Wikivoyage talk:Listings/Archive 2022

Grocery stores and convenience stores

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)

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)

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)

Proposed addition to the text

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How would you modify the proposal then? Ground Zero (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Revised proposal

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

In general, I agree; I'd even cut "no more than 5" to just "no". This has been a persistent problem in some articles, e.g. Talk:Cebu_(city)#Supermarkets_again. It probably applies for pharmacies as well as supermarkets & convenience stores. Sometimes movie theaters too.

On the other hand, I think there are more exceptions than are mentioned above. If we are listing a mall or describing a shopping district, then it makes sense to mention that it includes a supermarket. We include 7-Eleven at Dumaguete#Along_the_boulevard since we are listing everything on the street. Pashley (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Where you can stick it

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)

"Places of worship" section

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)

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)

But this is seven temples. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Airports outside a destination

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)

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)

I left them a message on their talk page. Hopefully they respond. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)

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)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

SHB2000: thank you for taking care of this. Ground Zero (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 :) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Listings outside of the destination

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)

I'm also undecided on this. I encountered this today on Amherst (Nova Scotia), and that tiny town appeared to be a 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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, sure, I would delete such a listing and have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

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)

Isn't that covered by point 2? Ground Zero (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What wording would work for you? Ground Zero (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Oh okay. Nearby would probably mean 20 at max. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

20 km seems like a decent rule of thumb for drivers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm sorry, please add that language back in. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Ground Zero Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Coordinates for listings in another article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps you'd like to fix dozens of maps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)

That's okay with me. Ground Zero (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with it, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@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)

Visitor centres outside of the destination

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)

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Tennis courts, dog parks, local soccer fields etc.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

sources for lat/long

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't understand this: "Click long a bit away of the landmark pin". Nurg (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Feature suggestion: Time needed for an activity

Swept in from the pub

The idea would be to display, on the page of each destination, an indication of a reasonable or typical duration (or duration range) that a traveller could allocate to a visit. Indeed, it is very useful to have at least a rough idea of how much time a visit one intends to do will take.

It seems more appropriate and easier to define such a duration per visit/activity (e.g. for a specific museum) instead of per destination. The travellers could themselves estimate the total time needed for a destination by adding up the times for each visit they intend to do.

Difficulty: The time needed ("minimum time") for a visit is very subjective, as well as a possible sufficient time ("maximum time") for a visit.

Idea: Make an average over user-input estimated time spent for an activity (how to do it in practice needs be to define). Any other ideas would be very much welcome! OttoRuth (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Averages are seldom informative, and they rely critically on the population measured – and we don't have access to any measurements at all. Thus this needs to be the editors subjective guess on typical duration. The information is useful, but I think trying to condense it into a range is difficult and might be counterproductive: "The trail is 2 km, and can be walked in half an hour. However, most visitors come for the bird watching tower, and may dwell there for hours." –LPfi (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that some hint about "time needed" could be very useful. Google Maps used to provide a note about how long people spent in different places, and I sometimes found it useful.

I think the best way to handle it is in a text-based description. For example, I was in a small museum for the first time this summer. IMO the "time needed" is about an hour. (I stayed about 30 minutes. Others, especially if they were in a group, might stay longer. I doubt that anyone except the paid staff stay there 3+ hours.) It therefore needs a description like "This three-room museum in the historic Teacher's House is a good way to spend an hour when you're in the neighborhood."

You'd write something quite different in other cases, such as:

• "Most people will want to spend the whole day. The museum's café is limited to pre-made cold sandwiches, pastries, and coffee, but you can get a re-entry bracelet at the front door, go out for lunch, and come back to tackle the rest of the building", or
• "This museum is the perfect place for staying cool on a hot afternoon", or
• "Devotees of the art might plan a multi-day pilgrimage to take full advantage of everything on offer".

I think that we will provide more information this way than just writing "____ hours". For example, to go back to the museum I saw: I'm telling you something about the size (it's just three rooms, and it used to be a house. Even if you're super-interested in the subject, it's a small place). I'm telling you something about how long it might take (an hour. You can then think about whether you're quicker or slower than most, and thus decide whether that might be closer to 30 minutes or two hours for you). I'm also telling you that it's not worth a special trip ("when you're in the neighborhood"). "One hour" doesn't covey as much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Entries for individual historic buildings and sites

Swept in from the pub

Concerning articles such as Sopron with many historic buildings listed, we don't seem to have a guideline for when an individual historic building, site or work of public art deserves an entry on its own. I drafted a guideline at Wikivoyage:Listings#Historic buildings, sites and monuments. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sopron#See is quite overwhelming. Looks like a cool place to visit, though. Your draft reads well and on a first look seems thorough. Have you been thinking about writing that for a while, or was it Sopron that gave you the idea? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sophron has 25 See listings with the marker 99! I think we should say not to have more than 95 of any type of listing without discussing it first. Special techniques (see Roman Empire) are required to handle more than 99 listings, but we should first agree that this is really wanted, rather than trimming the list or splitting the article. I think that any of the Sophron listings would be worth having in an article on a small village, but many are not worth seeing when there are more impressive sights nearby.

Also see Wikivoyage:Destination_of_the_month_candidates/Slush_pile#Sopron as Sophron was recently slushed as DOTM. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sites that are widely known but whose location may not be are handled by having a redirect from the location article to a destination article, e.g. Taj Mahal, Alhambra. That can be done even when people will know the city but perhaps not the district, e.g. Smithsonian, British Museum. I think that is a good precedent, but we need some care not to apply it too often. Pashley (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the advice in Wikivoyage:Listings is reasonable, but I don't think that 50+ "See" listings is good for any city article. Perhaps some of Sopron#Downtown street by street could become a walking itinerary, with only a few key museums and landmarks remaining in the city article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Buildings and monuments without organized hospitality could be worth mentioning in an itinerary, but not always in the city article. A case study would be Stockholm history tour and Stockholm quay palace tour which describe many such sites. /Yvwv (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge of restaurants and grocery stores

I am quite critical to the merger into ‎"Shops, restaurants and other hospitality venues" and related edits. I am not now going to check it in detail, but as this was a radical change with no proceeding discussion, I don't want to change to remain unquestioned any longer than necessary. Two changes I noted were the merge itself and a removal of one passage:

Restaurants have a status very different from shops, so if the criteria were more or less the same, then the criteria should be adjusted, which is made very hard with the merger (now requires special-casing). Eateries are required for usable status, but now a district or town with several eateries, none of them outstanding, would get no listing and thereby not usable status.

The max number of grocery stores to list was removed "hiding statement of numbers as it is clearly not followed". The addition was a result of the long discussion not too long ago: #Grocery stores and convenience stores above.

–LPfi (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The section was originally about grocery stores and supermarkets; here is a version from April this year. The information about other retailers, as well as restaurants, has been added during the last few months. Most of the edits are done by User:LPfi, the undersigned and some other experienced users; but we should consider other opinions to create a coherent policy. A relevant discussion is Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Travel guides with only POW attractions? /Yvwv (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on eat listings. I still think it is very hard to come up with wordings that are suitable as criteria both for restaurants and shops. There seems not to be any real advice on Sleep places, although I think "hospitality" includes them. I think also those should be treated separately. Perhaps we should have a list of general criteria (historic building, astounding view; favorable price, location or opening hours; ...) and then more specific criteria.

I think the current wordings are less than ideal: we shouldn't list every shop that is big-box (in these days, rather every mum-and-pop one) or the "only shop [...] with a specific product range" (the only place in town to buy musical instruments?)

–LPfi (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A guideline should address likely problems and dilemmas, without getting too detailed. I added the section about historic buildings to address the elaborate but over-detailed articles about Hungarian towns, such as Sopron, in which many historic residential buildings have their own entry, though they are off limits for visitors. The sections about supermarkets or places of worship were added many years ago, and I am not sure whether they were written as a response to articles overburdened by entries about supermarkets or churches. The worship section seemed to excluding, so I just tried to make it more inclusive. /Yvwv (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Both these policies were reached by consensus, and the discussions were very long. Unilaterally merging both paragraphs with no discussion is not appropriate and due to be reverted. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored the 30 Jan version of the supermarket guidelines as a sub-section. These words were agreed 10 months ago.

I not happy with the words about "big-box". I don't think that the term has the same meaning everywhere. I don't see any value in listing shops which sell things that are packed in big boxes - furniture, electrical appliances etc. We should be selective in listing "big shed" shops, and only choose those which are likely to be useful to a traveller (eg department stores, clothes stores), and be even more selective when similar items can be bought from city centre shops. AlasdairW (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Major port listings

I want to list major ports as "See" listings in Kolkata and Mumbai, due to their significance in the economy of respective cities. However, I am wondering whether such listings are prohibited. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

They are allowed, if you think some travellers would be interested. The problem, as I can imagine, is: do travellers have access to places were they can appreciate them? Are there tours (perhaps some ferry has a suitable route)? Are there places with good views? The point is that you need to tell how the traveller can get to appreciate the See listing. –LPfi (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

An important point is that the significance to the economy doesn't matter. You can have a See listing for a port which is visited by 2 ships a week if visitors are free to wander around the docks, but not for one that gets 20 ships per day if it is behind looked gates, and there isn't a viewpoint to look down on the docks. If it is significant to the economy, it could justify a sentence in Understand. AlasdairW (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Travel guides with only POW attractions?

Swept in from the pub

I had thought of creating a travel guide on Ausgram, a rural area in Rarh. However, as I have surfed into Commons categories and images, I fail to find attractions other than places of worship (aka Hindu temples), considering our Wikivoyage guideline on listings eschews such listings. However, certain temples do look good architecturally, but... Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Eureka, I found Pandu Rajar Dhibi, an archaeological site within the Ausgram area. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with Hindu temples, but if the destination is somewhere with temples all around, they need to be quite special to be worth a listing, and very special to warrant a city article. Nice that you found something else also. Commons' coverage of sights is quite random. –LPfi (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Listings#Places of worship looks a bit harsh. Do we have a serious problem that some destinations list too many places of worship? /Yvwv (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

If it seems harsh, we should edit it. It's certainly distressing that anyone, let alone a non-short-term user, could interpret that section as meaning that places of worship shouldn't be listed. "Reasons to list a place of worship could include guided tours, service in multiple languages, historical or architectural importance, that it is the city's only or largest place of worship for a religion, or anything else that makes it distinct." So unless the Hindu temples in question are boring, please list them! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether the original concern (the one that prompted writing the advice in Listings) was that if you list the First Church of Smallville, you might want to also list Second Church of Smallville, and so forth. I believe that in the US there is typically more than one church per 1,000 residents, so a medium-size city of 25,000 residents could easily have 25 to 30 churches, plus perhaps five non-Christian religious organizations. Even in a large article, you would probably want to list no more than the usual 7±2, and the advice suggests that they be chosen based on qualities such as biggest, oldest, best known, nearest the tourist areas, the only mosque or synagogue in town, etc., rather than on the basis of their religious doctrines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree but would caution that more than 9 houses of worship can be fine to list, although we don't want 30. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

To answer the original question asked by Sbb1413, I would say it should be fine to create the article because of the archeological site.

To others in the thread, any proposal to change or modify our POW policy should be discussed at Wikivoyage talk:Listings; until then, articles are by no means "exempt" and m:IAR doesn't apply here. I strongly support the existing wording – as LPfi mentions, "they [the temples] need to be quite special to be worth a listing", but that is a discussion for another day.

To Sbb, that doesn't mean it's not fine mentioning the most interesting Hindu temples to visit – in fact, if a temple is interesting, then by all means list them. Alternatively, to make the article more interesting, you could also create an itinerary article along the lines of Historic churches of Buffalo's East Side or include it in the article's "Do" section (I did something similar a while back but with war memorials on Canberra/North Canberra#Anzac Parade). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your inputs. I have created the rural area in question with Pandu Rajar Dhibi and terracotta temple listings. Besides, I've heard that local authorities might be transforming the area into a tourist site. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, that would be cool. If that's the case, then the question of whether we should have an article for this or not is a no-brainer: definitely yes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Temples of Ausgram or Temples of Rarh could be a travel topic or itinerary with an opportunity to list temples and religious sites that would be to many to fit in Ausgram or Rarh, as an appendix to Sacred sites of South Asia (which would never be able to list them all). /Yvwv (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I made a more inclusive rewording of Wikivoyage:Listings#Places of worship. /Yvwv (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Yvwv, only if we have historical background and other details on the temples. So far, Bishnupur (Rarh) is the only place in Rarh to fulfil the criteria, I can't find much historical background on the temples in Ausgram. What I can do (for now) is to eliminate this rural area and list Pandu Rajar Dhibi in Durgapur. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

ATM listings

I found a problematic listing at Cooch Behar#ATMs and cashpoints, which I think should be removed because the article now covers a small town (and not a massive administrative district that was used to be ambiguously called a "city") ATMs are easy to find in cities. However, I could not find anything about ATM listing here. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

By all means, remove a listing for something that's ubiquitous in a city. You wouldn't find much discussion of ATMs, because they make sense to list or mention only in places where there are one or two of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed – ATMs shouldn't usually be mentioned in places where they're ubiquitous, but they should be covered in places where they're not so easy to find (maybe in prose rather than listings). Villazón is an example. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We do mention them in Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. I added an "if relevant" note, but clarification on when they are relevant should go here, not there. Somebody wondering whether to add (or remove, like Sbb1413) such a listing should be able to find advice. I added a Banks and cashpoints subsection. I don't grasp the logic of the section order; revert or move my addition if you feel like. –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There are exceptions. In the Philippines the local banks have lots of ATMs & there are a few in every mall, not worth listing. However, while they'll give you money with a foreign card, nearly all have a P10,000 (about US$200) limit & a P250 fee per transaction. HSBC are an exception, P40,000 & no fee. They have about a dozen branches scattered around Metro Manila & I'm not sure if those are worth listing. The two outside MM are listed at Cebu City#HSBC Bank (UK) & Davao#Banks_&_ATMs & those listings should be kept. Pashley (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Special ATMs should be listed. In Edinburgh#Cash_machines we list those which dispense Bank of England notes, but there are many different special types including:

• no fee
• take foreign cards
• dispense particular notes
• have English language menus

Any of these can be listed if they are different from most cash machines in the city. AlasdairW (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if they are hard to find. If the feature is common for all ATMs of a certain brand, and they are common, then a note in the country article is enough. —The preceding comment was added by LPfi (talk • contribs)

Proposed policy on streets, etc

Here is a proposed policy on streets. /Yvwv (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Streets, roads, city squares, city blocks or other parts of a city's infrastructure are normally not destinations in their own right, and normally do not have individual entries. Some exceptions might be: A major market square, a cluster of similar shops, bars or other venues along a street or in a city block, in particular when the place name is used metonymically for the cluster, or a city square or similar place which is a main attraction for visitors, such as Place de la Concorde in Paris/8th arrondissement

btw, I do support the addition to the policy, though I think we could be a bit loose on extraregions like Toronto/Yonge Street. I only reverted your edit because it'd be preferable if such an addition was discussed, but glad you started the discussion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Shanghai group of articles have several examples, important streets that once had their own articles but later became redirects to sections of other articles. Two obvious ones are Nanjing Road and Shanghai/The Bund. Pashley (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to word such a guideline well. Mentioning streets and squares may get users add them even when they aren't very special, and telling that you shouldn't add them may have people not add those that would be a good addition. Have we had a problem that prompts the amendment, or is there a problem in the existing wordings (such as "A cluster of competing stores or venues in a street or neighborhood can be listed as one single entry")? Unless there is a problem, having editors use their best judgement might give a better result. –LPfi (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of streets are destinations in their own right. Some even have their own songs: "Give my regards to Broadway, remember me to Herald Square. Tell all the gang on 42nd Street that I will soon be there!" Is it not a simple matter to remove listings for boring streets per WV:Boring? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not keen on the proposed policy. Visitors are likely to walk around the centre of a city, and I see no harm in mentionning streets that make getting around more pleasant because they have some minor sights, older buildings, are tree lined or have shops with window displays (even is the shops are not themselves ones that we would list). AlasdairW (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, rethinking about this and reading Ikan Kekek's comment, streets can be a destination in their own right. Fans of Rihanna may want to visit Rihanna Drive (Westbury New Rd) in Bridgetown, the street she grew up in that was renamed in 2017 in her honour. Plus, what about the Champs-Élysées in the 8th arrondissement? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Other destinations

If a listing is near a city and is listed at § Nearby, should I repeat that listing at § Other destinations of a region to increase visibility? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No. It's either close enough to be listed in "Nearby" or it isn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Apartment buildings as attractions

Swept in from the pub

While editing on Kolkata and other cities in West Bengal, I am wondering whether beautiful apartment buildings (modern or not) should be considered "See" listings, if not rental listings. We have The 42 listing in Central Kolkata, which is the tallest building in the city. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, under 'Notable buildings' h3 or similar, if they're important for their history, architecture etc. i.e. something that a (real or hypothetical) tour guide might say a few words about. Twsabin (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Architecture can be interesting sights, also new architecture, so including some such listings is OK, a priori. Examples include several listings in Rotterdam/Centrum#See (including in "Landmarks" and "Other sites") and Paris/14th arrondissement#See. However, one should find a balance. Are these buildings something more than a few visitors would like to find and look at? Is it enough to list the neighbourhood, or mention it in general terms? If there are many sites worth visiting, one could consider a travel topic article like Functionalist architecture in Finland or an itinerary à la Historic churches of Buffalo's East Side. –LPfi (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I was talking about beautiful apartment buildings, which are generally focused towards long-term residents. There are such apartment complexes I've seen in both Kolkata and Howrah and am eager to add them. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We wouldn't have them as Sleep listings (I don't see any way around that), but See, if they are worth going to take a look at. –LPfi (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Basically, yes. If the destination (and article) has a huge amount of attractions already, just include the most notable of such buildings. A few years ago a whole lot of buildings were added to articles about small towns in Hungary making those articles overwhelming for readers. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

We had another (short) discussion recently: Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Entries for individual historic buildings and sites (and about churches, seems that one didn't get archived there). –LPfi (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, it doesn't matter what the buildings are used for, if the point is that they are striking sights to see. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sbb1413 As a very occasional visitor to wikvoyage, I am sure such a topic will bring me here more often. In a previous wiki-life I had started an article about [[w:Trump Towers]] in Pune (I think?) at enwp, which of course immediately went on the chopping block. I don't remember if that building was an apartment building or not. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Some Hungarian town articles such as Sopron have an excess of entries for individual historic buildings off limits for the public. I drafted Wikivoyage:Listings#Historic buildings, sites and natural formations to suggest which kind of buildings should be listed. As a general principle, a cluster of interesting buildings can be listed as an entry; an individual building would be listed if it is of particular interest for travellers. /Yvwv (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Street address in listings not syncing with wikidata

Swept in from the pub

I love the wikidata sync feature in listings, bit it doesn't sync all stuff it should. For exampe, address from our listings, which is de facto street address, should sync to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P6375 but it doesn't. Can this be, well, addressed somehow? PS. Since P6375 seems to include city name which we don't, maybe https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q24574749 would be better. Piotrus (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It would probably be better, but I suppose it may be missing from many "items" that have P6375. Choosing between two or allowing the user to choose probably requires involved coding. One might also want to add a warning that the user should edit the entry, one more piece of code to add. P6375 also includes post code and "building number", whatever that means (here we have lot numbers). –LPfi (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the US, a single lot (=legally separate parcel of land) can have multiple buildings. This is not unusual for large office complexes. The six buildings on the circle in File:AppleCampusInfiniteLoop.png are probably on a single lot, and they were routinely referred to by building number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In Finland it is the lot that gets the number (and an additional lower-case letter if later split up). An upper-case letter is used in the address for the stairwell (=front door), occasionally instead for the house if front doors are private. This is a common problem on Wikidata: descriptions of an item or property are ignoring global variations. –LPfi (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, but even if there are local differences, the concept of "address" is universal. P6375 is defined as "full street address where subject is located. Include building number, city/locality, post code, but not country". Q24574749 is "house number and street name of a location". Surely we can find something to sync?

Piotrus (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the tool has ever done this for street addresses, but it would be very useful if it did. @RolandUnger, Andyrom75:, any thoughts on this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The local sync tool cannot sync the address. And I think that it is impossible to create such a faultless tool because of the high complexity of Wikidata data. For instance, the tool has to proof if the address given in Wikivoyage is correct, to proof if a value in Wikidata already exists, to guess the language of the address given (there are not only English spelled addresses) and to compare different values in Wikidata and Wikivoyage and to weight different values by importance and/or correctness. I cannot imagine that anybody can program such a tool. That's why there is no tool at the German Wikivoyage for the transfer of data from Wikivoyage to Wikidata but we import all data which are available at Wikidata to Wikivoyage.

There are many cases in Wikidata of careless data transfer into Wikidata, and Wikivoyage should prevent carelessness. In many cases manual editing is and will be necessary. I can imagine to have a Wikidata dialog within Wikivoyage window to edit or copy data. But such a tool should be the task of the Wikidata team. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we get addresses imported here from Wikidata? Most attractions don't seem to have a street address, but, when they exist, it would be handy for me if the address appeared here. A one-way import could save me time, has no risk of putting the wrong thing in Wikidata, and adds almost no work if I decide that I don't like what was imported. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It should be possible in most cases. Q24574749 is an item and is identified as "part of" postal address, so I assume we should use P6375. Choosing between different alternatives (languages etc.) is probably hard, but in the cases with several addresses, we could either pick the first one or treat the addresses as non-importable. The qualifiers should probably still be checked not to accept obsolete addresses. Are there other pitfalls? The user should perhaps be encouraged to edit the address, but as long as established users know to such clean-up it might not be that important. –LPfi (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Export to Wikidata could be handled with a link to the item, so that experienced users could go there and just add the right property, paste the address and edit as appropriate. –LPfi (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@RolandUnger While you are right about careless transfers to Wikidata (I just found out a batch of book reviews using book names, leading to confusion if the article is about a book or a review of said book...), I don't think there's much danger here. The transfer is not automatic, the tool displays a confirmation window, so I don't see a problem. There are many correct street addresses on Wikivoyage that should be moved to Wikidata. And they are often present in Wikipedia infoboxes. I often find myself copying an address from Wikipedia infobox to Wikivoyage manually. This should be something that should be handled automatically (by a bot) or semi-automatically through reviewed syncing, IMHO. Piotrus (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It could be an advanced option (to discourage those who don't know Wikidata), but I think it should allow editing the Wikidata version before saving it, as the city should be added (easily pasted). The property should include postal code, which may not be known by the editor, and language, but I assume a partial address including street and number is better than nothing. –LPfi (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nearby listing type

Swept in from the pub

I would like to differentiate between the listings within a city (See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep) and listings near a city (Nearby) and neither Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates nor Wikivoyage:Listings are quite helpful. I found several listing types in Module:TypeToColor but couldn't settle on the type to use for nearby listings (view, vicinity and around are possible candidates). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just create a sub-subdivision labelled "Further out" and group entries accordingly. Or "east of the river / west" or whatever. It'll be pretty obvious on the map. Grahamsands (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I am asking on which listing type to use for "Nearby" listings used by several city articles, as supplied by {{listing}} (view, vicinity, around). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I usually use "around", but come to think of it, "vicinity" could be used just as well. I'm not aware of a guideline specifying this. Vidimian (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware too and I'm now using "around" for nearby listings, since "vicinity" may also be used for "Other destinations" in a region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)