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.

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub
Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on the pub project page (not this talk page), it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation in the pub (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order.

  • A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page.
  • A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page.
  • A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
  • A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any of the pub discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.



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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I see no issue with the image policy, and I too like this one better. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
I prefer the painting, in fact. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I don't like any of the 3 images either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

What about the following alternative...?

...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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I do some of my best work when I'm stupidly drunk. Ground Zero (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
I know. I was shocked at the page size change by simply adding a nowiki tag. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How long before sweeping (archiving)?[edit]

It seems to me that the Pub could be made shorter and more efficient if we swept after 2 weeks of a discussion being dormant instead of a month. What do others think? --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People can easily spend two weeks travelling. A month is fine, although we have often left threads longer than that in the past.
Anyway, the longer pub which has developed over the past years is a sign of the health and increasing size of our community. Take a look at Bizarro-Pub on the Other Wiki sometime, it's a ghost town.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it this thing all of a sudden that says any discussion that's remotely old has to be swept out of sight? First Wikivoyage:Requested articles and now this. What problem are we trying to solve exactly? Can't we just leave things be? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AndreCarrotflower, there are two very separate issues here. I just gave this sweeping idea as a suggestion, I am not forcing it on anyone. But at the same time outdated information doesn't always look the best. The requested articles debate is a totally different situation. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. For the record, I see no reason to change the frequency with which we sweep the Pub. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and thanks for a quick response. As you seem interested in the requested articles discussion, there are discussion threads in Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles and Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles/Old requests that give context to the lengthy debates and disagreements about archiving outdated material that have suddenly erupted in the pub. Just thought it might be useful to fill in considering that lack of context that can be found in the recent discussion in the Travellers' pub. (Postscript: I've been doing a lot of pub sweeping lately for old discussions, and I hope that neither of these debates will get in the way of my doing that janitorial function.) --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other than that, big respect to everyone who takes time to sweep the pub. I just moved a little over a months worth of old discussions and it took a freaking hour and a half. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, big, big thanks to @Ypsilon: and @SelfieCity: for the recent sweeping. Sweeping the pub makes it much easier to find active discussions, and much friendlier for newbies who wander into it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say I'd really really love to see other people sweeping the pub every now and then, per the history SC did help out a month ago. ϒψιλον (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating the Main Page text[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Some Wikivoyagers may have missed the discussion that took place on Talk:Main Page. The discussion is Talk:Main_Page#Updating_welcome_title/tagline_to_better_differentiate_from_Wikitravel and we're trying to come up with some more ideas for making our homepage original and, in the process, better. For example, if you haven't already noticed, the "tagline" used to be:

The FREE worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

But it is now

The free worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

This change was due to the discussion. A lot of good thoughts have been introduced about possible taglines, including

(Sdkb's) the largest and most up-to-date free worldwide travel guide, from the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation


(my own) a free, not-for-profit worldwide travel guide from the Wikimedia [F]oundation

There were some concerns with both of these ideas, so I have suggested

A free, worldwide travel guide from the Wikimedia [F]oundation

This last one got some approval from the individual who started the discussion, Sdkb, on the basis that more detailed information is included in other parts of the main page. Therefore, I have launched Talk:Main_Page#Voting_on_proposal_#2 to get votes for using "A free, worldwide travel guide from the Wikimedia Foundation" as the main page tagline. My hope is that, if we can establish this as the tagline, we can then come to a conclusion about what other information can be included on the main page.

So if you'd like to vote or add some more ideas, feel free to do so, since even if the tagline changes, we are still the "The free worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit."

Thank you.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Wikimedia Foundation" confuses a lot of people – so many that the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department is undertaking a huge (re-)branding study. It might be worth waiting until they're done (because they might have some suggestions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's interesting. As I just stated on Talk:Main Page, one solution is to include a link to the Wikimedia Foundation website ( --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about staring with a small but more direct change - The free worldwide travel guide that you can edit. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind that, but I don't see much point in adding the italics at the end of the sentence. The word "you" can be, sure, but otherwise, "The free worldwide travel guide that you can edit" seems fine with me.
I still think, though, that at least somewhere near the top of the main page, we should mention the Foundation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 06:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this. In larger letters: "The free worldwide travel guide that you can edit." In smaller letters "A Creative Commons site under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation." Or something like that. I think it's important to mention the Wikimedia Foundation until or unless it changes its name, whereupon we should mention the new name. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subtext s not a bad idea, alternative us links: "The free non-commercial worldwide travel guide that you can edit". --Traveler100 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That could work, too. After all, the Wikimedia Foundation name and logo will remain on the bottom of the page, anyway, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This should be only a comment. If you like to change the main page text one should contact an ad specialist to get a better slogan. Many readers know Wikipedia but only a few the Wikimedia Foundation. So, maybe they think WMF is a commercial company. that you can edit is better than onyone. But by my opinion the text is not attractive. Since about 20 years anyone can freely edit or contribute to several projects. WT is free (in principle) and anyone can edit, too. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, too. But what's the difference to Wikivoyage? Over a decade, we took at the German Wikivoyage another subtitle (free travel guides (from) around the globe). Of course it is surely not optimal but different to WT and WP. --RolandUnger (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use the Wikipedia brand which is well know. First line:"The free non-commercial worldwide travel guide that you can edit" with second line :"The sister site of Wikipedia when visiting locations". But maybe some one can come up with an alternative to visiting locations, looking for another set of words to cover travel. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This travel guide is a sister site of Wikipedia", if we really want to do that. RolandUnger, where can one find an ad specialist on Wikimedia? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will contact both the Wikimedia Germany association and WMF members at the Wikimedia Summit 2019. Maybe, they can help (at least with money). --RolandUnger (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make it clear what this site is about
The free non-commercial worldwide travel guide that you can edit
  The sister site of Wikipedia for sightseeing, activities, cuisine and accommodation around the world

This makes it clear what can be found here for people and search engines reading the main page. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like Traveler100's version. Ground Zero (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, as User:Sdkb had had, a promotional line about our superiority to other travel sites may be more beneficial, but, as there was doubt around that, I quite like this, and support it as a compromise option. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love the second line: "The sister site of Wikipedia for sightseeing, activities, cuisine and accommodation around the world". The first one should have a comma between free and non-commercial, IMO, but otherwise is OK. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Traveler100: I love this suggestion! We could perhaps say "official sister site" to really make it clear. If we need to trim down anything, the current version includes both "worldwide" and "around the world," but I don't see an easy way to remove either while keeping the flow, and it currently reads fine because there's varied phrasing. - Sdkb (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Traveler100: love the idea, but "The sister site of Wikipedia for […]" reads a bit, uhm, cumbersome to me. Maybe better simply "Wikipedia's sister site for […]"? (Note the question mark: I'm not a native speaker, so … ) --El Grafo (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El Grafo: agree that is a little better. I have already added to the mobile site. Scroll to the bottom. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at this: Main Page/sandbox I believe the extra text helps new readers understand what this site is, and will help with key SEO terms. It does however start to make the text area very full. Have tried other positions and text sizes but come up with nothing yet that looks better. Did anyone come up with a new main map images? Something more modern and a little narrower maybe? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe think a little outside the box: Main Page/sandbox3. Can look at different colors for text, boarder and background. (When on main page will not have page name so other sections will be higher on the screen). --Traveler100 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed some of the css to make the tagline fit, over at Main Page/Sandbox (capital S). Any feedback? Does this look okay on everyone's screens? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you stretch out the window on widescreens the tourist office text overlaps the more links text. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Traveler100: How about now? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARR8: perfect. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still seeing overlap on my screen. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: Does the problem persist after refreshing your cache? If so, what are your browser and resolution? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At Main Page/Sandbox, it's not exactly overlapping but there's definitely not enough space between the two lines of text. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SelfieCity: Without knowing your browser details I can only guess as to the problem, but how does it look now? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For saving space to create room for some of the other things we're interested in adding in, I'd suggest removing "Where would you like to travel?" above the search box. Pretty much everyone knows how a search box works, so it's not really necessary. If we really wanted to keep it clear, we could still save space by deleting the "Where would you like to travel?" and changing the button from "Search" to "Search Wikivoyage Articles" or "Search Destinations" or whatever. - Sdkb (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdkb: I think that's a great idea. What do others think? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind that text, but yes, in 2019 it's probably unnecessary. But why don't we just remove the whole search box? There's one in the top-right corner that works in the same way. Plus, if you want to navigate some other way, you can click on the world map to get the continents, or click the "Travel destinations" link, etc., etc., etc. Also, Main Page/sandbox looks OK for me now. However, the double spacing in "The sister site of Wikipedia for sightseeing, activities, cuisine..." looks a little odd to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe it's the <br> that's being used for spacing. Are there any alternatives that could be used there? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be a little more hesitant to remove the search box, just since the single most important function of the Main Page is as a portal to the rest of the site, and the search function is the primary way to access that function. It is a duplicate of the search box to the upper right, but that search box isn't as prominent as might be ideal. - Sdkb (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I see. Thanks for the explanation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: The alternative spacing is being explored at Main Page/Sandbox (capital S). I'm not opposed to removing the box. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Placed the question in the search box. Changed button to Go. I think this looks better but can unfortunately can only do as full seatch so will always go to the search results page even if exact match, not so good. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I like that design change. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does the Sandbox look now, everyone? I moved "non-commercial" to the second line to allow the main tag line to fit on one line and a few other tweaks. - Sdkb (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is good to go. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Traveler100: Yay, glad to see it live! Just add a period after "tourist office" and it'll mirror the sandbox. - Sdkb (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Traveler100: also, the sister site link doesn't seem to be working for me. - Sdkb (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's trying to link to [2] for some reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Always a risk with simultaneous collaborative work. Link again takes you to bottom section of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, my fault! ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a problem, we would not have got this far without your edits. I am also learning a lot with what your are doing. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sandbox looks good to me. I think this is fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Android editing problems[edit]

I'm trying to change the word "Arid" in the "Understand" section of Buford (Wyoming)‎‎ to "arid". Does anyone understand why when I try, the entire section is selected and I can't seem to make any edit to it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem making the edit on my laptop. Will Wikivoyage's mobile user interface ever stop sucking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone improved the Android interface! It's much easier now to look at a page from recent changes, like this one, and then edit it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive for the Pub[edit]

The current practice of sweeping, while good for archiving concluded discussions in relevant parts of the wiki, has a flaw: if you wish to refer to an earlier Pub discussion, you don't necessarily know where to look for it.

Perhaps I'm alone in feeling that an archive for the pub, used in addition to the current practice of sweeping, would be beneficial for those of us who wish to go back and read earlier discussions and consensuses, but don't have a photographic memory as to where everything has been swept to. The archive could be organised chronologically, similar to a talk page archive, or by topic (e.g. 'policy discussions', 'user announcements', 'WMF community posts', etc.)

Personally, I have quite a visual/spatial memory, so if I can recall a discussion - or just a particular comment - I want to reread, I remember it as taking place in the Pub, but don't always remember the context it took place in (i.e. what the overall topic of discussion was, how long ago it took place), so it can be difficult, and sometimes impossible, to find the right talk page among thousands where the discussion is now archived, or else by navigating back through the Pub's revision history. I think an archive, attached to the Pub itself, would help with this.

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree - I have had difficulty finding past discussions. As a minimum, I would like a clear statement added to the archive of where things were swept to, along with the first few lines, but if we are not short of disk space archiving everything by year is probably easier. AlasdairW (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I've always understood that discussions should be swept to the talk page that most closely corresponds to the topic discussed, and to the Pub archive only if there's no other logical place to move it to. I've always done it like that, but always written in the summary where I've moved them. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that ("discussions should be swept to the talk page that most closely corresponds to the topic discussed") should continue, in addition to my proposed archive. Writing in the summary where you're sweeping things to is fine in the short term, but when we get six months (or was it a year?) down the line, finding the edit where you wrote the summary is just not going to happen! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm one of the few who have undertaken this tedious task (SelfieCity, Arepticous, Ypsilon, AndreCarrotflower, Nurg, and being the others who have done so in the last year) and I always note where something is being swept to in the comments. Adding another step to this task will likely reduce the number of editors willing to undertake it, and the frequency with which it is done. Given that archiving the talk page takes time away from content activities, I would suggest that we look at alternatives to making sweeping more cumbersome. Ground Zero (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After posting this, I realised that this simple solution would be for the pub sweepers to carry on doing what we are doing, and anyone who wants to create a pub archive can do that separately. That way it would not increase the workload for the sweepers, and those preferring an archive would be able to have one (as long as they create it). Ground Zero (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ArchiverBot could presumably handle the archiving, since that's the job he loves best (once the archive has been created, that is.) Could he maybe also take charge of the sweeping, or would that be too complicated for his programming?
Another way to make pub sweeping need to take place less frequently, would be for everyone to post in the pub less frequently. Quite often, there are discussions about very tangential issues of interest to a small number of people and of relevance only to one or two articles, which could or should go on other talk pages, and signposted by an RfC, posted straight to the pub with no real justification. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with short discussions; I think it's key that we encourage discussion in the pub rather than discourage it. I like the idea of the ArchiverBot for archiving pub discussions, but I think sweeping should still be done by individuals. That would mean no change in the amount of work for pub sweeping but also mean that we have a travellers' pub archive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sweeping announcements[edit]

Where and when should announcements like this and this be swept? AnotherEditor144 (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add auto archiving to the pub?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

May we please add auto archiving to the pub. Probably once a discussion is inactive for 45-60 days? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also got the code for it. Edit the page to see it. {{Auto archiving |archive = Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2021 |algo = old(60d) |minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |archiveheader = {{talk archive}} }} SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd oppose automatic archiving. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldn't work practically, because it mostly isn't archived, but rather swept to various talk pages around the site.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seee. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was suggested some years back & there was a fairly strong consensus that it was not a good idea. I disagreed with that consensus then because auto-archiving works just fine on other wikis I'm on & once set up it requires less maintenance work than our current system.
There is a problem. As TT points out, many threads are swept & therefore presumably should not be archived. Just accept that? Perhaps set the archiving parameters so anything that needs to be swept will be before archiving kicks in? (90 days?) Have two copies, one swept & one archived, so we have a complete archive? Put a link to the swept copy in the archive whenever you sweep something? Put a link to the swept copy in the pub & let the archiving software move it to the archive? Would that need software changes?
If we can agree on a solution to that problem, then I'd still say auto-archiving is a fine idea. Pashley (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wasn't here when the discussion happened. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue here is that sweeping to talk pages is a tedious, thankless task. It produces a better result, because discussion in the pub that is swept to a talk page can inform later discussion on the article or project's talk page. If the discussion is swept to an archive, it pretty much disappears.
Because it is a tedious, thankless task, it doesn't get done enough.
People have proposed "double sweeping" in the past, i.e., to talk pages and to the pub archive, but none of them have ever stepped forward to do the archiving to the pub archive, so it doesn't get done.
Just "setting the archiving parameters" to make archiving more work means it will be done even less, if at all. Ground Zero (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sweeping was easier than I thought SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WV:TP shortcut[edit]

Swept in from the pub

This shortcut currently redirects here, to the Travellers' pub, however I think it could also redirect to WV:Talk pages. Which one do you think is best? 16:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer having it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 -- 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is better SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this page not archived by a bot?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Title Leaderboard (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked this question a while ago, and the answer is we sweep it to the relevant talk page. If there's a problem with let's say a listing, then we sweep it to Wikivoyage:Listings. That way, it's all there on the relevant talk page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard: I just swept one discussion to Talk:Eger. That's usually how we do it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SHB2000: Why not just use a bot instead of complicating matters with all the sweeping and stuff? Leaderboard (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leaderboard: Because if it ever to become relevant in the future, it'll be on the appropriate talk page and not somewhere hidden in the archives. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sweeping is also not that hard, and easier done than said. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the other reasons why I'm not a huge fan of the French Wikivoyage's café is because of how they just archive it instead of sweeping it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal subheadings[edit]

Subheadings – Proposa, Discussion – were removed by ‎Nelson Ricardo 2500 ("I don't believe that subsections are necessary or helpful") and reinserted by ‎‎SHB2000 ("I added them because the proposal aka the top subsection shouldn't be edited by anyone but myself").

Those subsections have not been standard at Wikivoyage. They are at en-wp, and I suppose that's why they have been introduced here. I think that kind of formalised discussion should be introduced (or not) by a discussion, not unilaterally by one or a few users. en-wp has a lot of bureaucracy that isn't needed here, and I think the discussion format is a symptom of that. A proposal subsection is needed only for formal proposals as part of a set procedure (we seldom edit comments of others anyway).

In the latest thread ("Introduce PCP?"), the proposal is really "I'm proposing to introduce PCP to Wikivoyage", which does not need a whole subsection. There is no need to highlight the arguments of the proposer, other than as part of a formal procedure, which we don't have. Compare with the thread Protection of Modules.

I am seldom active at en-wp, but this format has been introduced also at Commons (probably by the same WP influence). Like here, there is the problem that "→Discussion: support" says little in the watchlist, RecentChanges or the history. A variation à la "discussion" or "Discussion 2" will take you to the right section, but is clumsy and will never be implemented consistently.

The worst problem is replacing informal discussions with formal ones. I believe this is a real problem at Commons: things used to be discussed, now they are proposed – with the discussion often deteriorating because the proposal missed key issues. The less formal the proposals are, the less risk for proposals taking over. At some point (and for simple proposals), one might want to have an unambiguous decision, but mostly the consensus is clear from the discussion without any need for any formality, or with an "it seems people agree on introducing this, did I miss something?" quite enough.

LPfi (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, @LPfi. As the original "actor" on this, I support your statement that we don't need such bureaucracy here on our smaller community. I, too, thought about effects on "watchlist, RecentChanges or the history". I may be interested in following one Pub discussion but not another. See a section called "Discussion" on my Watchlist tells me nothing about whether I wish to view that particular edit or not. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree with you guys. Whoever proposes something has started a thread. Moreover, an agreed-upon change to the wording of the proposal may be desirable later. The idea that a proposal's language can't be changed is fundamentally un-wiki-like, with the caveat that no-one's talk page posts should be changed by someone else without the consent of the poster. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will start off with saying that I'm not too pleased about the tone of this discussion and how it is going. For starters, I rarely get involved in English Wikipedia discussions. I am unaware of how they're formatted, until you guys brought it up. I mainly get involved in other projects like meta or simple, but not en. On meta, as you know they're formatted like this, and I've just become used to it (I'm more active there when it comes to proposals). It makes things more cleaner, and I prefer when no one is tampering with the proposal. And for the matter, I've been doing this on all WMF projects, and there haven't been much issues with this.
However, it has, and has always been the case, that it is bad karma to modify people's messages, unless it is offensive, derogatory, in bad faith, attack statements, disruptive, out of scope, irrelevant, off topic, etc. And was those subheadings either of that? No, it wasn't. I was happy about ThunderingTyphoons! modifying my subheadings as part of those messages, and those were with good reason, and for the matter, there was no one opposing that. It is not un-wiki-like, because it has and has, been that it isn't a great etiquette to modify others messages.
In simple, this could have been handled much better rather than going here, and getting the whole community's attention on this, this could have happened on my talk page, with a message saying "Hey SHB2000, reasons why" instead of going out to the pub. Oh, and if this is removed, I will reinstate it as tampering with one's messages. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it wasn't a great idea to unilaterally change the (sub)headings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with SHB2000 that (a) modifying the headings on someone else's pub post should only be done in very limited circumstances, and (b) this would have been better handled in a collaborative way instead of making a public case out of it. We are a small enough community that we can talk to each other on user talk pages about disagreements before taking it to the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are interested in the question of ===subsections===, then you may be interested in reading w:en:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 18#Survey sections. (This is not the only discussion, but it's one of the bigger ones, and the most recent that I'm aware of). The overall story is that some editors add ===Survey=== and ===Discussion=== type subsection headings because they saw someone else do it, they like the way it looks, and/or it makes the discussion feel more important – more authoritative or more formal, to use @LPfi's language. Personally, I find that they are helpful in some cases (e.g., if you realistically expect comments from a hundred editors), unhelpful in other cases (e.g., if you are trying to copyedit a sentence), and overkill in most cases.
BTW, in contrast to what @SHB2000 says here, one of the reasons people use a ===Proposal=== (or similar) subsection heading at the English Wikipedia is to indicate that it's not part of a single editor's personal talk-page comments. That means that it might have been written by several people, and that it could be changed by anyone (within reason; you don't want to substantially change the meaning of the proposal after people have responded). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]