Wikivoyage talk:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is for discussing processes of the pub only.

Do not edit this page other than to discuss the workings of the pub itself.

See also: Wikivoyage talk:Travellers' pub/Archive

Title case "Travellers' Pub"[edit]

"Travellers' Pub" is a proper noun, like your name and mine are. In English this calls for title case—"Travellers' Pub" not "Travellers' pub". Main Page is a good fringe case example, fringe case because one might argue "main page" is a description, not a name. However, even if it started out as a descriptive name, it has become through usage over time a genuine name and is rightly title case now. "Travellers' Pub" similarly should be title case. So let's move Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub to Wikivoyage:Travellers' Pub (leaving a redirect behind of course so old links continue to work). --Rogerhc (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for reasons stated. -- Alice 01:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the only reason this hasn't been corrected until now is inertia. I certainly support this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Fairly trivial change. JamesA >talk 03:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not a proper noun; it's a descriptive phrase. The Pub has no name. And please stop with the Wikipedia-style polling. LtPowers (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • At the risk of looking ridiculous after my "why be slaves to tradition/let's solve problems before they happen" tirade, I agree with LtPowers here. There's no need for this; this is not now and will never be an urgent problem that needs solving. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

De-bulleting. I'd be pretty happy to rename this the Wikivoyage:Pub. I can never remember if it's the Traveller's pub or the Travellers' pub. Or the Traveler's pub... --Peter Talk 07:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

...or the Travelers' pub or the Travelers pub or the Travellers pub... Just Pub on its own could work, as part of a series of official Wikivoyage places: Pub, Tourist Office, Consulate, etc. JamesA >talk 07:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Good compromise and short is better. -- Alice 07:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree - short is good and capitals are too. If we're going to create a series of Wikivoyage 'places', I think this would fit well. --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. "Pub" is good and will save me a lot of keystrokes. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Good plan. Wikivoyage:Pub seems just fine to me and the idea of adding other Wikivoyage "places" in the same style sounds nice. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I just wanted to do that. --Inas (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I strongly oppose changes for change's sake; pub is a perfectly fine redirect if you can't remember the exact spelling and punctuation. Wikipedia has "Village pump", not "Pump". "Pub" is too short, could refer to publications, and not nearly as evocative. LtPowers (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's change for change's sake—I've always thought the name clumsy. --Peter Talk 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As there is some disagreement dare I suggest at this point that we once again consider a total rename, as considered here, so that we need not consider this issue again for the foreseeable future. Personally, I'm very happy with 'Pub' - I think it's concise, simple but still characterful. If I had to suggest another name I put forward 'Departure Lounge', but I'm sure there are plenty of other, far better suggestions (not least 'Pub'!). --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I would support dropping the "Traveller's" part, but I think it has to be the "Pub". As a traveller I've interacted with loads of people in pubs. A departure lounge is essentially a waiting room where most people don't interact at all, often very boring places.Texugo (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree: Pub is best! My idea was a distant second, even in my mind! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A Pub is not necessarily traveller specific, though. I never go to pubs overseas, though they are plentiful with locals in Australia. I think that was the original reasoning for adding the "Traveller's" possessive. JamesA >talk 07:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The comparison with Village Pump just isn't there. Pump makes no sense standalone. On the other hand, pub is just as meaningful as travellers pub. Besides, the pub isn't just for travellers, it is for everyone. Adding travellers is extra words for no benefit. --Inas (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree there's no benefit; "pub" is so short it's meaning isn't immediately obvious. LtPowers (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
To the extent that this is true, I really don't see how the meaning is enhanced by adding the word Travellers. You either know what a pub is, or you don't. --Inas (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Adding the possessive "Travellers'" marks the subsequent word as a noun; without it, it could be a verb. "Publicize"? "Publish"? LtPowers (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
And this clarifies it how? Travellers publicity?, Travellers publications? If you're confused by pub as a verb, you're likely to be equally confused as a noun. We're counting on the fact that most people know what a pub is. --Inas (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Even among people who know what a "pub" is, that can be hard to determine without context. "Travellers'" provides a bit of context. Is it perfect? No, but it's a lot better than just a bare "Pub" link. LtPowers (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? Among people who know what a pub is, what is it that is hard to determine without context? I think among people who know what is a pub is, they know what a pub is for. If you don't know what it means, or what it is for, Travellers gives no assistance. In some cases it may even detract from the purpose, because the pub is a project collaboration space to assist in making a guide for travellers. The pub isn't necessarily for travellers at all. --Inas (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever heard anyone use the word "pub" as a verb. I see virtually no chance of it being confused for something else. Regardless of whether "pub" might be short for "publication" or whatever in some specific contexts, without any context as it is in the sidebar, pretty much anybody would assume it means "pub" as in bar.Texugo (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that 'Pub' on its own should be understood by nearly everyone as a bar. However, I'm concerned over whether a Pub will be immediately understood by people as a place to go for community discussions and to talk about the project. In a Pub, you don't usually talk about important things. JamesA >talk 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don´t think it has generated confusion over the last 8 years or so. At any rate, I think it is much more intuitive than say "village pump", which to me evokes images of women with jars on their heads and water-cooler-style gossip.Texugo (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course it hasn't been a problem, because it's been named with enough context to be clear that it's a virtual gathering space. Just "Pub" on the sidebar could mean just about anything. A user might mistake it for a site publishing function or other internal geegaw. By calling it the "Travellers' pub", it clarifies that the context is a gathering space. LtPowers (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like this concern could be resolved by making the sidebar link "The Pub" instead of "Pub." --Peter Talk 19:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like the way to go! Definite support. --Nick (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Or by leaving it as-is. How often does one really need to type "Travellers' pub" anyway? LtPowers (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Does every single policy discussion really have to turn out this way? This is almost as bad as Congress. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You mean with some people disagreeing with other people? How could it be anything else? We rarely get universal acclaim for anything, short of ditching IB for WMF. LtPowers (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, people (on both sides, and also in other discussions besides this one) disagreeing so vehemently, digging in their heels, and drawing out the debate endlessly on issues that, at the end of the day, are of meager importance. Obviously this page needs to have a name, and as I said before, I agree with you that the name is fine as it is. But frankly, I'm unconvinced, to say the least, that our project would be doomed or would even be affected in any significant way if we were to rename this page to "Pub" or "The Pub". Speaking for myself, I'd much rather we make a decision, even one that I personally don't like, and move on to issues of greater importance. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The only argument I can distil in favour from this for keeping it as-is, is that it has always been that way. I think the arguments about parts-of-speech have been successfully refuted, and the suggestion of The pub made to ensure it can only be a noun. The argument that it can be an abbreviation doesn't appear consistent with common usage in the view of many editors from across the globe, I also think that has been successfully met. On the other hand the arguments presented for change I find immediately convincing and largely unrefuted. I think there should be a strong status-quo bias when an original reasoned discussion reached a conclusion, because we don't want to just flip-flop fairly arbitrary policy settings every time a different group join a discussion. However, I think we need to find a better way to revisit decisions that didn't necessarily have a strong consensus backing the first place. --Inas (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the consensus is for "The Pub" (with an upper case, or Title case, "P") -- Alice 07:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't follow this discussion until now, but reading through it there seems to be a fairly strong consensus for a change. As Wikivoyage:Consensus notes, consensus is not unanimity, and it seems like there have been efforts made to address the objections raised. While it would be great if there was a unanimous agreement for change, at this point the differences seem to be a matter of personal preference, so resolving this discussion as an agreement for a rename seems acceptable (IMHO). -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that my concerns have been successfully addressed, but again it seems I'm not communicating them well enough. Look at Inas: he thinks my only argument is "it's always been this way". LtPowers (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Inas addressed the parts of speech concern and the argument that "Pub" was ambiguous, and commented that "it's always been this way" isn't of itself a reason for not changing. Also, bear in mind that the burden isn't solely on those proposing the change to convince all dissenters - per Wikivoyage:Consensus: "Say how you think things should be, not just how they shouldn't. Adding ideas, rather than just criticisms, leaves more room for compromise and can lead to an overall better solution." It's clear that you don't want to see this changed, but there are clearly those who do, and any sort of successful consensus building requires trying to find a mutually-agreeable solution. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And if anyone had identified a good reason to change it, I might be on board with trying to find an alternative. But so far, all we have is "I can't remember how to spell it." In the face of all of the drawbacks I've mentioned, that just doesn't seem like sufficient reason to be looking into a change. Would "Neighbourhood Pub" be more acceptable? Or is the British spelling the problem? Travelers Pub? Itinerants' Pub? Vagrants' Pub? It seems like spelling can't be the only issue here, so it's hard to know what alternatives to suggest without knowing what problems we're trying to solve. LtPowers (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(re-indent) I got in trouble with Peter during an earlier discussion for bringing up a similar issue in an indelicate way, so I feel the need to be very careful in how I word this comment. But frankly, it needs to be said. This is a problem that's been playing itself out over and over again since the migration. And it's been getting worse, not better, over time. The problem I am talking about is that people - more than one person; probably a majority of us who have been active in policy discussions lately, myself included - have, in discussions like this, been so gung-ho about advocating for their individual vision of how Wikivoyage should be that they've been completely deaf to others' concerns. We've been so busy talking about why we should absolutely change something, or absolutely not change something, that we've been unable to listen to alternative points of view which may be quite valid: q.v. comments made by Inas and LtPowers upthread.
An integral part of working on a wiki, or any collaborative project, is "stepping outside one's box" on a frequent basis. LtPowers says that we've rarely had unanimity on policy proposals. That may very well be the case, but we were never this intractable during the IB days, or during the post-IB/pre-WMF transition period. Maybe it's because we were a smaller and more homogeneous community during that time, but that's really not an excuse.
I'm trying very hard to emphasize that I'm not engaging in an ad hominem attack on LtPowers here, because a) I happen to agree with him on the issue of renaming the Travellers' Pub, b) I also happen to agree with his objection that others have unfairly oversimplified his concerns to a simple matter of "we've always done it this way", and most importantly of all, c) my comment seeks to address not only this discussion, but a large number of different discussions where pretty much everyone, self included, has played the role of the uncompromising diehard at one time or another.
In conclusion, let's remember what Wikivoyage:Consensus says on the matter: "As consensus does not require unanimity, it is considered classy to... respect the consensus being built and stand aside if you find yourself alone in your position, even when you feel sure that your position is correct."
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a sneaking suspicion that en.Wikipedia ended up with the "Village Pump" tag as they were looking for something to replace "village dump" and this was one letter different. Nonetheless, it has been "pump" since 2003. K7L (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The good reasons to change it are (1) People have trouble remembering how to spell it. (2) It takes more keystrokes. (3) Most of us think the longer name is unnecessary. And using a word like "neighborhood" that has two different spellings would solve none of those problems. My point of view is that, if a minority insists on keeping a longer name, and thereby preventing a clear majority for change from being a consensus, at least we need redirects from Pub and pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Voyagers Pub? K7L (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower, there is an obligation on those engaging in a consensus discussion to be clear about their arguments and to present the positive arguments for their position. Engaging in a policy discussion with an objective of getting a consensus incurs an obligation on the participants in the discussion. At a minimum, if an argument you give in favour of a course of action is met or refuted by another, you must either state why you believe the argument does not meet or counter your argument, or concede the point. It is insufficient to simply restate your argument, without reframing it in those terms. I'm sure LtPowers won't mind me using this discussion as a case in point. I've stated that I feel that all the arguments raised have been addressed (except the no-change for no-change sake argument). We've addressed context, parts of speech, abbreviations. We've addressed the positive reasons for change. As the only person pushing the status-quo postion, I think it is incumbent on LtPowers to say in response to this, The responses haven't met my concern A, because, etc. If this doesn't occur, then I sit here struggling to move forward, rereading the arguments but coming back to the same position. This is the frustrating part, to me. --Inas (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to comment on the procedural stuff, I'm in complete agreement with Ryan's summation of this discussion. LtPowers made a case against changing the name, and I don't think his concerns were dismissed or ignored--just not shared, and have been responded to. At the same time, several positive arguments were made in support of a change, and there is a pretty broad consensus for the change, despite a lack of unanimity. The only part of this process that didn't seem to work as well to me is that we've talked about this rather minor change too long ;)
In response to Andre, just from my subjective experiences I think we actually have been better about thinking outside the box, pushing for and implementing new consensuses, and generally being more flexible and creative post-launch rather than prior. This is particularly visible with all the plots and plans being developed at the Roadmap and also with new design and organizational ideas coming from our various new and really talented Wikimedian contributors. --Peter Talk 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Then I think you need to take off your rose-tinted spectacles and examine the subjective experiences of others. On a bad day, you can't even gracefully agree that Sq was a relatively common and easily understood abbreviation in the English speaking world for "Square" in Listings! -- Alice 02:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So, it really boils down to "It's too long and too hard to spell"? That's it? I'm baffled, but I'm also grossly outnumbered. I still think "Pub" is potentially more confusing than "Travellers' Pub", and "The Pub" seems more like a fumbling corporate attempt at rebranding a television network (cf. The Hub, The CW, The WB) than a hangout for travelers, but I guess I wouldn't really know. LtPowers (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Think of the positives powers. Wikivoyage has definitely come of age if editors have the time and energy to argue over whether a wikispace article should be capitalized or not :) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

But, more seriously, doesn't losing the "Travellers'" also lose some of the "travel site" identity of Wikivoyage? There are many pubs but only a few that are haunted by travelers. After all, travelers to Singapore in Maugham's era hung around in Raffles, not just any downtown bar. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That is true - perhaps we could call it Raffles? :D
But seriously, I think from the name 'Pub' it is plain that this is a place for discussion among the community. I am unsure that losing 'Travellers' would cause any ill-effect at all. In fact, I think it would make the page look cleaner, help to prevent spelling inconsistencies and make it simpler to refer to, as well as making a clean break with other wiki-based online travel guides.
I know it may seem like change for change's sake, and perhaps that is what it is, but that's not always necessarily a bad thing. At the very least I don't think this will do any harm and I personally believe that it could benefit the community as a whole.
That being said, I don't think it's an issue that should divide the community and go rumbling on, so if it's a choice between cohesion or a new name, I'll stick with the status quo, but I should hope that won't be necessary. --Nick (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I really feel like this discussion is not important enough to take this long. Can we please all agree to the following compromise? Keep the current name, but create redirects to it from "Pub," "pub," "travellers pub," "Travellers Pub," "Traveller's Pub," "traveller's pub," "Travellers pub," "Traveller's pub," "Travelers' Pub," "Travelers' pub," travelers' pub," Traveler's Pub," Traveler's pub," and "traveler's pub" (I think I got 'em all). That way, the shorter names work and the minority of folks here who think the longer name is important or better in some way are happier. And then we can move on to more important things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
'Pub' and 'pub' are actually already redirects I think, so we're not really changing very much at all here, if anything! But I do agree, this discussion has gone on too long. If we do keep the current name, to return to the original topic of this thread, should we capitalise it? --Nick (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to me.
Regarding the excessive length of this debate, which Nick and Ikan mentioned above: it cuts to the heart of my earlier comment. I hope that no one read that comment as me saying that we shouldn't have debates on policy issues at all—where warranted, we absolutely should have vigorous debates. Where warranted, we absolutely should avoid groupthink. Where warranted, we absolutely should not hesitate to make waves in order to solve truly important issues. My contention all along has been that such debate is not warranted on this issue, nor on many of the issues that have come up lately. I don't like change for its own sake either, or inertia for its own sake—but worse than both of those, I think, is bickering for its own sake.
What I want from Wikivoyage—far more than a place where the Village Pump equivalent is called the Traveller's Pub rather than just the Pub, far more than a place where getting someone's permission before nominating them for administrative duties is a hard-and-fast rule rather than just a custom, far more than (insert reference to recent molehill-made-mountain here)—is a place where I can write about Buffalo without having to worry about too much. I think most people here feel the same way about their respective writing projects. And I see my eagerness to engage in administrative duties as an extension of that desire not to worry: I want to wield the mop vigorously so we don't have to worry about vandalism; I want to help make a business owner or a CVB employee who writes fluff into a valuable contributor so we don't have to worry about touting; I want to help craft policy so we don't have to worry about things not running smoothly. But more and more lately, that's been a double-edged sword. Far from helping things run more smoothly, these long and contentious disputes over minutiae have become a major distraction. And for me at least, they make Wikivoyage a less fun place to be. I'm glad to hear that most people agree with me on that, because it shows that maybe we can overcome this stubbornness for the good of the project.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record: yes, I am fully aware of the irony of me going on and on at length about how we shouldn't go on and on at length. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
On capitalization: It really doesn't matter as long as there's a redirect from the alternate version. Travellers' Pub or Traveller's pub, doesn't really matter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It is an irony, because if you don't care, the discussion is optional. Just take a seat, work on your favourite article. Play in the area you enjoy playing in. If the name changes, I'm sure there will be a redirect for you find it.
Personally, I'm keen to harness a bit of momentum we have now, to make some of these changes that should have been made years ago. To change some section headings from the current ambiguous ones. To merge some policy pages. To adopt some external guides, so we can delete huge chunks of stuff on abbreviations and other minutea, to get the travel topics in order (because they are an unholy mess). To get our scope defined. While we have a new site, and some support, and people helping us out it is a great time to get this stuff done. I don't want change for the sake of change. But I don't want things to stay the same just for the sake of no change. Each position has to supported. --Inas (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth following the advice of the Nike slogan at this point? Nothing is written in stone, so if we all hated it, it could easily be changed back. It's a small piece of nomenclature that seems to be dominating our discussions rather disproportionately - let's try and get this sorted ASAP. :) --Nick (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright, Inas, if I'm pushed, I think having both words capitalized is more elegant. I'm just sick of this discussion. Let's just make sure that all of the possible permutations have redirects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Songbird Icon Spinner.gif
This discussion is going round in circles: Please put it out of its misery!

Tongue firmly in cheek! :) --Nick (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Handshake icon.svg
A rough consensus has emerged: Nobody seems to object strongly to changing to title case: "Travellers' Pub" (most of the possible alternative permutations have re-directs already in place).

Anyone really interested in a further re-naming (many are bored already) should start a separate section below. -- Alice 01:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)}}

Hallelujah! Congrats on using the template properly Alice! Sorry that my usage wasn't more constructive; I'm just glad that we now seem to have finally found a conclusion to (at least part of!) this issue. :) --Nick (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-awakening the Kraken[edit]

Far be it from me to poke this sleeping lion, but are we still planning on changing the pub's name to title case? I know lots of people were glad to see the end of this topic, but could we now do something with the resulting consensus? --Nick (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Quickly, before anyone else comments. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see any consensus here. Let's just leave it be, and move on. As far as the case goes, I kinda agree that it is a pub for travellers, and its name isn't "The Traveller's Pub". --Inas (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw the result as no consensus, which consequently means the status quo. ie, the whole discussion resulted in nothing except a deeper understanding of ourselves as a community :-) JamesA >talk 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Please name the individuals in the main section above that, at the close of discussions last month, maintained a strong objection to changing to title case: "Travellers' Pub". -- Alice 06:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh jeez, here we go again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I never had a dog in this fight, but I'd point to the fact there's now no consensus over whether or not there was consensus as a pretty good indication that there was no consensus. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? I ask again that you please name the individuals in the main section above that, at the close of discussions last month, maintained a strong objection to changing to title case: "Travellers' Pub". If you can't then that silence speaks for itself. -- Alice 08:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking through all this, I feel like most of the people who took part in this discussion just had had enough and gave up by the end, so I don't know if I'd take a lack of "strong" objections (because normal ones don't count?) at the very end as a sign of community consensus. More like exhaustion.
But hey, I got no skin this game. If you guys want to start this up again, I'll go get some popcorn. Cause let me tell you, it's been entertaining to watch. PerryPlanet (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The only one who wants to start this up again is Alice, who really needs to learn to let sleeping dogs lie, and that Wikivoyage is not a battleground. LtPowers (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, let's kill this now - sorry for raising it again! I was under the misapprehension that a consensus (of sorts) had been reached, but plainly I was wrong. Let's leave this here before it kicks off again. Bye bye Kraken! --Nick (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Abort!!! Abandon ship! :) --Nick (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Pub sweeping instructions[edit]

Swept in from the pub

The instructions say "Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived ...." Does that mean that discussions that are not in the preceding categories, and are of special importance for posterity should stay in the pub for ever? Nurg (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
If they are of special importance, they shouldn't be swept to the archives. Which discussions were you thinking of that aren't covered in those categories? --Peter Talk 01:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Does this one fall into any of those categories or is it of special importance for posterity - #Bugzilla coordination? Nurg (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"New posts" tool?[edit]

It seems that, given the small size of the community and the stage of project development we are in, most important discussions end up at the Pub. In fact, it is hard to get much "audience participation" in anything without posting it at the Pub. That means quite a lot gets posted at the Pub, and most of it are quite important issues. At this stage, we are discussing much of the basic stuff that will hopefully serve us for years to come.

This also means that quite a bit gets lost. It is not unusual for even one user to come across more than one important issue during the day and post about those, and get very little in the way of response as the Pub gets flooded with new topics everyday. That way, we lose sight of unresolved issues and those requiring comments, while the most pressing ones keep coming back and back again, swamping the pub, and still being unresolved, as the discussion is divided between many threads (sections).

This is why I thought it might be good to have the Pub equipped with something of a "forum" tool that would inform one not only whether there was a recent change, as the Watchlist does, but also whether there are any new responses to any active (i.e. not swept) topics that the user has not seen yet, as he/she might want to read that and respond.

Did anybody hear of such a feature on any MediaWiki site? Or perhaps we could do it some other way to ensure nothing is lost and everybody has a chance to comment, plus we indeed close discussions conclusively. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It is actually very simple to set the Pub up into a forum format whereby all the active "topics" would be listed in order of recent activity. When the discussion is over or becomes old, it can simply be archived or moved. As far as I'm aware, it requires minimal code. I did suggest the idea a while back, but it received no feedback. I am happy to create a test implementation if a few people are willing to see how it works. James Atalk 07:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It would help if an automatic archiver were intalled. This page is enormous. Tony (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
w:en:WP:FLOW will probably make its way over here eventually, though it is quite controversial. --Rschen7754 08:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
So until that happens—if it does—why not install an auto-archiver? Tony (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to make clear - it is NOT about too many non-archived threads. Those non-archived threads populating the Pub are mostly not older than 1 month and still current in that the issue was not really resolved, they just got abandoned because something new cropped up. What I was asking for is not auto-archiving, but rather notifying that there are new posts in this, this and that thread that one might want to get acquainted with. Everytime I see that the Pub is on my watchlist (and it generally always is), I have to remind myself to check not only the latest edit, but also the ones before, and then not always do I have the time to read and reply (if I feel like I should) to all at the same time. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: how long does it have to get before there's archiving? Tony (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
A month, just as it says atop the Pub, in the sweeping instructions section. Autoarchiving is not being used as not all threads go to the general archive, some are moved to specific talk pages they concern (e.g. if the discussion is about banners, it will likely be swept to Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition. Feel free to join the effort and sweep any thread with no activity for over a month. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Revisions archive[edit]

The pub as an XML file is gargantuan, because of the huge number of revisions stored. This makes the history page more or less unusable on a mobile phone, and it's actually slowing things down on my main pc now. Could we move the page (excluding this talk page) to an archive, then copy the current content back to a fresh pub, with a link to the old? --Peter Talk 19:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The history page is slowing down? I haven't had any problems with it, and I can't imagine why the number of revisions would have any effect. LtPowers (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried using the history page to compare revisions on a mobile device? --Peter Talk 02:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
No, but in my defense, that's a different case than you originally cited. =) Viewing diffs I can definitely see being slowed down, though for single-revision and/or recent diffs, I would think the performance impact would be minimal. LtPowers (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not minimal. The only way I can keep track of pub conversations when I only have access to mobile is to have something else going on (usually cooking) while waiting for each step (e.g., selecting a revision, pressing the compare button, etc.) to take 5+ minutes. I wasn't hugely concerned about that, since there probably aren't too many folks using that functionality on mobile—until I noticed it happen while working on my laptop! --Peter Talk 01:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Making "Please sweep the pub" less prominent[edit]

Swept in from the pub

The pub should be a welcoming and easy-to-understand place. But the most prominent thing right now is the "Please sweep the pub", which gives instructions that are 1) Difficult to understand 2) Not that important actually 3) Unproductive if executed by newcomers. Put yourself in a newcomer's position: You come here to ask a question, but are asked to do something you don't understand or which sounds very difficult... I am sure some users give up because of this.

The current prominent injunction makes the Pub less friendly and less simple.

I suggest moving the "Please sweep the pub" section to a sub-page, and leaving only a link to it, for instance: "Experienced editors: Please sweep the pub".

Can I do this? What do you think? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How about a collapsible box with your suggested title.
Plunge forward, It can always be reverted if there are objections. 105.226.204.30 06:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
At the same time, if they are difficult to understand, let's make them easier to understand. Nurg (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I've gone berserk and implemented a new design, complete with hidden section, based on the Tourist Office. If you hate it, please do feel free to revert it and shoot me. I just thought it was worth plunging forward on this occasion... --Nick talk 10:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we sure use up an awful lot of manpower manually sweeping the pub and trying to archive things to the right places, when an archive bot could be creating centralized archives automatically. The time could be better spent taking care of issues that are still leftover from the migration. --Rschen7754 08:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

For one I find it extremely convenient to have all past Dynamic Maps conversations end up in the expedition's talk page :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Can we kind of do both? I like the pub as a central point of discussion, but also find it convenient to follow past threads that have been swept. Auto-archive posts that are a month old (or cut it to two weeks?), and sweep the ones that are most important back to relevant talk pages. In particular, I think the Wikivoyage talk:Roadmap needs a good read through and summary, as there are open threads relating to reviews and print vs online formats. -- torty3 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the new design above except for the image. Can we get a real beer or pub image that fits in that space?
I'm also not sure about auto-archiving. It would save a bit of time sweeping the pub, but as others have mentioned, sweeping things to the relevant talk page is extremely useful. Otherwise, before someone starts a discussion on any talk page, they have to comb the pub archives to make sure it hasn't already been discussed somewhere.Texugo (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Real beer is in place! --Nick talk 13:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth losing the title on this page, as we have done in the Tourist Office? --Nick talk 15:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The code used to hide the title also hides it on history pages and diffs, which makes it hard to know what I'm looking at. LtPowers (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
We need to lose the beer image. The pub is about discussions, and although I don't mind the mild association with alcohol that a pub has, a big beer image is just inappropriate. --Inas (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, Wiktionary has the wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour, but the image does look a bit tacky. --Rschen7754 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
With that in mind, I have (at least temporarily) changed the icon to a speech bubble. Personally I'd prefer to see an icon or graphic in use as opposed to the artwork in use on the Beer Parlour and in other places. What does everyone think would be best? --Nick talk 00:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A picture of the outside of an inviting pub? Texugo (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Pub sign, Coalisland - geograph.org.uk - 1413230.jpg
There's always this! :D I personally would prefer a simple graphic icon, but I can see the merit of a photo of piece of art. I'll see what I can dig up! --Nick talk 00:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the new icon (speech balloon). It explains the goal of the page, which is not really obvious by name alone. I agree with Inas that we should not center the metaphor towards the alcohol side. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I quite like it as it is too actually - I'd be quite happy for the current speech bubble icon to stay. --Nick talk 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Returning to the archiving issues, as I've mentioned, a lot of discussions take place on talk pages that I or the average newcomer have never heard of. Of course, they don't get much traffic, so it's hard to get a consensus of any sort out of them. So then discussions get moved to this page, but they get lost as it's hard to keep track of several threads on such a long page. And then they get archived to the pages that people have never heard of, and cannot be found again. Perhaps this isn't the best solution. --Rschen7754 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well argued - However, we do also conduct many discussions on other talk pages, and there is always overlap between those discussions and those which take place here. Surely we don't want half the reasoning for pages being the way they are on the talk page of the policy, and the other half buried in the cellar? Perhaps we can tag discussions here with a policy page they correspond to, and the archiver can sweep them when their time is up? It could increase visibility of the policy page as well. --Inas (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If nothing else, it would save whoever archives time. --Rschen7754 04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. If discussions start getting tagged, I'm sure a bot could be used to auto-archive inactive ones to their respective talk pages and those not tagged would go into pub archives. It's a bit more complicated but would suit needs. -- torty3 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the only difficulty would be getting a bot coded. It probably wouldn't be too difficult though. --Rschen7754 08:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Another thought to make things easier

I like this idea a lot. Why don't we kill two birds with one stone and make the tag into a template that also serves as a hatnote directing readers to the talk page? Give me a minute and I'll make a mock up in my user space. Nick1372 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I made the mock-up; it would look like this: {{pub tag|Wikivoyage talk:About}}

For previous discussions on this subject, see Wikivoyage talk:About.

The problem is that I don't know the limitations of bots. Would a bot be able to sense the template and the link it provides or would some code have to be placed in the template? Nick1372 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. That message kind of seems like it might encourage two simultaneous discussions, one in the pub and one at the relevant talk page, something we don't want... I think it would be sufficient to say that the discussion will be archived at xyz talk page when the time comes.
I'm not a bot maker, but I don't think a bot would need anything much beyond the tag. Texugo (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
You're definitely right about the message. I altered the wording a bit to be clearer. However, I still think we should have some sort of message. It's happened before that a topic is brought up on the Pub which has been brought up numerous times before on talk pages; sometimes the conversation here can just become confusing if you haven't seen the original one(s). A link back to the talk page can be pretty helpful for a newcomer to the topic. Nick1372 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I thought about it a bit more. Since it's unlikely anybody is going to write up a new bot from scratch soon, could we install the standard archiving bot, say every month (or two weeks). Before that timed bot run, if we want any discussion moved to certain policy/expedition pages, then go ahead and move them, but leave behind a tag that says "Moved to so-and-so". Does that better fit the concept of a centralised archives, which also allows better tracking of discussion? This is pretty much what I've done with this topic. -- torty3 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the Pub[edit]

As was suggested here, it may be a good idea to split the pub into separate pages based upon various categories of topics. Wikipedia currently does this with their w:Wikipedia:Village pump if you're interested in seeing a working implementation. Before we start working on formatting and technicalities, let's decide what the split should be, and whether everyone agrees it is appropriate.

The major benefit is making the page much less unwieldy, decreasing load time and making it simpler to find topics. Furthermore, it would be easier to say see all the current proposals together, so good ideas worth developing don't get lost in the mess as more topics begin below, which so commonly occurs. There are numerous other benefits I think we can come up with too, but I'd be happy to hear about people's reservations.

In terms of the split, how about the following? Please suggest changes, as I only thought it up on the spot.

  • see revised split below

Thoughts? James Atalk 11:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Go for it James. --Saqib (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • do you really need that many pages, Wikipedia has a lot of people that spend their whole time in those boards IMHO from my short time here there isnt the people to operate 5 boards effectively.... Suggest that maybe just open a beer garden for proposals and technical discussions, leave the other topics at the main bar ... Gnangarra (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. We have a fraction of the editors and pages that Wikipedia does; five central discussion pages is overly complex, and it makes it hard for users to know where to put something. WP has several simply by necessity, but we do not have that necessity. I would support having a new lounge for site proposals but everything else fits fine in the Pub. LtPowers (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • 5 may be a bit much. --Rschen7754 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I agree with the above: a split may be necessary, but 5 is perhaps too much for what is still a fairly small wiki. --Nick talk 20:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
So you guys think keep the Pub as-is, and then a new discussion page for Proposals? I'd be happy with that. James Atalk 23:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
We can try it, and if we need to readjust, we can do so at a later date. --Rschen7754 23:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind that any creation of a new central discussion page, even if it's just one new one, forces everyone using them to spend time and effort deciding on which page a new discussion should be located. For some discussions, it will be obvious, but it won't be for all of them. And some people will just default to the Pub. We should make sure we're okay with that. LtPowers (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
If we follow WP's Proposals page, it needs to be clear that it is only proposals that are not policy related. Nurg (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
We already sweep lots of stuff out of the Pub to other places, so I doubt that splitting the Pub will create that much extra work in that regard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it should be restricted to only proposals that aren't policy-related... --Rschen7754 02:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
WP also has a 'Policy' Village Pump, so it makes sense for them to discuss policy proposals there. Seeing as we only plan to have 'Proposals' and 'everything else', I think policy proposals may make better sense on the Proposals page. James Atalk 11:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Or at least an advertisement for the change to that proposal. --Rschen7754 11:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to speak in favor of including policy proposals within the stated purview of the new proposed section of the Pub. Policy discussions are too important to be limited to only admins and a few of the most interested users, which sometimes happens when the discussions are on pages like Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion and such. Giving greater visibility to policy proposals may encourage more creativity and original thinking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to split this to more discussion pages... we already have the pub, requests for comment and the pages on meta:. Wikipedia splits its "village dump" (or "village pump") as en.WP is huge and the policy bickering endless, but if we don't need the extra venues we shouldn't create them as they will be ignored and questions posed there will fall between the cracks unnoticed. K7L (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, as has been suggested, we don't need 5 pages. I'm proposing that we just start a separate page for new proposals. --Rschen7754 06:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe we are far too small to even consider that. But we should be more decisive in enforcing discussing one thing in one place only, not deviating from the main topic or forking out into side streams within our discussions and being to the point and concise. This will help keep discussions easy to monitor and productive. I am guilty of all of the aforementioned and I guess we all could do better. Splitting pages will not help anything with that regard, apart from generating obvious problems with discussion topics sitting "on the fence" of categories proposed. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the proposal of 5, or the proposal of 2? --Rschen7754 21:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Any proposal that adds more pages that we have. We don't need more pages. We need to put all the stuff in the pages where they belong, not dump everything in the Pub, and accept the fact that until our number of active editors is multifold of the current c.a. 500, we are not going to get more dynamic, conclusive and inclusive discussions on anything. It's not a problem of the number of pages, but number of editors. But while we're a small group, we can instill a discipline into our discussions to make them productive, constructive and easy to follow. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that if it's not in the Pub, nobody notices. --Rschen7754 08:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Because there simply aren't enough editors, and most of us are busy with the articles, which need even more attention and help than the Pub. Moreover, I, for one, stopped paying much attention to the Pub as there are too many discussions there, many of them trivial, and it all began very hard to follow. It is easier for me to follow a discussion on a specific page that has one thread and is generally focused. All in all, I believe we are now spending too much time on theorizing about policies. Let's edit more articles and see if our editorship grows. PrinceGloria (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that then proposals get split into at least a few dozen talk pages, and never get noticed. As a newcomer, I certainly don't have all these pages on my watchlist, and I doubt others do either. --Rschen7754 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
As you said so yourself, the Pub receives so many threads that it becomes very difficult to follow. Popular, important threads slowly move up the page, and it's very difficult to keep track of particular threads when you can't add individual discussions/sections to your watchlist. This has resulted in numerous discussions simply dying off because people forget about them.
Proposals have a habit of this, because they require initial discussion and brainstorming, the consolidation of ideas into a proper proposal that everyone agrees upon and then the finalisation of the consensus. Sometimes they also require discussion of implementation. The fact is, we barely ever get past the first step, even if most users agree it's worth pursuing. Case in point is the initial pub discussion of this idea, which died off and was not pursued. When I kicked it off again this month elsewhere, it again died off after a few days as I assume many didn't know the discussion existed. James Atalk 10:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
No matter what, I think Wikivoyage:Requests for comments should be made more prominent (through a link or something else) and also maintained. And even with more users, it doesn't equate to more decisions made either. Wikidata's first birthday editorial stated that decisions had to made on IRC, since RFCs did not generate turnout. I think we're doing well on that front, although more voices would definitely be welcome. Splitting the pub is a proactive measure, especially since it seems that we've just been reacting to lots of things that could have been avoided. I do wish we could get a proper article collaboration of the month going, instead of staying in the policy backroom all the time. -- torty3 (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I added Wikivoyage:Requests for comments to the section in the pub lede. --Inas (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we have the pub, request for comment, and suggestion box. We then act to sweep comment requests and suggestions/proposals quickly from the pub, and leave the floor clean for other issues. It also means that suggestions about the site don't get lost in the cellar, and can be discussed until closed. I also think we should rename Vandalism in Progress, to a generic, alert an admin page. --Inas (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of an admin noticeboard here for things like edit disputes, vandalism, etc. More prominence for the "requests for comment" page would also be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose an admin board is inevitable. "Requests for comments" sorely needs to be kept up-to-date. Wikivoyage:Roadmap also could be linked somewhere. -- torty3 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
But yeah, Inas' suggestion is sound to me. Making them all clearly linked from the pub would probably do much to clear up threads. -- torty3 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

suggestion[edit]

In my opinion, the following image I have previously photoshoped for the Travellers' pub section in the Hebrew Wikivoyage ....

Wikivoyage - Travelers inn.jpg

...would look much better instead of the following image currently in use:

QA icon clr.svg

Do you think so as well?

(P.S - The Polish Wikivoyage already has also decided to use this image in this Travellers' pub. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's cute, and I do like it better. Is there any issue in terms of the Image policy on people in photos? I would say no, because no-one was actually posing for the photo that was Photoshopped into the image of the painting, but I thought I'd bring it up for the sake of dealing with the question right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the current image is dreadful and I like this one a lot, so unless Ikan's issue above is a real problem or someone has another candidate, I'd say put it in. Pashley (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I see no issue with the image policy, and I too like this one better. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The only legal issue I know of would be personality rights (and I've added {{personality rights}} to the image and its source). According to Wikipedia, in the United States this is a state-based law (and Wikivoyage is hosted from a primary server is Ashburn, Virginia, with a back up in Tampa, Florida). I don't think it's a problem here; there doesn't seem to be any intrusion into a private act, for example. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that the man facing the camera is identifable, and he should not be photshopped into a pub without his explicit consent. It is ok to edit a picture to remove somebody, but great care is needed if they are edited in and should only be done with the agreement of everybody shown - e.g. adding a missing member to a team picture. Therefore although I like the picture, I am not happy with it being used and it maybe should be deleted from commons.
Also it is not obvious at a quick glance that the background image is a painting, and as the pub picture is highly visible to editors, I think that it should be an example according to Image policy, which says "Don't upload photos of yourself posing in front of stuff.". AlasdairW (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


another option we could choose is to use the original painting instead...

Reinhard Sebastian Zimmermann Ein gutes Blatt.jpg

would everyone prefer that...? (The reason we in the Hebrew Wikivoyage decided not use the original painting was due to a specific request made by a female user whom noted that she feels the original painting by Reinhard Sebastian Zimmermann, made in 1893, is slightly chauvinistic. Since I really wanted to use that painting yet I didn't want to hurt anyones feelings, I created the new photoshoped version in which the woman whom is looking out from the kitchen area is hidden while I added two female travelers to the pub area from a picture I found in commons.) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the first Wikivoyage to use this painting in their Travellers's pub page is actually the Spanish Wikivoyage. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the painting, in fact. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I prefer he: and pl:'s version, the photoshopped one. On top of the complaints about its lack of female subjects, there's also nothing in the original painting to indicate that it's a traveller's pub, which to me is key. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


Sorry to be negative earlier. If we want a picture with people in a pub, We could choose one from the photos taken at Wikimedia meetups, such as this one taken in Coventry. In this case people should be happy to have their picture taken in a pub and displayed here - when I was at such an event the photographer said that the photo would be uploaded to commons. If a different mix of people is desired, there are loads more to choose from.
If we want traveller's to be highlighted, then how about a pub that travels, like one on a cruise ship. Drink is not visible in this picture which may also be good in view of previous discussions. There are others in Category:Bars on ships. AlasdairW (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Good idea AlasdairW! I quite like this one (right)which I think looks quite cool. Yes, it does have a drink in it, but it's not immediately apparent what that drink is; whilst the cool factor surely overrides any other concerns. :D --Nick talk 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which one you're referring to, Nick, I see 3 images on the right. I don't mean to be very negative either but I can't help finding all three pretty awful, sorry :-( None of them remind me of inspiring travellers' gatherings at all, with diverse crowds or exotic surroundings and long nights full of stories... that's at least vaguely the kind of association I'd like to have, if we need a picture of a pub. It's clearly hard, since the Pedia's don't have a lot of great images either... There are some examples here, here and here . JuliasTravels (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't like any of the 3 images either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
May I then suggest that we perhaps stick with something not too dissimilar to what we already have? The speech bubblesmake it abundantly clear what this page is for, even if the current iteration isn't the most aesthetically pleasing. --Nick talk 00:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the following alternative...?

Travellers' pub.jpg

...I blurred the edges so that the identity of the real people cannot be identified. Users whom have Photoshop might be able to get a better result with a similar effect (we could ask for help from Wikipedia's Graphics Lab). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing discussion here[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I participated in a discussion here. In preparation of the Wikimania I need a link to phabricator somebody else posted here. I can not find the discussion called "Listing Editor in other languages" here in the pub, nor the archives. Where is it gone? -- DerFussi 11:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussions in the pub are usually not archive to the pub archive but "swept" to the respective discussion page where they might fit. I don't know which one that is in this case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It was swept to Wikivoyage talk:Listing editor. Old discussions are always available through the history of the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a note as the original developer, the editor was created fairly quickly as a prototype. I'm well aware of the difficulty of maintaining user code, after I got bored enough and WV was very lucky to have Ryan and others putting a lot more work to make it much better. But four years on (!), I think it has had plenty of utility, and with advances in the Visual Editor, Wikidata and Mobile, it would definitely be nice to have a more advanced integrated version. Maps got quite a bit of an upgrade, even if the travel customisations were sadly lost. -- torty3 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be useful to keep the heading here and drop a notice where it was moved to? People have no chance to find it, especially, when the discussions are linked in other wikis or language versions. @Ground Zero: Any chance to search the history. How should a user who did not participate in the discussion find it after follwoing a link from eg. the German Wikivoyage? -- DerFussi 12:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That would clutter the pub (or its archives) with a lot of discussions. And ideally the discussion is swept "where it belongs" and can be taken up there (instead of rotting in some archive) I know its not ideal, but I think it is quite a good solution, given that swept discussions do get taken up anew from time to time. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@DerFussi: I searched the history for you and provided the link above. It was easier for me to find because I know that I've generally been sweeping one month after the discussion ends - others wouldn't really know that. I agree with Hobbit that leaving the heading is not a good solution because of the clutter. Maybe there is a better system we could use, but I would recommend against choosing a system that makes sweeping more time-consuming. It is not a glamorous job, and if it becomes more difficult, it will be less likely that people will do it. Ground Zero (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
But links to discussions here from other wikis (meta wiki, German wiki) head directly to this pub. English Wikivoyagers know where to look for it. Every other user would expect the discussions here or in its archive. Wikipedians do not know about a listing editor meta article to find the moved discussion there. Even me as a Wikivoyager have thought you have deleted the discussion. In wikis normally archive bots move old discussions to the archives and nobody has to waste his limited time with moving discussions. And the archives show a content table. By just clicking through the archives you can easily find old discussions. Even a search in n the archives is easier - if you don't move discussions to other sites: See all my pub archive articles where i contributed to: [1] -- DerFussi 13:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes but very often the discussion is still relevant and should be retained in some place other than an archive. For instance quite a few of the things now on Talk:Germany were swept from the pub. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, moving everything to one archive would make it easier to find for people coming from other wikis. And it would eliminate the need for someone to sweep the pub. But it would mean that the discussion would not be accessible to someone working on the Listings Editor, for example. They can review the Listings Editor talk page to read about issues that have been dealt with and decisions that have been made, but aren't going to search the archives as well. Moving to the relevant talk page means that the discussion continues to inform work on that topic. There are advantages to each approach. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
That's why the suggestion to keep at least the heading in the pub and its archive with a comment like "discussion was moved to <foo>". this makes it easier for visitors who are not familiar with this wiki. but ok, now I know how I have to search for old discussions here. -- DerFussi 14:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, absolutely the best way to do it is to have the discussion on the talk page of the article or project. That way, it won't be moved. I know that people want to have the discussion in the pub to attract more readers, but you can do this by putting a "pointer" in the pub, e.g., "I've started a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Listing editor about Listing Editor in other languages. Please join the discussion there." After a month, the pub pointer will be deleted (which makes sweeping the pub a whole lot easier), and the discussion will stay on the appropriate talk page until the Apocalypse, after which it probably won't matter. Ground Zero (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure.. Thats the best place. I think, many unexperienced user just do not know, whats the best place for their question, not just want to have more attention. But thats ok... We sometimes start new discussions on the proper site with the introduction "users in the Lounge have asked about.. how can we solve this..." Thes happes when it's more than just a question and answer. I see no problems to keep the headings in the pub. Discussions in the pub archive rot anyway, no matter if there are one archive site with 10 old discussions or 100 with 10000 discussions. The search box can help to find old discussions. The most confusing to me was just the fact that this kind of handling discussions is quite unique and (as far as i know) not really common. Normally archive bots just do their work. And I clicked a searched around for (no lie!) 20-30 minutes and thought: Am I stupid? drunk? I am sure, I participated a discussion in the pub... where is that **** text? OK. Now I know it, no problem. Its late here.. BTW is there somebody around in Montreal next month? -- DerFussi 21:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I do some of my best work when I'm stupidly drunk. Ground Zero (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As a follow up, I have returned to sweeping the pub. When I stopped doing it, it stopped being done, and it started to get crowded again. I have changed my way of sweeping - instead of opening up the whole article for editing, I am only opening the section that I am sweeping, so that the section heading appears in the edit summary. This way, you can easily find out what happened to an old discussion by scanning the edit history. Ground Zero (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And a gentle reminder that I don't get paid for sweeping the pub. If I've made a mistake in my sweeping, or you think there is a better place for something I've swept, please help me out by fixing it or moving it. Telling me to do this another and expecting me to fix it will make me grumpy. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Parsing error?[edit]

There seems to be something wrong with the wikicode such that no section on the Pub between "Can't save listing" and "Amtrak Cascades accident" has an "edit section" link. I can't find anything in the wikitext that would cause this. Powers (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange behaviour with page size[edit]

After some vandalism (and undo), user OhanaUnited fixed a missing /nowiki, but it removed a large chunk of the page. I restored what was missing, but now the history show that my edit removed 6539 characters though I only restored text. Strange. — Fabimaru (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like someone dumped a malformed blurb yesterday promoting the infamous "Visual Editor" onto multiple "pub" or "village dump" project pages cross-wiki in multiple languages, which just made a mess. The reversion of that mistake would've appeared as a huge change in page length. K7L (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I know. I was shocked at the page size change by simply adding a nowiki tag. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)