Wikivoyage talk:Travellers' pub/Archive 2003-2013

Archiving this page en masse

Swept in from the pub:

Is it sensible to just archive this page en masse? There's a lot of crap that I've been trying to move around, but it's difficult and it might be why this page loads slow on my browser. By the way, I like the new "+" feature for Project pages that are not a part of talk pages. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:29, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Simply archive by year as we do with most other pages that grow large? Many of the entries in here are onceoff questions that don't really need to be copied into a specific location. --(WT-en) Nick 02:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Agreed. --(WT-en) Jonboy 19:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Protected

Following another bout of page move vandalism (which went unnoticed for a good hour), I figured it might be wise to give permanent semiprotection (edit=default; move=sysop) to the pub. Discuss at Project:Protected_pages#Permanent_semi-protection. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:08, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Before sweeping the pub...

Swept in from pub:

I was about to sweep the Pub, but it seems there are many good topics brought up which haven't received comment and/or 1-2 comments were made, but it doesn't appear that any action was taken. I realize that it might take a while, but would some of you mind reading through all the old posts in the Pub & adding your comments or doing something. I'd hate to see good ideas get thrown in the archive and forgotten. (WT-en) AHeneen 21:40, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Archiving

We've been sweeping a lot of discussions into the pub cellar in the past year or so. It's still much better if we could sweep them into appropriate article talk pages instead, since that makes them easier to find or discover, but I realize that can be an arduous task if the page starts growing very long.

But can we try and consolidate the archives? I think it's ok for them to be long, and right now there are so many different archive pages that it can be tough to find even the discussions that I remember well. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:41, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

No response in about a year, and I'll take that as meaning no one really cares, certainly not enough to object, so I'll plunge forward. I'll also try and sift out the useful discussions and sweep them where they'll be useful as I do this. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:42, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Whew, sifting through all the 2009 archives was a lot of work, but I think it's worth it to preserve all those useful discussions by bringing them to the light of day that is relevant policy/article talk pages. Maybe I'll tackle 2008 next week! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:15, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Nice job on a very mind-numbing task. I agree that it's much more valuable to have discussions on the appropriate talk page rather than a catch-all archive and definitely appreciate the effort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:31, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

Please sweep the pub

So, the TP has been getting kinda crowded and messy. I'd really appreciate if we could all make an effort to clean up a bit by moving discussions to places more appropriate or deleting discussions that have reached their conclusions. It's a tedious job, but like most, it's easier if we do it together. --(WT-en) Evan 16:44, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Should we sweep this out? -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 03:20, 16 August 2006 (EDT)

Ugh, this place is getting messy and this is the one page I hate to attempt to organize. Anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up? -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 18:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you sweep the pub? What are the rules? Anything older than a certain date? There is stuff on here that is many, many months old. Where would be a "place more appropriate" to move the discussions to? (WT-en) Kire1975 01:54, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, I am using the Safari browser, from Apple, on my Windows Vista computer. For some reason the scroll bar on the right side of my edit screen isn't working properly, so the only way to get way down to the bottom of the screen is to grab some text and pull my cursor down to the bottom of the page. It gets really awkward. Cleaning up the pub could help me out with this problem. thanks, (WT-en) Kire1975 02:14, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

One more thing, when I click 'save" on the edit page, it takes a while to processs. (WT-en) Kire1975 04:31, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

How to sweep pub?

That's a good question! Our archiving explanation at the top of this page has become very convoluted—I'm honestly not sure how to sweep the pub anymore. Can anyone explain the revised process? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:18, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I nominate receveli's "request for help" below to be swept out of the pub. the problem is solved. how is it done? the shared wikivoyage pages has a pub cellar. Should we create something like that? (WT-en) Kire1975 22:19, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I have got the broom out today and swept out some of the older stuff. Mostly into the archive pages but, where relevant, into Talk Pages for the destination under discussion. Where I've done the latter I have marked the discussion as "Swept in from the travellers pub" (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:44, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Easier options

I've been thinking about the TP. It's not very accessible to people not used to the world of Wiki's, or computers at all. Wouldn't a more streamlined, "message board-ish" look be better? A lot of people I've been talking to who are of the globetrotting type think that Wikivoyage is a great thing (often compared to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) but with a user friendliness that's next to nothing. Making the Traveller's Pup - the place where most people look first - more accessible could generate a higher accessibility to the rest of the site. Just my $0.02. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 81.235.146.157 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, fresh idea's is always appreciated, but since we're a wiki, to me at least, it seems pretty natural that our communal area should be wikified too. I don't think we should be trying to make a Thorn Tree here - it's too massive to compete with, and being active over there myself, I'd hate it if we tried - it's really great at what it does. But could you maybe try to specify your idea a bit? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 20:29, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

By "more accessible" do you mean easier to use, or easier to find? I'd agree with Sertmann that I'd prefer to see it stay a Wiki page, by if you mean it's difficult to find (which I think is a fair argument) I think something could/should be done about that. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 20:43, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

We should keep in mind that the Pub is primarily for contributors, not users of the site. Perhaps we need a more visible place where users can ask questions in a less-complex way. (WT-en) LtPowers 12:50, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

This pub thing has to be a message board. If anyone wants to talk about the use of the message board they can do so on the message board itself. Using a wiki for discussion about anything, including a wiki, leads to a page like this which is all about why the pub doesnt work. Google groups will do. (WT-en) mark_c_lester 10:45, 3 July 2011 (BST)

No one checks Google Groups, in my experience. I agree that a message board format would be nice, but it has to be on-wiki. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:47, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

Delete announcements that refer elsewhere?

There are a few things that get posted in the pub that are really requests for comment, like the star noms. We don't traditionally archive the requests for comment, but remove them when the discussion is resolved, or the event is over. Is it reasonable to just delete similar items in the pub when the required period for the notice has expired? --(WT-en) inas 01:04, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

There is precedent for this at Project:Requests for comment#Archives?. If there are no objections, I'll make a similar note here, that sections that are merely pointers to discussions occurring elsewhere can be removed after two months. --(WT-en) inas 23:09, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

announcements, and sweeping to user pages

I reverted the change that got rid of suggestions to sweep to user talk pages, and to delete announcements referring elsewhere. I use both of those, but as always I prepared to listen to arguments as to why they should remain in the broom cupboard. --(WT-en) inas 02:42, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

Simple user questions

Although I find sweeping to user pages for simple questions a good idea, I'm not sure it works for anons.

Take for example, this edit . I would normally just move that edit to the user's page. For an anon, it just doesn't make sense to do so.

So, the question arises, once we have made sure that the question is fully answered in the help files, should we just remove such a question after a reasonable period. I personally can't see the need to archive it. --(WT-en) inas 21:53, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

It's certainly not of any terrible importance, but we might as well sweep something like that to the pub cellar, I think. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:09, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

I agree; one never knows when it might come in handy. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:08, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

If you just throw every piece of junk in the cellar, thinking one day it may be useful, when you actually go looking for the useful tool in the cellar, you can't find it for the junk. Keeping an answer to a very simple question already fully addressed in our doco, just makes the place look messy. --(WT-en) inas 23:53, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

Actually, I think the main purpose of the cellar is to have a place to toss junk. Useful discussions should be moved only to the appropriate talk pages. If you delete someone's question, they may wonder what happened to it in the future. Again, archiving these types of Q&As is a minor issue, but it seems OK to me to toss it in the cellar.

And re: finding useful discussions: it should be much easier as we consolidate the archives by year to just find what you are looking for via ctrl+f. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:59, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Archiving

Swept in from the pub

Hi, I have just archived all threads over 3 months old on this page. I hope I have done this correctly - please guide me if I haven't! Thanks. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 07:59, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for taking on that task! We do prefer that discussions relevant to particular pages elsewhere on the site be "swept" to the corresponding Talk page, though, rather than just archived to the "cellar" as you did. For example, Project:Travellers' pub/2011#how to organize extensive details on ClubMed could have been swept to Project:Accommodation listings, where it originated. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:58, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Ah, sorry. It's obviously more complicated than I thought! I'll move that one for a start. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 15:24, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Yes, please take a look over the "Please sweep the pub" section at the top of this page. When everything gets tossed in the cellar, useful stuff gets lost. I've been working on cleaning up the cellar, and that's a very lonely and demanding task that gets even more daunting when more stuff gets tossed down the stairs! ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:38, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Time guidelines for archiving

I know the pub gets overly long quickly, but I'm a little worried that some relevant discussions have wound up in the cellar a little too quickly (even though, at present, there is not a better talk page to put them on), e.g., notices and pointers regarding tech problems, proposed features, and answers to relatively common questions. People may forget what was said, and be a bit confused not to find the discussion there anymore, and lack the familiarity with our site to quickly find them swept off somewhere without a notice left. Also, new talk pages may emerge, especially for new "meta-issues," to which discussions may be "sweepable" in the future.

I am not proposing that we have a list of pointers to swept discussions—that would simply be too much to ask of our pub sweepers. I think we might benefit from having a specified amount of time that discussions should remain in the pub. A certain amount should be left up to janitor's discretion (for really basic detritus), but in general, two month old discussions should not be swept, I think. How about a "four month old+" sweeping rule? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:26, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Well, there is already a "3-month-old+" sweeping rule listed on the project page: "three months after the last comment in that discussion". That's what I was following yesterday. Are you saying that's too short then? (WT-en) texugo 17:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Oh, I haven't followed who was sweeping what. I just noticed discussions in the cellar started in March, which presumably shouldn't have been swept under the the "last comment" rule that I apparently never noticed (or don't remember authoring...). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:07, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Raional wiki have something that auto-sweeps threads that have not had a comment in some length of time, with the limit configurable for each page. e,g. here is one list of archive pages I think it is a bot, though for all I know it might just be a mediawiki extension. Could we use that here? Pashley (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

Wikipedia has a couple of bots that perform this function. I'm not sure a bot is suitable here, though, because we try to sweep discussions to a more context-appropriate location, only using the cellar when there's no other option. And some discussions we just delete entirely. LtPowers (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

I'd say a bot would be suitable here, with well-chosen parameters. Checking on Rational Wiki, I find their bot's user page. That documents enough parameters to give pretty good control. Archive only threads that have gone without comment (or being moved elsewhere) for d days. Do not create a new archive unless it will include at least n threads and leave at least m here. Set d=30, n=m=5 and I'd say we are ready to go. Pashley (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

It could be useful to implement a new layout and format for the pub, using a MediaWiki Forum extension. It would turn the main traveller's pub into a list of topics, sorted in order of activity/most recent post. Then each topic would receive its own page, linked back to the Pub. There are numerous benefits, including that it would make organisation and archiving much easier, simplify the listing and displaying of topics and also reduce the size and length of the Traveller's Pub page (it can be extremely slow to load on old computers, and for mobile phone viewers, uses a lot of data). If anyone's interested, I can find some examples. JamesA ^>talk 09:44, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Pashley: And what happens when a thread that should have been swept to a real discussion page gets past that 30-day limit? It gets swept to the cellar, where it gets lost. LtPowers (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (CEST)

Aggressively Archive this page?

Moved from the pub itself:

I propose that for this page, we should create a subpage /Wikitravel and move everything above this section to that page, change all instances of Wikivoyage to: "Wikitravel" and add a disclaimer on top to the effect that this is a snapshot of the page as it existed at the time of migration. I see no other way of handling what is now meaningless out of context discussion. Ravikiran r (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2012 (CEST)

I wholeheartedly agree. We should just chuck it all away somewhere hidden and start fresh. Of course, many amazing ideas got lost in the mess and as the new site grows, we can always bring up old topics for rediscussion. :) James A ▪ talk 15:44, 5 September 2012 (CEST)

Agree. IB's response should be stored in a safe place for future generations, but it has to be clearly marked as irrelevant to WV. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2012 (CEST)

Our usual practice is to sweep the junk into the cellar, while sweeping the relevant conversations to appropriate talk pages. I think that would still work, and if others agree, I'll just go and do it now. --Peterfitzgerald (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2012 (CEST)

At this stage, I think the best course of action would just be to sweep everything above this post into the cellar, and not waste time sorting through the junk. JamesA ^>talk 17:40, 8 September 2012 (CEST)

Being the one who's done almost all the clean up of the cellar, I object ;) I'll work on this now. --Peterfitzgerald (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2012 (CEST)

And done. --Peterfitzgerald (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2012 (CEST)

Is it a problem that the archives pages in the cellar erroneously refer to Wikivoyage, such as in "Wikivoyage sucks," when they originally referred to Wikitravel? I think this is low priority because these are archives, but eventually, it would be good to revert the name for proper context. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

Agreed, but not a rush for archives. User pages and user talk pages are a more immediate problem, as we can expect a rush of comments and questions when opened for public participation. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:11, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

How about editing the non-archived Travellers' pub for accuracy? How about here, for example?

[quote of excerpt of entry:] This has been proposed many years ago at Wikivoyage_talk:Attraction_listings, but with little discussion or progress. It seems many other language WikiTravels do it. See here for a Japanese example. I understand we use WikiCode tags, and it could take a long time to convert every article to a template format. One option is to keep the WikiCode we use, but change how the system organises the info within the tags; from a jumbled text wall, to an organised table format. This would allow for a total revamp across the board, yet with minimal effort.

Any other thoughts, ideas or comments? Thanks, (WT-en) JamesA 08:56, 11 May 2012 (EDT) [end of entry]

This referred to Wikitravel_talk:Attraction_listings, but the link is operative. If we're being honest and not editing people's posts, however, every mention of "Wikivoyage" taken from the Wikitravel Travellers' pub should be reverted to "Wikitravel." But how rigorous do we really want to be about this? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

I think this is a clear case for an exemption, and we've pretty much already been doing it. --Peter ^Talk 14:22, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

Name change

Swept from the pub:

Fellow ex-WT'ers. How about renaming the pub on en: to Lounge - to further distinguish us from WT? We have already carried out this name change on sv:. Riggwelter (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Will smoking still be banned and do we have a policy in place for waitress hire? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 09:55, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Or Watering hole? Saloon? Speakeasy? Shebeen? Tavern? Wayside inn? The choice is large. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:44, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

I don't mind either name but lounge has a grown up touch for me. I avoided lounges as a gathering point when i was backpacking because it deemed to fancy ;-) Nowadays, i would prefer the (smoke-free) lounge. Jc8136 (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Speakeasy has a certain insouciance to it and the connotations are interesting. "Lounge" smacks a bit of privilege. The sheer weirdness of Speakeasy to most non-native speakers may also entice new users to investigate the left hand margin link too. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 12:43, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

And the subtle suggestion that it is a place where you can freely dicuss things over a jug of hooch. Dont think a smoking ban would go well with the name though. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:22, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

I was going to say Cantina, but I like Speakeasy a lot. --Peter ^Talk 14:26, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

I say stick with the Pub. The more we change the stuff we came up with years ago, the less clear it is that we are that community, transplanted. LtPowers (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes. For me, "lounge" suggests a "lounge lizard" . Pashley (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

I like Traveller's Pub. If we really had to change it, I wouldn't mind Travellers Tavern for some alliteration. I rarely hear the word Speakeasy. That just sounds so foreign. Other ideas are Embassy or Consulate, as its a neutral place where we can all come to be diplomatic and discuss issues. (JamesA) 49.176.3.148 06:16, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

Speakeasy really is an Americanism, and I think we're already open to criticism of being a bit too that way inclined. Although I hate to seem reactionary, I'm inclined to agree with LtPowers, that we're looking to celebrate our roots as much as diverge from WT. --Inas (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

"Speakeasy" also is associated with lawbreaking. Speakeasies were so called because, since they existed in the US during Prohibition of alcoholic beverages, you had to "speak easy," lest the police should be alerted to what was going on. My only problem with the "pub" is that Muslims (and some other folks) don't drink and might not welcome a trip to an establishment where alcohol is implicitly served. So perhaps we should change the name to the "hangout," "snack bar," or "talking shop." What do you all thing of those? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

Cafe? --Peter ^Talk 14:23, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

I don't drink. It's never been an issue. Pubs have food. LtPowers (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

In Britain, pubs indeed have food and are often a good place to have a meal. In the US, pubs have bar snacks at most and "pub" is really just another word for "bar." I of course recognize that in Italy, bars are also places where you can have a meal. I may be worrying about nothing, but I wonder whether the fact that it's called the pub may have caused people from places like Iran to be reluctant to go there. (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2012 (CEST)

I would be quite happy with keeping the pub, it is ours. I was pointing out the wide range of altenatives if we do not. Embassy or Consulate are a bit formal, and there is a proposal to use 'The Consulate' as a dispute resolution forum. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:52, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

Keep Travelers' Pub unless we come up with a name we like better. I do not like any of the above names, to be blunt. The Pub is ours. Just try and take it away, too! --Rogerhc (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Swept discussion

Swept in from the pub

Also, although I was ignored previously when objecting to Wiktionary having an alcohol-related community page (though I no longer see it there now), could a community page here at Wikivoyage be named such that is not associated with a drug that costs billions of dollars a year in economic costs not to mention its more important psychological and moral costs? Community Forum or Traveler's Lounge or something which is actually inviting to all people as it is presumably meant to be--rather than putting off teetotalers who are put off by it, whether for the very common religious beliefs against it, or for purely practical reasons? Thank you. Brettz9 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see this discussion on the talk page; specifically the latter comments. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a teetotaller myself but I'm not offended. There is plenty to ingest at a pub that doesn't contain alcohol. LtPowers (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary still has and uses that page: wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour. –sumone10154^(talk) 22:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If we were to change names I'd advocate 'Departure Lounge', but I'm perfectly happy with Travellers' Pub - I think it has a pleasingly rustic feel! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Swept in from the pub

Should we just simply set this page up for automatic archiving after a certain number of days? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Two comments: one, how is automatic archiving set up? That may be useful in some cases but it isn't something that I'm familiar with. Second, in the past the preference has been to archive pub discussions on the relevant article's talk page rather than in a generic "archive" bucket. The reasoning is that if a discussion is relevant to a particular policy or user then it is preferable to archive it with similar discussions. I'd personally like to see that continue, although as with anything on Wikivoyage if others would like to see a more automated process implemented then consensus rules. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Automatic archiving requires a bot; I'm sure someone would be happy to set that up who operates bots on other WMF sites, and then it could work for other pages too (user talk pages for example). --Rschen7754 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at pages on Wikipedia such as w:en:WT:MED or my user page you will see automatic archiving. While may be not as good as manual the archive is searchable and much less work to maintain. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should do this automatically. A lot of very important discussions take place here (unfortunately) that are pertinent to specific policy pages, and they really do need to be swept to those policy talk pages. That's something I usually work on, but the image migration is sucking up most of my available wiki time. --Peter ^Talk 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is getting way too long and unwieldy. The current rules are that discussions should remain here for 3 months since last comment before archiving. For now, how about going ahead and 1) archiving discussions older than 1 month that have been fixed or are no longer relevant and 2)sweep appropriate discussiates bots on other WMF sites, and then it could work for other pages too (user talk pages for example). --Rschen7754 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at pages on Wikipedia such as w:en:WT:MED or my user page you will see automatic archiving. While may be not as good as manual the archive is searchable and much less work to maintain. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should do this automatically. A lot of very important discussions take place here (unfortunately) that are pertinent to specific policy pages, and they really do need to be swept to those policy talk pages. That's something I usually work on, but the image migration is sucking up most of my available wiki time. --Peter ^Talk 22:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This page is getting way too long and unwieldy. The current rules are that discussions should remain here for 3 months since last comment before archiving. For now, how about going ahead and 1) archiving discussions older than 1 month that have been fixed or are no longer relevant and 2)sweep appropriate discussions older than 1 month to the relevant policy's talk page, leaving the heading here and a redirect message, eg: This discussion has been swept to Wikivoyage talk:Policy#Discussion. Speaking of sweeping to the appropriate page, shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Travellers' pub talk page?

Regarding automatic backup, I agree with Peter and say no, for the time being. I also think all discussions should be archived, even if they are copied to a policy's talk page, so that someone tracking a mention/link of a TP discussion can go to the archives to find the correct discussion. If the discussion was moved, with no clue as to where, this could be co

Time limit before sweeping

There's a lot more going on in the Pub these days and it's getting quite long. Once we leave beta and word gets out about Wikivoyage, there will probably be a lot more activity in the Pub. As a result I propose changing the time limit before a discussion gets swept from 3 months down to 1 month since the last comment on a particular discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Full support from me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Big jump. Can I suggest 1 month only if the issue has run to a conclusion or consensus? It is possible that someone can jump in to comment on an open issue for a bit longer? Maybe 2 months? --Inas (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Even one month suggests that this page is a ghost town. Tony (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. There's tumbleweed blowin' down the main street outside this here saloon. However, there are other WMF wikis that scrape by with the 30-40 regulars and an occasional passer-bys that WV has enjoyed. It is yet to be seen whether our user count will increase dramatically or not once the launch phases passes. --Inas (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought of the Pub as the place for active discussions. If a discussion has gone without comment for a full month, moving it to another talk page wouldn't kill the discussion, but it would help keep the pub focused on discussions that people are actually participating in, and there is always Wikivoyage:Requests for comment to solicit feedback in discussions on other pages. The current pub has well over 100 discussion, which seems like it crowds out the active discussions in a sea of noise. Reducing the limit to a month (without activity) would hopefully help to alleviate that problem. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. LtPowers (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced. --Inas (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Support, At the moment it is difficult to find the discussion you want to comment on. If/when things get slower, the time can be changed again if necessary. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I'm also active on Rational Wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page), where threads in the Saloon can be auto-archived after 48 hours of inactivity, provided there are at least n ready for archiving and m to be left on the page. That works reasonably well. My guess is that the limit here should be a week or two, but a month is a reasonable experiment. Pashley (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

AHeneen beat me to this—I was going to propose exactly the same thing. I'll change it now. --Peter ^Talk 08:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And it probably doesn't need to be said, but I don't think we need to slavishly follow the 1 month thing either. If common sense suggests a discussion could be moved earlier (like the clearly advertised move to Talk:Jersey that just took place), that should be fine too. --Peter ^Talk 08:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a discussion will be about a specific task and that task has been completed. Replacing [[wts: with commons: is a prime example — the task is done, and won't be needed again. The site move from the German server to WMF is another. There should be no minimum time to archive already-completed tasks or no longer useful. K7L (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with K7L--promptly sweep discussions of tasks that are done and won't be needed again, to make room for focus on current items. --Rogerhc (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot from Wikipedia?

I'm wondering if now that Wikivoyage is safely nestled in at Wikimedia, we could get an auto-archiving bot like w:User:MiszaBot III running on Wikivoyage. A lot of these problems have sort of been solved (for some definition of solved) over on that rather large wiki encyclopedia project that's now Wikivoyage's big sis. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering how often we'll get this question ;) We like to sweep discussions to appropriate talk pages, otherwise they tend to get lost in the archives. Now ideally, people wouldn't do all their discussing in the pub, and would actually show up for work on various policy pages... --Peter ^Talk 03:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See #Archiving...one section up. It's generally helpful to have the discussions moved to the correct talk page because some will turn into good discussions that shouldn't get lost in an archive page. AHeneen (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please date-organise

It might make it easier if the page was date-organised (automatic top level heading creations at daychange). Also, TOC issue... -mattbuck (Talk) 09:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Previously not really needed (we'd have more empty date sections than non-). There's been a lot of activity over the last few weeks, and especially the last couple of days, but we expect that to die down. LtPowers (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mixed HTTP and HTTPS content

Swept in from the pub

Every time I go to the pub, I get a security warning telling that the page contains both HTTP and HTTPS content (meaning that the page is insecure). Looking at page information, I see that the page loads images like http://b.www.toolserver.org/tiles/osm/12/1169/1566.png which are downloaded through an insecure connection, and this seems to be the source of the error message. Would it be possible to do something about this? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really an error. If you access WV via https, then if anybody incorporates an image from an insecure source, it is going to produce this error. When the relevant discussion is archived the error will go away, only to reappear if someone incorporates another image from an insecure source in a future discussion. --Inas (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TOC (Table of Contents) on Travellers' pub

TOC on Travellers' pub was nicely, and mysteriously, wider than TOC elsewhere for me in Firefox for a blessed couple weeks. May or may not have been due to the version of Firefox I was running. I had assumed it was a site improvement spell cast by one of our wizards. However, now that the "spell" has worn off I get the cramped Travellers' pub TOC again and I want the wider TOC on Travellers' pub back because the section names in the pub are long and don't look good in a narrow TOC. So I tested CSS in User:Rogerhc/common.css and found the following works--could an admin perhaps put this into the sitewide MediaWiki:Common.css for the benefit of all?:

/* Travellers' pub TOC, widen */
body.page-Wikivoyage_Travellers_pub div#toctitle {
  width:30em;
}

Note: I tried using "%" instead of "em" but that didn't do what we want. I also tried setting the TOC table's width but that didn't work at all. So I set the width of the "Contents" title div inside the table. --Rogerhc (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The temporarily wider TOC was caused by a heading that seemed to be treated as a very long single word. It was swept out in this edit. Nurg (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha! Thx for this explanation. Everyone, wasn't that swell when the TOC was wider in the Pub? Folks, please speak up in support of (or against) a wider TOC for the Pub, so an admin might be persuaded to make it so per above CSS snippet. Speak up please... --Rogerhc (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated -- Alice^✉ 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No objections, only support, so Done. Nurg (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Title case "Travellers' Pub"

"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)

• Support. Wikivoyage:Pub, probable Pub in the left sidebar. A truly meaningful improvement. --Rogerhc (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Meaningful how? LtPowers (talk) 18:22, 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)

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)

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

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

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?

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 A ▪ talk 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

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

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)

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

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

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 A ▪ talk 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 A ▪ talk 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 A ▪ talk 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 A ▪ talk 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)