Wikivoyage talk:Listings

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

Technical question[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I would like to try to "fish out" a list of all the tourist attraction articles in the English Wikipedia for a certain country in order to use that list in the Hebrew Wikivoyage.

Some years ago I figured out how to do this but since then I forgot, so I was hoping some of the experts here could maybe help me figure it out again.

So, for example, I would like to be able to take a category like Category:Tourist attractions in Spain and create a list that contains all the articles in that category and in ALL the sub categories (at least 5 levels down that category tree).

Is there any easy way to accomplish this? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ויקיג'אנקי: I believe that this will give you what you seek. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nricardo: thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may also be interested in the Nearby Attraction tool. This finds all the English Wikipedia articles (max 49) within 10km of the nominal centre of an English Wikivoyage article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlasdairW: Oh wow! that one is amazing. I saw there's also a climate template generator in there for the climate template used in Engvoy... we at Hebvoy use the Wikipedia climate template... is there a similar generator capable of creating new climate templates for Wikipedia articles? (Which we could then transfer to Hebvoy too) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have only used the Nearby Attractions and Nearby Destinations tabs. See Wikivoyage talk:Listings#New_editing_tools_for_generating_article_content for a discussion on these tools. AlasdairW (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with listings on Portuguese Wikivoyage[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Problem with Wikivoyage's template in Portuguese, anyone know who could help? pt:Wikivoyage:Itens da lista de acomodação.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Felipe da Fonseca: I won't be able to assist with anything template-related, but it would be really helpful if you could give as much detail of the problem as possible, so people reading know whether they can help or not.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ThunderingTyphoons! hi: the first variable, "name", does not appear on the page, it is hidden. Thanks,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Felipe da Fonseca:, fixed :) -- andree.sk(talk) 18:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks, @Andree.sk! I had noticed a while back but failed to say anything (hangs head in vergonha). It was the main reason I did not contribute on pt, and I suspect that may be part of why that community is practically dead. While I'm here, I'll mention that I don't see an Edit link on listings. You can see this at pt:Utilizador:Nricardo/Sandbox. Thanks again! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, one more thing: the images to add listings from the editor toolbar look messed up. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andree.sk Thank you very much. I will try to follow that wiki and reactivate the community. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to summon Andyrom75, he's the local "listing editor" guru :) Perhaps he'll know right away - it seems it's done by some javascript magic that processes span's with class listing-metadata-items, so maybe you have old listing editor JS?. And good luck restarting pt.WV to you all! I can imagine it won't be easy, considering how hard it is making HebVoy lift off... :( -- andree.sk(talk) 20:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
andree, I haven't understood which is the current issue.
Ricardo (or anyone else), is there a test page where I can clearly the issue? --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyrom75, please let me know if pt:Utilizador:Nricardo/Sandbox isn't sufficient. It has sleep (durma), eat (coma), and see (veja) listings. Thanks! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andyrom75 the 'edit' button in pt.wikivoyage doesn't show up next to listings. It seemed it could be some old/improperly configured JS code? If you have time/will to check it... :) -- andree.sk(talk) 07:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
andree, Ricardo, thanks, now I got the problem :-)
The first thing I've seen is that pt:voy use a very old version of listing editor. I suggest to use the last one. Since I'm not an admin on pt:voy I'll try to use the right one in my personal page (without any kind of translation). If it works, an admin can translate and move the script in the most appropriate location. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ricardo, see the pages I've created. Replicate it on pt:voy and you'll see that everything will work as in pt:Utilizador:Andyrom75/Sandbox :-) PS I can see the [edit] link in your sandbox but listing editor doesn't work becasue currently my script is configured for en:voy, you have to customized it first. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andyrom75, Thank you for looking into this. I cannot see the Edit link in either your sandbox nor mine. Could it be a preferences setting? Or maybe the custom code applies to your account only? Do you see it from a private/incognito window? (At any rate, I'm just an end user without special privileges, so I won't be able to act on anything that needs extra rights. Also, I'm mostly clueless on the code.) Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ricardo, sorry for my late reply. As previously said, I'm not an admin on pt:voy, so I can't change pt:voy config files. I've added the new script on my pt:voy account, if you want to test it, copy the same on your account. However, if you want to allow all the user to benefit of such script, you have to engage DARIO SEVERI that is the only active admin on pt:voy. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, @Andyrom75. I'll try to ping him here.
Olá, @DARIO SEVERI. My written Portuguese is assim-assim, so I hope it's alright if I address you in English. Please see the above conversation. Lusophone Wikivoyagers, including myself, would be grateful if you would please investigate and resolve this issue. Obrigado! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Andyrom75, @Nricardo: and @Felipe da Fonseca:, I became an administrator there to help mainly to eliminate spam because I understand very little of the technical part. I read the above discussion and the difficulty is it on the pt:Wikivoyage:Itens da lista de acomodação? I created this sandbox there [1] and despite using an old system it seems that it still works. In order not to disturb the colleagues here, I suggest discussing the subject there. Regards. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Felipe da Fonseca: Where do I apply to become an administrator? I will help you there. I will soon realize a project with implications on Wikivoyage and I also want to be able to control things quickly (see: meta:Wikisul User Group/Projects). --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is another problematic error: when one opens the source code editor, there are some links in the taskbar to add the common templates automatically, but they appear, today, disfigured and it is not possible to understand their functions, can someone help?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guys, please, there is another strange problem: how do one control the categories? They seem to be added automatically... but are you adding categories in English... how do one add and remove them manually? Thanks.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Felipe da Fonseca, Most categories here are added by template. Look at Caldas da Rainha, for example. At the bottom there's a {{starcity}} template. It adds not only the box at the end of the article but also the following categories: "Star cities", "Star articles", "City articles", and "All destination articles". {{IsPartOf|Oeste}} adds the breadcrumb trail at the top of the page, as well as the "Oeste category". {{mapframe}} in the Get around section adds a dynamic map to the page and the adds the "Has mapframe" category. Each listing template adds a category such as "Has see listing", etc. You can get more info. at Wikivoyage:Categories (note: it's not up to date). Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I need to edit and change the templates? Correct? And how a add the phabricator task? Thanks, --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
w:Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nelson Ricardo 2500 It seems that the categories are not being added by default, so I copied the whole page to my test area and they are gone: see here.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the code for "Predefinição:Cidade guia" (even though I'm no expert). It looks like categories are added in the Main namespace, so they won't appear on "Utilizador:" pages. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are claiming that the problem with the categories is on this page. here--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felipe, Dario, Ricardo, I renew my suggestion to implement the script in my pt:voy sandbox, into the Mediawiki config file, and afterwards, to apply the translation into Portuguese. Stop using the old unmaintained script, will facilitate to get support outside pt:voy. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
here? Just answer there, thanks. Andyrom75.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Felipe, Andyrom75, Ricardo ... there is a colleague who is currently solving some of the problems there, he has a lot of knowledge of the technical part. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DARIO SEVERI who? --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is Edu, he is one of the administrators at Wikinews. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those interested this discussion continued here.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Box sizes and Event listings[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Does anyone here know why these boxes are so distorted and are all in different sizes with different alignments? Here's just an example on how distorted the text and the box sizes are:

On mobile:

Mobile

On desktop:

Desktop

Additionally, the event listing is not coming up on the map in Stratford (Victoria). Is it just meant to appear when the event is happening?

Does anyone know why these are happening? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 14:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this how it looks everywhere, or is it in some specific article? I didn't find those bullets in Stratford (Victoria). –LPfi (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, please provide the article where you are seeing this the distortion. Re the event template: I suspect it was abandoned before completion. It doesn't even have an edit link like all other listing types (so you can't use the listing editor), you can't choose "event" as the listing type in the drop-down another listing (so it appears to be a non-standard type), and now it seems to not add a marker to the mapframe. I looked into using it on my pet Star article a while ago, but decided that its deficiencies were too great and used "Do" listings instead. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took these bullets from Syd Harbour National Park, but also the event listing isn't coming up in Stratford. I shouldn't have combined the messages. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sydney Harbour National Park: The markers look fine in Chrome, but do appear slightly off in Safari if one is looking for issues. (I'm on macOS Big Sur.) Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm using Chrome on macOS Catalina, so maybe something wrong with my computer? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thread on walking tours[edit]

This new (or reopened) discussion is occasioned by discussion at User talk:Nikoghosyanmarianna. ThunderingTyphoons! believes that the following text implicitly disallows most walking tour listings:

"In practice this policy disallows listing most audio tours and guided tours

I disagree, and point to the two subthreads following Wikivoyage talk:Listings/Archive 2018#Revisit ban on listing free walking tours?, which I believe demonstrate that any walking tour whose listing otherwise follows Wikivoyage guidelines such as don't tout can be listed.

No-one is proposing a ban on all walking tour listings, so I won't copy that entire thread here, but I will copy the conclusion and the following two sections:

It's been over a week with no new comments. A few proposals have been made, the two main ones being to (a) change the policy to allow free walking tours, and (b) change the policy to allow walking tours in general. Proposal (a) has gotten significant opposition; proposal (b) has gotten clear opposition from AndreCarrotflower but support or an ambiguous response from everyone else. Can we find consensus to allow walking tours? Of course if it turns out to lead to too much touting or other problems, we can always change our minds later. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No new comments in a while, but in the discussion above there's been general support and little opposition to the proposal. I'm editing the policy accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion after policy change[edit]

I'm not sure it's good to allow all walking tours. Maybe it should be specified that "Walking tours may be listed, provided that the value added over an individual taking a walk by themselves is clearly indicated and no motorized transportation is included or offered by the organizers for any part of the tour". Then we could see how this plays out and revisit it if we don't like the results. Maybe my proposed language is too specific, but I don't think we want a bunch of totally generic listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I think we discussed walking tours that are truly valuable. The current changed wording allows tours that give nothing more than you get by walking around by yourself with a leaflet in your hands. That the value added should be clearly stated is a good point. --LPfi (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are we ever going to evaluate walking tours based on Ikan Kekek's proposed wording? I think it's trying to fix a problem that we don't have, and is too cumbersome to put into a policy. Ground Zero (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you misunderstand: We don't evaluate generically listed tours through independent research; whoever posts the listing has to include some kind of language explaining the value added. That value added could be that the guides are trained historians, for example, or that they will show people buildings that are off the beaten path, or whatever (there are a million and one possibilities), but something should be included to explain why it's better than someone walking through a place by themselves. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why do we think that this is a problem we have to address through policy? Do we have a policy about restaurants that serve food that isn't as good as food you'd cook at home? We have a general policy about not including places that aren't worth going to -- we leave them out. Why don't we just add walking tours to the list of examples there? Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the very least, we need to specify that no motorized vehicles can be included in the tour, because any tour agency could claim that if they bus people somewhere and then they walk a little, it's a "walking tour". But the reason is that this guide is expressly designed for people who want to take their own initiative - in other words, mainly independent travelers. I don't think we want to open the floodgates this wide to tour operators. If we do, wait and see whether our articles get overwhelmed with low-quality listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No motor vehicles" makes sense. Ground Zero (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay with "no motor vehicles" and/or the other aspects of Ikan Kekek's suggested wording. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am happy with Ikan's wording. (I don't think that we should exclude tours that make use of scheduled public transport - "we will take the train to the lake and walk back into town along the river", but the transport is not "included".) In particular, I would like to be able to add the walks organised by local history societies. AlasdairW (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed on historical societies. Sure, I'm fine with taking public transportation and then walking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point about public transportation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion/vote on new language?[edit]

Do you prefer any of these or have another proposal?

1. "Walking tours may be listed, provided that the listing explains how they are superior to an individual taking a walk by themselves and no motorized transportation is included or offered by the organizers for any part of the tour. Taking public transit to or from the walking tour is fine."

2."Walking tours may be listed, provided that no motorized transportation is included or offered by the organizers for any part of the tour. Taking public transit to or from the walking tour is fine."

3. Current language: "This policy doesn't prohibit walking tours."

I prefer #1, though #2 is also better (because more specific) than the current language, and seems to be fairly popular in the thread above. I found a form of words to substitute for "value added", so as not to suggest these sentences apply to walking tours:

Tours can be listed on Wikivoyage as long as they constitute a value-added activity. If a traveller could fulfill the substance of the tour on their own, the tour should not be listed.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I think #1 is the only one including the main point, that worthless tours should not be listed. The policy on not listing boring places does not work for these tours without that language, as somebody has to take that tour and find it boring for it to be removed. --LPfi (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wording #1 is redundant to our general policy about not including places that aren't worth going to -- we leave them out. See Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews. Since the point is already covered more effectively there, let's not add more policy that could just confuse contributors. I support #2. Ground Zero (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that the tour can be listed by a tout, and then cannot be removed by us who do not know this particular tour (unless there are plenty of tour listings with better descriptions). Restaurants are often easier, as locals will know them. Locals seldom take these tours, so whom should we ask? --LPfi (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ground Zero, do you really think it's too much to ask whomever adds a walking tour listing to make at least some kind of statement of how the tour is better than just walking without a tour? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because all contributions here are effectively anonymous (Ground Zero isn't even my real name), we don't ever know whether a contributor is a tout or a traveller giving useful information. We can only tell if something sounds like touting. I don't see how a tout assuring us that his/her walking tour is informative, entertaining and stays crunchy in milk makes the listing any more or less worthy of having. We rely on the word of the contributor that the information they provide is accurate anyway. A clever tout doesn't use hyperbole, and will tell us what we want to hear. As with restaurant listings; as with hotel listings; as with rutabaga festival listings. Ground Zero (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, but I think it's still worth asking for, so we don't have loads of undifferentiated listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The current language seems fine to me. #2, in my eyes, just spells out what "walking tour" means, and #1 seems to impose a requirement we don't have anywhere else; would we remove a hotel if it were added with no details beyond its name? And if we would, then we can do that with tours, as well, without writing it here. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hotel listings with no description are very commonly removed. But what you and Ground Zero are ignoring is that all travelers need someplace to stay, but a walking tour is optional. So in no way does a hotel have to be more than generic to be listed, but you really want every and all walking tours listed, no matter what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we get too many listings, wouldn't we just take the ones out that provide useful info? It really seems like we're imagining problems that we don't have. If someone starts loading dozens of walking tours into an article, sure, let's discuss that. I will even say, "Ikan Kekek was right". It seems really unlikely to happen, so it's not worth putting in cumbersome easy-to-dodge rules into the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far, it doesn't look like there's a consensus behind any modification of the current language, so this is likely to be what happens, but I would observe that it's in any case extremely easy to evade the guidelines on touting: All that a business or marketer has to do is give positive descriptions to a bunch of mediocre-or-worse hotels or restaurants that don't obviously run afoul of the guidelines. I think you'd agree that "because they can be evaded" is not a great reason not to have guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But having existing rules that address bad tours is justification for not adding more rules that will not be effective. A bad tour is a bad tour. A listing without information is a listing without information. We can take them out without another rule. Ground Zero (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay with any of the three wordings. 1 and 2 strike me as almost equivalent, because the extra guidance in 1 is basically redundant with other parts of the policy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer #2. I'd say I'm okay with us including walking tour listings in our articles, but perhaps the number of walking tours listed per article should be limited (perhaps, to 3 listings per article or so? Maybe this could be included in policy text.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I continue to be against the inclusion of any non-value-added tours. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if all types of walking tours may be listed, do we need new language to more clearly state that?[edit]

Leaving the past and going back to 2021, I would ask the question of whether, if we do maintain a lack of restrictions on the kinds of walking tours that may be listed: Do we need to change the wording of this article to make it clearer that there aren't any "value-added" requirements for walking tours? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the wording should be changed, as it's not at all clear from the policy that "a lack of restrictions on the kinds of walking tours that may be listed" has even been established. I quote myself:
"The only mention of walking tours in the policy is "This policy doesn't prohibit listing walking tours."; it doesn't say "All walking tours may be listed", and it certainly doesn't mean that (whether it was intended to mean that is another matter entirely). What the policy does say is "In practice this policy disallows listing most audio tours and guided tours since the substance of such tours can generally be fulfilled by an independent traveller, and the information provided on such tours should ideally be included in the appropriate Wikivoyage article." I would take "guided tours" to implicitly include walking tours."
You guys may have decided to allow all types of walking tours, but the resulting policy doesn't show this, nor does it make a distinction between walking tours and other types of guided tours. Because of this, I have interpreted the policy to mean that only "value-added" tours of any kind (i.e. including those made on foot) are permitted.
Despite Ikan Kekek's insistence to the contrary, I am not trying to change the policy; if there is in fact no restriction on the kind of walking tour which may be listed, and the "value-added" requirement only exists for other types of tour (if so, which tours?) then that's fine by me. I only ask that the actual policy be properly worded to reflect this fact. If I've misinterpreted the policy, the fault is not mine for failing to read a long historical thread, the fault is with the policy's wording not being clear enough.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, I think you're trying to change the policy as I understand it, but I fully grasp your points about what the article appears to say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: And to be doubly clear, I'm not trying to change the policy. There are many things of which you have a much better understanding than I do, but my own mind and intentions are not among those things. It's rather annoying that you won't take my word for this, and makes me question why I should bother commenting further when you won't show me such a basic courtesy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, but I'm having trouble following the sequence of events as each thread seems to link back to another one and refer to "current policy" without consistently quoting that current policy for future readers. I admit I didn't even know we'd changed the policy on walking tours at all. Now it seems we allow walking-tour listings as explicit exceptions to the "value-add" policy? Why in heaven's name? Powers (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I shall quote from the thread copied from the archives:
Because all contributions here are effectively anonymous (Ground Zero isn't even my real name), we don't ever know whether a contributor is a tout or a traveller giving useful information. We can only tell if something sounds like touting. I don't see how a tout assuring us that his/her walking tour is informative, entertaining and stays crunchy in milk makes the listing any more or less worthy of having. We rely on the word of the contributor that the information they provide is accurate anyway. A clever tout doesn't use hyperbole, and will tell us what we want to hear. As with restaurant listings; as with hotel listings; as with rutabaga festival listings. Ground Zero (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
In any case, the entire point of this thread is that the current state of policy is not clear, but I think if you read through the posts I copied here, you will probably agree that a decision was made to allow walking tour listings without restrictions as to their content or whether you could do the same tour yourself without a guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear all, having read through the past threads, I believe the policy can be made more clear on this so there is no need to come back to the same question over and over. I like the point of the tour to have "added value" however we should be more understanding of that term. I am not a guide myself (I use my real name, you can check it), but I am familiar with the travel industry. For example, added-value can be a particular knowledge (history, birdwatching, architecture, etc), access to specific gear without which you can't do that tour (jeep, climbing, kayak, camping, etc), or even the fact that it's not advisable to travel to certain places alone without a local guide for safety concerns (a site can be close to a border, it can be close to wild animal habitat, unsafe neighborhood, etc). There is probably more to this, but my point is that we need to look at the term value-added broader. --Nikoghosyanmarianna (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. Some of the things you mention are already explicitly part of the tour listings guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"you will probably agree that a decision was made to allow walking tour listings without restrictions as to their content or whether you could do the same tour yourself without a guide." - Yes, that seems to have been the decision you guys made at the time, a decision which - I repeat - I'm happy to go along with and don't seek to change. But the wording of the policy ("This policy doesn't prohibit listing walking tours.") does not reflect the decision you made, which is why until last night I didn't realise walking tours had been made an exception to the 'value-added' requirement. That is the thing that needs changing.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To make the wording clearer, maybe we should change the first sentence from "Tours can be listed on Wikivoyage as long as they constitute a value-added activity." to "Tours can be listed on Wikivoyage as long as they constitute a value-added activity or are done entirely by walking." AlasdairW (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, that's certainly clearer. I would probably also get rid of "This policy doesn't prohibit listing walking tours.", which would be made redundant.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the "entirely by walking" clause: Imagine that Tourist Town has two guided tours. One happens on foot in a small area; one happens on bicycle in a large area. Both are organized by the local historical society. Do we intend to treat these differently? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. That's as clear as possible.
If anyone would like to reargue the policy, we should do that, too. Powers, would you like to start a new (sub)thread?
WhatamIdoing, bicycle tours are always listable, because they are considered a value-added activity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is it that we intend to exclude? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Put simply, most coach tours are excluded. AlasdairW (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should also clarify whether "ride your own bike tours" are included. Are "drive your own car" tours included - follow the orange leader's car and stop at several sites for commentary? I hadn't thought of either as value added, but tours where the hire of a bike, car or horse was included are value added. AlasdairW (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. Do you think we should include those or not? I'm not sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would include tours by bike, skateboard, canoe etc. I am not sure about those by car, mainly because they can cover much larger areas outside the city that has the listing. A walking tour may be just of Edinburgh/Old Town. A tour by bike could cover a larger part of Edinburgh, but a tour by car might cover the Central Belt. AlasdairW (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we should start by saying that basic restriction plainly: "Group tours by bus/coach are only included under extraordinary circumstances, such as when that tour is the only way to visit a restricted location."
Where WV:Tour currently bans "audio" tours, I assume that self-guided audio tours inside museums aren't exactly banned, just should be mentioned (if at all) in the normal listing for the museum. (Unless there have been disputes/confusion around that, then I think that line should be left alone.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's definitely fine to mention any type of tours a museum (or a cathedral or whatever) does in its listing, just not separately as additional listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are walking tours special?[edit]

Contrary to what Ikan posted above, I don't find the previous discussions clear at all, though I'm not disputing the presence of a consensus (I just find it very hard to follow the conversation as it refers back to previous discussions and previous wording of the policy). But even if I accept the consensus, I'm still puzzled as to the reasoning for exempting walking tours *specifically* from a policy that otherwise seems to have served us very well in the past. Powers (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To summarize the way this change in policy unfolded, I was one of the people who was unhappy about having to delete "free" walking tour listings over and over, so I proposed to allow free walking tours. Others pointed out that "free" tours usually informally required a tip at the end. Because it would have taken a lot of time and could cause a lot of disputes to determine which tours were really free - or if not free, good values - the question then became whether to allow walking tour listings or continue to almost always disallow them. And I have to say, I really don't think that our previous policy of nearly always deleting walking tours served anyone well.
My feeling is that this site mostly caters to independent travelers. Independent travelers don't take package tours and generally avoid guided bus tours. However, they might well enjoy a guided walking tour (or a bike tour, etc.), especially if the guide knows all kinds of things about local history that would be hard for them to know where to look up, themselves. It's really a question of how hard a line we want to draw between typical tourists on package tours and absolutely uncompromising independent travelers who hunt and gather for their own food and camp in tents they construct from local materials, etc. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is different about a guided walking tour as compared to a guided bus tour, from the perspective of the independent traveler? (And, relatedly, what does "independent traveler" mean in this case?) Powers (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see several differences between walking and bus tours:
  • Walking tours can only cover a short distance. So they "belong in the city" that they are listed in. A bus tour can cover 200 miles, and so it is not really relevant to the city it starts from (we could say bus tours less than 10 miles but that gets complicated).
  • Walking tours are generally run by small local operators, including non-profit heritage bodies and individual tour guides. Bus tours are more commercial, including operators which run tours in multiple cities, and tend to advertise more than walking tours.
  • Walking tours are much more likely to allow travellers to ask questions - contrast this with a taped bus commentary, or trying to ask a question when sitting in te back seat of a bus.
  • Walking tours are more likely to be part of an independently planned day in the city - many last 1-2 hours. Bus tours can be much longer, and include "14 day tour of the west coast".
I think that originally we were against guided tours as an attempt to encourage editors to create itineraries, but that has failed. AlasdairW (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is it only guided walking tours allowed by the policy? Or all walking tours, guided or not? Powers (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So non-guided walking tours are allowed, in part because they are generally run by small local operators and allow travelers to ask questions? I guess I just don't get it. Powers (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't non-guided walking tours usually done with information (either printed or an app or something) from a tourism bureau? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what "non-guided walking tours" means in this discussion. Are these self-guided tours where you download the information and follow it on your own, like our itinerary articles? —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or get the leaflet from the tourist office. I suppose we still require good value from tours listed, and if there is no information on why a tour is special, it can be removed with no thorough research. I understand bus tours are less attractive for independent travellers for many reasons, but the distance shouldn't be one of them. Tours that cover more than the city should go in Go next or in the region article, or whatever, but that is no reason to forbid them (the "history of the universe" walking tour over here, transforming years into (milli?)metres, crosses the city boundary – as do many hikes, guided or not). –LPfi (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distance is an issue for bus tours because touts can want to list them in multiple articles. A bus tour from Edinburgh may depart from a stop in Edinburgh/New Town, stop to pickup in Edinburgh/West, Falkirk and Stirling before going to Loch Lomond via Drymen and Balloch and returning via Callander. Do we want the tour listed in all 8 articles? AlasdairW (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it'd be listed in the regional article, I'd think. To answer a previous question, I guess I did mean "self-guided" rather than "non-guided". They obviously don't allow travelers to ask questions, though, so "you can ask questions!" seems like an odd reason to permit self-guided tours to be listed (especially when, say, bus tours, which do allow people to ask questions, are prohibited unless they provide a "value add" beyond what a person could do in a private car). And I'm still curious what is meant by "independent traveler" and why the site should focus on them versus non-independent travelers. Powers (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've been on this site and its predecessor longer than I have, have you not? Hasn't this site always catered to independent travelers? I would be OK with changing that focus, but if we do, we'll be once again in the position of having to spend time vetting bus tours, package tours, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I can't answer that because I'm still not quite sure what you mean by it. I don't remember seeing any policy documentation that mentions the term. Powers (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There have been talk page discussions about this for ages, featuring departed admins as well as continuing ones. You really don't remember any of them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting back to a focus on language (though we can certainly talk about the differences between independent travelers and package/bus tour tourists): Do we need to change the language of the tour listing guidelines, and if so, what change should we agree to? Would it be better to enumerate what can't be listed than what can be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walking tours again[edit]

Swept in from the pub

To my understanding, any type of walking tour may be listed if the listing isn't touty, etc., but there is some disagreement about this. So if you have the time, please look at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Another thread on walking tours. I've quoted rather extensively from existing relevant discussion that was archived, but I post at the beginning of the thread and also started a new subthread at the end about whether we need new language at Wikivoyage:Listings to lay out guidelines on walking tours more clearly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moving listings to their own pages and namespace?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

We are currently adding listings directly to articles. However, my idea is to list attractions in their own pages in a new namespace, and transclude them instead. There are several advantages to doing this:

  1. Permanently closed attractions are usually removed from articles. Because it's a lot harder to find something within page revisions, this makes it hard for anyone who wants to look up a former attraction for reference. If each listing had its own page, then the listing templates could easily be adjusted to prevent transclusion if the attraction is marked as closed.
  2. Some listings may appear in more than one place. For example, Kitt Peak National Observatory is listed on both Astronomy and South Central Arizona. Putting a listing into its own page would allow us to update the listing for all places at once.
  3. It would be easier to find information for lesser-known attractions via Wikidata.
  4. If an article has many listings, then editors don't have to scroll through a bunch of text if manually editing the code. This would also reduce edit conflicts for heavily-edited articles.
  5. It's generally considered a best practice to modularize data.

What are everyone's thoughts? --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would generally oppose this change. Transcluding them can be done, but only via a different namespace as far as I know although that is part of your proposal. We do transclude certain things like Template:Canadian national park passes into all Canadian parks, so it's easier to keep things updated about Canadian Parks passes, but it doesn't really work that way for listings.
This also means that it can sometimes make things harder for those who don't know how transclusions work, and even for those who basically are familiar with transclusions, like me where my userpage is full of transclusions and templates, it's also a lot more time consuming. I'll take an example of what I once did recently in Ķemeri National Park recently. Went to their park and tourism website, and added them as I went. Didn't require too much effort nor time and it was pretty convenient.
I'll also share my experience on a wiki where this is done. On Wikispecies, this is done quite frequently, but given how time consuming it is through transcluding things, it has basically driven me away. On the other hand, I did see a duplicate word used on many pages, and instead of going on every single page where that text is used, all I needed to fix was that one template.
And finally then we have the touts who all they want is to promote their business. I can only imagine how easy it is for them to promote their business, and non-admins trying to have to delete that transclusion (although it's mostly Ikan Kekek who handles touts, and they're a 'crat here) and given that we don't have an eliminator group here.
Transclusions are a good thing, but not for listings. OTOH, templates are good, but those are also basically transclusions. It is a good concept, but the cons outweigh the pros to this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Building on what SHB says about the experience of other wikis, the English Wikipedia tried this for some citations (which get re-used there far more often than we re-use any listings there), and it was not a good thing in the end. It was confusing even for experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must admit I wasn't aware this was tried on the English Wikipedia. Guess we learn something new every day! --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was mostly done for medical journal articles, so if you don't play in that area, you might not have run across them. I think they were officially deprecated more than five years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I think it would make adding a listing more complicated to an average contributor. --FredTC (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I am open about this proposal. Diffs are weird when a listing has been added, removed or moved, and being able to transclude a listing both in the destination article and in an itinerary would be nice. However, if editing a number of listings in an article (in wikitext mode) involves copying and pasting the listing name into the search box, right clicking the match, and clicking the edit tab – for each of the listings – that won't fly. Another problem is how to avoid cluttering the new namespace (we'd have many "Joe's bar" and "Sandy beach") and still make creating, finding and recognising the listings easy. Have such problems been considered and feasible solutions outlined? –LPfi (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't thinking about places with the same name and do agree it's an issue. For example, Burger King has almost 40,000 locations worldwide. Even a disambiguation page could become impractical in this case! --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. In general, this would overhaul the entire system that Wikivoyage is built upon, and the way I look at it, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and sheer effort of materialising this proposal. Just going point by point on your listed advantages:
    1. Sounds great, but in practise this will leave you with a transclusion in an article that will print an error once a listing is removed, so this makes a single edit per page where the listing is mentioned into a N+1 amount of edits (N= amount of articles with this listing). You don't just remove the listing, you also remove every transclusion in an article. Furthermore, you cannot reasonably generalise descriptions for listings, seen as how as a result of the policy of listing listings in the most bottom-level article, each use case will be specific.
    2. As a direct continuation of the previous argument: If a restaurant appears in multiple articles, it should be different locations of the same branch, thus having different phone numbers, lat/longs and addresses. If an attraction appears in multiple articles, it can be more specific depending on the article. A heritage railway, for example, could see specific details about rolling stock added to a "Rail travel in X" article, whereas the article for "X" would contain more general information. Using your own example, Astronomy is a more specialised article and therefore can and should go into further depth than the listing in South Central Arizona. I know little about astronomy, but I would expect to hear why Kitt Peak is such a notable observatory and what makes it stand out in Astronomy, while a brief overview is plenty for South Central Arizona, as observatories aren't for everyone and some might want to just gloss over it.
    3. Please explain how you think this would be easier. If you want to avoid having seventy-nine listings of "Joe's Bar" as LPfi suggests, you'd index these by a serial number, so a drink listing could be DR(ink)563154 instead of simply "Joe's Bar". Index numbers aren't insightful to mere mortal people though. How many Wikidata item IDs can you name from the top of your head? You would have to look them up each and every time. Sure, you could offload a lot of the major attractions to Wikidata, but we already do this. Wikidata integration in listings has been up and running for a good few years.
    4. Are edit conflicts really a frequent issue to the point that this argument is valid? Generally, data stays valid for a good while. If a listing really requires updating, it won't be likely that a dozen editors immediately edit the same article. Furthermore, editing via the Listing Editor should avoid edit conflicts from forming, and when they do, it's because someone edited the same listing as you were editing it, which, again, I don't think is a frequent occurrence. The only edit conflicts I have ever encountered over ~5100 edits were in the Pub, never in an article.
    5. Modularising is only worth it if the data lends itself to modularisation. Sure, the information we list can be modularised, but as mentioned, both the names for listings and their description in each use case/article varies and is best left to be filled in by the editor adding said listing. Let's also not forget that sometimes, listings come as simple markers. Versatility in what elements would be transcluded from a template-ified listing would break great articles such as Alkmaar that don't hold true to the generic bulleted list concept we've all stuck to over time. I would even argue that articles such as Alkmaar are nicer to read because of them not following bulleted lists, and this edit would be likely to break that, destroying great articles in its wake.
Sure, modularising listings might seem like a rational idea, but it goes a few steps too far from being a practical change if you'd ask me. Not even to mention that you would be making listings less tangible if it's buried deep down in a different namespace than the one the reader generally interacts with. So no, this would add too many hurdles, have too many specific use-cases to adapt to to be a logical change, and would furthermore overhaul the website as whole with no real benefit to anyone in particular while also removing or seriously overhauling the process that many editors here are comfortable and well-versed in. If anything, such an overhaul would break the flow of more editors than it would improve. It's definitely a strong no from me, but feel free to write a practical concept of this idea that would be easy to use on a site-wide scale. I doubt it will change my mind, but there's a small chance that this might pass if the concept is more tangible than a mere proposal.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the well thought out response. For the first case, there wouldn't necessarily be any errors. It should be possible to configure the listing templates to simply not display anything if the attraction is marked as closed. Something like adding a closed parameter and putting the listing inside noinclude tags should be doable.
I do agree that that having multiple places that share the same name would be an issue. For example, Burger King has almost 40,000 locations worldwide. Even a disambiguation page could become impractical in this case!
Perhaps we can look at similar ideas in the event that Wikivoyage becomes as popular as Wikipedia is now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this has been considered before on another travel website. The proposed form here might be more "community-palatable" than a prior suggestion, and I'm inclined to see its merits, but it would require massive changes to the structure of WV, and therefore I don't think it would be appropriate at the present time. At Special:RecentChanges we're fortunate to get an edit per minute, and with only a few dozen regular contributors (at most), this would put a massive burden on the community. As it is, we are slowly but steadily improving our article coverage, and many countries have achieved usable status across all or almost all destinations. Continuing this process appears to be a best path forward while our contributor base is limited. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely for fast food chains. There's no questioning McDonalds (but we don't list maccas per wv:boring), but others like KFC, Hungry Jacks (as you mentioned above) or even donut stores like Dunkin's Donuts can have up to tens of thousands of listings. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose, mostly. Afaik there was an initiative to move some attributes into wikidata (e.g. phone numbers of hotels) - data that could be shared between multiple languages and wiki pages. I think :de:wv tried it. In any case that's about how far I'd go. I see your point and in a non-wiki database, it'd be an obvious thing to do. But unless you significantly improve the page/listing editor to make this mostly transparent to the users, it is hardly acceptable. -- andree 19:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Centralized information is always a great idea, that's why Wikidata has been created and why we use (only partially at the moment) the wikidata "link" in every listing. But I oppose to the idea of transclude the listings because on top on all the cons already mentioned above, there's another one: when we edit and save a listing in an article, we'll land in the page of the transcluded listing instead of the main article. I can't imagine anything more annoying than this, especially when you need to update a dozen of listings. Ah let me add another technical point: listing editor would stop working as it is, and shall be at least partially modified. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

email in listings[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Today I noticed that there is an extra envelope at an email address in a listing: the one front of the email address and also one after it. Didn't I notice this second one before, or is it new?

--FredTC (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FredTC: noticed this on Tavares as well. Strange. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not because of the listing but for any "clickable-email": mailto:mail@server.com. It should be a new WMF setting. If confirmed there are two choices:
  1. hide this new feature through a dedicated CSS
  2. change the listing output to eliminate the first ✉ symbol
Well actually there's a third one: keep two mail symbols :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also noticed that a new WMF setting gives a new pdf icon as well for links that are pdfs as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I asked my question, it was because I noticed it here on English WV, checking the Dutch WV learned that it did not happen there. But today I checked the Dutch WV again and the same is happening there now as well.
Did WMF inform us about this change, including a warning that we might need to change things (like templates and help documentation)? If not, should we complain about it to WMF? Can we expect more of such changes, like for phone numbers?
Btw, I think we should take action 2.
--FredTC (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WMF has done some other unusual things here as well, such as removing a list of authors in the page footer (see SelfieCity's talk page). A lot of us weren't happy with that change either, but maybe WhatamIdoing might know anything about this change. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000, I've updated the discussion you mention. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks :-) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't found any recent tasks that are only about icons for e-mail addresses, but I wonder if it's a consequence of phab:T191021. @Jdlrobson, what do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No that bug is not related.
It looks like Wikivoyage is making use of the ✉ character in the "listing" template. External icons which point to emails will be followed by a https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/resources/src/mediawiki.skinning/images/mail.svg icon. I would suggest removing the ✉ character. If that icon is preferred it would be better to apply that via CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css. Jdlrobson (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support removing the initial ✉ character (choice 2). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another misbehaving email icon, but does anyone know why the email listed is going on a completely new line in Budderoo National Park#Buy? I suppose this could be fixed by adding a   tag. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd not blame the icon. The address is 40 chars, so the probability of it ending up in the hyphenation zone is quite big. Try widening the browser window (or narrowing it until you have the icon near the first column) and see whether there is still a line break after the icon. For me the line break disappeared. Non-Unicode browser might get odd control characters because of the icon (fs and ht + bit8), but I assume that's not your problem. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000, I suppose you are talking of the existing icon. In this case, yes we could avoid the separation between icon and address, however, if I understand correctly the community will is to eliminate that icon, keeping the new one, and the new one do not have this issue. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the phone number, there is an ordinary space, not an  , between the icon and the phone number, which will equally allow a line break between the icon and the number. I assume that is voluntary, modelled after printed guides with narrow columns, and the e-mail icon has been behaving similarly. –LPfi (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FredTC, SHB2000, WhatamIdoing, Granger, LPfi: I'm pinging you all that took part to this topic.
After a long discussion on it:voy, we landed to the following approach:
  1. substitute the standard WMF icon with a different one
  2. change the position of that icon (from right to left) when the email is inside a listing, since all the symbols/icons are left-sided. In en:voy: only phone symbol is used, but in it:voy, fr:voy, ru:voy etc. are used symbols also for hours, price, etc.
Let's simulate the potential en:voy output here below:
  • Email outside the listing: text text text esempio@esempio.com Email Silk.svg text text text
  • Email inside the listing: Listing name, address, 1, ☏ +39 055 055, toll-free: +39 055 055, fax: +39 055 055, Email Silk.svg example@example.com. Mon-Sun. 1€.
For the real/live output see it:voy pages.
Let me know your thoughts and if you want the same or a similar approach here, then I'll support with the implementation. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer inside the listing more than the outside SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000, for the sake of clarity, the previous two are the two different cases of email use. Both of them shall be managed. We decided to manage them differently (as in the example first right and second left), but for sure can be managed in the same way (both right or both left). The current en:voy output is the following:
--Andyrom75 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that there are three pieces to the puzzle:
  • automatic location of the e-mail icon outside of templates (e.g., the middle of a paragraph, in a hand-typed listing): me@example.com
  • original location of the e-mail icon in a listing: me@example.com
  • the location of the telephone icon in a listing: +1 555-123-4567
This suggests that the choices are:
  • have the e-mail icon locations match for e-mail everywhere on the page, but not match the phone location inside the listing templates, or
  • have the e-mail and phone icon locations match inside the listing templates, but not match e-mail addresses typed outside of templates.
Rather than making a stylistic choice, I'm inclined to go with the simplest technical approach, which I think means removing the original icon from the templates and letting MediaWiki handle it. The reason I favor the least-intervention approach is because I think it will require the least amount of effort in the future, if (when) things change again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with WhatamIdoing's suggestion – I was going to suggest the same thing but she beat me to it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking what WhatamIdoing says is true, on the other side any wiki-project and language version is full of personalization. That said. If the consensus goes in the direction to remain stick to the WMF style, is enough to change Template:listing, while other approaches I'm able to support in case of need; just ping me :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the discussion has fizzled, I've gone ahead and implemented option 2, which is easy and seems to have the most support. Of course we can switch to a different option if consensus goes that way. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grocery stores and convenience stores[edit]

I'd like to get some feedback on listings for grocery stores and convenience stores. I've felt that our approach has been to allow them for small towns or remote communities where there might not be much choice for shopping or eating. These stores are generally easy to find, though, so we don't need them for larger cities. I don't think we have a specific policy.

We now have some enthusiastic new editors in places like Nigeria and Quebec who are adding many such listings, and I think we have also seen this done in Philippines articles. See Asokoro, Wuse, and Uselu, for example. The last one has 19 grocery stores listed for a district of a city. If there are that many grocery stores, they are easy to find, and travellers will probably not use our list.

Would there be support for providing guidance in this policy along the lines of "don't include grocery stores or convenience stores unless there are few in the place or they are difficult to find"? If so, we can work to improve the wording. Ground Zero (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a general rune of thumb, I rarely list grocery stores, except when in national parks (such as Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park). From my experience, it's easier to find a place to eat rather than a grocery store and if there is a grocery store, there's usually a small cafe attached to it as well.
As I mostly work on park articles, I would generally say it's a good thing to have them because it's extremely uncommon to find stores outside American national parks. However, given that most of our articles about Nigeria and Quebec are city articles, I would generally say keep one or two, and delete the whole rest of them given how easily it is to find them. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this proposal. It could possibly be incorporated into the "Boring places" section. We might note that a grocery store that's unique or interesting in some way can still be worth including (e.g. Li Ming's Global Mart in Durham (North Carolina), reportedly the best Chinese supermarket in the region). Parks, like small towns, are a good example of places where it often makes sense to list grocery stores because there aren't very many of them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed addition to the text[edit]

Thanks for the feedback. I will make this specific proposal now, I.e., that we add to the "Boring places" section the following text:

"In general, we don't include supermarkets, grocery stores or convenience stores unless there are few in the place or they are difficult to find, such as in small villages, rural areas and wilderness parks, or if the store is exceptional in some way, e.g., for its history, architecture, or merchandise."

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support that proposal, just like how we don't list big fast-food chains in a certain region don't get listed. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not keen on going that far. Often grocery stores are slightly hidden in major city centres, being a couple of streets back from the main attractions. If we don't list them in the centres of major cities then the traveller may find that the only place we list to buy a snack is the expensive food hall of the grand department store. I would rather that we said that we don't usually list more than 5 supermarkets or convenience stores in an article.
We should also be clear that independent specialist food stores like cheesemongers or greengrocers selling local produce can be listed. AlasdairW (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I included "in general" at the beginning iof the proposed wording to provide flexibility to deal with special situations, such as those you mention, without specifically listing every one. How would you deal with situations like Asokoro, Wuse, and Uselu? Or are you okay with listing a dozen or more grocery stores? Ground Zero (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the proposal. I don't list ordinary supermarkets in articles about New York, only specialty stores like Zabar's or H-Mart. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am not keen on Asokoro, Wuse, and Uselu, as most of the listings are lacking the details to make them useful. A limit of 5 supermarkets would be useful here.
What I am thinking of is something like Auckland/Central#Supermarkets. This lists 4 supermarkets, two are close to the main shopping street (Queens St) and two are larger but central. In a city where self-catering accommodation is popular, this is useful, as the supermarkets are slightly hidden - one in a basement and two in back streets. We don't list supermarkets in any of the other districts of Auckland as they are easier to find in the suburbs.
For dietary reasons, I cook for myself on many trips, so in general supermarket listings are more useful to me than listings of restaurants. AlasdairW (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would you modify the proposal then? Ground Zero (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that the current edits of Nigerian articles driven by a competition that rewards bytes written should drive policy. This is already covered by the Avoid long lists section: "Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not the Yellow Pages". Keeping with spirit of the list limit of 5-9 items, I would suggest limiting supermarkets to 5 per article, with exceptions like rural areas being handled on the talk page. Allowing 5 supermarkets also reduces the need to edit a large number of existing usable articles that have a couple of supermarkets listed. So my proposal is:
"We are selective in listing supermarkets, grocery stores or convenience stores. Unless agreed on the talk page, there should be no more than 5 listings of such stores. Listings of stores of historic or architectural interest, or independent specialist food stores like cheesemongers or greengrocers selling local produce are encouraged and not limited in number."
In some cities it is sufficient to say the area that such stores can be found without going into the details, if several stores can be found in a 10 minute walk around the area. So we could add:
"If supermarkets are numerous and easy to find, consider just directing the traveller to the area where they can be found (e.g. "there are several supermarkets near the bus station").
Whatever we decide a change should also be made to the supermarket entry on Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. AlasdairW (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AlasdairW: as noted above, this issue has arisen in Phillipines and Quebec articles too. It is not just an issue with Nigeria articles. Ground Zero (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at a selection of Quebec articles, the only one I saw where there might be an issue is Gaspé, which has 7 supermarkets listed. However this spread over a large semi-rural area. Are there other examples which have a bigger issue?
I would be happy with the original proposal if supermarkets was removed, so it just focused on convenience stores. (Grocery stores probably means different things when you cross the Atlantic - it make me think of old-style grocers, see Penrith for James & John Graham Grocers established in 1793.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AlasdairW Have a look at this list for the ones in Quebec. Some of them have been cleaned up by Ground Zero though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue in Quebec has been one of a user creating directories of convenience stores (depanneurs), gas stations, pet food stores, farm supply stores, etc. Because this is being done while the user is creating very useful articles with get in/get around, see, do, eat, drink and sleep listings, I've been trying to take a very gradual approach to coaxing them toward Wikivoyage style, addressing one or two issues at a time, rather than swamping them with policies. A few of the Nigerian editors have been taking a formulaic approach to quick article creation: nearest airport (sometimes listing several airports, including those in other countries), cell/mobile coverage, and supermarkets. Clearer advice would make it easier to steer these new editors in the right direction toward building more useful travel articles, but now we have no policy or guidelines that specifically addresses grocery stores, so it is hard to tell them to stop. Ground Zero (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect to grocery stores and supermarkets, I raised the issue because of stores in Nigeria. This article about one district of Benin City listed 18 stores. ,Many of them are called supermarkets, but I doubt that this district has many (if any) stores that look like Carrefour. And if doubt that any look like James & John Graham Grocers established in 1793. Ground Zero (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say service stations are somewhat useful if it's remote – from personal experience, Death Valley National Park#Gas saved us from running out of fuel. However, if it's in a major city, then I agree that it's best to remove. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000, the proposal does not address service stations. If you want to make a proposal about service stations, you can do so. Let's not get off topic please. It doesn't help towards getting consensus about supermarkets, grocery stores or convenience stores. Ground Zero (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, apologies for bringing this discussion off topic. I just brought it up because you mentioned:

The issue in Quebec has been one of a user creating directories of convenience stores (depanneurs), gas stations, pet food stores, farm supply stores

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, to be clear, the proposal also doesn't say anything about pet stores and farm supply stores, so if anyone wants to address those, they should do so in a separate discussion. That was a comment describing one editor's contributions, not part of the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem has come up several times for fast food chains & supermarkets in various Philippine towns, sometimes for pharmacies & convenience stores as well. One example is Talk:Cebu_(city)/Archive_2014-2017#Supermarkets.
One solution is to cover the main chains at country level, as at Philippines#Supermarkets_and_convenience_stores. Lower level articles can then ignore these stores, or link to the country article, or cover important locations themselves. Pashley (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose there are towns with loads of greengrocers with local produce, all lined up near the market. Not good to say "not limited in number", instead perhaps "[...] encouraged; still don't make lists of more than 7±2." –LPfi (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"7±2" almost always means 9, which is I think a lot of grocery stores. Between seeing them on the street and using a mapping app, few travellers will have trouble finding a grocery store in most cities and towns, even in Nigeria. I've been using Google Maps to identify locations in Nigerian towns and cities, and it covers grocery stores well. We should only provide that information where it is difficult to find, or where the store has some special characteristics. I don't think we should list 3 Lidls, 2 Aldis, 3 Carrefours, and a Tesco just because the rule says "7±2". That makes for a boring travel article. Ground Zero (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revised proposal[edit]

I'd like to settle this before the discussion gets too bogged down or off track. Several editors have indicated their support in principle. To keep things simple, I suggest using AlasdairW's wording, without going into too much detail:

"We are selective in listing supermarkets, grocery stores or convenience stores. Unless agreed on the talk page, there should be no more than 5 listings of such stores. Listings of stores of historic or architectural interest, or independent specialist food stores like cheesemongers or greengrocers selling local produce are encouraged and not limited in number."

Can we agree on this and see how it works? If this causes a problem with any article, we can revisit the discussion and adjust the policy as necessary. I think this is a better approach than trying to anticipate and describe all the possible exceptions. Ground Zero (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this and this seems much clearer. If there's an issue with a specific artic;w, then it can be sorted out on the relevant talk page without listing all the exceptions in the policy, which makes sense. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't want to replace the "5" for supermarkets with 7±2, I was talking about the "not limited in number": "[... are encouraged]; still don't make lists of more than 7±2." I am talking about the interesting cheesemongers. Then, I don't know what context the proposed wording is going into. We should be careful to limit those 5 supermarket listings to articles where mentioning them is useful. –LPfi (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exceptions can be addressed on the talk page, as is our custom, and which reiterated in the proposed wording. Ground Zero (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a good guideline. There could be exceptions in both directions, but that wouldn't be surprising. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I support this wording. I would be happy to have alternative words to the "not limited in number" for interesting shops, but I doubt that this will be a common problem, and the general "not the yellow pages" covers the occasional listing of every market stall. AlasdairW (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like consensus to me. I will add this in a couple if days if there are no objections before thenGround Zero (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Looks like consensus to me too. I'd say add it whenever you feel like, even if you want to add it now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero: I don't understand what I am doing wrong in my wordings. I want the replace "not limited in number" with "still don't make lists of more than 7±2", and you reject it because you feel 9 is too many. I hope we could make that change, as I don't see any arguments against it, but I suppose I should give up by now – if nobody understands or cares, what can I do. –LPfi (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi:: no, I did not understand what you were trying to say, and I do now. Thank you for the clarification. Do we need to limit cheesemongers, etc., to 5-9? I dont know. I'm not opposed to that idea. What do others think? Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the suggested wording would discourage the people now adding dozens of ordinary grocery stores from instead adding dozens of greengrocers, while those who sincerely find it useful for travellers to know twenty different stores in a cheese-paradise city could divide the list by subtype. I could imagine that being a good solution somewhere, although I cannot remember any specific real-word place where I'd do it. I don't see why this should be an exception to our recommendation to avoid long lists. –LPfi (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero and LPfi: I added the wording on the page. Please adjust if necessary. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where you can stick it[edit]

To accompany this change, I suggest changing the Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it entry for supermarkets from "the Eat section of the City page" to "be selective: no more than 5 listings of supermarkets may go in the Eat section of the City page". AlasdairW (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Places of worship" section[edit]

I feel like the language in the section is good, but it's a bit much for it to be cited in Talk:Jaipur#Jaipur#Temples and wv:worship, where only 7 temples are listed in a city of 3.1 million people per Wikipedia, the 10th-largest in India. I don't want this section to be the occasion for an, uh, crusade against listings of places of worship with non-bland architecture or which are significant places of pilgrimage interesting for even non-believers to visit if they want to respectfully soak in the atmosphere and observe the proceedings. Of course, if there are 50 listings in a city that can't be districted, selectivity is needed and many listings need to be culled even if all of the listed houses of worship would be interesting enough to list in an article for a city with fewer of them (we've seen that in some articles for cities in Eastern Europe), but can we agree to be moderate about this guideline? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be fair, it seems to be mainly an issue with the places of worship in India – merely because they're all architecturally significant or beautiful in some way or another, and so it's hard to pick. All I would say is if a place has so many architecturally significant places, put them in a travel topic, similar to Places of worship in Singapore – that one is not cluttered, it tells what's unique about each place and so maybe we should use that as a standard as for how the other articles should look like. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But this is seven temples. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I was being too harsh on Jaipur (and I apologise for that), but the one in Bangalore‎ is still very long. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There will always be an element of subjectivity in how many temples or any other kind of listing should be included. In Orlando, there are 20 different golf courses listed. I'm sure there are golf enthusiasts who would play on many of the golf courses during their trip but there would also be people visiting the city (perhaps the majority) who are not interested in golf and don't go to a single one. Every traveller or tourist is interested in particular things and whatever isn't within their interests will be junk to them. But the golf courses still belong because they appeal to at least some travellers. In the case of Bangalore, some of the temples upon further inspection look like they belong in "Do" as they're more like meditation centres. And there could well be a few that are not special and can be removed but I agree that Bangalore should be districtified. There are around 40 pubs and bars, 50 hotels/sleep listings and over a hundred restaurants. It's huge. It may also be reasonable to districtify Jaipur. Gizza (roam) 11:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airports outside a destination[edit]

With the Nigeria Expedition, we have had some contributors (one in particular) who have been adding a list of airports far away, and my question is, what's the max limit that should be allowed? I would generally only list an airport if it is within 80 kilometres within proximity, but some of our Nigerian editors have been adding airports even further away that I'm not even sure whether they are even merit going in the article. I'd like to add this to the page:

Airports listed should generally be the most convenient airport for a traveller. Listing airports multiple 100 kilometres away generally do not help unless there is information from how to get from that airport to the destination. If a destination has no airport, list the closest one and link it to that page. Avoid repeating the same content in both articles

If anything, I'd like to make a limit on what's the max limit, and exceptions from there be taken on a case by case basis. Any copyedited version will be fine as well. Comments? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isuofia is a recent example. It has an airport, but it doesn't explain how to get to from airport to the town. How should that be treated? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I left them a message on their talk page. Hopefully they respond. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) If the town in question is in the middle of nowhere, e.g. Siberia and the nearest airport is 300km away, it is still beneficial to include it because a foreigner would have to get to the airport, and then take a train/bus/whatever to reach the destination. Obviously you need the second part (how to go from airport to city) to complete the trip but the first step is still useful. Deleting it would just make it more difficult for someone to figure out how to get there. In this case, the editors just need to be guided and told to include a route on how to get from the airport to the town. Gizza (roam) 11:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes. However, what do we do with cases of seven nearby airports being added? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's excessive. You probably don't need more than two airports. Maybe four at the very most if you want to cover all cardinal directions and they're all roughly the same distance from the town. Airports that are further away can be removed, unless they're bigger airports with more flights than the ones close by, in which case it's a judgement call. Gizza (roam) 11:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they've now been removed, but unfortunately that contributor also still adds listings way out of town, including a fast food store that was 178 km from the relevant city article. How do we deal with those? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think this is a good idea, although we should work on the wording. There was another contibutor who was adding the airport in Malabo to Nigerian articles because it appeared on the map as being nearby, notwithstanding that Malabo is on an island hundreds of kilometres away and in another country. You would have had to fly from there to get to Nigeria, so it was in no way convenient. Alternative wording:

List any airports that serve the city directly, e.g., those within 80 km or so. If there aren't any, provide a link to the city article with the nearest airport, and information on how to travel from the airport to the destination (bus, taxi, etc.). Don't repeat the airport listing in both articles.

Ground Zero (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That works and sounds much much better than my original not-so-great wording. For the listings out of town, I think it's self explanatory that listings outside that should generally not be listed except in cases like Amherst (Nova Scotia)#Nearby (actually, that one may not be a good example because I created an article for that nearby town) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not so sure about the "80 km" number. To me this seems like less of a question of the exact distance and more a question of what is realistically useful to a traveller. Punta del Este has its own airport, but the article also mentions Montevideo's airport (more than 100 km away). That's appropriate, because MVD is much more of a hub and will be a better choice for many travellers going to Punta del Este. An airport less than 80 km away may not be worth listing if there are other closer airports with a lot more flights. I think we need to rely more on destination-specific judgement rather than any specific number of kilometers.
I agree that each airport should have only one main listing, and other articles that mention that airport should link to whichever article has that listing.
We should usually give advice about ground transportation, whether the airport serves the city directly or is located in another city in the region. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase I used was "e.g., those within 80 km or so" to make it clear that 80 km is not an exact distance, and there is flexibility in interpretation. Would it be better to say "for example, those within 80 km or so"? We always allow discretion to reflect varying circumstances, and exceptions to general rules can always be dusvyssed on talk pages. Ground Zero (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, part of the issue is that it's very often a bad idea to have a full, templated listing for an airport that should be covered more fully in the article for the city it primarily serves, and that problem is compounded when geocoordinates are included in the listing and show up in the map, thereby making the points of interest within the destination invisible. Instead, there should be full listings for airports in the articles for the cities they primarily serve, and all other articles referring to those airports should link to the "By plane" section of the article in question or the article for the airport if there is one, and then explain how to get from the airport to the destination. Do you all see what I mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That is a really good point about templated airport listings with coordinates. Here is a new proposal:

List the principal airport or airports that serve the city directly, for example, those within 80 km or so, with a detailed listing, ideally using the "Go" template. If the city or town is served by another city's airport, provide a link to that city article, and information on how to travel from the airport to the destination (bus, taxi, etc.), but don't repeat the detailed listing or include coordinates for the airport, as that will cause problems with the dynamic map.

Ground Zero (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good. We could consider changing one thing: "provide a link to the relevant section of that city article (for example, the "By plane" or "Get in" section)". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of it looks good to me, but I still don't think we should state a distance in kilometers. "The principal airport or airports that serve the city" is clear. Giving a number of kilometers invites confusion and sounds like it's encouraging duplicate listings for the same airport in different cities within that radius. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Including Ikan Kekek's and Granger's comments:

List the principal airport or airports that serve the city directly, with a detailed listing, ideally using the "Go" template. If the city or town is served by another city's airport, provide a link to the relevant section of that city article (for example, the "By plane" or "Get in" section), and information on how to travel from the airport to the destination (bus, taxi, etc.), but don't repeat the detailed listing or include coordinates for the airport, as that will cause problems with the dynamic map.

I think the 80 km qualification makes it clearer that you don't just copy over the listing for the nearest airport, but for the sake of getting this resolved, I'll take it out, and if it shows up as a problem later, we can put it back in. Ground Zero (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You shouldn't copy it even in cases like the Kemi-Tornio Airport. It directly serves the two cities, but the detailed listing should be in one of them. For this the 80 km would be misleading, and the proposed wording doesn't handle it either.
And about the number. I am thinking of some places in Finnish Lapland. The place might have an airport of their own, but it is just seasonal. Then there are nearby airports in Sweden, Norway and Finland, served just by a domestic hub (often in the capital), and major regional airports that have international connections of their own. Suggesting all of these, or at least several, makes sense. There shouldn't normally be listings but about the local one though – but in a country where many cities are lacking articles, there may not be an article for the city with the airport, and then you should list it here, or perhaps better in the region article.
LPfi (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This proposal looks okay to me, though we should consider it a loose guideline only; case-by-case judgement should take precedence. For instance, I think it's appropriate that the main listing for RDU airport is in the Research Triangle article (a region article), not in either of the two main cities the airport serves. I agree with LPfi's comment too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exceptions to policies and guidelines, such as seasonal airports in Finish Lapland, can be addressed on the article talk pages, as is our practice in Wikivoyage. I prefer not to create long policies that contemplate all possible exceptions to general rules, but if others want to propose exceptions to be listed, they should go ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero and LPfi: I've plunged forward and added it onto the page. Please adj if necessary. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000: thank you for taking care of this. Ground Zero (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listings outside of the destination[edit]

I think it is worth splitting out the discussion about this from the one above as it us a separate issue. I share SHB2000's concern about listings for places far away from the destination. I think it would be useful to provide advice, although we can deal with the user in question directly.

Here we run into a problem that I don't think we've ever resolved: what do we do with a listing that is some distance away from the city or town, but not in another city or town for which we have an article. If it is an interesting site — a waterfall or a small museum or historical site — it seems obvious to include it as a possible day trip from the destination. But what if it is an ordinary grocery store or a cafe? Is it useful to keep that in the article? Or would we just delete the information? I don't know yet answer to this. Ground Zero (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also undecided on this. I encountered this today on Amherst (Nova Scotia), and that tiny town appeared to be a WV-Unesco-icon-small.svg UNESCO World Heritage Site, so I created it and it was resolved. But this is not the case for every town. My thoughts are that if there was a see or a do listing, then I would put it in a "nearby" section if it's within 150 km proximity, but if it's just a really isolated cafe in the middle of nowhere, just delete it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an attraction is of interest to travellers, then ideally it should be covered somewhere on Wikivoyage and not just deleted. (Of course if it's not of interest to travellers then it should be removed, whether it's in a city or not.) For a remote POI, an alternative to listing it in the nearest city is to list it in the bottom-level region article. Also, for restaurants and stores that are along a highway or other popular route, we sometimes cover them in itinerary articles even when they're not listed in any city articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feeling is that if a point of interest is worth a trip out of town in such situations, it should be listed. I think, for example, of rural trattorie serving cucina tipica. However, if its main virtue is simply that it's in an isolated location, it might belong in a rural area article or if necessary, a region article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, no one is proposing deleting points of interest. But what if it is an ordinary grocery store or a cafe in the XYZ City article that is far away from XYZ City? Are we comfortable deleting that? I am. These listings would not be useful for visitors to XYZ City. Ground Zero (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, sure, I would delete such a listing and have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Reflecting the discussion above, under the Usage Guidelines, a new section:

Listings that are not in a destination

If you have a See or Do listing that isn't in a city, town or park with an article, you can do one of two things with it:

  1. If it is a major point of interest, you can include it in "Other destinations" in a region article.
  2. Include it in the article for the nearest city or town, and provide information on how to get there.

If you have a Buy, Eat, Drink, or Sleep listing that isn't in a city, town or park with an article, it probably would not be useful for travellers to any of our city, town or park destinations, so do not include it in Wikivoyage. If the store, restaurant, bar or hotel is so remarkable that it is worth a trip in itself, then include it in the article for the nearest town or city in a #Nearby section.

Ground Zero (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's sometimes another option, if the listing in question is for someplace one town over: cover one or more nearby town in the article and state that we are doing so in the "Understand" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't that covered by point 2? Ground Zero (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference is whether it is handled as an isolated attraction with directions in the listing itself, a town included in the article, with connections handled in Get around, or a nearby town we but in Nearby.
I am a bit confused about the first point: Other destinations are for articles about parks etc. Are we suggesting an exception? I might support than, but then it needs to be well though out and enough advice given, we should adjust conflicting advice that probably exists here and there.
One case which probably is common in Nigeria is that the town should have an article, it just isn't written yet. In that case deleting the entry is not that good an option.
And the itinerary option should probably be listed too.
LPfi (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it is the "parks, etc." that is key here. Wikivoyage:Region article template says "Sometimes a region has destinations that aren't really cities; for example, large national parks. If so, list them separately here, with descriptions. Otherwise, leave out this section. This section, too, can be renamed if all destinations fall into a nice category, eg. "Islands" or "Beaches". As with the "Cities" section, if the article is for a region that's subdivided into sub-regions, no more than nine "other destinations" should be listed in this section." It includes parks and beaches; does it exclude museums and waterfalls? I don't read it that way, so I don't think we're making an exception. But if you think we are, then we should broaden Wikivoyage:Region article template to say "Sometimes a region has points of interest that aren't in a city for which we have an article....."
Or if you want to suggest alternative wording to address your concern, please do so. That would be helpful.
I don't think it serves the traveller to list as the only restaurant in a town a fastfood place that is 178 km away. This is a real example. It is not realistic to say that we have to create an article for that town that has a fastfood joint. Not all places on the map warrant articles. And deleting a fastfood joint or a grocery store in a village that doesn't have an article does not harm Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support this proposal. Only thing I'd add is from

then include it in the article for the nearest town or city.

to

then include it in the article for the nearest town or city in a #Nearby section.

SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Thanks.n
OK, I didn't check the region template, but trusted my memory – which one apparently shouldn't. I am still a bit worried about the eateries and lodging along the route in Get in. No big deal if it's 100 km from the previous town on good roads, but if you'd expect a day of driving, it is helpful. I agree that a fastfood joint 178 km away isn't helpful. If it is a good restaurant adjacent to that amazing museum you just don't remember the name of and cannot find online, the case is a little different, but in that case perhaps creating an outline with the museum described and the eatery as only listing would be the way to go. –LPfi (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a backlog of a hundred or so Nigeria articles to clean up. I they should be listed in their region articles; they should be linked to Wikidata; they should have maps that actually show the places; they shouldn't be stacked with listings in other cities; their banners should be in the correct proportions; the grammar, spelling and formatting should be corrected; they should be de-touted; capitalisation errors should be fixed; they should have random coordinates attached to entries like "taxis" and motorbiks (this is fairly common). I am also trying to coach the Nigerian contributors to improve their contributions. I am grateful for any help on this project that I get from other editors. But I won't be creating new city or itinerary article around a single restaurant or grocery store. But if you'd like to, please do. I am trying to do a big clean-up to integrate the vast quantity of new Nigerian content into Wikivoyage, so I do not have the time to worry about the minutiae of a restaurant or grocery store in a village.
The point of this proposal is to help guide new editors to discourage them from adding random listings to articles. Having guidance in the policy would help them, and it would help me. Ground Zero (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your effort; I am not suggesting you should do that extra work. Sometimes it is better to just delete something rather than spending time on the slight possibility it might be a useful titbit. But this is the general guideline, and in places with little activity and most of it by careful editors, we shouldn't discourage adding information and delete things that somebody probably put some thought in adding. With careful wording we can take care of both types of regions and editors. –LPfi (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Point 2 doesn't really cover the case I'm bringing up, because there is no article for the next town and a decision is made to cover the next town in the article in question (the article about This Town, which is a few km from Next Town). Do you see what I mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What wording would work for you? Ground Zero (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added a bullet point below:

Listings that are not in a destination

If you have a See or Do listing that isn't in a city, town or park with an article, you can do one of two things with it:

  1. If it is a major point of interest, you can include it in "Other destinations" in a region article.
  2. Include it in the article for the nearest city or town, and provide information on how to get there.

If you have a Buy, Eat, Drink, or Sleep listing that isn't in a city, town or park with an article, it probably would not be useful for travellers to any of our city, town or park destinations, so do not include it in Wikivoyage. If the store, restaurant, bar or hotel is so remarkable that it is worth a trip in itself, then include it in the article for the nearest town or city in a #Nearby section.

Another alternative, if the listing in question is in a neighboring town that cannot support its own article, is to include it in the article and state in the "Understand" section that "This article also covers [name of neighboring town]."

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks good, although I would say replace the "neighboring town" with "nearby town" because I'd interpret it as a town that is back-to-back with the nearby town, not a town 5 km away but "nearby town" is unambiguous. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did mean precisely that the other town bordered on the one in question. If you want to use "nearby", how far is that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh okay. Nearby would probably mean 20 at max. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20 km seems like a decent rule of thumb for drivers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"If you have a Buy, Eat, Drink, or Sleep listing that isn't in a city, town or park with an article, it probably would not be useful for travellers to any of our city, town or park destinations, so do not include it in Wikivoyage." I disagree with this advice. Buy, Eat, Drink, or Sleep listings might also be useful in an itinerary article (for instance, if located near a highway), in a "rural area" article, or for a traveller visiting a "See" or "Do" attraction listed in the "Nearby" section of a city article. This sentence also seems to imply that a city article should generally only cover the city itself, but in fact it is our practice to also cover suburbs and the surrounding area in a city article when appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does that mean you agree with listing a fast-food restaurant 178 km away from a town? I am a bit frustrated that so often contributors lawyer proposals to death instead of proposing changes to improve them so that we can address the problem we are trying to solve. The proposal can be adjusted to reflect itineraries and the areas covered by city articles, but if you're just opposed to the whole idea and agree with listing random places nowhere near the destinations, there is no point trying to address your concerns. Ground Zero (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think if a POI is too remote and boring for travellers to realistically be interested in it, then we shouldn't list it. I want to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here's how I would modify the proposal:

Listings that are not in a destination

If you have a listing that isn't in a city, town, rural area, or park with an article, there are a few options for what to do with it:

  1. If it is a major point of interest, you can include it in "Other destinations" in a region article.
  2. Include it in the article for the nearest city or town, and provide information on how to get there, possibly in a #Nearby section if it's well outside of town.
  3. If the listing in question is in a neighboring town that cannot support its own article, include it in the article and state in the "Understand" section that "This article also covers [name of neighboring town]."

But if the listing is too remote and unremarkable to be of interest to travellers, then do not include it in Wikivoyage.

Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. We could add
 4. If it isn't a realistic sidetrip from any town, but is on or near a road covered by an itinerary, consider adding it there.
LPfi (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ground Zero, I completely understand your frustration, but I think I can probably speak for everyone in that (1) we greatly appreciate your work on this problem and your proposals, and (2) we want to make sure that we make the new guideline as good as possible (within reason). I am hopeful that we will now agree on language and will be able to add it in short order. Meanwhile, this discussion has so far taken only a few days, and I think the situation wasn't so damaging that we couldn't afford a little time to get it right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan Kekek: it is very clear that I am happy to accept improvements to my proposals, and that I am willing to compromise for the sake of getting consensus, and that I am patient. What is frustrating is when people criticize a proposal but don't suggest how to improve it. That isn't constructive, and doesn't help build consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd agree with that, but I think we pretty much have consensus language now. Here it is, as far as I can tell:

Listings that are not in a destination

If you have a listing that isn't in a city, town, rural area, or park with an article, there are a few options for what to do with it:

  1. If it is a major point of interest, you can include it in "Other destinations" in a region article.
  2. Include it in the article for the nearest city or town, and provide information on how to get there, possibly in a #Nearby section if it's well outside of town.
  3. If the listing in question is in a neighboring town that cannot support its own article, include it in the article and state in the "Understand" section that "This article also covers [name of neighboring town].
  4. If it isn't a realistic sidetrip from any town, but is on or near a road covered by an itinerary, consider adding it there.
Does anyone have any objection to or requests to change any of this language, or are we good now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for trying to identify consensus. What has been lost in thus is how to deal with Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep listings. There aren't "major points of interest". I would add back in:
"If you have a Buy, Eat, Drink, or Sleep listing that isn't in a city/town, park or itinerary with an article, it probably would not be useful for travellers, so do not include it in Wikivoyage. If the store, restaurant, bar or hotel is so remarkable that it is worth a trip in itself, then include it in the article for the nearest city/town in a #Nearby section."
Ground Zero (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, please add that language back in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current proposal:

Listings that are not in a destination

If you have a listing that isn't in a city, town, rural area, or park with an article, there are a few options for what to do with it:

  1. If it is a major point of interest, you can include it in "Other destinations" in a region article.
  2. Include it in the article for the nearest city or town, and provide information on how to get there, possibly in a #Nearby section if it's well outside of town.
  3. If the listing in question is in a neighboring town that cannot support its own article, include it in the article and state in the "Understand" section that "This article also covers [name of neighboring town].
  4. If the listing is too remote and unremarkable to be of interest to travellers, then do not include it in Wikivoyage.
    # If it isn't a realistic sidetrip from any town, but is on or near a road covered by an itinerary, consider adding it there.
  5. If you have a Buy, Eat, or Drink or Sleep listing that isn't in or near a city/town, park, rural area or itinerary with an article, it probably would not be useful for travellers, so do not include it in Wikivoyage. If the store, restaurant, or bar or hotel is so remarkable that it is worth a trip in itself, then include it in the article for the nearest destination in a #Nearby section.

Ground Zero (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I liked the wording by IK: "But if the listing is too remote and unremarkable to be of interest to travellers, then do not include it in Wikivoyage." That wording leaves the decision to the editor, who knows the specific case. I think that it could replace the fourth point (we have left out the distinction between see/do and the rest, but I think it is evident that the threshold for restaurants in the middle of nowhere is high, we don't need to say that explicitly). –LPfi (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For point 4, I agree with you on using IK's earlier wording.
On point 5, the specific wording on restaurants, etc., will be useful for explaining to new editors why we are deleting a listing they've added. When I came to Wikivoyage, some of my edits were reverted not for policy reasons, but because "that's the way we do things here and our little club of contributors knows this". I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it, and it made me feel very unwelcome. We don't expect newbies to know all of our policies, but it is better to point them to a written policy that to explain that we are interpreting broader policy in this way.
At the top of this section, you will see that I asked the question, "But what if it is an ordinary grocery store or a cafe? Is it useful to keep that in the article? Or would we just delete the information?" If the resulting policy does not answer this question explicitly, we are doing a disservice to new editors, and those who coach them. Ground Zero (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I indicated above, I disagree with point 5. As an alternative I suggested "But if the listing is too remote and unremarkable to be of interest to travellers, then do not include it in Wikivoyage." I think it's especially strange to suggest that a Sleep listing "probably would not be useful for travellers". Most hotels are geared primarily towards travellers; if we exclude one from Wikivoyage on the basis that its location makes it not useful for travellers, we are doing something wrong. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Granger, I see your point about hotels, and would agree to taking out the references to Sleep listings and hotels. I think it would be a mistake, though, for Wikivoyage to try to make space for every restaurant, grocery store, or bar in the world. Would you agree to #5 if it covered only Buy, Eat and Drink? I have also added "or near" to cover establishments on the edge of a town or in its suburbs. "Near" will be subject to interpretation, but it can be used to exclude places that are hundreds of kilometres away. Ground Zero (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am happy with the proposal with sleep removed from point 5. Remote See, Do and Sleep listings are sowing the seeds of a possible future article, and so should be kept. It also is reasonable to think that travellers will use them, particularly if they are on the road to somewhere next. Occasional exceptional remote eat, drink or buy listings can be retained after discussion, but travellers won't miss ordinary ones. AlasdairW (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if I mixed up numbers, but I think this has nothing to do with the point on itineraries, which I'd like to restore, but these:
  • If the listing is too remote and unremarkable to be of interest to travellers, then do not include it in Wikivoyage.
  • If you have a Buy, Eat, or Drink or Sleep listing that isn't in or near a city/town, park or itinerary with an article, it probably would not be useful for travellers, so do not include it in Wikivoyage. If the store, restaurant, or bar or hotel is so remarkable that it is worth a trip in itself, then include it in the article for the nearest city/town in a #Nearby section.
I think the former is enough: if you remove a listing, you do it because it is "too remote and unremarkable to be of interest". No problem, and the point covers eateries as well as climbing frames. If there is disagreement on whether the eatery is too remote, then let's use the talk page.
In the wordier version you give the conditions where you think the listing probably isn't worthwhile, and therefore they should leave it out even if they know it would be. I think the wording is problematic and the point redundant. (The second sentence in it is already covered in the previous points, as we talk about "listings", not only see and do listings.)
LPfi (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I now see you argument for including the last point (I might have missed it before, or just forgot about it). If I understand correctly, you say that the eatery (or whatever) isn't handled in the previous points as it isn't a major points of interest. But only the first point is about those, it is still covered by the following points, about nearby destinations and neighbouring towns. –LPfi (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it is covered in general terms, but given the scope of the problem with a bunch of new editors, I am asking that it be covered explicitly. New editors are going to find it easier to accept their contributions as being removed because they violate a clear policy, rather than because another editor interprets a general policy to remove their edits. I am not trying address a hypothetical problem here, but a real one that I have encountered.
I invite those who don't think this is needed to take a look at the articles created by the enthusiastic Nigerian contributors, and the scope of the edits needed to even start to bring them in line with Wikivoyage standards. As I've written before, this chanecwould help me in coaching Nigerian editors, and I am asking others to help me in doing so by agreeing to this change. Ground Zero (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay with the new version of point 5 if we add "rural area" to the list "city/town, park or itinerary". My preference is still the simpler version that LPfi advocates, but I recognize that there is value in concreteness for guiding new editors. I would support including the now-stricken point 4 about itineraries. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your willingness to compromise on this. Providing clarity for new editors on this is really the whole point of this discussion for me. I've added "rural area", and cut out a few words. Ground Zero (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinates for listings in another article[edit]

Especially for airports, but sometimes for railway stations or even shops, mentioning facilities in nearby destinations is warranted. The airport section now says you shouldn't include coordinates. I suppose this is not to get the dynamic map cover a huge area, with all the other listings lumped together in one spot. I think it is useful to see where those facilities are. Clicking on the marker gives you a view of that other destination, with no information on how it is related to the original article. I think the solution is to include the coordinates where sensible, and just give coordinate and zoom parameters for the map frame. Those who want to see the airport then just have to zoom out. –LPfi (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I think the reason this was included was because to discourage the new Nigerian editors to add detail and complexion to the article, but yes, I would agree that mentioning the coords and then adjusting the map should be okay to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The coordinates for an airport should be included in the listing for the airport that's in the article for the city it primarily serves. Otherwise, by default, they should not be listed in any other article. There will be some exceptions, such as for the Sarasota-Bradenton Airport, which is really just about exactly halfway between both cities' downtowns and primarily serves both cities (SeaTac Airport would be another, but it has its own article, obviating any good reason to include coordinates in any other article), but what's really needed in other articles is not the coordinates but information on how to get from the airport to the suburb (or whatever) in question, how far it is and about how long it will take. [Edited to add: Also, about how much it will cost.] Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek on this. We should provide a link to the article with the detailed listing in most cases, with exceptions where warranted. New editors don't know how to adjust map coordinate and zoom parameters. As we have seen in the Nigeria articles, including coordinates for airports and railway stations outside of the destination results in most cases in a map that is only useful for airports and railway stations. I think it is better to provide advice that does not rely on on clean-up by experienced editors to produce a useful map. Ground Zero (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that airports etc should generally only be listed once. An exception is huge cities, where I think it is ok to list the airport in both Hugeville and Hugeville/Airside. This applies more to railway and bus stations where the station may be both a way into the city and a way into the district from other parts of the city. AlasdairW (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On second thought, yeah I think we should just simply link to the IATA code and then create redirects for those codes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is important that the main listing is in just one place, as otherwise some editors and some readers will miss it; there will be problems with both updating and readers not seeing that there is a more detailed description. Summaries are useful in any case, and how much to include in the summary can be a tough judgement call (a judgement call that is often ignored). Whether to include coordinates is a separate question. I don't see any harm in adding them – if the mapframe issue is handled – and I am not sure the directions on getting in from the airport makes them redundant in all cases. Off the top of my head: the articles might not include all transport options, and seeing where it is on the map makes it easier to figure out the ignored alternatives, and you might want to visit a place on the way from the airport, if you realise (from looking at the map) that really should be possible. –LPfi (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't see the harm in including them. Have you been looking at the articles our Nigerian friends have been starting? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provided the mapframe issue is handled. Even including Charles de Gaulle would do little harm as long as it does not affect what area is shown on the map (having too many get-in listings is a separate issue). It would harm the "show all markers" option, but that option doesn't seem to be there any more. I haven't been following Nigeria too closely, so please provide a link if there is something I have missed. –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume the problem is in not all editors reading all the advice, and many not noticing the nuances. Thus you need very hard and unambiguous language, and want to keep all the finer points in article talk pages. I kind of understand that, but I think it is a suboptimal solution, as those nuances get hard to find for those who would benefit from them. Could it help to start any guideline section with those hard unambiguous rules, and have exceptions and nuances in a later paragraph, read only by careful readers? –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LPfi, preview the versions before and after my edit. And that's far from the worst example. There have been numerous cases of the alleged subject (title, anyway) of an article being invisible because of coordinates hither and yon. It's really best to pay attention to current problems when judging situations, I think. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another example. I'm sure Ground Zero and SHB could provide innumerable examples if they wanted to take the time instead of spending more time fixing the articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree the section wasn't good, but still, if the mapframe got coords and zoom, the marker would be no problem any more. Those who want to see the airport location zoom out, those that don't zoom out don't see the marker. After removing the coords, the reader has no idea how far away that airport is. Ideally distance in kilometres and hours (by bus and by car) would be stated, but it isn't, and what route you have to drive is easier seen from the map where both the airport and the destination are marked than from a short description, unless there is just one highway to follow. –LPfi (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to fix dozens of maps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked city articles of a few states and fixed missing and odd maps. I will do some more later. Not dozens yet. Still, I don't think allowing airport coordinates given that the mapframe coordinates are in order makes the problem much worse, or forbidding them makes maps appear or listings move from the oceans to the right locations. I am sorry I haven't really taken part in the Nigeria expedition, and I appreciate what you have done there. –LPfi (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the work you're doing to fix the maps, LPfi. I think, however, that there is a consensus on this issue not to include the coordinates. Consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I'll leave this. Often there is a trade-off, and different people give different weight to each side. That's OK. However, it is frustrating to back out when one only sees talking past each other, so that a solution that would satisfy everybody should be in reach. I think I should take a break from policy discussions. –LPfi (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LPfi, I understand your point of view on this. I might even agree on it, if I hadn't seen problems with it over and over again. Sure, if everyone knew and practiced the kinds of details of map zooming you know about and practice, this would be much less of an issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LPfi, I also understand your point of view on this, and am trying to take a break from policy discussions. In this case, I think there is genuinely a difference of opinion that cannot be bridged through compromise. But in other cases I have felt that it has been the unwillingness of some editors to look for compromise that prevents consensus. (You may well feel that this is the situation here.) Often, working toward consensus drives us toward a better result, but in other cases I think that it is working against us. We spend a lot of time arguing over details, and one or two editors can block change of policy, especially if others participants get frustrated and leave the discussion.
I don't have a solution to this problem, but I am bringing it up in the hope that others might have insight or ideas. Ground Zero (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How about adding the following, which seems a compromise from

but don't repeat the detailed listing or include coordinates for the airport.

to

but only include the coordinates if you are willing and/or know how to adjust the map so the mapfocus is on the relevant place, not some random zoomed out place. If not, then do not include the coordinates.

Does that work out? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's okay with me. Ground Zero (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm OK with it, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, LPfi: Done (please excuse the fact that I'd forgotten to switch off my caps lock) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visitor centres outside of the destination[edit]

To make it clear from the start, I am not asking this because of our Nigeria expedition, nor because of our Quebec contributor or anything like that, but I am asking this because I am not sure of the answer myself. This is not an issue in most of our articles, but a question to ask so I can improve Wikivoyage's coverage of park articles.

For most towns, this is pretty irrelevant, but this is not for our park articles, but similar question to #Listings outside of the destination, except this time, it's with visitor centres. Unlike other cases like see, do, eat, drink or whatever, this one is a tricky one. In most really isolated parks, (so no, this does not include pretty much any U.S. national park), you generally won't find a visitor centre inside the park, but the management will usually be found somewhere outside the park. One example is Wapusk National Park, where the listed visitor centre is in Churchill which is roughly 100 km (62 mi) as the crow flies. It seems reasonable enough, but I generally don't list a visitor centre or a park office if it's outside a park. However, as most hard-to-get-to parks require you to do some check-in and for safety reasons, you might need to contact the visitor centre or office even if it's outside the park. Question is, how far should these go? My insights tell me that there shouldn't be a limit for cases such as this, but I'd like to get some more opinions. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a common situation in Finland too, although just 50 km. The phone number is the crucial information, but often you will be driving by and should visit the exhibitions. Sometimes the visitor centre is enough of a sight that it is worth mentioning in the city article anyway, sometimes it also serves a park covered as a listing and should be included because of that, but if the town is big and it mainly serves a specific park, I might include the main listing in the park article, even if it is far away. –LPfi (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is fine to include a visitor centre if it is outside the destination. Care is needed if lat/long is added when the centre is far from the destination, as mapframe may need to be adjusted. As an extreme example, if the NSW government opened a Sydney visitor centre in London, then it should be listed in Sydney, but probably not in London. AlasdairW (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tennis courts, dog parks, local soccer fields etc.[edit]

Recently, our contributor from Quebec has been adding many listings like soccer fields, pickleball/tennis courts, dog parks, you name it – recreation facilities centred at locals, not travellers. There was a brief discussion on Talk:Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville about this issue, but that's about it.

However, I'd like to extend this onto wv:boring, as a typical traveller will probably not be looking council recreation facilities, or if so, they can find it out at the destination, just like any fast-food chain like McDo, Hungry Jacks, KFC etc. Anecdotally speaking, the only time where I've ever been to any of these is when it was part of a holiday apartment that I had to book last minute as all other accommodation in the area was booked out, but apart from that, this was something that is not unique to the destination as it can be found anywhere – and it's the same reason why we do not list local playgrounds or parks in "See" or "Do". To prevent any further listings added which are aimed at locals, I'd propose to add the following:

Recreational facilities like council tennis courts, soccer fields, baseball fields, dog parks or anything that is aimed at locals rather than travellers should generally not be included. These are facilities that can be found anywhere, and like chain restaurants, are of little interest to travellers.

Other opinions? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compare with Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Buy and Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Eat. A shop, restaurant, church or other venue would be worth listing if it would be of particular interest: it could be historically important, recognized by an authority (Guide Michelin, etc), or be the only one in its business in the city. A shopping street, mall, park or other cluster of similar venues can be listed as a whole. /Yvwv (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't list an individual tennis court etc, but I would absolutely list a decent municipal park which contained such facilities as you list. Most of them are not tourist attractions, but they are still useful to many kinds of visitor to know about: travellers with kids or pets, business travellers who might need to de-stress, people who are staying in an area temporarily, but for longer-term periods... What I'm saying is a park needn't have a unique POI in order to provide value to travellers, but that doesn't mean that every suburban footie field should be listed! ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no clear distinction about what is aimed at locals, and many travellers would indeed want to find the more genuine, less touristy places. If the locals go to a certain park for their Friday picnic, by all means tell about it. And while dog parks aren't unique to some city, if you have a dog you'd like to know where to find them. –LPfi (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a tricky issue because it's also a good idea to allow these kinds of listings when the facilities in question are particularly outstanding in some way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that it fine to list parks, if you say something about them. Similarly for sports pitches if they are open for anybody to use without booking (with the exception of when they are reserved for team use). The main argument I see for not listing parks and pitches is that you can easily see them on the map (hence the "if you say something about them"). When I am travelling (especially when travelling for work), I want to spend some time outside getting gentle exercise in the fresh air, and I may also go to a park to eat a snack between museum visits. Families often want to let the kids run around for an hour before a car journey. If there are loads of parks, then we should be selective in those that are listed. AlasdairW (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why though? These are things that can be found even in towns with populations fewer than 10,000 (based on my experience in Aus and the US) making the article less interesting to read. Even listing fast-food chains honestly seems more useful. Similarly, tennis courts can be found almost everywhere in the Western world, so similarly, a typical traveler won't be looking for a tennis court. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless they are marked on your map, they may be difficult to find for a stranger. Of course, one shouldn't overload Do with such things, but forbidding them outright doesn't serve the traveller. "Vårdbergsparken (hills) and the western end of Kuppisparken (lawns) are popular for picnics, while Idrottsparken has a jogging trail with simple exercise equipment. In the latter there are also tennis courts and soccer fields, which may be vacant" doesn't make the article less interesting to read in my book. Few are travelling with a football or a tennis racket though, so I would probably leave out the latter sentence. –LPfi (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sources for lat/long[edit]

I use only Google Maps for lat/long:

1. Zoom in to the landmark as far as possible 2. Click long a bit away of the landmark pin in Google Maps 3. A menu appears called "Dropped pin" 4. Click on that menu 5. Push long on the coordinates and they are copied to the clipboard.

Does somebody like to add this method on the page? It seems to be a template which I cannot edit. Flightnavigator (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flightnavigator, this is amazing. I have been typing in co-ordinates from Google Maps for do long. Thank you for this. I have added it in a text box. Ground Zero (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it should be added per this discussion that I stumbled upon a month ago. While coordinates don't meet the threshold of originality, better to be safe than sorry.
This would also give us inaccurate coordinates for places like China as most POIs on google maps are [deliberately) in the wrong location, so I don't think it should be added. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there are concerns about China, we should mention those concerns. I assume that those concerns would apply to any source, not just Googly Maps.
I am not an expert on copyright, but I do not believe that a basic fact like the geolocation of a place is a copyright issue any more than copying a street address from Google would be.
Without using mapping apps to find locations, we are leaving it to readers to find the locations on maps themselves. I don't think we want to do that. Ground Zero (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I also don't think that coordinates meet the threshold of originality. My point is that Google Maps is not the only place to get coordinates – OSM is freely licensed, and often the coords in OSM are more accurate. But given that it has been added, I'm fine with it being mentioned, but China (and maybe North Korea too?) should be given a mention. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a way of copying co-ordinates from OSM? Having two infoboxes would be better than just one. Ground Zero (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a bit more complex and easier at the same time. To get coords from OSM, you'll need to zoom into the relevant POI, then click the "Where is this" button on the left. Then the you've got to click the usual cmd+C and cmd+V. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For POIs in China, it is true that coordinates from Google Maps (and Baidu Maps) are no good for our purposes. OpenStreetMap coordinates work for China though. See User talk:The dog2/Archive 2008-2021#Coordinates from Baidu and Google for more details. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have long avoided copying coords from Google Maps per this. I don't know the relevant legal framework, but as SHB2000 said above, it's better to be safe than sorry. (And then there is the issue of "phantom settlements", but I guess that's more relevant for creating a map than re-using discussed here.)
I always pick coordinates from the maps linked with an icon on the upper right corner of our articles. (Those displayed in the articles within a mapframe don't allow copying coords for some reason.) I've found the POIs are often not marked (especially for lesser known places), so if I can identify the location by retracing my steps from an earlier trip, I zoom in, right click on the spot and copy&paste the lat/long. When I can't identify the place, I open Google Maps on another tab, search for the place, double-check with the street or satellite view (whichever is more appropriate) to see if the pin is in the correct location, and then return back to Wikivoyage maps, zoom in, locate the place by following the street names and/or geographical pattern as best as I can, and then obtain the coords. It's a bit of more work, especially if you have lots of places to mark, but not that much.
The easiest method is to use Wikidata, if a place has an item and associated coordinate location over there (mostly useful only for "see" listings). Just attach the Q number into a listing or marker and be done with it. Sometimes, I find the Wikidata location is inaccurate, in which case I go back to above method. Vidimian (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting – didn't know that OSM coordinates point to the correct location in China. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand this: "Click long a bit away of the landmark pin". Nurg (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also tried using this method and I'm not getting anything called "Dropped pin" and I too also think "Click long a bit away of the landmark pin" is confusing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]