Wikivoyage talk:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions

Wikivoyage talk:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel/Archive 2012-2013

Registered users[edit]

Whilst I am happy to see our article numbers catching up to WT, the number we display for our registered users is highly misleading. The "new" Wikivoyage total reflects users who have signed up for ANY WMF website since WV was welcomed into the fold, even if they have never visited WV. Whereas WT's numbers are people who actually signed up for that site. I suggest either finding a way to track actual WV users, or removing this metric from the page. It's not apples to apples at all, and we don't want to risk being accused of the sort of numbers padding that other guides have been accused of.

Also, does anyone know if bot and admin edits can be removed from the Total Edits number? 250,000 more edits than WT seems... generous ;). And of course there was no WV in 2003... I just have a problem with the way this info is presented. We should not be trying to compete with a site that's 10 years older and more established, just to make ourselves seem legitimate. We should forge our own path. Perhaps we could discuss reworking or removing this page as a whole? --SpendrupsForAll (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion of not including edits by admins or bots is ridiculous. Can you explain why you'd even think of excluding such edits? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No objections to removing the misleading info. I will do so. SpendrupsForAll (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit as Ikan Kekek did object and asked for clarification from you. If you're prepared to answer his question and obtain a consensus, then I'll gladly implement your suggestions myself. --Nick talk 22:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The objection, if you'll bother to read the few short lines above, was to the notion of removing bot/admin edits. Nobody objected to removing the misleading numbers of registered users, for one month now. If you have a solution that addresses this, we can implement gladly. Until then it's safer to stay strictly accurate with regard to such statistics. Cheers. SpendrupsForAll (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
But removal of the entire section was not what you suggested above either. If you wish to suggest that now, please feel free to, but you cannot cite the above as consensus. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but we need to garner more opinions on this issue, particularly when editing a page of this importance to the project. Let's talk about it and then act. --Nick talk 22:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"removing this metric from the page" is a direct quote from my initial proposal. See here, now, you're just edit warring on something that has never been objected to for a month, just to be difficult. Leave it be unless there's an objection to the change on reasonable grounds. You're either not reading what has already been discussed, when you yourself had plenty of time to chime in, or you're deliberately holding up progress just for argument's sake. Leave it be or raise a reasonable objection already!SpendrupsForAll (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The new user statistics on both sites are misleading - ours includes other Wikimedia users who link their account here, and "registered users" at WT have consisted overwhelmingly of spambots for a few years now ([1]). It probably doesn't hurt to remove that stat since it's essentially meaningless for both sites. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was merely saying that you cannot state that you have a consensus when Ikan Kekek was attempting to engage with you, but you did not respond. I'm more than happy discuss this issue, but please don't take it as a personal affront. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, this page is currently of high importance to Wikivoyage and, as such, it's important that it is accurate and conveys that which the community desires. I understand that you feel the 'registered users' figure is unfairly high, given it counts users from across the WMF who have visited the site just once and I can understand that feeling, however, like Ikan, I can see little good in discounting the edits of admins or bots as both are measured by WT's software and included in that site's edit count. Would you be happier if we were to quote 'active' rather than 'registered' users? I'd hope that would provide a more accurate metric than the current one. --Nick talk 22:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Active users may be equally misleading as a user (spambot or valid) needs only a single edit in a 30 day period to appear on that list. Unfortunately I don't see a reliable statistic that would be an indication of the vitality of the community, which is what I think is desired. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. This is tricky! I am not wholly opposed to losing that particular metric altogether, I merely objected to the initial interpretation of consensus, but I'm sorry if I was a bit overzealous. It's just, having seen how valuable a page like this is on Twitter (it's shared far more than any other page) and the fairly meticulous way in which it was created, I'd hate for its utility to be compromised. That said, if the data, as currently presented, is misleading or erroneous, then we don't want to be seen to be on the wrong side of this issue. Therefore, if a consensus is reached and no suitable alternative is available, I'm happy to lose that particular statistic. I'm sorry if I appeared a bit harsh initially. --Nick talk 22:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted yet again, eh? It appears you've got to have an administrator title around here to meaningfully participate. I believe I'll give up. It's been decided that the statistics as shown are wrong, none of the (now four) people in this discussion have disagreed with that, and yet, there my edit is reverted to the status quo again. I don't think you people have a concept of how discouraging that is, to figure out how to edit, make a substantial contribution, including preapproval, make the change, and then have it reverted not once but thrice, by the very people who have no objection to said change. Just astounding. I leave you to it. SpendrupsForAll (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged :-) There's no real point in having this general consensus rule when we don't allow a discussion to run it's course before acting. However, theidea to just remove that statistic seems a good one for the reasons Ryan states. I'd be happy to see it re-installed soon. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Please see above (and my message on your talk page). I am now happy to remove that statistic - I just wished for a broader survey of opinion. --Nick talk 22:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the animosity that I feel towards @SpendrupsForAll:, I have to say between clenched teeth that there is a great deal of merit in what he has written here. Not only the figures for registered users were grossly misleading but also the number of edits. Given the overwhelming number of spambot and counter-spambot edits over at Wikitravel, it really is a pity that we don't focus on a more meaningful metric such as the number of non-admin editors that have made more than 10 edits in the last 30 days. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this frankly an apples to oranges comparison? I'm not sure the chart is particularly meaningful anyway, so why quibble on the definition of registered users? I would just remove the metrics that can not be reasonably compared. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
If you mean the number of non-admin editors that have made more than 10 edits in the last 30 days, I think that is comparing Apples with Apples, or I would not have suggested it, Andrew.
My gut feeling is that there are very few registered editors indeed over at Wikitravel, that regularly participate each month who are not IBadmins. This would also hold true, I believe, if you changed the edit number to pretty well any number in the range 4 to 200 each month... --118.93nzp (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
And do you have a method of extracting that metric from the WT change logs? I guess if you can or if you want to manually do this then that's fine, I'm just not convinced it is a great use of your time either way.
Just looking at the WT recent changes page tells me all I need to know about the state of WT. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, edit wars are bad, okay? Spendrups made a change; it was reverted; that's where it should have stopped until discussion was resolved. Powers (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge Wikivoyage:Migration_to_Wikimedia into this page?[edit]

Should the above page be merged (or at least redirected) into this one? I've started a discussion here. --Nick talk 02:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Greater Manassas[edit]

I'd like to import content from the WT "Manassas" article to our "Greater Manassas" article. I'm bringing this here as this page says "discuss before moving content from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

These are the only changes that have been made to WT's article since we migrated. It would be better to rephrase that small amount of prose in your own words than to import. Powers (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I suck at that kind of thing, honestly I wouldn't trust myself to do that without committing mosaic plagiarism. Thease were the only significant edits. Couldn't we just import them one by one and give credit to the authors in the edit summery. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

More comparison data[edit]

Where would one go to find info on the growth in edits and articles numbers by woth wikis? As it is now both sites appear to be pretty similar, which doesn't reflect the difference in activity level in each one. --Canislupusarctos (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure IB releases that sort of data for WT, so someone would have had to be keeping track of it manually. Powers (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe List of Wikivoyages and List of Wikitravel wikis --Alan ffm (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Attribution issues at WT[edit]

If anyone is still active at WT (@Koavf:? anyone else?) it would be appreciated if you could request that the IB admins there provide proper attribution for their use of our Template:Pagebanner, which was apparently imported by an IB admin via an XML import from Wikivoyage (revision dated 21:27, 30 March 2014 by‎ WOSlinker [2]) and is now being rolled out across that site. On a similar note, I was curious where they were getting their page banners, but the first page banner that I tried to track down was [3], which was added by an IB employee [4] but is neither under a CC-SA license [5] nor is it fully attributed on WT. I don't know if a request for attribution will accomplish much, but all of us write this content with the sole expectation that anyone using it will abide by the terms under which it has been licensed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a comment in their pub. I wonder if they'll respond or delete it. Pashley (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it worth to create a page to record of such communications to WT? (with screenshots) It might prove useful in the future to have it all in one place. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@wrh2: I came here to post Pashley's diff. For what it's worth, I know that Wikitravel's AbuseFilter was changed several months back (I noticed due to discussion here at the Pub about this same issue) and users can actually attribute "wikivoyage" in edit summaries now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that they care little about copyright. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Copypasta from Wikitravel[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Hi, everyone. I've reverted at least a couple of instances of copypasta from Wikitravel in the last few days, maybe 3 instances, and others in the last few weeks. It's often easy to spot because lazy copypasta artists copy listing tags (we use templates now) and "Get out" headings where we now use "Go next". If you see any uncredited copypasta from Wikitravel, please revert it right away and post a note to the offender's user talk page. You can see an example of such a note here.

Note that it is OK to copy and paste from Wikitravel if the user doing the copypasta had actually posted all the content on Wikitravel him-/herself and directly and clearly states that in his/her edit summary. However, even in that case, the content has to be suitably edited as necessary for Wikivoyage style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if it's not illegal to regurgitate WT content here (with attribution), it's not desirable from an SEO standpoint as it will get us penalised for duplicate content. We do not want to be a word-for-word identical WT mirror. K7L (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course, but there is (or was) at least one user who raised the issue of working on both sites here in the pub, therefore we should make clear how that is possible and that we advise against it for various reasons of which SEO is imho one of the less important ones... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Because of the SEO issues K7L and others have cited, and given what (ahem) usually happens when we come across users who edit on both sites, I for one think it's worth looking into establishing a policy of reverting any text added to our site that is identical to WT material, even if it's the same author in both instances. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Not all users who post to both sites are hostile. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That may be true, though I haven't seen any who aren't. Nonetheless, I don't think it's unreasonable to require those who contribute to both sites, for SEO purposes, to at least not use identical text. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Or, at the very least, to have a policy of rewording-on-sight any new edits we find that copy WT material, regardless of which site it was posted on first. This is a wiki, after all, and any contributors have to know their text can be altered at any time and for a whole host of different reasons. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
How big is the issue in reality? And another thing: Can we create a thing like a program that automatically detects those copypasta things? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
How big is the issue? Big enough for it to be brought up here in the pub, apparently. I don't know how feasible such a program would be, but I imagine we might be able to tackle the problem through regular Recent Changes patrols - all we would need to do is check any suspicious diffs against the analogous WT article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
User:EranBot/Copyright is a bot that attempts to flag content copied from other sites. Anyone interested in catching copy/paste should add that page to their watchlist. Note that the bot is still in a beta state and that it relies on search engines (which are not updated instantly when a page changes), so if someone makes an edit to WT and then copies it to Wikivoyage a short time later the bot will be unlikely to flag the edit. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I think if we do it only for "suspicious" edits we might well not catch a lot of them. I know that some things are rather obvious (like the different section headings) but others won't imho be caught that easily unless somebody sees whether such a thing would be feasible. I am unfortunately very bad with this newfangled computer stuff, so I can't be of much assistance in that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving my contributions from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I've been a contributor to Wikitravel for some time, and had no idea it was for-profit (I guess, shame on me.) I'd like to bring over my contributions, do I need to do anything special? The page says "make sure to match the licensing" but I don't understand what that means. Thanks. --Awiseman (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are only copying content that you wrote yourself - and not text contributed by others - then you own the copyright to that text and can do with it whatever you want. To avoid confusion, when you add it to an article here simply use the edit summary to make others aware that you are the original author - something like "content copied from WT, but I am the original author". Be sure to only copy content that you directly authored, i.e. don't copy an entire article, since others will have contributed to that article and would need to be given proper credit in order to comply with license terms and re-use it here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks!! --Awiseman (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
My favourite part of editing here is that as of a year ago we no longer need to really attribute any more (see It’s very freeing to not have to credit the work of authors. Just keep in mind that your work isn’t really going to be credited, either. I’m cool with it. Now as to your point about “for profit” websites… maybe they’re not as bad as some people think? I mean, the Wikimedia Foundation is as bloated a bureaucracy as there is anywhere (paying $250,000 salaries to its top execs is a “nonprofit”?? See . They do at least as good of a job getting money as Wikitravel does. They just beg for it with banner ads instead of getting ad clicks. Same difference? Anyway – welcome aboard!Harlan888 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The previous user has yet to make a contribution on a non-policy page. Just fyi. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Best to speak clearly: He's an IB troll. Don't pay any attention to his nonsense. But more importantly, anything that you copy from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage must be formatted in Wikivoyage style. For example, we don't use listing tags, only listing templates, and we got rid of the unfriendly-sounding "Get out" subtitle and use "Go next" instead. Also, any kind of good paraphrasing you'd like to use would be welcome; a total ban on copying content from Wikitravel is currently under discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
You'll pardon me, but who is the troll? Ikan? You follow people around accusing them of this and that, and here is your a hominem attack, right on cue. Correct me if I am mistaken, but as of last year we no longer use a link back to source material, right? Undoing all the wikipedia, Wikitravel, and former wikivoyage precedent? Am I wrong? And also: a ban on Wikitravel content?? LOL. Whatever will be left here? We copied the ENTIRE SITE from Wikitravel! LOL again :) Harlan888 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, for me a total ban would be bad, because I wouldn't be able to bring over what I had written already. I had no idea there was a fork, though I now understand that it was in 2012, and I have done a lot since then. --Awiseman (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Awiseman . I hope the troll from the other website didn't give you a bad experience. They are a commercial operation and are just concerned about losing advertising revenue. We are now 100% completely separate from Wikitravel, and there is no special attribution concerns regarding them. Any content that you derive from any Creative Commons source just needs attribution, although you may find it easier to start again in some cases. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposed ban on duplication of new content from Wikitravel is only under discussion. Do feel free to insert your own content here, with the kind of edit summary Ryan previously mentioned and formatting changes as necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please provide an URL to where a "proposed ban on duplication of new content from Wikitravel" is under discussion. I edit on many Wikis and, if forced to choose, would have to choose where my contributions are most useful. Consequently, I'd vehemently oppose such a silly move until WV starts to take search engine optimisation more seriously. 01:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Um, what contributions? Your edit history only goes back about an hour. K7L (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Copypasta from Wikitravel. What's your username on other wikis? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised I need to remind people that travellers will often have changing IP addresses assigned to them by their service providers. Unlike with a registered anonymous account, it's not wise to assume that an IP editor's editing experience is confined to a particular IP address.

Amateur sleuthing can be wonderfully diverting but please try and remember the most important topic this past 900 days or so: increased readership (and hence participation). 12:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised I need to remind travellers with changing IP addresses that it's difficult to have productive conversations with them when we don't know their history on the site. Especially so when we've had multiple registered and unregistered users espousing very similar viewpoints with very similar textual patterns. Powers (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Relatively recently, the practicalities have changed, Powers. It used to be only vandals that were blocked and gagged. Not editors genuinely trying to improve this travel guide - however much you might genuinely disagree with their edits! Even then, they were still allowed to edit their own User talk pages so that the possibility of communication (education?) was not prevented.

The rot started before the split from Wikitravel of course. First any mention of a split was censored and then the (justifiably) outraged long term editors lost their editing privileges. Now that was done out of a relatively justifiable motivation: to protect the financial position of IBadmins' employers.

Admins here seem to have learnt little from that nasty period. Some admins that should have learnt lessons from that experience have lost sight of why they have special privileges, Powers. They've taken to banning people that get under their (increasingly) thin skins and as a way to win policy arguments and avoid losing face rather than out of the justifiable motivation of protecting this Wiki from damage and degradation. They've even dreamt up spurious crimes after their ban (such as "Forum shopping" when crucially neglected topics are raised in the Pub!) Perhaps it's only those who have lived in dictatorships that understand the importance of the rule of law.

I am not a liar and I state very clearly

  1. I'm not Werner Frank Buchholz
  2. At the time I was banned, I had not edited here for many months. After I was blocked I could not even edit my own talk page to appeal the mistaken identity
  3. The most important task is still to remove the Google duplicate/mirror site penalty. After more than two years now it should be obvious by now that you need to heed good advice.
  4. It should be obvious that, unless you wish to drastically restrict all edits from users who have not created an account or choose not to use it, the present policy risks cutting off whole countries from editing Wikivoyage. That endpoint would be a tragedy because you'd cut yourself off from those many who have something to contribute off the cuff and may then go on to create an account. Rather than have that happen, I think I will shortly stop editing until wounds are less sore. I certainly don't wish every IP address in South East Asia to be successively blocked.

A wise person once wrote: "The fact that a lot of people who make unwanted edits are anonymous makes us act like scared children around a campfire, pointing our flashlights out into the dark and imagining things a lot worse than they actually are.

Wikitravel is an open, welcoming community, and I don't want that to change. I think the extremely easy task of cleaning up after the occasional self-promoter is much better than cultivating an environment of fear and distrust."

-- Alice

User:Alice has been blocked since 18 Nov, but the block does not appear to prevent editing of User talk:Alice. Do you find this is not the case, or do I misunderstand? Nurg (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't edit my own User talk page or any other page on Wikivoyage if I log on, Nurg. I stopped logging on months ago because I found that I was autoblocking IP's all over Asia and Oceania and I did not wish to be guilty of indirectly damaging our project in that way, Nurg. My signature is hand crafted from whichever IP address I am randomly assigned since I don't wish to mislead too much. -- Alice
Further discussion about User Talk page editing is continuing at User talk:Alice. Nurg (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Article count comparision[edit]

I noticed in the latest update that WT has about 1,000 more articles than us.

This is kind of disappointing since I thought we were creating new articles on travel topics all the time, as well as creating more destination articles under large cities.

Is the WT growth around content farming with vaguely travel related topics, or is there a growth area we are missing? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You can see the new articles on WT and judge for yourself. My first impression is that they have a lot of articles that would be merged & redirected if created here, as well as a lot of junk articles that have slipped through like [6]. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There were a lot of junk article stubs which were imported from WT to WV in 2012, basically "X is in Y {{subst:smallcity skeleton}}". A heap of these were deleted from WV a while back, just to lose the "This article contains content from other websites" disclaimer in instances where WT contained no actual info of use to the traveller. Because they had the article template (one valid internal wikilink and a couple hundred bytes of filler text) they appeared in NUMPAGES as if they were articles, even though they were useless outlines. WT likely still has those empty outlines, which skews the figures, even if they contain no useful data. K7L (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at articles such as where phrases such as "its border with Zionist entity, airspace and maritime territory" make it clear that these articles are auto-translated from non-English sources. This source obviously denounces Israel, and is not Arabic Wikipedia; probably not open-source. /Yvwv (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. It does seem the majority of new articles on WT would not be acceptable on WV, so I guess we are not really missing out on something here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Start date for count of edits[edit]

Is it possible for the table to show total edits (since 15 January 2013) in English, as well as "Total edits (since 2003) in English"? Nurg (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Convincing people at that other site to edit here[edit]

Swept in from the pub

It appears that that other side still has a handful of actual contributors that are neither touts nor spambots and it may well be that some are aware of the fork/migration and deliberately chose not to edit here for whichsoever reason. However, due to the google rank problem it may well be that some people edit there due to complete unawareness about WV. What can and should we possibly do about that? Nothing? Hope they find us on their own (And figure out the how and why of it all?) 22:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Email this user" link is the best bet. They're pretty diligent about scrubbing any reference to Wikivoyage from the site. And "Email this user" will only work if a) you're a registered user who isn't blocked and has an e-mail address in your Preferences; and b) the other user has "email this user" enabled. Powers (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia, which has a far stronger trademark and larger community than Wikivoyage, should be more actively used to promote Wikivoyage. Put a {{Wikivoyage}} template on every relevant Wikipedia article. /Yvwv (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
For that matter, if someone is actively editing WP and WT, it would be a good idea to contact them on WP to introduce them to Wikivoyage. K7L (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Blog post from Seat 17A[edit]

Thought this might be of mild interest: Powers (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

We need to improve our coverage on Phoenix, Arizona is all I am getting from that. Is there any place where the author justifies the scores? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about justification, beyond the three five-point scales mentioned. As for Phoenix, it appears they've started to districtify it, though a lot of listings are still in the main article. For us it's still a Big City, not a Huge one. Powers (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
They haven't started dividing Phoenix into districts, Phoenix was (halfway?) districtified years ago. Our Phoenix article too used to be divided into districts until a few months ago. Per the outcome of this discussion, the content of the districts was merged to the main Phoenix article. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am the author of the blog post in question from Seat17A. I didn't publish the full scoring matrix because I didn't want to influence the content of each site (sooo much copy and pasting). With that said, I think it is fair to talk about why I think WikiTravel beat Wikivoyage in Phoenix. It comes down to the recommendations by neighborhood, which Wikitravel has and wikivoyage does not. Since Phoenix is very large geographically, the neighborhoods come in handy. We are talking about a 2 point advantage, which is not much. I live in Phoenix, since there is so much sprawl, breaking it down into districts adds more context to the recommendations. That's my 2 cents, you can email me at: to verify that I am the author of this statement. —The preceding comment was added by 2600:8800:1283:0:c58c:b665:9373:fd28 (talkcontribs)

I (re-)started a discussion regarding districts here and absolutely encourage you to weigh in as local knowledge is always welcome here. At any rate, talk page posts should always be signed by post this symbol ~ four times in a row like this ~~~~ Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to second Hobbitschuster's remarks and also to thank you for coming here to explain that. Yes, please elaborate at that thread in Talk:Phoenix with your opinions about how it would best serve the traveler to district Phoenix, and how it would be most useful to divide up the city, for the purposes of a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


So forgive me if this had been raised before, but maybe we should have the editcount start from the date of the migration/fork or some other point in time? Or are there reasons against that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know any way to obtain that, unless someone remembers the edit count at the time of the fork. (If we have the latter number we can just subtract it from the total editcounts to get the number after the fork.) Powers (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Including literally everything (article edits, talk page edits, project pages, edits which were reverted or deleted, bots, everything)? We're just under a million edits from 2013 to now, based on the revision numbers indicating two million edits were imported or made just after the time of the fork and one million were made here later. Any edit to anything - even if it's later deleted - bumps the revision counter up by one, so these get racked up rather quickly. So an average of a quarter million edits annually over the eight years (2004-2012) with WV continuing at that rate (a million from 2013-2016). Nonetheless, since the split, for every two edits made at that other wiki five are made here. K7L (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well I for one think that "our post fork edits outnumber theirs five to two" is more impressive than "two similar numbers in the three million range". Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

WT article import[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I managed to get a list of articles on WT that we're missing. There's about 2900 of them. I placed all the red links in my user space for reference.

I also have the XML dumps with full history for those pages. 58 Mb uncompressed. I read the policy pages and I know importing is discouraged for SEO reasons but I'm not sure it's really that relevant at this point. It's a small subset (there's 47000 total on WV) and we're adding new articles much faster than they are. There's about 3500 more articles on WV than WT right now. Since they have those 2900 unique to them that means 6400ish unique articles have been written here since the fork.

I'd also volunteer to curate the material, place them in my userspace at first and check each one individually to see if they're worth keeping. I had been doing similar work on EnWiki with a large list of machine translated pages. WT gets new contributors from time to time, well meaning people who don't know the background story. I dislike the idea that all their work will be wasted when that place gets inevitably overrun by spam bots. It already is to some extent... Is this is something that could be considered? Acer (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the duplicate content penalty is definitely still an issue. We're making headway as the two sites' content diverges, but it's slow going and I would fear that importation would reverse some of those gains. Better to treat that list as a list of requested articles and write them from scratch. Powers (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Acer: @LtPowers: I agree that before we mass add content from Wikitravel we keep it somewhere separate. First off, it would be helpful to do some (semi-)automated replacements just for SEO purposes (like "extremely"->"very" and "tasty"->"delicious") and then have editors who are willing to look through the content individually before uploading. I would be willing to assist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of work to up the quality of content on Wikivoyage, my first reaction would be a negative one to this. However the idea of a list of needed article is not a bad one. Could you remove from the list all the redirect pages and also order by country? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@Traveler100: For what it's worth, I am working on redirects and removing them from the userpage now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
...And also deleting items at Wikitravel which should have been gone awhile ago there as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@LtPowers: I just ran a search for #redirect on the XML dump and got 1259 hits. Then there's going to be empty husks, one liners, inadequate/inappropriate/unsuitable articles, spam pages and I even saw a misplaced user page. By the time we finish combing through I reckon there might be less than a thousand pages left. Given the SEO concern we could be even stricter in accepting these than we are with original pages here. And we'll implement Koavfs suggestion to replace words with synonyms. If we end up with a few hundred higher quality pages I feel that's a fair trade for a small penalty, if any. In fact I think our biggest problem is the number of sites that link to us. Per Alexa WT has incoming links from almost 17000 sites, we only have 2000...

@koavf: Yes, I already did some find/replace on the raw XML file. Replaced some templates, added edit comment attribution to each revision and modified usernames to include a WT prefix. While it would be very easy and quite practical to do what you suggest on the XML itself, it would break attribution. But it can be done with a script once the articles are uploaded (if there's agreement for importing)

@Traveler100:I share your concern with article quality, that's why I'm proposing importing all articles into my userspace at first. Then we can work through the list and decide on what's worth keeping. I'll commit to checking each one myself and doing any necessary fixes (see below). I'll see what I can think of to organize the list the way you suggested. I can't do it with simple terminal commands. Will need a script I think.

So, taking everyone's comments into consideration and the concerns about importing, I'll ask just to be allowed to import into my userspace (user talk actually as it's non-indexed) at first so there will be no quality or seo concerns. Me, User:Koavf and anyone else who wants to help would comb through and produce a much smaller list of of higher quality articles to be considered for permanent importation. We'll replace words with synonyms to lessen the SEO impact. We then would submit this refined list for evaluation and acceptance by the community. Nothing gets moved to article space before that. Would that alleviate some of the concerns? Acer (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with importing to your user space as an experiment. I do agree with a "quality" standard, though. Apart from the SEO concerns, there has also been ample discussion about the many very small outlines. Even with a minimal intro and a listing or two, such outlines are not considered a gain by all. While we don't delete the existing ones, it has always been discouraged to mass-create them. The same would be possible by importing from Wikipedia, for example. I do think creating hundreds of such small articles should be avoided in this case too, then. So I think focussing on the larger, higher quality articles is the best way to go. Nice to see that list, though :) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, we're in agreement. Let's see if others are on board. Thanks! Acer (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a number of thoughts about this effort but due to past history would prefer to stay out of this discussion. The only comment I would make is that if this effort does move forward there cannot be any failure whatsoever in ensuring that the imports comply 100% with every line of the CC-SA license - if there is ANY question about whether correct attribution has been provided then the imports should be deleted as quickly as possible. -- Ryan 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I followed the model used when the fork happened, attribution in the edit summary of each revision (Import from I also added a WT prefix to usernames to differentiate them from any possible duplicate here. This was also done back then. A copy of the license is linked to at the bottom of every page here already and any changes we make after importing will be recorded in the history. That I think covers all attribution requirements in the license. The ShareAlike requirements are fully covered also. Did I miss anything? Acer (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
"(WT-en) " is the preferred username prefix; that matches what we used for migration. I guess my main concern is that doing this could lead to WT doing the reverse. Sure, we know they already have the legal right to do it, but why encourage it or tip them off? Powers (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
The only reason it was sufficient to attribute imports to a "(WT-en)" user during the initial import is because there is a corresponding user page with proper attribution; if the new import is done without the corresponding user page (and its corresponding references) then the attribution is probably insufficient. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
But we will be providing the name/ pseudonym of the authors and also say that they were active in another website. This actually goes beyond the requirements. I reread the license terms and I can't find any issues. I placed the sections relevant to attribution here and bolded the relevant parts. What part do you think we are failing to comply with? Acer (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Creative Commons has, in the past at least, used the terminology "you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". I believe they've changed this terminology in the human-readable versions of their licenses, but I'm not 100% clear on the history. Anyway, when we migrated, out of an abundance of caution, we interpreted "the manner specified by the author" to include not just the username proper, but a link to the author's user page, as well as attribution in the page footer according to one's preferred display name (as opposed to username). Neither of these can happen without importation of the user pages and preferences as well. Powers (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Let my register my oppose vote on any copying from WT. We might get inspiration what to do articles on, for sure, but they should be bottom up written by us with our own words (and better yet first hand experience) rather than copying a single comma from "that other site". Not only is there the concern with the fork/duplication penalty and the possibility that the three paid admins and five spambot IPs that still remain on that site might get similar ideas in reverse, I just don't think we need to do that. Our new content since the fork/migration is good. Sure, there might be a few nuggets of gold in what has happened over there since almost everybody left, but the main thing to copy are imho the ideas of what to write an article on and not an article itself. Besides, it would be interesting to see a split how many of those articles are destinations, how many are travel topics and so on. Probably a lot of them would just be redundant or have been axed with good reason over here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick sampling of the list and thought about this a little more. I also oppose the idea of importing these articles. There is little point to having article with no listings and a just walking into controversy on copyrights. Maybe use this list to identify needed articles but then just add the location name to Wikivoyage:Requested articles‎ and add a red link to the appropriate region. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not happening. The plan is for nothing to be transferred to article space unless it's of sufficient quality and has been properly formatted. I'm just asking here to have these pages into userspace so I and others can work on them. See these pages here, they are much better than the average article we have.. (hit Random pages a few times) Tychy Cirali Sinj Pian Camuno Luçon Dania beach and they already include information for the listings, just to need to format using the template. There are mony others like this, but not that many, a few hundred maybe. Everything else will be discarded Acer (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand the utility of such an import. If I wanted to do import any WT (or other CC licensed content) then I would just create that article directly in WV or in my user space. What do you actually get out of importing all of these articles?
If you know that Dania beach is a really awesome article on WT then just go ahead and build it here. No need to import it it 'to work on' first. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I understood you. You mean copy/paste the text? If we do that then there would need to be an attribution template in the body of the article linking to WT. That's not ideal.. Importing the whole history is safer license wise. Also, I don't know which articles are good and which aren't. That's why I wanted to import into userspace and then do a triage. FInally, importing an XML dump is much simpler/faster than copying hundreds of pages by hand.Acer (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I think what was meant was that you can see what is in the WT article, verify it from sources outside WT and upgrade / create our article accordingly. I have to reiterate here that I do not think copying anything from that other site under any circumstances is a wise move. In my opinion we have made a lot of headway by things including random drift at our articles (IP editors or simple wording changes) that google recognizes. Importing or copying from that other site would hurt that more than even the most diligent work over years could help us. I would like a list of genuine travel topics that site has and we don't. Destination articles either come about by people with local knowledge showing up or they don't. Forcing it is not gonna help us. You can get a city article to "usable" without having been there if it is in a country with reasonable "on the internet percentage" for businesses, but those articles do not do much good besides completing regions and whatnot and should not be created just 'cause. The best impetus for new articles is someone with local knowledge starting them. Even if that someone has a limited grasp of English or has touty intentions. So, let's look through the three or four travel topics worth salvaging, create them here from scratch and for the most part forget that other site even exists. I am actually not sure we should even import this stuff to anybody's user page without clear consensus in favor. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ryan, Hobbitschuster, and (particularly) Powers' arguments have convinced me we're playing with fire here. I think it might be useful to retain the list of articles present on WT and absent here, but beyond that I oppose in the strongest possible terms any notion of copying from the other site, and frankly (germane to Powers' comments) would love for this discussion to be brought to a speedy close, in case any prying eyes from over there are watching. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I was trying hard to not give the impression that we would forbid this process, but the benefits are minuscule and we really need to keep away from the IB company if we can possibly help it.
Basically great intention, but there are safer and better ways to achieve new content. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
That's alright. I've been editing wikis for over a decade now. Sometimes you get your way, sometimes you don't. Archive away :) Acer (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WT database / XML dumps[edit]

Swept in from the pub

(related to the above but didn't want it to get lost in the discussions)

This is the complete database dump / back up of WT in all 21 languages. This includes all pages in all namespaces. Download here. The file is compressed using 7zip it's 370 MB in size. XML's are plain text files that can be edited in Notepad, but the uncompressed English language XML reaches 65 GB, so handle with care :) Acer (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if this question is answered somewhere in the discussion above, but what version / date of WT is this dump? How was it created? Thanks. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: They were done between September 3rd and 9th. If you download the file, each language is in a separate folder with the date the archiving was started. Most took a few hours, English a couple days. They were made using Wikiteam's tools, specifically the Dumpgenerator. It's a a script that interfaces with MediaWiki's API. Acer (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying content from that other site[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Please have a look at the very first edit in the edit history of Seda (Sichuan) - what exactly does our policy say on this issue? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage and Wikitravel says, in part:
"While content can be legally copied from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage if attribution is provided in accordance with the CC-BY-SA license, such copying is generally discouraged due to the history of litigation between the two sites and due to the fact that having the same content on both sites can penalize Wikivoyage in search rankings (see search engine optimization for more information). Instead of copying text, consider contributing original content written in your own words.
"Legally, content from Wikitravel can be used on Wikivoyage as long as the conditions of relevant copyright licenses are complied with. Internet Brands has confirmed that the content of Wikitravel is under a CC BY-SA license. However, as Internet Brands and the WMF have engaged in litigation, please discuss before moving content from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage. If you do move anything, be very careful to comply fully with the license terms regarding attribution."
Ground Zero (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I would vote against copying content from WT. So I guess I would be in favor of deleting that page, or at least all the content on it. --ButteBag (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Also copying pages that are "officially closed for foreign travelers" would not seem to be at a high priority level. (for me) --ButteBag (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I am as some may have guessed opposed to copying stuff from that other site and your point as to the value to the traveler of an article for a "closed city" being limited is well made, but the question does arise whether the best course of action is outright deletion, deletion of the copied text (which would likely leave an empty skeleton at least for some time) or something else. I frankly think we should reduce the amount of content that coincides with other places, no matter which other considerations are made. And I am not sure whether this copying currently complies with CC BY-SA. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing precluding the copying of WT content as long as it has attribution, so its not like we get to vote on it. What you can do is rewrite the content so that we avoid any SOE penalties.
Also destinations that are difficult to get to are covered, including North Korea for example. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the current policy can be interpreted in a way as to require at the very least no strong votes against copying from that other site or even a need for consensus in its favor. And North Korea may be an unusual travel destination, but unless you are a journalist (or otherwise unwanted by the North Korean authorities) going there on a "glory to our dear leader" tour seems actually about as easy as booking a cruise. Of course you'll have to dance their little dance, so to speak, but that's not the same as the Cold War era "this city is so secret no foreigners are allowed in" that apparently still exists in some places. I'm not arguing this is not a place on which we could in theory have an article, I am saying it is not worth us copying content from that other site and thereby validating their propaganda of us being a cheap knockoff and whatnot. I also don't like inviting potential IB trolls putting copied content all over our sites and us having to sift through it and/or make SEO edits just to combat this. We know IB has sent trolls our way in the past, I see no reasons they might not do so with different tactics in the future. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been saying over and over again that this site needs a specific, black-and-white policy against any text copied verbatim from WT. I don't know how many examples need to pile up before it becomes clear that this is a significant ongoing phenomenon and a problematic one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
RE: Hobbitschuster If North Korea is not to your liking then look at Diego Garcia. Again all earth bound destinations are valid, even if you have a tough time getting there.
I'd also prefer no WT content to be copied over, but frankly I don't see that we have a firm basis to reject such contributions. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I have copyedited the article so that it is no longer exactly the same, just mostly the same, and, I think, easier to read. Please be careful about accusations. is not an "IB troll", but someone who has been contributing to Wikivoyage since 16 Oct 2016. It appears that s/he also contributes to the other site, and often makes the same edits in both places (although it does not seem like s/he wrote the original Seda article in 2015). For my part, I use Wikivoyage as much for "fantasy travel" (reading about places it is unrealistic to think I will ever visit, as much as for trip planning. See also our Space and Moon articles. Ground Zero (talk)
Also, some of the content for the original article appears to have been copied from our good friends at Wikipedia, whose article pre-dates that of the other travel site, so litigious persons could have a problem raising this. Ground Zero (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did not accuse anybody of being an IB troll. I just wanted to point out why allowing copying may be dangerous. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that the discussion of IB trolls is being raised in the context of a single copying event undertaken by, so s/he may well infer that this is an attack on her/him, which I am glad you say it isn't. I see from User that @Ikan Kekek: has been trying to coach on how to contribute to Wikivoyage, so I think it would be useful to hear from Ikan about dealing with Let's discuss IB trolls as a matter separate from the Seda article then as I think we agree that the two are distinct issues. Ground Zero (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I almost feel like at holy inquisition :-) The simple motivation was there was no page for this (dare I say - hugely interesting) place for *long*, and I didn't want to start from zero page (I knew nothing about it, wasn't there (yet)). Since all of your content is based on WT, I'd say it doesn't matter whether it's based on an article from 2005 or 2016. Some whole countries were 1:1 copy of WT for 5 years, so what does it matter if someone copies one article by hand? PS: I probably would've been working on this one in the following days, in my tempo - but thank you to all who contributed already. My comment on the policy (if it's worth anything) is below. (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, sorry you're feeling like that. Folks, yes, I've communicated with and found him a constructive and diligent user, definitely not a troll. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Then let's make policy crystal clear[edit]

As I see it there is currently a widespread agreement that copying from WT is undesirable but not an agreement on whether it is currently subject to any preconditions besides those stipulated in CC BY-SA. So as I see it there are two alternatives to leaving policy as is:

  1. Ban all copying of any content from WT and make repeat offenses grounds for banning
  2. Allow copying only after a clear consensus in favor of such copying has been achieved.

I think the former is the better alternative, but some might not be comfortable with such a clear policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that we operate as part of the w:Wikimedia_Foundation , and although the community has the right to define policies relevant to us (such as Wikipedia no longer allowing the Daily Mail to be used as a reference) I am pretty uncomfortable banning creative commons content just because it comes from a site we don't like. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we have to allow any origin of copied content just because it is issued under a license that allows copying? There are probably a whole bunch of sources now passed into the public domain that WP does not want to see copied on its pages (even though they may not have issued a specific ban against them). I know not nearly as much as I'd like to about the implications of our license and our being part of Wikimedia, but I don't think they'd be too unwilling to allow us to ban copying any content from a site that has been in pretty hostile litigation with the Wikimedia Foundation as well as individuals associated with WV. If and when our community achieves a consensus to do so, that is. I think there is if not a policy at least a somewhat common practice to remove copied content on sight from existing articles, but this obviously doesn't apply in this specific example. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Wikimedia mission statement :
.The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
and the values of Freedom:
.An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse.
As far as I can tell your proposal runs directly counter to the principles of Wikimedia. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Vague, high-minded platitudes about free content and open sourcing are well and good, but let's not be naïve. This isn't merely a "site we don't like". As Hobbitschuster said above, the case of WT presents a pretty weighty extenuating circumstance - not only did they engage in hostile litigation, but even after they lost in court they continued to troll, disrupt, and otherwise attempt to undermine the integrity of Wikivoyage, using a number of tactics of which this is one. I think Hobbit's Option #1 is not only allowable, but the only reasonable course of action. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll disagree then. The principles are not vague at all, and encourage us to be open rather than insular which is precisely the direction suggested here. I also don't believe the creation of Seda_(Sichuan) was an attempt to undermine WV, and do not regard that as a 'naïve' position.
Seriously, IB didn't behave well at all during the fork and have since made some attempts to undermine us, but draconian suggestions such as this will only harm us long term (which would please IB no doubt) Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I would not consider a policy of banning copying from one specific site "draconian", I also don't find anything in that mission statement that says "oh and by the way, we love copying stuff". I think it is fair to say the page in question was created in good faith, but making it impossible to undo this type of damage even if done with harmful or doubtful intent is really not a good way forward. I also do not see how prohibiting copying from this specific site will harm us in the long run. I think the google penalty (which we can argue back and forth about, but which will only get more entrenched if we start copying stuff from that IB site) is one of our biggest long term challenges as is the general development of wikis overall. There is also the added point that hardly anyone edits that other site anyway, so there is not much stuff they can even theoretically claim to be better than we are anyway. And given that there censoring of our name makes it impossible for us to be copied there with proper attribution, they might use copied content (which they themselves might put here) as some weird sort of recruitment or propaganda tool. I was actually almost convinced that IB has forgotten all about that site they acquired way back when (and which has surely caused them more headache than anything), but us being wishy washy in our "we don't like when you copy, but we are all for it" policy is a downright invitation for anybody wishing to disrupt us getting funny ideas. I also thought that copying content was in the past at the very least grounds for being looked at and told about our relationship with that site. Oftentimes such edits were (partially) reverted as well. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Draconian does mean "excessively harsh and severe", which would be a good way to describe the reaction to this non-threat to WV. Once you have banned a site such as WT with no reasonable justification then you are making it easier to ban other sources on a whim in future as well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is just stupid, sorry. Licensing aside, I'd say the page won't propagate itself on google. I started on WT exactly because it's almost impossible to discover WV, if you don't already know you are looking for it. Perhaps wikimedia should rather invest in some advertisment on pages like tripadvisor - so that you get some links. I reckon that will help SEO much more than the copying of text harms it.
About the "ban copied stuff" policy. Do as you want, but you will probably only discourage people who want to help. Sure, there may be trolls etc. You can probably get rid of such cases by some "soft ban" - like if the thing is copied 1:1 and not touched for let's say 1 month, get rid of it - or prune it to very basics. (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
No-one here wants simply duplication from that or any other site, but I have to agree. A full-out ban does seem to be excessive and might well scare off well-intending new editors coming from that other site. It's perfectly natural when you've been working there to think it's helpful to copy content here, being unaware of the SEO issues and the history. I also feel we're engaging again in a long and for many frustrating discussion to tackle a relatively small problem. How many copied pages are really being introduced per year? It's a handful at most. Why can't we simply treat this like we treat all other verbatim copying? It's discouraged, for WT text even more so than for other sites due to SEO reasons, new editors who copy text get an explanation on why it is unwanted and why it is important to write original content. If anyone purposely continues to copy a lot of text despite the explanation and without engaging in a constructive dialogue, we can take appropriate action based on that, since working within consensus is what we do., welcome to this little community :-) I'm sorry this feels like an inquisition to you. I hope you understand where all these frustrations are coming from. Looking forward to more (but now original! ;-)) contributions by you. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I second the last part of what Julias said., you wandered into a bit of a minefield here, but it seems obvious to me that you meant well. We're happy to have you here, and please know that any frustration you may be reading in others' comments here isn't directed at you personally. In fact, you can take heart in that your edits served as a catalyst in making some real headway in solving a larger issue that's been simmering for a long time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding... Pendantic? Naive? How does ttcf apply here? I've thought about this a lot, actually and haven't come to a conclusion. Can someone shed some light on this from his perspective? What would help the traveler the most here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't help the traveller if the traveller can't even find us due to SEO issues. K7L (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This is not a response to whatever seemed to have started this discussion (I haven't looked into it), just a general response. I don't see it as harmful to state contributors should use their own words and not copy-and-paste from other sources. That sounds incredibly reasonable and non-controversial to me. A user who is informed of such a policy should easily be able to adjust, and a user who refuses would be working against the project. I don't see how "original writing" goes against the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement, either. Wikipedia doesn't allow copy-and-paste edits, either. On that site they need attribution and rarely do they simply copy everything as a quote. They, too, summarize. Here, we don't provide any attribution, so we should certainly try to maintain original writing. I don't see where the contention is, but perhaps I'm missing something by not being aware of the catalyst for this discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ChubbyWimbus: "Wikipedia doesn't allow copy-and-paste edits" That's not true at all. Tens of thousands of articles have been generated from census data and the CIA World Factbook as well as incorporating material directly from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some of our sister projects virtually are copy and pasting like Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiquote, and Wikisource, plus Wiktionary relies heavily on quotations for citation. That may not be an argument for copying and pasting here but it's certainly not true that Wikipedia disallows copying and pasting, nor do any of our other projects. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The w:user:rambot is the worst malicious robot vandal in the history of Wikipedia, spamming thousands of pages with (now-outdated) US Census data. It was shut down at the end of 2004 with extreme prejudice. If it were to return, it would be shot on sight - or maybe shot on site. I'd be very hesitant to use it as a w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS precedent as its operation would not be tolerated on Wikipedia today. The 2012 mass dump of all WT content here will also not be repeated.K7L (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd add to this. You can't help traveller if you prefer empty article over copy (seriously pruned) from WT even in case of most important topics of countries, like Salar de Uyuni of Bolivia. Or does anyone here seriously think that when the first thing about Bolivia is not covered here, the traveller will take this page seriously? Esp. if WT has it in depth... If he turns around, he won't link from discussion forums, blogs, other guides to here - and you get zero SEO points. With copied stuff, the SEO penalty is likely very small these days. I think you'd be better off adding new content, than reinventing wheel... Again, looking at Bolivia - your/our time would be much better spent organizing the country in some traveler-friendly appearance (adding maps, high-level region overview), than discussing if some few kilobytes of copied text in one sub-sub-sub-sub-page will (or not) harm. (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again it was by no means my intention to single you out or presume anything but the best intentions, but even I as someone who has not been here for as long as some others have found the problems created by IB and all that comes with it extremely frustrating. IB literally tried to shut down this website before it even came to be and is even now censoring any mention of it. And they have in the past sent trolls our way (thankfully often blatantly obvious ones), so this issue naturally is an emotional one to many here. If - as seems to be the case - there is agreement that there is little to no to be copied from that other site to begin with, I don't see why being a bit clearer about us not wanting that could do harm. And while I agree with User:ChubbyWimbus in that WP does not usually have copy pasted content, they do sometimes have articles or large parts of articles based on old encyclopedias that since have passed into the public domain (Meyers Konversationslexikon is a favorite on de-WP) - which is a source of text we certainly won't need or use not now or ever. As for the sources of our information; ideally locals or people who have been to the place are our main source for our articles. For updating stuff that has become outdated our dead weblink tool has proven invaluable. I sometimes add listings to articles that are devoid of them in a certain category by going to the tourism website, see the hotels and restaurants there and then see their own websites. This is of course not as good as actually going there, but it beats having no listings whatsoever in an article and I have found that the more content an article has, the more edits it attracts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The general (but serious) discouragement of copying is not the issue. However, additional policy explicitly "banning" any copying from WT specifically is likely to provoke deletions on sight and firm talk, which would scare away good editors who were just unaware. We'd be throwing out the kid with the bathwater. It's much better to kindly inform them, help with rewriting such an article when possible and hopefully draw them in. We have tools to stop malicious editors or IB trolls when they want to continue unwanted edits despite that information - the same way we would handle verbatim copying from other sites, as we always have. Besides all that, singling out WT as a "forbidden" source would make us as petty as they have been, and I don't care to give them any such special attention. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
JuliasTravels, "likely to provoke deletions on sight and firm talk, which would scare away good editors" is wild speculation. Though all of us more experienced editors slip up from time to time, as a general rule we scrupulously assume good faith when it comes to new users making honest mistakes. None of that would necessarily change if we made prohibition of content copied from WT an explicit policy - and if it did, the problem wouldn't lie with the policy, but with newbie-biting, which itself is against policy.
Secondly, by way of addressing ChubbyWimbus' and Justin's comments upthread: I have no problem with WV content coped from Wikipedia or other CC-licensed sources with proper attribution, and even given our history with WT, I might be inclined to bury the hatchet with them on the issue of shared content if not for the censoring of any mention of WV at WT that Hobbitschuster mentioned. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it remains impossible to copy WV content to WT with proper attribution, I don't feel any compunction about the idea of forbidding the reverse. It seems to me that all this talk about the spirit of fairness and open content is, in this particular case with WT, being employed for the benefit of an illusion of fairness that belies a scenario whose end result is in many ways manifestly less fair than that of a prohibition on copying. Fairness and openness are two-way streets.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the decision to keep or delete something should be based on the quality of this content, and whether it is appropriate for a travel guide. It would be silly to disallow good content, because the eventual goal is to have all good and freely licensed travel-related information in one place. I also think that the amount of good content copied from other sites is normally so small that it should not be visible and should not require any discussion. When it is, it probably means that "some other" travel wikis still are still doing better than this one. --Alexander (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Surprised this is still a discussion. Yes, no-one likes WT, but proposing banning valid attributed CC content from any source is a bad idea. If the content is both legal and useful then there are better ways to improve WV than proposing draconian (yes, correct definition) measures. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Many of the instances of "copying" from WT are actually users copying what they inputted to WT into WV. Surely we're not going to make that a capital crime, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
"Capital crime", "scaring away good editors" - I fail to understand wherefore the leap from "new policy" to "heavy-handed consequences for those who defy the policy". There is an extremely circumscribed range of behaviors for which a user can incur a permaban on the spot - real-world threats, vandalism-only accounts, and a very few others - and if we institute a prohibition on copying from WT like we should, I don't foresee violators of that policy as falling into the permaban category, at least for first-time offenders. I would see no problem with one or more gentle reminders, followed by the usual escalating user-blocks scheme for those who still don't get the message.
To answer the question here: you are correct, copying one's own content from WT to WV would not suffice for an exception to the rule. The reason why is extremely straightforward for those who can avoid getting hung up on the letter of the law. Something I also fail to understand is the stubborn refusal to differentiate between our relationship with WT vs. our relationship with Wikipedia or whatever other site that uses CC-licensed material with whom we don't have a uniquely adversarial history. Of course we value the free exchange of information in the Creative Commons spirit, but can you people really not see how this is a special circumstance that warrants being looked at differently? Do you honestly think any good-faith user who innocently copies text he wrote at WT to this site would disagree if s/he were given a brief primer on the history of the WT-WV relationship? Come to think of it, if you asked such a user what the advantage is to anyone of having the exact same information available on two different sites, don't you think s/he would come to understand why we feel the way we do about it?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to try to help you guys with the discussion, perhaps you need some table pro/against (the numbers are just arbitrary) - the above goes in circles currently... Feel free to delete it if it's useless, or adjust values. I'll see myself out :-) (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pro WT content points (1 ... 10) Against -points (-10 ... -1)
CC-BY-SA content normally accepted 5
WT lawsuits/trolling a possibility (depending on how often it happens and how hard it is to detect compared to a generic vandalism) -3
overhead with detecting WT-specific content -1
problems with checking whether WT content is not "stolen" in the first place (but that's with any copied content) -1
more relevant/complete content for the visitors, than empty pages/stubs - also "something" is a better base for editing than "nothing" 8
Big part of WV is WT-sourced since 20xx with minimal changes anyhow.Also WT content gets updated more than WV in some areas. 5
SEO problems (mightn't be too big) -4
Easier to start a page if the editor doesn't know it, than to gather the info from scratch. 3
banning copying might scare away new contributors 3, that table would be relevant if we'd be discussing whether or not copied content is wanted. We're not. It's long established and broadly supported policy to discourage all verbatim copying - for a range of reasons. It's a different discussion. The question here was if we need to change current policy on how to handle copying. Regardless of opinions, I think it's abundantly clear that there is currently no consensus to do so. It also doesn't seem like we're likely to change each other's mind. Therefore, I'll refrain from further commenting :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, it seems both sides are not moving and repeating the same points won't help.
I would however suggest another path, which is to leave policy well alone and create a new category template that identifies articles that have been extensively copied (including from our favorite WT source) and request a rewrite. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be a useful template. I'd be willing to help with rewrites. Ground Zero (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
For new cases, fine. I'm not sure it would be a great idea to put such a template on all our pages with WT material though... that's probably still 90% of articles, no? JuliasTravels (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The frequency of WT material on pre-fork articles must be far higher than 90%! I was thinking more identifying articles that have a high 'similarity quotient' to their WT correspondence article. i.e. articles that have exactly the same introduction over many paragraphs. Other aspects such as listings would not count towards how similar the two articles were. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
There seem to be some disagreements over whether edits to remove copied content are desirable. I think the template should be designed in such a way that it can be applied to single sections as well. Sometimes a whole "get in" section is essentially the same it has been since 2011 or even earlier. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I think everyone is on the same page with regards to copied content being undesirable, with just the question of how to respond to it being in contention. We could add a template on a section basis rather than for the whole article. It would make sense. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A fork of of this discussion has been moved to Talk:Salar de Uyuni.

Does no one edit on WT any longer?[edit]

According to "Recent changes" on WT, the only action that goes on is creation of spambots, deletion of spam, and blocking of spambots. Have all their productive users left? What does that make of WT and WV in the future? /Yvwv (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't that what we were saying would happen back when we forked? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
WT still gets a far higher SEO ranking than we do. From a business owners perspective they are making decent advertising dollar revenue from hosting this wiki on slow servers and investing minimum wage 'editors' to stop the content getting too bad.
Sadly it does still attract sincere occasional contributors who regard it as the best place to update listings and content. Until Google gives us equal ranking then this general perception that WT is the main travel source will remain. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
How would one then get about and change said google ranking? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Their travellers' pub had four edits this month. WT is essentially a walking corpse. / Yvwv (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should a "number of edits in [recent month]" category to our comparison? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hobbitschuster, there has been much discussion around this point and you should see Wikivoyage:Search_engine_optimization and Wikivoyage:Search_Expedition .
We now enter the realm of opinions, since nothing is known for sure. My opinion is that we are discriminated against by Google for having content still too similar to the longer held content of WT. Updating our content may help, and we have been crawling up the search rankings at a snail's pace. I suspect that there is a switch inside of the Google company somewhere that could help us significantly, but obviously that can't be accessed.
And to be fair, it is not just Google that ranks us low. I can't mandate how people spend their time on WV, but if I were king of WV for a day I would stop people (pointlessly) messing around with United States main article and thinking of new words for 'cow' in English language varieties and actively get people to fix articles in the hinterlands, most of which are still close copies of their WT counterparts. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
When I had more time (and better internet) I did quite a bit of that using Apparently get in and get around sections are among the prime targets. Anecdotal evidence also shows that articles that are created "from scratch" here fare not bad at all in search rankings. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Presumably, most new readers find us through the major destination articles. Still, many of these articles (such as Moscow) are very similar to Wikitravel (compare ). Could we improve search engine results (and readers' first impression) by rewording the articles for the most famous cities and resorts; or at least the introduction? /Yvwv (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that's a splendid idea, but when I had brought that up earlier, I felt something of a pushback against "lateral SEO edits" that "don't improve the article". I did however do some rewriting for places like Berlin, Central Europe or Europe. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Did some rephrasing for Stockholm, Gothenburg, Copenhagen and Oslo /Yvwv (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Articles such as Helsinki are based on purple prose, remaining word by word from Wikitravel. [7] These passages make Wikivoyage look worse than it is. /Yvwv (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

True. Do we still have a resident Finn on hand? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO, purple prose should be kept to zero for all major destinations (countries, capitals, major resorts, etc) as they get too lengthy anyway. SEO and the impression of plagiarism (as new readers might not understand the backstory) are other reasons. Made a quick fix for Helsinki. /Yvwv (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Do Search engines rank entirely on a page basis or are there elements of site as well? So are they "negative" about WV as a whole or just those pages on WV that are close/identical to WT. I can understand new pages being better as there is no corresponding competition on WT e.g. create a page on "Unicycle Travel in East Grinstead" and anybody searching on "Unicycle" and "East Grinstead" is bound to find your page near the top of the list. But if e.g. WV and WT both created a new page "Skiing in Florida" with identical content, would the WT page always come out ahead of the WV page because WT is "preferred" over WV. (I suppose an easy experiment (but for something more sensible). PsamatheM (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2 your pointing to Wikivoyage:Search_engine_optimization was interesting, particularly the bit there about the value of adding links from Wikipedia to WV (for places in Wikipedia that have matching WV articles (using External links at the bottom ...) and the Special:UnconnectedPages listing WV pages with no corresponding Wikipedia links. I've created a few destination pages and built up some pages from virtually empty and not even thought about creating links in the corresponding Wikipedia page (my lack of awareness). PsamatheM (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit to Helsinki starts off fine but then proceeds to neuter the lively tone of the lede. It's boring and wooden and I'm tempted to revert it. This is exactly why some of us oppose changing wording just to make it different; it nearly always results in a net regression of tone and liveliness. Powers (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Let me try again. /Yvwv (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to users from Finland, @LPfi: is doing good work. When it comes to distinction from Wikitravel, a goal would be
* Every major article (continent, continental section, country, capital, huge city or other major destination (Mallorca etc)) should have a good intro paragraph different from Wikitravel.
* Delete or rework extravagant/purple prose from Wikitravel in major articles.
* Delete or rework Wikitravel prose that violates MoS in major articles.
Presumably there are about 600 of those articles; a minority of all our material. These goals would not just improve SEO, but also improve the quality of our most read article. Of course it does not conflict with work on minor articles. /Yvwv (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to add, we should fix out-of-date content from WT too. When e.g. the name, address, phone, etc. of a listing has changed, it is of course good to update it even if it was added post-fork, but I make fixing pre-fork content a priority because of the extra benefit of SEO. Gizza (roam) 23:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How to add WT stats?[edit]

Given that Ryan is no longer editing here, how do we determine which stats from the WT site go into the table?

I made an attempt, but want to ensure it was consistent with previous practice. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Movie and TV tours on The other Site[edit]

Since the Exodus, Wikitravel has very little material. However, they have a series of "Movie and TV tours"; most of them added during recent years. Shall we copy those? Or paraphrase them, for better SEO? /Yvwv (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We have several as well; Game of Thrones tourism The Wire Tour & Breaking Bad Tour are substantial articles. Pashley (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There is an index at Fiction tourism. Pashley (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The last thing we should be doing is copying anything from WT, verbatim or not. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
At a first glance, our list contains better known franchises. That might be good for SEO. /Yvwv (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Stepped up the game, by adding Star Wars tourism. /Yvwv (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Should we redirect Movie and TV Tours to Fiction tourism? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd say separate redirects for Movie tourism & TV tourism, lowercase 't' & may cover things other than tours. Pashley (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. But "Movie and TV Tours" is the title of the Wikitravel page. I'm thinking we should have a redirect, so that people who see the WT page can easily find our version of the page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
"Movie and TV Tours" looks like a very unlikely search word. But I see no harm in redirects, as long as they lead no one astray. /Yvwv (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we outperform their Destination of the Month?[edit]

Our Destination of the Month is Milan. While it is a good article, it is very similar to the Wikitravel article. While Wikitravel no longer has a nomination process, they rotate their Destination of the Month; it is Larnaca now. Our Larnaca article is slightly more elaborate than theirs. Could we make a habit of copyediting our DOTM to make it different from Wikitravel, and possibly improving Wikitravel's DOTM, proving once and for all that our material is superior? /Yvwv (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That might be taking things too far. We shouldn't become obsessed with Wikitravel. If we want to outperform Wikitravel: What we really need to do is build a good travel guide. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree completely & I'd even make it stronger; not only should we not be obsessed, we should mostly just ignore WT. Pashley (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyedits and checking whether text that hasn't been changed in five years needs updating is a good idea, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
WT is a competitor for search engine hits, readers, and contributor. Since much WV material is identical to WT, search engines still favor WT over WV. In a reader's eyes, WV might also look like a mirror of WT. Every user who ends up at WT, is a user who does not come to WV with potential to write new, great articles. The struggle to differ from WT is a real one. /Yvwv (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and while copyediting improves quality, it is very little use in distinguishing WV from WT in search engines. To make a significant difference WV articles need substantial new content and/or completely rewritten content. Nurg (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
An interesting exercise for a bot writer would be to find articles with little change since the split. This need not involve massive downloads & direct comparisons; instead look at how many edits or how many bytes added since the split.
Another interesting search would be for outdated info. e.g. I just searched for "2014" & found lots of old info. August & several other months are one example, Flying to Africa and Pyay have info "as of 2014", and so on. Pashley (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Frontier_Country#2008_Events, North_Shore_(Massachusetts) "$7 fee ... (summer of 2008, may increase in 2009)", & others. Pashley (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are our travel topics better than theirs?[edit]

Looked through Wikitravel's list of travel topics.

Many of their post-exodus article (created 2013 or later) are either the kind of advice that should not be left to wiki sites (yellow fever, etc), have nothing to do with travel (traffic congestion, preventing sexual assault, etc); the "staycation" article takes the cake, as by definition describing how not to travel. In the meantime, they don't have the new categories we created since the exodus, such as food, historical travel and religion and spirituality. Tell me if you find any relevant travel topic, which we can reverse-engineer to Wikivoyage. /Yvwv (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Without looking at the contents of those articles, one stands out as absolutely related to travel: Traffic congestion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything non WV:Obvious to say about traffic congestion in general as opposed to specific cities and regions? I think we do quite a good job of mentioning it in city articles, don't we? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I'm not suggesting it's a good travel topic, just that on the face of it, it's travel-related. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
At any rate, we do have an article on Yellow fever and on some other diseases, too. I also don't think we should create a travel topic on "traffic congestion" but maybe a redirect on a section in tips for road trips or driving? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if the term is worth a redirect and feel apathetic about it. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I created a few redirects, including one for Congestion. I think we might wish to put a very limited number of those topics on our "wanted articles" list. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"Congestion" by itself means "nasal congestion" to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, or in a travel context several other things. For example, when I think of congestion in Shanghai it is the million shoppers a day walking along Nanjing Road or the 10 million a day on the metro that come to mind. Pashley (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I see Culture shock on the list. I think that would be a really good article for us to have, if anyone wants to take a stab at it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It's on the list of requested articles. And if you think the congestion redirect shouldn't exist, vfd it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Provided that Wikitravel might not survive another year; it is not just about competitiveness and SEO. We should salvage useful ideas. Yvwv (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Internet Brands will try and continue to extract some advertising revenue from it if at all possible. Only once the cost of webhosting exceeds the revenue gained will they shut it down. That said, we are capable of having genuinely good ideas on our own, yaknow? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)