Wikivoyage talk:Listings/Archive 2019

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New language on walking tours - please participate

Swept in from the pub

We reconsidered walking tour listings, and the result so far is to open the floodgates for all walking tours. I've proposed new language, and I'd like more participation in the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Discussion/vote on new language? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet list - Accessibility fix

Swept in from the pub

There was a question a few weeks ago about leaving blank lines or not between listings (not sure where it has been archived now). As pointed out at the time having a blank line basically creates separate bullet listings which can be an issue with some screen reading software for sight impaired readers, as well as being mess HTML for search engine bots. As an information to all, I will be running a bot over pages to fix this. I will start slowly and check a number of them but eventually will let it run by itself over all articles. Please check out a few edits marked Listings Accessibility, it should be a simple safe edit but there is always the change an odd syntax format turns up I have not thought of. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this; it's long overdue. One thing I'd suggest - I recall someone saying that the listing template close tags (}}) on their own line also break up the list. Could the bot remove the newline before those? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would like conformation of that before making the extra edit. Slight more difficult an edit to do safely in batch, though not much, but would be just about every page on the site as this is what the listing editor creates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tested it and it doesn't seem to make a difference. So, nevermind for now. Maybe it only happens under some circumstances. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said in some discussion that the "}}" on its own line separates the listings visibly enough for the edit mode, so that removing the blank line is no problem. Perhaps it was this comment ARR8 (mis)remembered. So it should indeed be kept. --LPfi (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The listings templates automatically put }} on a separate line, so I always assumed that to be the preferred format. If it's not, the templates should be changed. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is good to do for the most part; however, it is their software and not ours that is the problem and should be brought to their attention if possible. Just a note that remembering when different browsers interpreted code and sites had to accommodate for their difference created problems in the past (less likely I think today). I am just concerned about going down any future rabbit holes. In this case it is ok to do -- Matroc (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "they", in your claim that "it is their software...that is the problem"? (It can't be the people who expect websites to follow HTML standards, such as the makers of screen reader software.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned above that it could be screen reading software - I have no argument with removing extra blank lines at all period. (There must be no blank lines between list items. Blank lines terminate a list, splitting it into two separate lists_wikimedia). With ordered lists this is definitely proven; unordered lists on the other hand shouldn't be affected as much as each listing would then become a separate list wouldn't it? I did not find anything about lists and blank lines in w3.org in the past though I am not so inclined to use them. As for HTML interpretation even an ul with multiple li with separating lines appear to render correctly and two such lists would join with if only one blank line existed between them. I am not arguing with removing a blank line and probably should be our style or standard if it will resolve the issue at hand. Mediawiki does its interpretation and already removes them. Interesting thought, I wonder if it isn't following HTML standards? -- Best wishes and have a Great day! -- Matroc (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the MediaWiki software (our software) substitutes the blank line in a wikitext unordered list with "</ul><ul>" in the HTML it outputs. We cannot blame a voice HTML reader to read two consecutive lists as two separate lists. The visual difference is small with most browsers (a little more vertical space?), as there usually are other visual clues when the lists are meant to be separate, but those other clues may be lost when reading aloud. There is really no point in telling how the lists are visually separated when you have your own means of telling by your voice they are separate. --LPfi (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you LPfi and WhatamIdoing for explanation(s) and clarification. After looking at some source code and page source(s) it now makes better sense to me. Again, thank you -- Matroc (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested (which may be only me  ;-), whether and how much vertical space you see between two adjacent links depends upon local formatting (e.g., what we put in MediaWiki:Common.css). After years of fixing this mistake, I can see the very small difference, but I suspect that most people don't notice it.
ARR8, after you finish here, I wonder whether you could do this at the other language editions of Wikivoyage? It would ideally happen everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:Traveler100, whom I assume you meant. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has run through all destination pages on English Wikivoyage. There were about 10 pages it could not edit, some issue with large in-page mapmasks, but strangely not all with mapmasks. But it appears to just hang, not make any edits. One edit blanked a page but I think that must have been a network or server error not to do with the bot code. I guess I could do it on other language pages. Do you think the existing user pages of Traveler100bot on these sites which just links to the English page be enough? With the exception of German I cannot write any native language information stating what is happening. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a list of those 10 pages, I can edit by hand if desired. -- Matroc (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikivoyages

We can ask some of the other Wikivoyages for a quick answer here. User:Atsirlin is an admin at the Russian, User:Yuriy kosygin is at Chinese, User:RolandUnger and User:DerFussi at German and Italian, User:Globe-trotter at Dutch, User:Texugo at Portuguese, User:Zerabat at Spanish, User:ויקיג'אנקי at Hebrew, and User:Handrian at Greek. (I'm not sure how many others are active editors here.)

Hello, friends,

Matroc is offering a bot/script that will fix a small technical problem with HTML in your articles. This problem is caused by unnecessary blank lines between items in bulleted lists. See w:en:WP:LISTGAP for information. The English Wikivoyage had a lot of pages with this problem, but it might be a smaller problem elsewhere.

It's a pretty safe script. There's no significant risk of corrupting pages, and we ran it here without any problems. (I'd bet that it's the same code that's been used without complaint at the English Wikipedia for years.) This should be a one-time fix. The only "problem" is that your watchlists will get busy if you have a lot of pages with these errors.

Do you want Matroc to fix these errors for your community? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We simply modified the template to show an empty color box when there are no coordinates. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We will not change list at the German Wikivoyage. The main cause is maintenance work of endless lists to remove mistakes. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem articles

I am running this over AWB script. It however stalls on a number of articles. Anyone an idea why this is happening? Articles include: Saint Petersburg/South, Saint Petersburg/North, Ljubljana, Katowice, Tusheti, Cheltenham, Madison, Dallas/North Dallas and Dallas/South Dallas. They all have in-page Mapmasks. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Guide Michelin stars to restaurant listings?

Swept in from the pub

Wikipedia has an entry on many of the restaurants listing in Guide Michelin, including information of number of stars (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz%C3%A9n). Could this be imported into Wikivoyage? Perhaps via the wikidata-item. In that way we do not have to manually change information about stars. Also, in the same way we could import information about dress code and if a restaurant has closed down. Many listings of restaurants are not up to date, and with this we could at lest get the top tier a bit more organized. --Jonte-- (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the Wikipedia article for the restaurant should be given in its Wikivoyage listing, but I wouldn't suggest copying or importing all the content of the Wikipedia article to Wikivoyage, because it includes historical information that's relevant for an encyclopedia but not really relevant to a visitor, who would usually be more interested in how good the restaurant is, what their specialties are, what the ambiance is like, how long in advance they need reservations in order to guarantee a table, how much it costs and possibly whether it has a dress code. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is to to import certain specific details from the Wikidata item, not to copy the whole Wikipedia article. I think importing some information via Wikidata a good idea—at least the Michelin rating. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wikidata to check for closed-down POIs is an intriguing idea too, not limited to Michelin reviewed restaurants or even to restaurants at all. Does Wikidata include statements about whether a place is closed down? If so, a bot could check for Wikivoyage listings connected to Wikidata items that say the place is closed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should really wait a few minutes while I keep researching before pressing enter. I found wikidata:Property:P5817, which is what would help us detect closed POIs, but unfortunately I don't think it's used widely enough to be useful. I'm still interested in the idea of importing Michelin stars though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why via Wikidata? I don't understand. The information we want is in the Wikipedia article, right? Please explain. Also, while Michelin is still considered quite reliable for France, it's to my knowledge never been considered reliable for Italy and is not very reliable for the U.S., so I don't think Wikivoyage should have some kind of Michelin star icon or something; instead, the number of Michelin stars should be given in prose in the "content" tab, just as the number of New York Times stars would be so given for New York-area restaurants, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guide Michelin is the most comprehensive would-wide rating system there is for high-end restaurants. It is not limited to France. To my understanding the list on Wikipedia covers most, if not all, restaurants featured in this category. And to be clear, I only meant importing data items, which we could generate automatic. In the same way including a wikidata link adds coordinates. --Jonte-- (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Michelin didn't cover restaurants in other countries; I said that their ratings are not considered reliable for Italy. To elaborate, if you ask Italians, they will tell you that Michelin highly rates restaurants in Italy whose cuisine is more similar to French food, rather than the cucina tipica most prized in Italy. And their ratings are also not very reliable in the U.S. On food discussion groups, Americans believe their standards are lower in the U.S. than they are in France, and some Americans believe that they simply don't understand cuisines not similar to French or Japanese cuisine all that well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To clarify, the information about Michelin stars is on both Wikidata and Wikipedia. If we import it via Wikidata, I assume it can be done automatically (or semi-automatically using the listing editor). I don't know if that can be done via Wikipedia. Of course if Michelin isn't reliable enough to be worth including in this way then that's a different story. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely good to mention in the description, but I don't think we should adopt Michelin stars as some kind of Wikivoyage icon. For one thing, that would mean promoting a commercial guidebook on a non-profit site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand correctly, the Michelin stars are still interesting in the USA, Italy etc., but not important enough worldwide to have their dedicated place/icon in the listing template, and fetching them with bot or via the listing editor is feasible only if there is such a dedicated place (inserting text in the "content" field would be awkward and error prone). What could be done is to have a "hidden" field (showing up when editing), which would notify the editor on Michelin star status in case Wikidata knows the restaurant has or has had stars. If using the listing editor, the field would automatically be up to date, otherwise depending on last bot run. --LPfi (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that would be fine, although it's possible it might confuse some editors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But back to the earlier point - what about the ratings of other guides that are better regarded in their own country, and that adopt multiple formats? Eg in Britain I'd argue for primacy of Good Food Guide and place less trust in Michelin. GFG is a commercial publication but relies on reader input backed by incognito inspectors, who always pay for their meals. They never accept payment or hospitality for listings and are somewhat kindred spirits to WV. But there are other candidate publications and we don't want edit wars over which of several ratings to import. Grahamsands (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the general feeling among people knowledgeable about restaurants in Britain that the Good Food Guide is most reliable, their ratings should be mentioned in restaurant descriptions on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is no problem for an editor to mention whatever rating feels relevant (unless others think it is not), and also easy for the listing editor or a bot to treat different countries differently, but the listing editor or a bot acting on some rating requires it to be machine readable and combined with the Wikidata ID. If there are several reliable ratings available on Wikidata, the system should probably be built to support them all (I suppose they are not too many). --LPfi (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep prices

It is increasingly common that hotels and other accommodations do not post standard prices, but just prices for a specific stay, perhaps booked in a specific way. Still it is good to have a grasp about the prices at a destination before doing the booking. Are there good practices in how to infer common rates? Should one just check a couple of dates in workdays and weekdays, now and after a month, in different season? Sometimes you know what dates are special (in season, big festival, ...), sometimes not. Should one refrain from trying to state the price level when one does not have local knowledge? Should one leave prices out for individual venues that do not post standard prices? --LPfi (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to find the bottom end of the price range by looking for a Sunday 3-6 months hence in off season. For a northern hemisphere city, today (in May) I would look at Sundays in November. Sunday is usually the least busy night in a hotel, as weekend leisure travellers have left, and business traveller have not arrived. I always give the resulting price as "from". AlasdairW (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can a hotel bar be listed separately from the hotel?

Swept in from the pub

Some hotels have a restaurant or a bar which is an attraction in its own right; it might be famous for fine dining or its rooftop view. Should that venue deserve a listing under the eat or drink section? /Yvwv (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, as an exception to the general rule against listing the same business twice. Wikivoyage:Don't tout says "exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if, for example, a hotel has a famous, separately named bar or restaurant that also draws significant numbers of non-resident customers". —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mx. Granger. I suggest considering the state of the page overall. If there are already a lot of listings in the page, then I suggest picking just one place, and then mentioning the existence of the other aspects in the description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would list a rooftop bar separately, regardless of whether it's part of a hotel, because usually, most people who patronize it are not guests at the hotel. Basically, if it's an attraction in its own right and a majority of its patrons are not guests at the hotel, list it separately. We do that in district guides to Manhattan a bunch of times, such as for Jean-Georges and Ai Fiori. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zooming out, I think it's time to abandon the "no double listings" policy. It's a needlessly draconian way of responding to a problem that 1) often isn't actually a problem, and 2) even when it is, is already covered by other policies. Because it's not just hotel bars that can be separate attractions in their own right. In an earlier discussion I mentioned the example of a place in my hometown that's famous for artisan wood-fired pizzas equally as much as craft cocktails, and wondered why we needed to limit the listing to either "Eat" or "Drink", thus forcing half of our readers who might be interested in the place to seek it out in a section totally unrelated to what they're looking for. Not only is that a scenario in which a double listing would be appropriate, but also we Wikivoyagers are not fools, and we can tell the difference between that and touting, which would still be against policy even if double listings weren't. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think double (or triple, whatever) listings should still be exceptions, and so noted. And it's not an issue of "we Wikivoyagers", but often of new users who don't know the site culture yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to reluctantly disagree, for the same reasons. It's one thing to make an exception for a fairly unique place that's a worthwhile travel destination as both a restaurant and lodging (for example). But restaurant+bar is such a ubiquitous combination that permitting those would easily lead to many listings getting duplicated. While it sucks to have to choose one or the other, I think we should trust readers to be smart enough to realize that the "Eat" and "Drink" sections have some amount of overlap. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just talking about an average restaurant-bar combo. I'm talking about places that offer two or more distinct experiences that are usually enjoyed singly rather than in combination with each other, and just so happen to be located under the same roof. That's something that varies from restaurant to restaurant: for example, it's certainly nothing unusual to go to a neighborhood corner bar and order a bucket of chicken wings or a burger to go with your beer, but at the restaurant that I mentioned above, you're generally either there for the cocktails or the pizza but not both at the same time, the bar and the dining room are distinctly physically separate from each other, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a situation that does call for two listings, and the listings should include exactly the statement that you just made - that the bar and restaurant are in separate locations and that a customer normally goes to one or the other. I don't think any policy change is needed for two listings in this kind of case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... That's a pretty good question. I might have to go with add it to both. I'm not much of a Whiz in this. Arep Ticous 02:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This question comes up quiet often, and I think the general consensus is that for a hostel or hotel bar to be listed separately to the hotel/hostel it should be: A. a bar that would be notable even if it wasn't in the hotel/hostel and B.open to travelers who are not checked into the hotel/hostel.
For example where a hotel bar in a rural area that is the only notable bar in the area, a popular skybar in a major city open to everyone; or a notable bar that is next to a hotel but has the same owner.
We generally avoid listing businesses multiple times mainly because it takes up too much space, gives a business an unfair presence in an article and frequently touts will list a business under as many/all sections of an article, but editors have some discretion
Policy changes are a headache for everyone and the "no double listings" rule is enforced frequently against touts.--Billbarrelrider (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listings editor but for prose?

Swept in from the pub

I'm curious if anyone has ideas for building a tool like the listings editor, but for writing instead. The listings editor really makes editing a breeze; but ultimately, I feel like folks come here for the writing and not a list of POI's. I mean the listings are great, but I'm wishing we also had some kind of tool to help elevate our writing to the same level.

Is there any way, for example, in a parent article to display every "See" listing in all child articles? Some way of visualizing that? That could help authors write up meta sections in Region articles, which are often lacking. It would be a great help to travellers deciding which of the 47 listings spread across 8 bottom level pages are worth their time to explore...

Just one idea, maybe it's no good, idk. What do you think? Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest that the visual editor doesn't provide? You can write prose to your heart's content? Prose by its nature doesn't have the structure of a listing editor. --Inas (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ButteBag suggests the editor providing information that could be transformed into prose. What I am doing is to keep the child articles open in separate tabs and copy as needed. If there is a large tree of children, then some more advanced solution would help a lot, but writing the tool would be non-trivial. The tool should compile and present the available attractions in some nice way. It could also notice when top attractions are missing from the proper child article and help adding them there. I am not sure adding these features to an editor is the best way. It could be a script at toollab and you could copy content to be pasted into the edit window for editing. The tool as I can imagine it, made with a reasonable amount of work, would be mostly for seasoned editors not too afraid of technicalilies. --LPfi (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with some effort you can grab all the listings (See) from various child articles, sort them and then transform them to some prose-like format for further selection/editing (not outputting data in listing template format). I would do this type of work in a Sandbox using a Lua Module, the general page editor and final copy to some article page. -- Matroc (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on "chain-pubs"...

Swept in from the pub

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

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

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

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


Another "chain-pub" in the UK would be : Brewers Fayre (Whitbread), not sure how much variation you get in what's served.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


On a tangentially related subject...

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

I agree, and I think your suggestion should be implemented as soon as consensus is established here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, otherwise we'd had to delete pretty much all big hotels (those are almost invariably part of national or global chains), accounting for a huge number of beds in each city. Ypsilon (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true everywhere: I was amazed by the lack of chain hotels in New Zealand outside of Auckland and Wellington -- not even local chains. By I expect that it is very true in the U.S., and agree with the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal to exclude sleep. I would also say that WV:Boring should not apply to anywhere that there is only a few places to choose from. If a burger chain is one of only four places to eat in town then we can list them all. AlasdairW (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, I would prefer venues with a local/independent character were what's added rather than 'adverts' for major chains the traveller would generally recognise anyway. Also per a comment in Cuisine of Britain and Ireland there are a few local mixed take-away outlets worth avoiding even if they are nominally independents. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Aside): The focus on Wikivoyage is the traveller, Would there be any scope on Wikivoyage (or a different wiki) for a shopping guide scoped more at within region vistors/locals as opposed to tourists/travellers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A different wiki, sure. Not Wikivoyage, though. See Goals and non-goals. You could reuse Wikivoyage content on such a hypothetical wiki, of course.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone else would be interested in prototyping/developing such a wiki, leave a note on my talk page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: You can try looking at Localwiki. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although it may be obvious, maybe would say that WV:Boring does not apply to public transport. I see no reason for preferring the small bus operator over the main city or national network, and there is no problem in having loads of listings for Amtrak, National Express or Intercity. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that WV:Boring i.e. Boring places talks about stores, restaurants and bars, not about transport or hotels. Hotels are still places, so they might need to be explicitly mentioned. I'm plunging forward and adding a paragraph. Revert if discussion is still needed or the wording is bad. --LPfi (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio and TV stations

(Moved from Talk:Seattle.)

I don't think a long list of radio and TV stations belongs in a travel guide. This would be more appropriate for wikipedia. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Listing a few major ones for local news is a little important, as they pretty much all run websites where you can read the news, which you'd only find by knowing the name of the station. But for listening/watching, you can find anything you want by scanning up and down on the radio/TV. I notice that radio and TV aren't even mentioned on Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: this discussion is already underway. If we allow these crufty lists on other pages, we shouldn't. The Seattle article is a useful guide for visitors to the city. It is made less useful by becoming a dumping ground for everything there is to know about Seattle. Ground Zero (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buffalo is an example of another article that has this kind of list, though because there are fewer stations there, it's smaller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point being, if we disallow annotated lists of TV and radio stations, I'm fine with that, but it has to be a site-wide policy and maybe should be discussed at Wikivoyage talk:Avoid long lists or some other appropriate place I can't think of (Wikivoyage talk:Listings?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Bigpeteb: I've moved the discussion here. Ground Zero (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so I'll reiterate and stand by what I said initially. I think a curated list of a few notable TV and radio stations is useful, for the same reason we list newspapers: they're a source of information about local news, events, and culture. Listing alternatives to cover multiple languages is also useful. But a laundry list of music radio stations and TV affiliate stations is not helpful, and buries the important information in a lot of cruft. See also WV:Listings#Boring places; stations that play the same top 40 songs or the same syndicated shows you'd find in the rest of the country are boring. Nothing is gained by listing them; travellers will simply flip through the stations until they see/hear something they like, which is not an arduous task for them.
In U.S. cities like Seattle, I don't even think much needs to be said. For radio, I'm not sure it needs a bullet list; it would be enough to write "Local stations BCE (xx.x FM), DEF (xx.x FM), GHI (xx.x FM), and JKL (xx.x FM) all have excellent local news reporting." For TV, maybe we don't need to say anything about the main stations; just like every large- and medium-size American city, it has local affiliates of the major national networks, all of which have local news, and travellers can find their favorite by flipping through the low-numbered stations on the TV. The only thing to add might be that there's also Spanish-language local news available on TV. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right - a selection of interesting stations only. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for viewers just tuning in, is the edit that precipitated this discussion.

I suggest adding something like this:

"An article can include a list of a few radio and/or TV stations that focus on local news and information, and those in non-English-speaking regions that provide news and information in English."

I'm not that concerned about mentioning news in other languages as the primary audience for English Wikivoyage is people who understand English. Spanish media outlets should be included in Wikiviajes. Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I would say "news and entertainment in English", not just information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the general discussion above on having a small list of useful English language stations. Would like to add my own experience on the topic. Local TV works to some extent in North America, although easier enough to find on hotel TVs. Radio I find more useful for regions, use if on long road trip as useful for traffic and weather reports. What I am finding more useful to get a good feel for an area and what are trending topics in an area are local Twitter feeds. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added some text to WV:Where you can stick it and WV:Listings using the phrasing suggested by Ground Zero. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tours in demanding environment

I would like clarification on tours where most travellers would need to hire a guide, but where this is not a requirement, and some travellers could go on their own. We have:

  • If a traveller could fulfill the substance of the tour on their own, the tour should not be listed.
  • If the tour operator is providing [booking] or general travel planning then it should not be listed.
  • Always list tour operators if they are requisite to visit a certain area. Examples include tours required by law [...] and tours required due to exceptional danger (e.g., war zones and extreme environments such as the Amazon, Antarctica, Space, etc).

So what about places where I'd let some 13-years old go on their own, but wouldn't let my guests unless I know they have the needed experience? This includes many canoeing and hiking trips. I cannot see them (the ones I have in mind) qualifying as exceptionally dangerous like Antarctica, Space or a war zone, but it is a pity if our readers skip the Nuortti hike just because we didn't give the right pointers, or go without guide and give more job for the outworked volunteers at Trolltunga.

Perhaps we should skip "exceptional danger" and just say something like "too demanding or dangerous for most travellers to go on their own".

I also think "general travel planning" can be valuable indeed for an expert not knowing the particular area – not needing a guide but perhaps more tips than what we typically try to give. Forbidding listing these might be a conscious decision, but in that case we should have some more discussion in the guideline.

In many cases the tour operators can be listed because they rent equipment, but I think we should not need that excuse. I note the Archipelago Sea kayak listings should be deleted according to the guideline, as the operators don't have an office and the main one does offer general planning advice. Is this the intention?

--LPfi (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see "general travel planning" as referring to something close to that offered by a travel agency, not somebody selling a map and then pointing out places to visit. I think sea kayaking is covered by "Tours should offer something as a supplement ... as an activity available at a destination (e.g., a helicopter tour of a city, or a camel expedition into the Sahara)." AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter: yes, by them providing the equipment. You usually don't have a camel or helicopter, and couldn't handle one, but it is realistic to be able to hire just the canoe and handle it independently, so the tours is adding value mainly by providing the guiding. That is even clearer with the trek to Trolltunga, where you don't necessarily need equipment other than what you already have (but some would benefit greatly from somebody giving advice on what to carry, and keeping an eye on the time and the weather). --LPfi (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between listings and markers on map

Swept in from the pub

I noticed that the markers' numbers on the map (from the icon in the corner of the article) are different from those at the listings in the article (Nordkalottleden). They do correspond if you load the map from a specific listing. The problem seems to stem from the numbering on the former map to jump over some numbers: 1,2,3,4,6,... Does anybody have an idea of how to find the root of the problem? It does not seem to be a cash issue, since no listings have been touched at least since since july. -- asked by user LPfi

The root of the problem is the usage of an oudated map service which is used in article's top-right corner. For instance, we know that this script does not count the markers if they are specified only by a Wikidata id. There is a simple way to overcome this problem: using the new map services. But this was refused by the community until now. If you are calling a map from the marker the number is correct because the new map service is used for it. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, basically it looks like poimap2.php (the old map service) simply iterates all POIs 1...N, instead of having separate counter for each POI type (which is done by {{marker}}). I doubt anyone will fix this... -- andree.sk(talk) 11:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The full page map from the icon doesn't display markers for listings which don't have lat/longs in the listing, but instead get the lat/long from Wikidata.
I was looking at the map of Bristol a few days ago, and the See marker on the map #20 was listing #23. I fixed this particular occurrance by using the pop-up listing editor to sync the lat/longs in the 3 listings that were fetching the data from WD. I encourage editors to always put the lat/long in the listing. I think that relying on WD also causes difficulties exporting the article for offline use. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's better to put the lat/long in the listing instead of relying on Wikidata. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has existed for some time. It was suggested in the past to include the lat/long in addition to the wikidata ID as parameters - of possible consideration would have been to have the listing when edited and replaced look up the lat/long via Wikidata ID if available and fill in the lat/long parameters if needed (not replace them if already entered). The lat/long parameters being of a higher priority in producing map markers than that found using Wikidata ID. Note: About 2 years ago getting rid of poimap2 altogether was a main suggestion yet no replacement has been implemented if I remember correctly. (perhaps an icon that opens a mapshape instead!) -- Matroc (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that local lat/long has priority over wikidata. The enhancements in the listing editor for synchronizing wikidata has improved usability on that topic. One of the advantage of poimap2 appears not to be working any more, namely showing regional government boundaries, so really the only major objections to swapping which map the icon on an article uses is lack of being able to display your location on the map and being able to do a fit on POI markers (useful for finding incorrectly entered values) with the map tool used by mapframe. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a wider range of options on what to show on the old map than on the new one. On the old one there is a check box for "Hiking" (trails), in the new one you have to choose the right external map and use its interface to get the trails. --LPfi (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about adding restaurants

Swept in from the pub

Is it allowed to add listings for restaurants I haven't actually been to? There's a nice-looking fine dining restaurant called 180° in northern Tallinn, but I haven't actually been there, as I had neither the time or the money. JIP (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I just added restaurant Guru to Tallinn. This is a restaurant I have actually eaten at.) JIP (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're building a great big travel guide here. We can't be too fussy about where the information comes from. If Tallinn doesn't have many restaurants listed, it's better to add one you don't know than to have an empty guide. Ground Zero (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's okay to add a restaurant you haven't been to. You should check that the restaurant is worth visiting before you add it, though. Checking some online reviews is probably enough. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine. The goal is to include insider information and second-hand local info counts. I'll leave it up to you to vet if you think the info is reliable and if their taste is good enough. If someone visits because of what we write here and it's garbage, I'm hoping that person will update the guide himself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A recommendation from a friend or acquaintance would be a good way to figure out that a restaurant is worth visiting too, I'd say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely do this in the Buffalo district articles. My usual procedure is to scan Yelp, Google Reviews, and/or TripAdvisor (the more of those, the better) and incorporate the comments, recommendations of specific dishes, complaints, etc. that come up most frequently. Of course, if a restaurant is universally panned, it usually doesn't get listed per anr, but where there are mixed reviews I usually err on the side of inclusion - in those cases I usually state openly that opinions of the place are variable and try to summarize the arguments on each side (i.e. "many customers praise [x, y and z], while others are just as apt to lament [a, b, and c])". -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can. Tallinn has a lot of restaurants, and a lot of them listed, though most of them in the old town (understandably, as that's the "touristy epicenter" of Tallinn if not Estonia). It's good to have some coverage of other parts of the city as well. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, this makes my scar tissue twinge from an argument I had long ago on OpenStreetMap mailing lists when some fool asked "Why would you want to make a map of someplace you haven't personally been to?"
Yes, I emphatically think it's okay for you to add restaurants and other listings for places you haven't been. If nothing else, this is sheer practicality: we have only like 100 regular contributors here on WV, and if we had to wait until we either get a local for every single place on the globe or have someone visit every small village in every remote area, then WV would make very little progress towards filling in destinations with content.
It's the 21st century, and we have the internet at our fingertips. As others said, surely you can scan other websites to get a sense of reviews and determine if a place is worth listing, and come up with some brief description of their displays/activities/food/rooms. We don't really operate on verifiability here like WP does, and in any case, it's a wiki; we can always edit or remove the listing in the future, but I'd rather have a potentially good place listed than not. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Listings/Archive_2019&oldid=4689199"