Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

Welcome to the pub

Shortcuts:
WV:Pub
WV:TP

The travellers' pub is for general discussion on Wikivoyage, and the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. To start a new topic, click the "Add topic" tab, so that it gets added at the bottom of the page, and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~)

Before asking a question or making a comment:

• Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
• If you are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge.
• If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
• If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment.
• If you are wanting travel advice on a specific matter see the tourist office.
• If you have an issue you need to bring to the attention of an administrator, try Vandalism in progress.
• If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead.
• If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
• Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.
• Anything that is Nigeria-related is now meant to go in the Nigeria café instead. Anything that is Kosovo or Albania related is now meant to go in the Kosovo and Albania café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives, celebrations, and issues with certain articles.

You can review old Pub discussions in the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread

Picture format

Images are important to the readability of WV. A good size for the majority of pictures is 300px, and this is widely used, but some contributors prefer “default” with no px size set.

I therefore compared images as viewed on an office worktop, a laptop, a tablet and a smart phone. I took the example of Lanzarote as displayed on WV, Wikipedia, Jet2 and TUI – these two are the leading providers of holidays to Lanzarote so their brochures are likely to reflect good practice. Jet2 appear to be at 300px and TUI at 250px.

The results were consistent: images at 300px worked well on all devices. They loaded quickly, were clear and eye-catching, and did not crowd out the text or distort the page balance.

Default images were never better, but acceptable provided the image was intrinsically bold and the display size was not less than 250px. For instance the pic of Lagomar is bold and still works, whereas Cactus Garden is a great pic at 300px but loses its wealth of colour and texture at 250px.

Some default images on WV were smaller, down to 150px, and these were just miserable postage stamps that threw away all their impact. All smaller formats had the problem that greater gaps between pix gave the page a slabby stodgy appearance.

These results were confirmed by a couple of colleagues “blind”, unaware of my own preferences or input to the pages.

Could advocates of “default” please explain the circumstances in which those images show to advantage? Otherwise I recommend 300px as the size to specify for most. Grahamsands (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I never set a size because I assume the default is the preferred size. If 300px is better, can we change the default to 300px, instead of changing every picture? Ground Zero (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Remember that pictures have to be public domain (or your own work given to public domain). For significant locations such as Paris then it isn't a problem to find images of high resolution, however some small town in Nebraska or a tiny island in Japan may have very limited pd images. Question is, are these 'postage stamps' a worse reader experience than having none at all? Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

(Technically, images have to be "free". Public domain is a specific, narrower concept in copyright law.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree 300px is better – 250px is far too small to read. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that the WMF denied us a change of site-wide default. Users can set their default to 300 px, but that doesn't help non-logged in readers, or those that aren't aware of preference options. The rationale was that the WMF doesn't want to cache multiple sizes according to whims of different projects, and doesn't want to special-case us. I think allowing one more default size would be no issue, but I am not sure the time has come to re-raise the request. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We can unilaterally change policy to by default explicitly use 300 px. The downside is, in addition to oddness in the transitional period, that users who have set their preference to, say, 400 px will then get the same 300 px. –LPfi (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how the feature for image size in preferences came there, but the makers of the Wiki-software must have reacted to signals coming from users who wanted some control over the size of the images. With "traveller comes first" we should also respect the size preference of the users. So I think we must not force 300px images upon them when another size is their preference. Exeptions sould only be made for images that contain text that must be legible when it is displayed in the article and clicking it to enlarge is not wanted in that situation; maps are an example of such images. --FredTC (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@LPfi, when did we request the site-wide change? This is a small wiki. They shouldn't care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

They were worried that it would set a precedent. I think it has been discussed several times and there are several discussion not directly involving Wikivoyage. I don't find the discussion I tried to find, but Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2013#Can we make image defaults bigger now? points to phab:T49332, with some of the reasons for turning this down. Setting a global default of 300 px has been suggested, and in phab:T69709 ("eternally stalled") TheDJ writes:

"I propose we just have this sit around until someone comes asking again, and then we point them here, saying there is no technical reasons not to do it, only political and that if they show us something that resembles a community agreement _across_ the wiki's, we will deploy this."

That seems to be where this is standing: too big a mess for anybody in the tech teams to want to take the initiative. The default image size in MediaWiki seems to have been changed to 300 px.

For getting this forward, note the "across the wikis". en-wp seems to have rejected the proposal (in 2014) in a confused discussion ending in "no consensus": w:Wikipedia:Village pump_(technical)/Archive 128#Time for the semi-annual enlarging of thumbnail images.

–LPfi (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not advocating for 300px to become a new default. Apart from the technical difficulty, there are bound to be too many exceptions where that size is unwanted. My proposal is that 300px can and should be specified for the majority of pictures, because they look good and because "default" looks worse. Please state circumstances in which they don't?

I am left behind by the discussion about "preferences" because in my user area I can see a button to change my gender, which could save a lot of bother at the dysphoria clinic, but nothing referring to image sizes. And IMHO it is the very opposite of TTCF to say that's what folk should do. It drives away the casual reader, tomorrow's contributor, who stumbles upon WV and needs to be grabbed by powerful images and engaging informative text. Does TUI or Jet2 or any other travel mag tell me I must sign up to something and turn somersaults to render their brochures attractive? To insist upon such a process is to empower only a signed-up WV brotherhood while offering the real world out there a poor product. Grahamsands (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@LPfi, that Phab task was ten years ago. It's okay now. Big wikis require some thought and advance work, but small wikis are just a matter of flipping a switch. (See, e.g., the comment from @Jdforrester (WMF) in phab:T355914#9494792 that "small wikis can get away with this").

Graham, if 300px should be used for the majority of pictures, we should make that the default, and specify a different size for the ones where it doesn't work (if any). Any logged-in user can change the setting for themselves at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering-files (the "Thumbnail size"). The problem we want to avoid is:

1. We agree that most images should be 300px.
2. We decide to leave the default at 220px, and manually override the default for most images.
3. A logged-in user has picked a non-standard default (e.g., the biggest size because of visual impairments, or the smallest size to save bandwidth).
4. But they get 300px on most images anyway, because we are manually overriding their chosen settings.

The better approach is:

1. We agree that most images should be 300px.
2. We change the default to 300px, although there are a few images for which we decide to manually override the default setting.
3. Almost everyone sees 300px, and we don't have to do any extra work to specify the size of each image. But if you picked a different size, then you get your chosen size on almost all images.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like that would achieve the objective, that non-signed-in readers automatically see images at a good size. So if it is nowadays technically simple and has no serious side effects then I support. But to check on the latter point, could those who have set a user preference please state their chosen size, and their reasons for it? Grahamsands (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Normally I use 120px, but occasionally 400px.

• The 120px is what I standard use when I access an article direct at the website (not PDF of printed), which I call interactive use. In that case the 120px size photo's, as small as they are, give me a good idea of what is on the photo's and of which ones I want to have a closer look by clicking them.
• I use 400px only if I look together with 1 or 2 others to the article on my laptop screen and there s a need to see the photo's an not read big parts of the text. I also tried 400px when doing an export to PDF but that did not result in bigger photo's in the PDF.

btw, I just checked the 400px with the PDF export on the Penicuik article to be shure that what I wrote above is still true, and I noticed that the balance between text and photo is about ⅔ text an ⅓ photo for 250px (and no px specified) photo's, which is ½ text and ½ photo for the 300px photo's. For me the ⅔–⅓ balance looked better, but that is a matter of personal taste. --FredTC (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice to hear. It seems I searched in the wrong way – and there should probably be better practices to make finding such chances easier. I myself usually use the default, on Wikivoyage to see what most readers see, on Wikipedia because I am more interested in the textual content than in the illustrations (which is true also here). On a slow connection, I often click stop before the images have loaded, when I suppose I already got the essentials. One thing that is irritating is static maps or in-image legends being fuzzy enough to be unreadable, probably because of an unlucky resizing ratio. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As there is no objection to setting default = 300px, and we're told no technical barrier, can this now be actioned? Grahamsands (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If default= 300 px cannot be implemented for whatever reason, I go back to my original proposal, that this size is specified for most pictures. It appears that only a few users would have minor inconvenience from this, and it would much improve the reading experience for the majority. Grahamsands (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no objection against changing the default to 300px, so we could ask for it and leave any discussions for the case it is denied. One thing to look out for are images with "upright=1.5" or the like, which may get too large with the new default (I found 123 searching for 'insource:"upright=1.5"', 197 for …=2, which includes 2.5 & al, and 5 for …=3, including this). I tried to look for how this works out with "?useskin=vector-2022" added to the page URLs, as the line length is restricted in that layout (or so I have understood), but did not get any comprehensible results. –LPfi (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so what is the lever to pull to launch this request? I've not been involved in a system tweak before. Grahamsands (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator ^(?)
Task T357943

I filed a request. On the technical side, there's no significant barrier. We are a tiny fraction of the pages the servers parse, and a tiny fraction page views. However, the English Wikipedia has made a similar request, which does involve substantial technical barriers, so there's a chance that they'll block everyone else while they worry about enwiki. Even if they had unlimited staffing resources, enwiki's problems would take a few months to solve, and doing it right would probably take a few months more than that (because pre-generating tens of millions of thumbnails doesn't happen instantly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. We can but hope. Grahamsands (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Review of Abuse Filter rules

I checked out Abuse filter management – Travel guide at Wikivoyage (not visible to everyone) and can see that:

1) There are rules picking up false positives and blocking valid edits

2) There are rules that have not been triggered in many years

I could go through and clean these up but would like to achieve consensus first. The idea would be to take rules and choose to delete or change action from block to tag.

It is also difficult to collaborate on the rules since the rules (by design) are hidden. Where would be the best place to progress thus? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Good initiative. I would recommend Wikivoyage talk:Administrators' handbook for general discussion, where one can point to individual filters by number, hoping that no one will be careless with keeping private information private. The ones with many false positives should be pointed out (by number) without delay and discussion on them continued in their comment field, which is our practice. –LPfi (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I share your worry that the abuse log isn't patrolled enough. However, I now checked most disallowed edits from this month and found none that would have been useful. A few were just promotional and should perhaps been reverted instead of disallowed, but still not that problematic. Please elaborate. –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Protection request

Would any of the admins please semi-protect/template-editor-protect Template:Infobox/styles.css, a style page used in the similarly protected {{Infobox}} template? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I just protected on the basis that general users shouldn't change this (even not by Admins without discussion) and vandalism is being observed. Is everyone else OK with this? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for dealing with this so quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential Discord server

Hey guys! I'm wondering if there would be interest in a Discord server for Wikivoyage. I would like to create one but if there is no interest I won't worry about it.

Leave a reply to say if you're interest or not :)

Thanks! JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd be open to having a Discord server for Wikivoyage (anything is better than the old-school IRC shit), but my instincts suggest that it will be a dead server. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That was my immediate thought. I might create one and post it here, we'll see how it goes. Currently the IRC channel has 9 people so the bar is set very low for dead. JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do wait for the community to decide whether it wants a Discord server or not, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I use Discord for other purpose and don't use IRC at all so would be interested in a WV Discord server. Gizza ^(roam) 12:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It might also be your memory and not just your instincts? There's been a discussion about this almost exactly four years ago: WV:Travellers' pub/2020.

I've personally been involved with setting up that server, but I can't recall what happened to it in the long run. It wound up being a server that catered to all language varieties of Wikivoyage, which I think is why it never ended up being successful. No more than two dozen people ever joined, but none of them used the server. The server might be deleted now, or I left it at some point - Can't recall. I personally still remain in favour of setting up a Discord server for EN-Voyage though.
― Wauteurz (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

As a note, Spanish Wikivoyage has a channel on the Spanish server. Instead of creating a new server, it might be good to request a channel on the English server or I'll be happy to set up a general Wikivoyage category on the Spanish server, whatever you want. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I might just stick to making a new one as the En Wikipedia server is just soooo noisy. Plus then if we need extra channels then we're just cluttering up their server. I'll whip something up and share it here :) JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be no problem for me to create an exclusive category for Wikivoyage in the spanish server. In any case, you should first consult with the entire Wikivoyage community if they are interested before creating a server of such caliber. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 03:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's start with en. If necessary, we can add more channels or a new server for Spanish or any other dominant language. JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just wondering why the server disappeared fwiw; appears to have been deleted. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Re-creation of Template:w

We have had the template {{w}} to easily create links to Wikipedia a couple of times. This was deleted many years ago before this was a WMF sister project and again with virtually no discussion. Users seem confused by how this is a very simple and direct typing aid that just reduces MediaWiki overhead and typing: it's a standard template on many, many sister projects, so I don't think there's any reason for deletion. I recreated it as it was already being used on one page and I was surprised that it had been deleted here when I was expanding an article. Even tho I think it's pretty uncontroversial to have this simple aid for linking, it seems wise to at least call attention to it being recreated. Is there some reason why this simple and standard template can't be here for our fellow WMF editors who are accustomed to easily making Wikipedia links? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support such a template. It is very off-putting that most wikis have it but we don't. Thanks for recreating, Koavf. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What's the important use for it, and when would we use it instead of the Wikidata link? Though since we're talking about sister site links, it really annoys the Hell out of me that Commons galleries instead of categories are linked. For example, the Commons gallery for Midway Islands is linked instead of the category, and the gallery sucks! But even an experienced Commons user like me took a while to realize that the problem was that I had clicked a link to the gallery, not the category - but I am unable to change that link on the Wikivoyage article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata link? For what? I'm confused by what your question even is. If you have text like, "The ''Mission: Impossible'' films feature [[:w:Tom Cruise|Tom Cruise]]", it is easier to type "The ''Mission: Impossible'' films feature {{w|Tom Cruise}}". That's the purpose: to make editing easier. It's also why most other sister projects have an identical template (tho many have a second parameter for a little modification of the target, etc.--I just went with a quick fix to convert a redlink to blue). As for why Midway Islands links to c:Midway Islands and not c:Category:Midway Islands, that is because d:Q47863 represents "Midway Islands" and whatever equivalent there is on a Wikimedia project, such as a travel guide here or an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia or a gallery on Commons (i.e. whatever is the main namespace), whereas d:Q8628456 represents "Category:Midway Islands", an item that links Wikimedia projects that are categories about the Midway Islands. They're just two different things. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Linking text like that to Wikipedia is a violation of Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, so why do we want to give official imprimatur to it by approving a template that makes it even easier to do? As for my point about linking to a Commons category rather than a lame gallery, you missed it. Ttcf means that we should link to helpful Commons categories, not lame Commons galleries that have some tiny and not necessarily even good subset of images. Do you understand now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia are not disallowed entirely and it's perfectly appropriate to include them, e.g. with a link to your user page User:Ikan Kekek on the Pub. I understand your point, but it seems like you missed mine which is that in your proposal, you want to connect to different concepts on Wikidata whereas the point of Wikidata is to connect the same concept to the same concept. That is the entire function of Wikidata interwiki linking. If you think that we should link to a relevant Commons category in the sidebar, that could easily be done with modifying local code as I recall, but it may take a ticket on phab:. Are you proposing that we try to add Commons category links in addition to gallery links? Another option is to make the galleries good. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply substituting a link to any Commons gallery with a link to the category in question. The concept of interwiki linking is faulty in this instance, because the results are terrible, as in the example I outlined. It's very rare for a Commons gallery to be close to as useful as the category. In terms of the template, yes, it's fine to use on talk pages or in some exceptions to Wikivoyage guidelines on inline linking in articles. It's just that your example troubles me as a likely usage case, and I have to wonder whether we are facilitating even more violations of Wikivoyage guidelines that will have to be policed. Can we add some language on the template page that addresses how to use and not to use it on this site? Also, I really do have to wonder how {{w|Tourism}} is really easier to type than [[w:Tourism]]. One fewer keystroke, I guess, and we're including it for the convenience of people familiar with the template from sister sites, so I guess. <Shrug>. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Because no one on Earth wants text to read "I sure do love w:Tourism", but someone could plausibly want it to read "I sure do love Tourism" without the extraneous "w:" at the beginning. Interwiki linking is not faulty here as they are semantically the same: the main namespace of Wikivoyage is linking to the main namespace of Wikipedia and Commons (and other projects). You are correct that a lot of galleries at Commons are lo-quality, so if you think that we shouldn't link them, I'm not sure if there is a solution. See, e.g. France, where the sister projects links go to c:France, q:en:France, and w:en:France and Category:France, where it links to a bunch of things at d:Q8249 which are called "Category:France" or some local equivalent. Alternately, the solution is to make galleries better at Commons. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Why do I keep seeing "This topic could not be found. It might have been deleted or moved." every time I edit this topic? —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs)

That's my stupid fault for including a template within an H2 header, which I should not have done. I have fixed it now. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's OK. I understand the reason for the template. On the other topic, I don't think anyone is going to spend time improving Commons galleries; instead, I understand that many have been deleted, and I think Commons is deprecating most of them slowly or plans to do so. If adding the Commons category in addition to the Commons gallery makes it easy to click a link to it, at least we should make the inclusion of the category a default. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: But why wouldn't we want to make our lives easier by saving a few keystrokes? I'd argue it would be far more easier since this template is used on almost every single wiki I routinely and sporadically edit and thus make the lives of frequent cross-wiki editors a bit easier. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have modified the appearance with a span of class="extiw", so it looks like an external interwiki link (a la w:en:Tom Cruise and Tom Cruise) and not a local, internal link (a la Western Sahara). So at the very least the problem of "this looks like we have an internal travel guide about Tom Cruise" has been fixed and there is some indication that you are going to a sister project. That may not overcome all objections, but I hope it's at least a reasonable fix for that problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to make it easier if it leads to larger-scale deviation from Wikivoyage guidelines, but that's the only reason, and I already conceded the point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Commons problem is worth its own discussion and has little to do with this one.

For the template.

1. It helps people from sister projects, who are used to using it. They will not check the documentation page for usage guidelines, so I assume IK is correct in fearing more guideline-violating links. Making it easy to remain ignorant of differences between projects is not a good thing.
2. For typing, where the link is appropriate, [[:w:Tom Cruise|]] has one more character than {{W|Tom Cruise}} (noted by IK). I don't see that as important. The visible "w:" is actually good in many contexts where such links are appropriate; "see w:Tom Cruise". The syntax should be familiar to seasoned Wikimedia editors, and I don't see how creating a link by a template would reduce server load ("MediaWiki overhead").
3. Our policy is to minimise user-visible template use. As this template should get used mostly on talk and user pages, in text that doesn't need to be edited by others, that's a minor issue, but still means that there should be a good reason to introduce it.

–LPfi (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on fiction tourism

As mentioned in the above thread, I was doing some work on Mission: Impossible tourism. The films generally have a lot of on location shots from around the world, but inevitably, some of these scenes are in sound stages or are otherwise kayfabe. Should these fiction tourism guides only include legit shooting sites or should they also lead travelers to the in-universe settings as well? If both, should there be separate markers for the two? I'm inclined to say "yes" and "no" respectively.

Additionally, for fiction as extensive as James Bond or Tintin, should we try to include all locations in one guide or split them up more-or-less arbitrarily. I'm inclined to have them all be in one, but (e.g.) with over two dozen Bond films going virtually everywhere, this could be a pretty complex guide and extensive map. I think that's a good thing, but there may be something I'm missing. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

There are different types of fiction media and the answer to the above questions may vary depending on the type it is. For some movies, the shooting locations are important whereas in others the in-universe settings take precedence. Also for books and video games, there are no shooting locations but there is an in-universe potentially, although fans may be interested in the biography of the writer/creator of the book/game and want to travel to locations related to them. As long as the number of markers doesn't exceed 100, and the article itself is divided and structured well so it isn't confusing to a reader, I don't see any harm in including as many locations as possible. Gizza ^(roam) 05:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In the case of James Bond, either approach (shooting locations, in-universe) could definitely pass 100. Do you have a recommendation on how to split it up? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

From my understanding, errors start to appear once the marker number hits 99. However, Roman Empire has around 250 listings and restarts the numbering for many countries. But it doesn't do it for all countries which is weird. The numbers for Austria are from 1 to 5 for example but 13 to 35 for Turkey, which doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, something like that could be adopted for James Bond. I can't think of any good way to split James Bond listings. Gizza ^(roam) 08:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I there a limit of 99 listings in all (because of server load) or is it about listings of the same type (probably because of a two-digit limit hardcoded somewhere)? If the latter, it is easy to split them up, for the Bond case e.g. by film. –LPfi (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, when I said "I can't think of any good way to split James Bond listings", I meant into different articles. Splitting them into different sections, with the marker numbers restarting would work well for different films or by the actor who played Bond. I don't know for sure I suspect there is a two-digit limit hardcoded somewhere. Gizza ^(roam) 23:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just an off-topic stuff: I think the destinations of the Roman Empire travel topic should be split into separate travel topics like Roman Britain, Roman Iberia, Roman Italy etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

New Discord Server!

So you may or may not have seen the chat Potential Discord server, but in a nutshell, there was enough interest to where I have created a Discord server for the Wikivoyage community!

You MUST be authenticated with WikiAuthBot to be able to talk in the server. I believe I've set everything up right but if a few permissions are weird or you can't talk let me know. If there's enough interest I might see if I can get WikiBot invited (the one that provides links when you type [[article name]]).

Please note this is very primitive, really it is more of a trial. I have no emojis rn but feel free to DM me with suggestions.

Linking the IRC channel to the server is something I want to do but I just don't have the skill level. If anyone can assist please DM me :)

You can join at https:// discord.gg/APwpsVcM6R (I could have a hyperlink because of the spam filter).

If you are a Wikivoyage Admin, please request to have that role added. All Wikivoyage Admins will be automatically considered moderators. If you so desperately wish not to be a mod, please DM me and I will remove that role. If you believe you can be a moderator, and aren't an admin already, that's alright! You can DM me to apply, but please attach some proof you are fit for the job (i.e. proof of moderating other servers & references (preferably Wikivoyage Admins) so I can make sure you won't vandalise the server).

Thanks! JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't be frequenting this server, so if my input is desired, post a link to the relevant discussion somewhere. I'm not sure what the purpose of the server is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's ok :)

I made the server to chat about anything we would do so in here or on IRC, because I know some people (myself included) prefer talking on Discord. People can also ask editing/tourist questions or talk off-topic.

You shouldn't miss too much!

Thanks! JustThatNerdyNerd (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I too won't be joining the server as it currently stands, but I may consider joining if a few other established users also join. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Admins: Special:Contributions/70.68.168.129

I'm tired of reverting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I gave him or her a warning. User_talk:70.68.168.129 Pashley (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Usable article gets a recommended article badge

Anyone know why Morelia gets a recommended article badge in Wikidata when it's only a Usablecity? Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed it – guide articles should have the good article batch and star articles should have the featured article batch; Morelia is neither. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Just curious – what did you do? Is there some external list? Brycehughes (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If you click "edit", you'll see a bunch of ribbons to the right of each article. Click the ribbon and you can set and unset whatever badges you want. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Must be an admin thing – I don't have them (I don't think). Anyway, cheers, thanks! Brycehughes (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It isn't an admin-only thing, though (or I don't think it is), as I don't have admin perms on Wikidata (only rollbacker). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ohhhh Wikidata... got it. I'm an idiot. I see it now. Brycehughes (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

dw – we all have those moments. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion of setting ribbons/badges is interesting, but I think the more relevant question is why nobody set Morelia to guide yet. It's a good article with a lot of complete info in just about every section. If it were cleaned up and updated, I think it would make a good candidate for DotM or OtBP. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If you believe a Wikivoyage article satisfies the criteria that would make it a guide, just change its status to "guide." No need to complain that no-one else has done the work you want to do. The only status decisions that can't be changed without a prior consensus are to make an article a star or remove the star from it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I plan to set it to guide (when I get around to it), but I'd first like to review it more closely and see if any entries are embarassingly outdated or if we can maybe add some infoboxes or other material that would make it beyond the minimal standards. I'm just saying that *I* thought it was a pretty good article. Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the badge thing done automatically (by a bot) when someone changes the article's status to guide or featured? Or is it done manual? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's typically manual, but I know that there's a bot who does redirect status badges. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Manual on enwikivoyage. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Weighing passengers

I see that Finnair is starting to weigh their passengers (and baggage). Does this seem invasive to you? Can "by the pound" fares be far behind?

See article from BBC. Mrkstvns (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They need the figures (and they are not the only ones doing this). Either estimates provided by authorities or their own. I suppose the figures differ between flights (and classes), so using real-world sample-based estimates is better than having to guess what carry-on luggage weights and whether the passengers differ from the population averages. The better the estimates, the less margins they need, which means more cargo or less fuel per flight, which probably is better for the climate.

If people get used to scales, then they could of course be used also for discrimination (whether you count by-pound fares as such or not), but I hope laws are strict enough to hinder that.

–LPfi (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not at all invasive. It is a voluntary anonymous survey of the weight of passengers with their carry on baggage. They need to do this to update the estimated weight of 100 passengers on a plane. Although there are other sources of people's weight, they don't include the clothes and bags that they take on the flight. This is not about people's weight, the average weight might have increased because more people are taking a full water bottle onto the plane.

There are a few flights in very small aircraft where all the passengers are routinely weighed, and this may to be used to decide seating positions. AlasdairW (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I encountered the small aircraft situation about 15 years ago on a small turboprop flying out of Bocas del Toro, Panama. Since the plane only seated about 10 passengers, presumably a couple chunky passengers sitting together could seriously affect the plane's balance. I wouldn't think that would matter with the large aircraft flown by an airline like Finnair. I have not heard of other large airlines weighing passengers... Mrkstvns (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are reports of Air New Zealand doing this in 2023 and 2003. More controversially, Samoa Air was reported in 2013 to be introducing weight based fares. AlasdairW (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I had a really uncomfortable 2-hour flight recently where my neighbor's bulk pushed into my middle seat, and I was aching for a while afterwards (his family for some reason booked seats away from him). This is literally the first time I have experienced this, and it was a shortish flight on a small aircraft, but I feel weighing in passengers and providing larger seats for those who need it is the way to go Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense in an egalitarian society, but in the world of capitalism, the larger seats go to those willing to pay the most, not those whose girth requires it. Mrkstvns (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

But not every country is capitalist. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't care about the commercials so much. Already some airlines allow you to book an empty seat next to you. I recently flew Asiana long haul, and they have extra space seats in economy that you can pay a couple hundred dollar extra and don't allow anyone else to take them if empty - great value for me. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't find this invasive at all. In some cases, some plus-sized passengers might need larger seats given how tiny airplane economy seats can be (more than enough for me to put my feet up but not for most people). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Vacation Ruined: Grandma Just Dissipated Into Trillions Of Atoms Inside The Airport’s Full Body Scan Machine

https://clickhole.com/vacation-ruined-grandma-just-dissipated-into-trillions-of-atoms-inside-the-airports-full-body-scan-machine/

Stay safe out there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Souinds like Scotty beamed her aboard the Enterprise. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed editing priority: Poland (specifically Katowice) for Wikimania

Wikimania 2024 will be in Katowice and Diff just published this post: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2024/02/22/visa-and-travel-requirements-getting-to-poland-for-wikimania-2024/ which made me think that if anyone here is just looking for stuff to do, it may be wise to prioritize this region for travel, as our fellow Wikimedians will be descending there in August. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. @Tar Lócesilion, are there any plans by the Wikimania committee to support this (e.g., by suggesting that editors who live in that area have a look)? The volunteers for the Wikimania in Esino Lario did an amazing job with the article for their destination, and I'd like it to become a tradition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ListingEditor impacted by latest deploy - fix in works

Just a heads up that the ListingEditor gadget broke with the latest deployment due to some changes with how headings are rendered (mw:Heading_HTML_changes).

I hope to have this working by the end of the day.

Sorry for the disruption to service! Jdlrobson (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This should be working now. Let me know here via a ping if you are experiencing issues. Also I'd like to advertise the beta version of the tool now has support for the mobile site if you are willing to try it out go to Special:Preferences and give it a test! Jdlrobson (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(beta version on mobile phone) In Lakewood_(Colorado), for some reason it doesn't popup on the See+Do listings, but does on the "Get around" ones... -- andree 06:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson, in all the articles are missing the "[ add listing ]" link in the section titles. While it's present only the sub-section titles. Andyrom75 (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now Jdlrobson (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thanks, now it's fine. Andyrom75 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Another bug (at least for me, for others it may be a feature :) ) - if I add a listing with just wikidata, it adds lat=0|long=0... -- andree 13:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Does this always happen, or only when the Wikidata entry doesn't have lat/long data? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

When I add just name and wikidata to the listing (and don't click 'sync')... -- andree 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Itineraries or travel topics

There are articles that have an itinerary status template but are otherwise classified as travel topics:

• Nobel tourism
• Pirinexus
• Tenet tour

Since they should not be classified as both, which article type should they be assigned? Should there be something on a project page about how to choose between these two classifications? JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Those three are clear cases. Pirinexus is an itinerary article describing a cycling route, the two others are travel topic articles wrongly classified as itineraries (the destination lists are in typical travel topic style).

We do have outline itineraries that are meant to be itineraries but lack the itinerary essentials and could as well be developed into travel topics (if somebody finds a useful way to do that), and some travel topics, like the Nobel tourism article, could be tweaked to be an itinerary (in this case by adding Prepare, Get in and a thought-out itinerary through the point of interest – with no prejudice on whether such a change would be to the better).

I will correct the classification (the MediaWiki template) now.

–LPfi (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Expedia to Eliminate 1,500 Jobs as Travel Growth Moderates

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-26/expedia-to-eliminate-1-500-jobs-as-travel-growth-moderates —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Time zones

If a country has several time zones for different regions (like Canada, Russia or the United States of America), should we mention the time zone for different regions? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

For instance, New England, Mid-Atlantic, most of Florida, and the eastern sections of the Midwest and the South observe the Eastern Standard Time (EST), but I found no information regarding the zone in the respective regions. This is somewhat problematic for the Americans who travel from the west coast to the east coast and need to change their watches there. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure. It can be added to "Understand". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: you can take a look at Broken Hill on how to cover timezones. Broken Hill is a town in the Australian state of New South Wales but is on the western end of the state away from most of the population, and instead has the same timezone as South Australia. Gizza ^(roam) 04:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You may want to also mention "Daylight Savings Time", noting any localities that differ from neighboring regions (for example, Arizona). Mrkstvns (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the time zone containing the capital be bolded or otherwise prominently marked, for countries and other political entities? JsfasdF252 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For the small minority of countries with multiple timezones, you mean? I don't think so. The capital city isn't necessarily the place that the traveler cares about. If you have a section like New South Wales#Time zone or a list, then you might mention that as part of the description of each time zone. "Some Region, which is where Capital City and the beaches are, uses UTC" is easier for the reader to understand than just "Some Region uses UTC". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Stylizing Template:retired and Template:semi-retired

I didn't create these templates, and the former has existed for a while (the latter was created recently by Roovinn), but I'm interested to hear the community's opinion if we opted to design these templates similar to how Commons designed them (see c:Template:Retired and c:Template:Semi-retired) instead of the simplistic Wikipedia style. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Heads up that linking in this style in the header makes it difficult for some tools to link directly to it. the {{tl|Example}} style breaks some things versus the [[Template:Example]] style. (See an above thread where I did the same.) I changed it if you don't mind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. Thanks for the fix, Koavf! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The three versions (the original blue, the current black and the Commons one) demonstrate that a retiring user cannot know what such a template will look like after they left. Thus the template should perhaps be regarded not as a message from the user, but as one from the community (in most cases based on a statement from the user, of course).

For a message from the community, it makes sense to use a (uniform) template. What kind of message do we want to convey with the design? I personally prefer the one on Commons, which looks much more friendly, especially as contrasted with the current black one, but it is unnecessarily wordy, as bans are few enough here that we don't need to explicitly address that issue. One point to keep in mind is that the template shouldn't offend anybody who got the template put on their user page by somebody else (after them having declared their retirement elsewhere) or who put the template there when it looked different.

–LPfi (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you on the bans, but I'm leaning in favour of mentioning the ban bit as "This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies." seems quite harmless and I presume most passer-by users have no idea how many bans a wiki issue (I, for one, frequently lurk Meta-Wiki and have zero clue how many are issued on a monthly basis). Otherwise I fully agree with you and think some of it should be mentioned in the documentation as a disclaimer for clarity. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the look of the Commons versions.

Not a big issue, but maybe we should consider if "of their own volition" is always applicable. If an editor is semi-retired because they are in hospital or in prison, then it probably isn't of their own volition. Similarly if retired is added because another editor has heard of an editor's passing. Or are there alternatives to use in these circumstances? AlasdairW (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Accounts of deceased Wikimedians are globally locked, for the record. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The "retired" template is on just 13 pages. Four of them are blocked/glocked. That means that just over 30% of current users of this template were breaking policies, and should therefore not have a message indicating that they weren't. Eight of the 13 (just over 60%) made less than 50 edits total. The only account that I'd find that template even remotely useful for is @Saqib, who is active on other projects and therefore easily reached with a ping. In short: No practical need to have this template at all.

The "semi-retired" template is one one user's page. That person made an edit today.

If we see this template less as a means of self-expression (see meatball:Goodbye and w:en:WP:YDOW) and more as a practical thing (namely, those of us who are here need to know whether you're still around), I suggest that we get rid of the rarely used and mostly misleading templates, and instead install the m:User:SMcCandlish/userinfo.js and and m: MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js gadgets, default on. Then we'll spot blocked users every time there's a link to their user pages, and the top of every user page/user talk page will have a note about how long it's been since that user's last edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I cannot really see what the gadgets do, but I think having detailed info shown by default is a privacy issue, and it may have annoying effects on the project culture. Also, we might – just might – want to give some weight also to "global" status/activity, which it seems the gadgets don't care about. –LPfi (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Global activity is apparently difficult to detect, though I agree that it would be good to have.

What the UserInfo script does is replace the line that says "From Wikivoyage." under your =User page title= with simple public information from Special:ListUsers and Special:Contributions. In my case, right now, it says "An autopatrolled, 9 years 9 months old, with 4,193 edits. Last edited 3 minutes ago. From Wikivoyage." I find that the "Last edited" line is the most useful, as it lets you know that I'm probably online (or that I haven't been around for years, or whatever). Other editors seem to think it's most useful for noticing that someone is a newbie (e.g., if it says "with 2 edits"). See File:Userinfo Screen Shot.png for a screenshot of what it looks like on a narrow screen.

The MarkBlocked script is useful in discussions and in page histories. It adds strikethrough to links (e.g., WhatamIdoing) and makes the link a lighter color so that you can see at a glance whether you're about to reply to someone who has been blocked locally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

If a bread at a bakery is stale, you don't stop making bread at all; instead, you work to fix the issue. A similar analogy here should also apply, instead of outright claiming that there isn't a practical need to have a template to have it all. The solution to this is to simply restrict its usage for users who are not banned, blocked or locked (with a policy explicitly allowing any user in good-standing to remove such a template if misused). Also, I agree with LPfi about the privacy issue. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I would add to that list "users who have made very few edits". Several of our "retired" editors have made exactly two edits: to create their userpage and then to replace it with this template. They haven't "retired" from Wikivoyage; they were functionally never here in the first place. At which point there are so few uses of it that the template's contents could be placed directly on the (two? three?) users' individual pages, rather than putting it first in the Template: namespace and then transcluding it.

Try this: remove the template from all the user pages that are blocked/glocked, and from anyone who hasn't made, say, 50 edits. See how long the list is after that. Then ask: Do we need to use a tool designed to make it easy to repeat something across "many" pages ...when there aren't even "a few" pages to post it on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Romanization

I've noticed in recent months users have been changing all Japanese names and articles to use diacritics in spite of what is written in both Wikivoyage:Naming conventions and Wikivoyage:Romanization that state:

• For article titles, use the name most commonly used in English for a place, regardless of local character sets.
• Articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries
• If a place has a common English name, use it, but always provide the local script and correct romanization in parentheses.

Maybe users are confused because the overriding rules are written separately from the Japanese Romanization subheading, but a significant number of Japanese place names have been romanized and do not use the diacritics. I recently moved Zaō Onsen to Zao Onsen, because search results show that Zao Onsen is clearly the most common English name (Zaō Onsen retrieves only 19,000 results which include Zao Onsen in some of the results, while "Zao Onsen" retrieves 1,970,000 results of which none that I see contain the diacritics). It is very clear that the article should be title Zao Onsen with (蔵王温泉 Zaō Onsen) written in the lede however, I did not realize until after I moved it that it was moved TO the wrong name before that. A lot of place names have also been changed in spite of having established English romanizations. It seems users have forgotten, are ignoring, or are unaware of the overarching romanization rules and perhaps are unaware that the diacritics are still able to be written in parenthesis.

Is there a way to make this clearer? Or should I just send a message to users when I notice it happening? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support making it very clear on Wikivoyage:Naming conventions with a subheading for "Japan" in a very similar fashion to Wikipedia. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A split of #Disambiguation is probably also overdue. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey yo, since you're talking about me you could at least have @'d me in? Anyway, I wrote the Japanese romanization policy back in 2004, but these days I disagree with my old self and so does Wikipedia: I don't see any good reason not to use macrons for Japanese place names, particularly if we're simultaneously pretending Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park is the most common form in Australia. Of course Tokyo, Osaka and other household names don't need macrons, but Zaō Onsen isn't exactly in the same league. I've formally proposed the change at Wikivoyage talk:Romanization.Jpatokal (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In either case, shouldn't Wikivoyage:Naming conventions continue to apply? Are these macrons most commonly used in English? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They are almost never the most commonly used names in English for Japanese place names online OR within Japan. Given that the user proposing this does not consider over 99% non-diacritic usage to be enough to qualify as "common usage", it seems clear that the proposal is intended to eliminate the current Wikivoyage:Naming conventions and replace it with one that advocates for usage of diacritics OVER and INSTEAD OF whatever is commonly used. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

At least my observation is that diacritics are generally not used in English when transliterating Japanese names, except in material specifically aimed at English speakers who are learning Japanese as a foreign language. It certainly would be helpful to indicate to English speakers which vowels are long and which vowels are short since that distinction is important in Japanese, and Japanese people will have no idea what you are talking about if you confuse long and short vowels. That said, Wikivoyage:Naming conventions says that the most common English name should be used, which is clearly without the diacritics. I think the solution would be to adopt the same policy that we do for our articles about Chinese cities. For say, Beijing, we have the page name without the tone marks, but in the lede we indicate what the correct pronunciation with the tone marks is (Běijīng). So for Japanese cities, we can just leave the page names without the diacritics, and indiciate in the lede correct pronunciation with diacritics to indicate the long vowels. So the page name would be "Tokyo" without the diacritics, but we indicate in the text of the lede that it is actually pronunced Tōkyō with the long vowels. The dog2 (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You have described the status quo, that's exactly what we do today. Jpatokal (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Our current policy is that macrons may never be used in Japanese article titles, period, and this overrides the general naming convention that names should be "with or without accents/diacritics".

I'm suggesting that we a) allow them, and b) start using them when Wikipedia has determined that the macroned version is the common name. (For example, w:Zaō Onsen.) Jpatokal (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

See also: en:wikt:Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2024/March#FYI:_Major_romanization_change_coming_in_Japan and en:wikt:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/March#How_should_we_transliterate_(into_Japanese_script_or_other_scripts),_romanize,_and_lemmatize_Ryukyuan?. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not outsource all decisions about what names are most commonly used in English to Wikipedia, especially if there are claims on Wikipedia that a Japanese place name with macrons is the most common spelling in English. Really? I don't think The dog2's suggestion requires a tweak to current Wikivoyage naming policy, since it would be used just in the beginnings of articles to show a transliteration of the Japanese characters, but if it does, I'd be happy to support that limited change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you make some mistake and respond to me when you meant to respond to someone else? I didn't write anything about Wikipedia at all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm replying in chronological order, so Jpatokal and others see my reply easily. You'd prefer for me to thread the response so that it's more easily lost in the middle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer that you respond to messages with messages that respond to them. The way that you're doing it is unintelligible. That's why the : and :: syntax exists. If you respond ostensibly to Person A but in reality, it's written to Person B several paragraphs down, that is confusing. See also the [reply] links that are made so that you can directly reply to the relevant comment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm responding to the overall thread. If you want to enforce subthreads, feel free to create a subheading and move stuff accordingly, and do that every time, because your preferences are not the common practice on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Source? Please just use the [reply] link and don't respond to my comments with off-topic noise. You're making it much harder to follow the conversation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The [reply] links were apparently introduced to support the style of threaded discussions that's standard on Wikipedia, without regard to what is most used in the English Wikivoyage community. Here we usually add comments in chronological order, as Ikan Kekek said. It's a small cultural difference – different WMF projects are in some ways like different towns or countries. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

But if we are going to do that, it's infinitely more confusing to have the :- or *-based comments, as that implies that there is some kind of reason to responses. We should just have a flat series of comments (which itself would be ugly and unintelligible, but at least not actively misleading). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't find it more confusing, and both maintaining chronological order and providing a visual separation between successive comments, even when it meant looking like you were replying to a subsequent person, was the more common style at enwiki until the Reply tool became popular.

To cope with this, I've noticed a small increase in people deliberately naming the person/comment they're replying to, either with small quotations or by starting the comment with a user's name (e.g., "Ikan, I'm not sure about..." or "I agree with Ikan that...").

The other practice, which was used in the past and is still important now, is to assume that if the person's reply doesn't make sense as a reply to your own comment, then it's not a reply specifically to your own comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall that being standard here or there. It's very distracting to not use the built-in ability to respond directly to someone else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Other people find it very difficult to tell which comment came from which person, when there is no visual distinction, especially if there is no distractingly decorated sig in the earlier comment(s). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Is it safe to travel to Mexico, Jamaica, and the Bahamas in 2024?

https://boingboing.net/2024/03/04/is-it-safe-to-travel-to-mexico-jamaica-and-the-bahamas-in-2024.html

In a real tragedy for the scale of a blog post, they link the wrong article. Here is the correct one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI: 11 Remote Destinations That Are Definitely Worth the Effort to Visit

https://www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/most-remote-places-on-earth/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article, but I find it a bit US-centric. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed: I thought it was weirdly US-centric and I'm an American. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What really surprised me was the lack of any Russian destinations. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That is one of the least surprising things I can imagine, particularly writing to an American audience (which Outside is, to the extent that it is an American publication). I could not in good conscience recommend anyone go there. It's no North Korea or active war zone, but there's a remote-yet-much-too-hi prospect that you'll be arrested for holding a blank piece of paper in public or something and then be a pawn in State Department negotiations for 19 months until an international terrorist is released in a prisoner swap. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Parts of Russia are definitely active war zones, in the sense that they've been attacked by drones and apparently by Ukrainian Special Forces, so things get targeted or torched every so often. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that too and certainly the "parts" of "Russia" that are actually stolen land of Ukraine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI: I flew to Japan with my baby. Here's what I learned about traveling with young kids

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/05/1196978785/traveling-with-babies-and-toddlers-tips-tricks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Protection of modules

Please can an admin protect Module:TypeToColor. This has been targeted by a vandal for the second time. We should also consider applying semi-protection to all modules, as a new user editing one of these is quite likely to be a vandal. AlasdairW (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Done SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on semi-protection in the module namespace: while IPs certainly could have useful edits, it's more likely that they won't be. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Template?

Tracked in Phabricator ^(?)
Task T359446

What's up with the templates inserting a completely useless contents block on the left side of every topic? In some cases it produces astoundingly ugly and unusable page layouts (especially for countries and regions). Did somebody do this on purpose? Mrkstvns (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're experiencing. Is this when you're editing or reading? What pages do you see this on? What do you mean by "topic"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

When reading. I see it on every page on the site: Cities, regions, countries, parks, travel topics, etc.

Gray box with links to all the sections.

Pagebanner

[+] Understand

[+] Get in

[+] Get around

.... Mrkstvns (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a bug, see T359446 on Phabricator. -- Alexander (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see it now. That box is the "Table of Contents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andyrom75: Do you think you could possibly reinsert that temporary fix you made sometime back? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@SHB2000, I've temporary patched Template:Pagebanner. Please, ping me as a reminder when the bug has been solved. Andyrom75 (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Andyrom! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andyrom75, the bug report says the patch was riding this week's deployment train, so it should be fixed now. (You'll need to double-check that it actually did get fixed; all I can confirm is that the deployment train has been here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, thanks for the ping. The server-side changes has been been reverted, so I've done the same with my temporary patch.

Now it seems that the previous behavior has been restored. Andyrom75 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance, Andyrom! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Votes for deletion thread

Hi, everyone. Please participate in the Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Athens/South Suburbs thread and the related deletion thread below it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

April 1st..

Any thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I had an idea already the last year, but have yet to finalize it... Do we do this 'in secret'? :-D -- andree 09:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

In the past, it's been done as collabrative draft in userspace. What's the idea? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Basically something like https://www.reddit.com/r/place (or also w:en:The_Million_Dollar_Homepage), but with world map, and editors could claim some land (and in return must do some edits there, to keep it! :) ). -- andree 08:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

r/place but without the bots, shall we put it? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Last year we decided to do something different and rickroll our readers. I want to do something similarly unconventional this time but I'm not sure what. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a suggestion, which might be a bit interesting, which was 'travel' into one's gender expression, But wasn't sure how that might work within a typical WikiVoyage type article, whilst remaning respectful to genuinely Transgender readers. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds extremely difficult, especially since what feels respectful varies from culture to culture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles would be the place to discuss this. Ground Zero (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've kicked off a discussion there. My suggestion: places with unusual names, for example a Morón & Mörön double bill. Jpatokal (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Where did the table of contents go?

I'm using Vector 2022 skin. I vaguely recalled clicking on the hide button which made the table of contents on the left-hand side disappear. But I can't re-enable it. I already tried "Preferences" -> "Misc" tab and the options in "Table of contents". I do notice that in MediaWiki, there is a button beside the page title to re-enable the "Contents" section but that doesn't seem to be an option here. And oddly enough, talk pages show the table of contents. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Could this be related to #Template? above? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Andyrom75:? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@SHB2000, @Mx. Granger, @OhanaUnited, I confirm that this is related to the temporary patch I've applied on #Template?.

Once the bug T359446 will be solved, the patch could be removed and the normal behavior will be restored.

Sorry for the temporary inconvenience. Andyrom75 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's understandable. Hopefully the bug should be fixed sooner than later. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. —The preceding comment was added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs)

@OhanaUnited, please check if now the "Table of contents" can be shown. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes it reappeared. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggested task

If somebody would like to edit, here's a suggestion:

The brand Thalys does not exist anymore. It has merged with Eurostar. So everything that was Thalys before belongs now to Eurostar.

So search "Thalys" via the Wikivoyage search box and replace/merge everything regarding that brand name to/with Eurostar. 80.187.75.63 18:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

OP, please plunge forward as you see fit! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like 57 articles still mention this name. I updated one but left the old name in ("Eurostar (formerly Thalys)") in case it might be useful to readers who were looking for the old name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024

Hello all.

Check this out: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%27s_Cultural_Diplomacy_Month_2024

Think this might be of interest to many of you. It definitely is of interest to me. Roovinn (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly it seems to target Wikipedia only. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Informative status

I see a that "informative status" has been created as an article category at Wikivoyage:Article status. A discussion took place Wikivoyage talk:Article status#Creating a new status for something in between usable and guide? which seemed to find support for the idea two years ago, but Wikivoyage:Informative articles still refers to the concept as "experimental". I personally support the proposal, but we do need to decide whether we should implement this concept more broadly or withdraw it. If we do approve it, many articles would need to be recategorized over time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of a status in between usable and guide, but I think the criteria for making an article "informative" should be better described. It would be nice if it were at least a little bit more demanding than simply a usable article with at least 3-4 listings. Crikey! All of my "usable" articles meet that low threshold. I think that in order to be considered "informative" there should be a well-written lede and a good "Understand" section that explains what's special about a place (maybe with Infoboxes for cultural traditions, etc.) Just a thought... Mrkstvns (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As the proposer, I think it's time to withdraw it. It's a great idea in theory but the logistical challenges of implementing this on a mass-scale has become near-impossible. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to have all eligible articles updated to the new status. That can be done as article status is otherwise checked, given that the status is widely known. The problem is in defining the criteria. In trying to do that, I saw quite some oddness in the present criteria. Can we adjust the criteria at all, making some usable articles revert to outline and some guides to usable (or informative)? If we can, we can do the same with a new status. However, the discussion stalled, it seems with not too much interest from the community. –LPfi (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is partially why I'm on the side of abolishing this status. Without much community input (I presume the numbers post-COVID will remain like this for a while), it's hard to make bold changes like an entirely new status. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm being a bit too pessimistic or if I'm biased as the one who initially proposed it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think if we create a new status, it will be adopted over time. However, we would need to form a new consensus on the qualifications of this article status, IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, we have and it's existed for over two years, but very little has been done on it for cases where the criteria is evident. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we get much value from increasing the number of possible ratings. The fewer categories we have, the less time we'll spend on bureaucracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's less so the bureaucracy and more so just the time spent to make the status mainstream. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I just don't think there's such a drastic difference between usable, information and guide for town and small village pages. Take Kuujjuarapik that I created last month while I travelled there. I added practically everything there is about the town. Right now I'm already hung up on whether changing it from usable to guide (because the only thing missing for guide is "go next" one-liners). If we introduce informative and I added the "go next" one-liners, I honestly don't know whether my article is considered to be informative or guide. And I think many editors will also be confused by this somewhat blurred distinction between the two. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoyage talk:Park article status has some discussion on the issues. If people are interested in getting this forward, I think it is worth skimming through (at least for those working with parks). One should do some analysis about what differs between a just barely usable and a good usable article (of some category), and what holds articles from becoming guide, as I suggest on that talk page. We could make a comment on forgetting about informative in the case of small towns ("just make them guide instead"); for real cities I think there is a huge difference between barely usable and near guide. –LPfi (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

• May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
• June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
• June-August 2024: Campaign period
• End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
• October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
• Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is curious what I think would be helpful in Board members, I've put a list of questions at m: User:WhatamIdoing/Board candidates. It always amazes me that some editors believe that fixing thousands of typos on Wikipedia would make a person qualified to set a multi-million dollar budget and lead 600 employees. IMO we need volunteers who understand financial statements and have some general idea of employment law. If you've got some business-related experience and are willing to put in a few hundred unpaid hours for the next three years, please consider volunteering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Harressment

Apologies to bring this unpleasantness here, however user SMB2000 has a vendetta against me and is harassing me on my talk page (protected for time being). I will be clear - I want no further contact with them, and I would ask the other Admins to counsel them on their behavior. Obviously, I won't contribute to this thread further because I really want no more to do with them Thanks. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

To the community, please comment on Wikivoyage:User rights nominations#User:Andrewssi2 (removal) for their abuse of admin privileges and UCoC violations. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And TIL that leaving talk page messages about misuse of rollback was "harassment". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [comment hidden by LPfi at 11:25, 14 March 2024, comment unhidden on 11:30, 14 March 2024]

Let's keep the discussion on the nomination page. –LPfi (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@LPfi: Why did you hide my comment? At least you could have given me a courtesy notice on my talk page. I will unhide it as there are no policy-based grounds for hiding that comment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think about a courtesy notice having been appropriate. I assume most regulars watch this page and the threads on it they find interesting. I thought making the hiding obvious was enough. Sorry for misinterpreting best practices.

My reason to hide the comment in the first place was that it was making an accusation, which could prompt a response and a thread partly doubling the one linked above. Referrals to discussions elsewhere should generally (and especially if the topic is sensitive or heated) be made as neutrally as possible.

–LPfi (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it through (censoring isn't the best practice for that, though). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm really disturbed to hear about this. Both of you have been valued admins. I will comment on the linked thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)