By car' 'By train' etc. 2. 'On foot' is nonetheless more idiomatic English than 'By foot'.

I think the second point is correct and explains why, in a random search of about 15 huge city articles when prompted by User:LPfi, I found that, of those articles which contained a walking section:

"By foot": London, Tokyo, Sydney
"On foot": Paris, Barcelona, New York City, Buenos Aires, Singapore, Rome, Montreal, Kuala Lumpur

The fact that 'By foot' is preferred in policy doesn't seem to be reflected in the wording most editors find natural. This is further reflected in a google search:

"By foot": 19.2 M results
"On foot": 48.8 M results

By no means is "By foot" incorrect, but it is a minority usage and I personally think it is more important to use standard English than to need every heading to look as though it follows the same pattern. What do you think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the consistency is an important point, more important than By being a little quirky, but if it is annoyingly or awkwardly quirky, then probably not. My English is not strong enough for me to have an opinion on which one is true. –LPfi (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That's fair enough. They're both grammatically correct, hence the millions of results for each, though I still find "By foot" awkward and wonder what others think.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
English-speakers will understand both, but "on foot" seems more natural to me, and ThunderingTyphoons!' supports that. "By foot" seems forced, as if we're trying to impose consistency that the English language doesn't require. I would go with "on foot". Ground Zero (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd never say "I got here by foot". "On foot" is natural to me, as Ground Zero says. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Both terms are used in standard English. "On foot" is more common. As we already use "By foot", and it's consistent with the other subheadings, and it's not incorrect, there is no need to change. Nurg (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the rest of us think it should be changed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
They are both technically correct though "on foot" is more common. Even "travel by car" is not the most common expression. "Travel in a car" is more natural. Agree with Nurg. Gizza (roam) 09:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting split of opinion. I can't really understand why two of you are all but admitting 'By foot' is the marginal term but still insisting we use it when it is weird to so many English speakers and we have a perfectly acceptable alternative that is weird to no-one. If the only reason is consistency with the other headings, that strikes me as putting the cart (website aesthetics) before the horse (travellers who read our guides).
I did briefly wonder why we don't use more verbs in this section (à la 'See', 'Do'), which would certainly work for 'Walk', 'Drive', 'Cycle', 'Fly' and which would all be more natural than 'By x', but then I realised it would get a bit complicated around 'Ride'- specifically how to delineate the numerous types of riding that can be done on trains, buses, horses, cable cars etc. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree on "by car" vs. "in a car". The first is absolutely standard and more natural, because the point isn't that you happened to be in a car but that that was the method of transportation you used. ("We got here by car" is a normal sentence; "We got here in a car" is just slightly awkward to me.) And the difference in regard to "on foot" vs. "by foot" is that "on foot" is a standard metaphor meaning "by walking", while "by foot" is not. "By car" is quite literal and not a metaphor at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the statement "it's not incorrect, there is no need to change", in our writing, we aim higher than "not incorrect". Per WV:tone, "Lively writing is welcome. The requirement of being fair should not be taken to mean that all writing must be bland and encyclopedic." Ground Zero (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons! says two of us "are all but admitting 'By foot' is the marginal term". No, neither Gizza nor I came even close to admitting it to be a marginal term. We both were merely being fair in admitting that it is less common, just as ThunderingTyphoons! started out very fairly allowing that "by no means is "By foot" incorrect". Now ThunderingTyphoons! is saying it "is weird to so many English speakers". That may be so – on the other hand, based on the Google result count of 19 million to 49 million that ThunderingTyphoons! posted, 28% of English speakers find it preferable, let alone not weird. It's less common for sure, but nowhere near marginal.
And in reply to Ground Zero saying that we aim higher than "not incorrect", yes, as a general rule I wholeheartedly support that, but in "lively writing" there may be a place for some poetic licence or other exceptions. We don't all use English the same. For example, there are the differences between "American" and "British" English. I prefer "British" English, but if anyone wants to write "poetic license" instead of "poetic licence" here, that's fine by me, because it is not incorrect. ;-) Nurg (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)