Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the Pub

The Travellers' Pub is 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.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order.
  • A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page.
  • A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page.
  • A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
  • A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Project:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
QA icon clr.svg

Contents

Enable page previews?[edit]

Dear fellow adventurers,

Page previews has been live on Wikipedia for some time. Wikivoyage is the other wiki I frequent, and I miss it when I view pages here. I wondered if this has been talked about. Technically, there is little stopping Wikivoyage from using it, but if adopted it would mean we'd need to think more about leading paragraphs of articles - to ensure the summaries make sense in this context.

e.g. A preview for Spain ( https://en.wikivoyage.org/api/rest_v1/page/summary/Spain) at time of writing would show "Spain shares the Iberian Peninsula with Andorra, Gibraltar, and Portugal. It has the second-largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites after Italy and the largest number of World Heritage Cities." Maybe the 2nd paragraph would be more appropriate as a summary: "Spain is famous for its friendly inhabitants, relaxed lifestyle, its cuisine, vibrant nightlife, and world-famous folklore and festivities, and its history as the core of the vast Spanish Empire." Or a new paragraph combining the two would make more sense: "Spain, with the largest number of UNESCO World Heritage cities, is famous for its friendly inhabitants, relaxed lifestyle, its cuisine, vibrant nightlife, and world-famous folklore and festivities, and its history as the core of the vast Spanish Empire"

Just curious what people think about this feature and whether it would need editorial changes to be supported. It seems like a great way to "explore the world"! :) Jdlrobson (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

So what enables preview on Wikipedia? Or is it dependent on which browser is being used or browser security settings? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the point of having it, though? --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
So that when you're reading an article, and you run across the name of some place that you can't quite remember, you can hover over the link and see the first sentence or two, rather than having to click on the link and open another page in yet another browser tab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I like this feature on Wikipedia and support implementing it on Wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
In terms of what is needed to enable it - it would be a site request (config change) asking for it to be turned on specifying the following:
  • Should it be enabled for new accounts? (PopupsOptInStateForNewAccounts)
  • Should it be enabled for existing accounts? (PopupsOptInDefaultState)

I think the real challenge here is going to be buy-in for the editorial changes needed to support good previews (which would improve the quality of the travel guide in my opinion). I see two fun problems to solve 1) The use of hatnotes at the top of pages

:''This article is about the city of Salzburg. For the state, see [[Salzburg (state)]].''

appears in the summaries for Salzburg as the summarizer doesn't know this is not part of the article's first paragraph. The use of a template e.g

{{hatnote|This article is about the city of Salzburg. For the state, see [[Salzburg (state)]].}}

would help with this as it would allow us to wrap the message with CSS classes to help it be identified. See https://en.wikivoyage.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Austria to get a sense of the impact here.

2) Certain articles might need improvements to the phrasing of the lead paragraph e.g. The Spain example I cite above.

I don't see either of these 2 problems as huge blockers to deploying this but I wanted to make this clear!

Note, if after enabling it you decide this doesn't make sense or degrades the travel guide, you can use the same form to request it to be disabled and we can disable it promptly.

Jdlrobson (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I think it should be enabled for both new accounts and existing accounts. As for the two problems to solve: the hatnote issue seems pretty easy—the current hatnotes could be replaced with a template by bot, right? The other problem basically amounts to a constraint on our lead-writing. To me it seems like a small price to pay for implementing this useful feature, and in general it's probably a good idea to start our leads with an appealing hook anyway. What do others think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably the correct approach. Also, note that it auto-disables if you've got NAVPOPS turned on.
I don't think it's going to constrain our lead-writing much. Wikivoyage is already practically perfect for this feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I've setup the hatnote template for if we go with this. If not then it can be deleted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks @WOSlinker:. I think I have a bot script that can find and replace a good number of these cases. Not sure if it will handle all as some have multiple colons on multiple lines and a few with odd use of quote which are probably better handled by hand rather than trying to wrote some complex script to handle every possible combination. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
regardless of whether you enable page previews using this would improve rendering on mobile which recognises hatnotes and styles them in such a way that they are noticeably separate from content! Jdlrobson (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Once replaced the colon text with {{hatnote}}, should go though its use and where appropriate replace with the more exact {{Otheruses}}, {{about}}, {{confused}} or {{See also}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have something called Navigation popups, which do exactly the function being described here. Just go to your Preferences, then to the Gadgets tab. Personally, I find it annoying to use all the time, but it does come in handy. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

NAVPOPS is more complicated/powerful. I think that readers would be much happier with this simpler tool (which, it turns out, was originally based on NAVPOPS). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, to close up this conversation, I'm just wondering what the next steps are. Is this something that should be enabled, or should I start an RFC or something equivalent? Jdlrobson (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Jon, does that belong to your team these days? If so, please just turn it on for everyone here. If not, then please pheel phree to phile a Phab task for whichever team it does belong to. We're not into Process for Process's Sake here. If someone wanted to object, they'd probably have said so by now. It's not difficult to opt out, for anyone who wants to opt out later. And thanks for asking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey all, per WhatamIdoing's advise I've created phab:T203981 to make this so. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This is now live. I direct your attention to mw:Extension:Popups#FAQ for any questions. There are a few clear places where images and lead paragraphs can be improved, but most of the previews I've generated look great and really enhance the experience. I hope you all feel the same, but let me know if there are any problems. Jdlrobson (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this recently and really like it, but for most of the pages I've seen (in China), the preview photo is a railway station (Wuhan, Ningbo), or occasionally an airport (Yinchuan) or map (Beijing), and in some cases nothing at all despite there being at least a banner image on the Wikivoyage pages (Minle). It's clearly not taking images from the WikiVoyage page, but I've found the sourcing and ranking of images somewhat opaque. Are there ways to tune or control this? Would the pagebanner be useful in the popup (perhaps as a fallback)? Is there a way to veto railway stations, maps, and airports? Dcpeets (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Flag template change[edit]

I've modified {{flag}}, adding an optional parameter to automatically or manually place a country's link next to its flag if set (does not affect existing use of the template). This is especially useful for things like lists of countries (e.g. see: Panmunjeom#From_the_South) to make it easier to find a specific country at a glance, instead of searching through a wall of text. The main advantages of doing this through the template, and not manually, are ease of maintenance and that it adds a non-breaking space between the flag and the link.

I am planning on adding it to such instances as the lists above and other places where countries are linked. Is anyone opposed to such additions, or to this change in general? ARR8 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're proposing. Are you saying you want to add a flag icon whenever a country name is linked? I think that sounds kind of distracting and weird-looking. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No, only in cases where it's useful. Take a look at the linked article; it's pretty hard to tell if your country is listed in the table without reading through it or using the find function of your browser. Flags are immediately recognizable and you can see your own at a glance. I was planning on putting flags into the table, anyway. This just reduces maintenance slightly in cases like this one so that you don't have to type a country name twice.
It seems to me that this is pretty much already what we're doing for lists of embassies and consulates, but those are full-fledged listings which sometimes already link somewhere, and not just names in a list. ARR8 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure the flags are helpful. When the countries are in alphabetical order as here (all but two of the mentioned one in the same box) your own is easy to find without the flags, while text interspersed with images is much harder to read than ordinary text. It is off course a trade off, but I think in this case, for me, they distract more than they help. --LPfi (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If the parameter is strictly optional, I don't see anything wrong with it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@LPfi: Sorry, didn't see this. Seems you're talking about Panmunjeom specifically. Personally, I think the changes look better, but I may be a little biased, though I'll note I find myself glancing through the images rather than the words. I wouldn't mind a brief consensus on whether this is preferred for tables like this. If I am alone in my view, I'll remove the flags. ARR8 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at that example, but I suppose my reasoning holds for similar cases in general. I generally prefer a plain layout, without too much bells and whistles. --LPfi (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Seeing this in action at Bangladesh, I will add my belated opposition to adding flags (and logos) to text. The flags there are not distinguishable on my phone (and I suspect, others). Our general policy of having not-too-many images is still valid: lowbandwidth, days charges, legibility, accessibility should take precedence. Ground Zero (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: How do the flags used in embassy and consulate listings look on your phone? E.g. at DC if you want a quick link. ARR8 (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
They are miniscule there too. They do not help with navigation through the article for most readers, and they take additional time to load. I am using the desktop version on my phone -- they do look better on the mobile version, but I still think they they are of limited use as most readers would have trouble distinguishing between the 193 or so flags of nations, many of which are similar(red-green-yellow flags on Africa, red-white-black-green flags in Arabia). This is something that would appeal to flag fans, not to a general readership. Ground Zero (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I also object to flags being used in places like lists of countries whose citizens don't need visas to visit Country X for x amount of time. We're currently having a specific discussion about this at Talk:Bangladesh about all the flags in Bangladesh#Visas. But as we've disapproved before of having icons or thumbnails of jurisdictions' flags in pages when they are the flags of the articles' subjects, this is clearly out of keeping with that preexisting consensus. I also don't think that the Pub is really a place to actually make changes in policy (a thread can be started here but should, in this case, be swept to or continued at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy or some other appropriate policy page), and moreover that considerable skepticism was expressed toward the usefulness of this template in this thread. My feeling is that in this kind of list, flags just add clutter and are less clear that prose, although I like the flag icons a lot more at the beginnings of paragraphs later in the section. The thing is, though, is it worth developing a coherent policy for when flag icons should and shouldn't be used and then spend time enforcing it? If you think so, start the thread on the policy page and see if a new consensus develops. Then and only then, act. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
To clarify: when I expressed support for this, I had assumed we were talking about using them in listings or, at most, in bullet-point lists. When used inline in regular prose, it just makes for a lot of horrid visual clutter. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Creep of dual maps[edit]

I'm looking through Manhattan district articles today. Some of the static maps, once upon a time, could have merited replacement by dynamic maps, but I don't want to see both dynamic and static maps on a page for no good reason. If the static map is fine, my opinion is leave well enough alone and don't waste space, and I don't think there's been a policy change, just creep because of some unilateral actions. If any listings need to be changed in the static map, that can be requested, but I'd like to delete all the mapframes that are unnecessary duplicates. Your comments? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about the undesirability of dual maps, but let's keep the mapframes and delete the static maps. Why make things difficult for the vast majority of Wikivoyagers who don't know how to edit static maps? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Because they're clearer and prettier and there are still people around who can edit them. You know I take this in a case-by-case basis, but when they're better, they're just better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
And I think the policy has been to leave them unless there's something wrong with them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
One option is to display the static map inline and display a templated link to the dynamic map; that compromise was used for Adirondacks and a later batch of edits which added {mapframe} inline was reverted. Of course, a city has different needs from a region article and the bottom-level articles are better suited for dynamic maps because POI's must be updated every time a venue closes. K7L (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I like that solution. It doesn't use as much space. I think that a good argument can be made for dynamic maps for district and undistricted city maps, generally, but when a good-looking, clear static map is already there, it would be better to request specific changes as long as someone is willing and able to make the changes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
"As long as someone is willing and able to make the changes" is a big caveat. The reason why we introduced dynamic maps in the first place was to further democratize the process of adding or updating our content, so again, why impose an unnecessary impediment to that? Is user-unfriendliness and an exponentially higher chance of inaccurate or outdated information really a reasonable price to pay for something that in some users' subjective opinion looks prettier? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
When has there been a consensus to delete all static maps from district and undistricted city articles? We ought to come to a new consensus on this before people plunge forward on their own to put mapshapes into articles that already have clear maps that might need a bit of updating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
{{mapshape}}s or {{mapframe}}s? The mapshape draws an area onto an existing dynamic map – possibly greying out everything outside the city limits, like this. K7L (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Ikan, this conversation is not about going through articles one by one and "delet[ing] all static maps from district and undistricted city articles" (though if it were, I'd be arguing in favor of doing so). We're talking specifically about the articles you've mentioned that have dual maps. Editors should not be adding an additional map to articles that already have one, but now that we do have articles with dual maps, we have to choose which of the two to delete. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Actually, I like dynamic maps as long as the zoom and coordinates are done in such a way that the map looks attractive in relation to the placement of the markers. Dynamic maps have two advantages, the ease of editing marker placement and the ability to zoom/move them, which are very useful advantages. Also, if you see the dynamic maps I have used on the Motorcycle speedway article, you will notice how the map size and zoom was picked out carefully to look aesthetically pleasing. I prefer an aesthetically pleasing dynamic map to a static map for those reasons, although I would not oppose having an article with a static map and a link to a dynamic map. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

AndreCarrotflower, if the result you want whenever any individual adds a mapframe to a district or undistricted city article is for the static map to be deleted, what you are supporting is a de facto policy of deleting all existing static maps for district and undistricted city articles. The obvious solution if we are not changing policy to support all such static maps to be deleted is that if one of the maps is deleted, it would be the new dynamic map. Otherwise, we might as well be honest and say a huge "To Hell with you!" to all such static maps and delete them all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Improve dynamic maps for mobile use[edit]

One of the issues with dynamic maps is that they do not handle well for mobile use. Our offline apps apparently cannot deal with them at all and if one enters the site via the browser, the maps are not auto-zoomed like they are on the desktop version. I think the latter at least should be easy enough to fix, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's okay on mobile for me, but it probably depends on the device. But it makes me think, what is so terrible about dual maps? Maybe they are actually a good thing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Waste of space and ugly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What if, however, we put them in very separate parts of the article? Absolutely I do not like dual maps on top of each other, but one towards the beginning of the article and another in "eat" might not be so bad. This wouldn't work so well in outline articles but in longer articles it could help with the dual maps problem. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think if we're going to have 2 maps of the whole city/district, a solution similar to the one in Adirondacks or collapsing the maps some other way is better than showing both maps on the page. Many of these articles are relatively brief and would benefit more from another photo than a 2nd map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a case by case solution would be better. For example, on the Financial District dual maps I would say the static map looks nicer. In more suburban areas, however, it might be different. Rural/suburban areas would not so much be an issue with Manhattan but in other places might be an issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I have supported case-by-case decisions for a long time. I supported removing static maps from certain Manhattan district articles because they were so small as to be user-unfriendly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
In a dense map (=lots of information to communicate), I disagree with the assertion that two maps are a waste of space. In such a case, I think that dual maps is preferable to one that's so crowded that you can't see what's where. Two maps with identical information (both with exactly the same cities marked in a region, or both with all the same districts marked) would indeed be a waste of space, but that situation appears to be very uncommon. (Did we ever find one example of that? I remember several examples of nearly identical maps being put forward (e.g., two maps showing cities, but the first listed cities #1 through #9, and the other listed cities #2 through #10), but I don't remember if we found an article with two maps that were actually identical.)
"Ugly" is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also going to vary with the aesthetic qualities of the map in question. The static map at Oklahoma City is never going to win any beauty prizes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that in a long article with plenty of content, having two maps that show the city from two very different perspectives at a fair distance apart is a good option and not a waste of space. Gizza (roam) 13:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Back to Hobbitschuster's comment: What exactly are the mobile map problems? We put map improvements on the m:Community Wishlist last fall, and we won – first place winner. The new wishlist starts in a few weeks. I think it really helps to identify a reasonably specific task, and to have an official bug report/feature request filed (or found). What would be the most important improvement to maps? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the two problems Hobbitschuster mentioned (not displaying on offline apps, not zoomed right), dynamic maps also don't show up at all when articles are downloaded as PDFs. Another useful feature would be for the map to display an icon indicating your current location when you view it on mobile. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Finding people who will actually update the static maps[edit]

This map needs to be replaced.

Who actually knows how to update static maps? And could one of you please go to Talk:Oklahoma City#Radical proposal on districts and make a new static map for the specified districts? I honestly think I'd have an easier time figuring out mapshape and replacing the districts with a dynamic map, but whether the replacement is dynamic or static, the old map needs to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the problems with static maps. There is no one to update them or create new ones. I've tried asking people before and I haven't gotten an answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that this question is even being asked cuts straight to the heart of the problem. A task as simple as updating a map should not involve such rigmarole, especially when we already have an easier way of doing it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I know that most people won't bother clicking through to see the map – which I'm sure was created based on the best information available some years ago, with the goal of improving things later, so I think it would be entirely unfair to lay any fault whatsoever at the feet of the volunteer who graciously improved this article by adding something – let me outline a couple of problems with this map:
  • The district map shows only part of the city, and none of its suburbs, some of which are important destinations in their own right.
  • Most of what's shown in the map is outside any district.
  • The gray area includes several other cities, which is okay, I guess, but they ought to be marked.
  • It's a car-centric destination, but there are no highways shown.
  • The only landmark shown is an unlabeled river that most travelers don't know about.
  • The main airport, which many travelers would probably start at, isn't shown (and might not be in the part of the city shown on the map).
And: I can't fix it, because it's a static map. If we want a static map for that article, someone else has to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Make a new policy proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Maps and let's make a decision by consensus, not individual action and de facto after-the-fact reasoning. But keep in mind that, unless you are proposing to do away with static maps entirely, they will continue to be needed for articles at the districted city, region, country, group of countries and continent levels.
The answer, though, is that the expert mapmakers aren't here much, nowadays. Saqib, PerryPlanet and who else? But it seems like their skills are still needed, to at least some extent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I tried making a static map once but I don't remember the instructions being too helpful. Otherwise I would be prepared to help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, all of that downloading from Openstreetmap was too much for me. If making static maps was easier it would be different. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek: It may well be that I am one of the last people that make static maps (though my results are by no means equal or better than Saqib or Perry's maps), but I myself am moving away from static maps in favour of dynamic maps because drawing the maps is much more time-consuming. I've never bothered with importing OSM data either, but have always drawn them from scratch. I've given Oklahoma City's map a go, and you can find the result in the associated discussion. If you ever urgently need any more static maps drawn, then feel free to reach out to me and I'll see if I can squeeze it in my somewhere in my week :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I just saw the static map and I have to say that you've done quite a good job. It's really nice and clear; you can see where all the important things are without having to go through millions of labels. Perhaps in future, we should try to make our static maps more basic so they are not as time-consuming.
On a related note, how long did it take you do create the map? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! The goal I try to achieve with static maps is to display districts and other subdivisions, as well as highlight key infrastructure. A proper city map would have listings for see, do, eat, drink and connect, but I'd rather not bother, since they are the key element that do not age well. Other elements currently lacking are district labels, which I left out since the discussions are still ongoing and the names didn't appear to be set in stone yet, as well as road labels, which I may still add later. All in all, I think I've spent about 2½ hours on this one, four if you count my initial map of the greater agglomeration that left the Centre way too small to be useful on the map. Anyway, this is one of the easier maps I've drawn. I've easily spent twelve hours if not more on the Luxembourgian district map, which I think is the map that I invested most time in. Working this map out with the labels described above, excluding listings, I'd spend another half or full hour on it, I'd say.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let me clarify, mainly to others, that a basic or simple map in my opinion is not a bad thing. I know the fancier maps, like that one of Luxembourg, are superior, but that doesn't mean that a very simple map is a bad thing. Anyway, that 2.5 hours is useful information, but actually I have a couple more questions, not to sound like an interrogator, but it may help us more quickly add static maps to places like North Dakota where they would be useful: where did you spend most of that 2 and a half hours making the map — was it mostly on drawing the lines for roads, bodies of water/rivers, or district colors? Is there any way we could decrease those times in future so we can make maps more quickly? I'm not trying to criticize your work, but it would be great if we could have a way to quickly draw static maps so it didn't take so long. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I don't mind the questions whatsoever. As for drawing the map, I can only give ballpark estimates, as different maps ask for different methods, if that makes sense. If you don't mind, I'd prefer to make a map for North Dakota, which you mentioned, and note down some timestamps so that I can give some more representative numbers. I'm pretty sure my ballpark estimates are way off in the first place. As for saving time: Using OSM data saves a lot of time that would be spent on drawing infrastructure, but as you pointed out before, that isn't exactly easy, and I for one don't bother with it. I hope to get back to you with some proper numbers later today or tomorrow. Also, if there is a request for one, I could give making a video tutorial or something along those lines a swing in order to make static map creation a bit more accessible, since the wall of text that is the written guide is what held me from plunging forward on static maps for about a year.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Those sound like a couple good ideas. I'm no artist but I would like to help out with static maps if it was easier to learn, simply because the number of people who have the talent of drawing Wikivoyage static maps is so limited — as you say, you're pretty much the only one now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Almost made it in a day, but here are the SVG and PNG maps. Time spent is as follows:
  • 15:51; Looking for source material (3 minutes)
  • 15:54; Designing layers in Inkscape, general preparation work (1 minute)
  • 15:55; Improving and stitching source material (14 minutes)
  • 16:09; Mapping highways and Interstate routes (35 minutes)
  • 16:44; Mapping waterways and lakes (33 minutes)
  • 17:21; Labelling cities and highways (14 minutes)
  • 17:35; Saving, interrupting for a break (4 hours, 25 minutes)
  • 22:00; Continuing, mapping tertiary roads (34 minutes)
  • 22:34; Drawing frame (1 minute)
  • 22:35; Drawing regions (45 minutes)
  • 23:20; Labelling unlabelled infrastructure (31 minutes)
  • 23:51; First export and evaluation (2 minutes)
  • 23:53; Annotating regions and frame elements (13 minutes)
  • 00:06; First final export (3 minutes)
  • 00:09; Files uploaded to Commons
This results in a total time of 3 hours and 49 minutes spent on the map. The drawing regions took longer than needed, since the source material did not include the county borders and I therefore had to estimate the region borders somewhat. Drawing elements takes by far the most time. As I said before, this time can be reduced by importing OSM data, but I generally don't bother. Labelling and annotating comes in second. I hope this is the answer you were looking for. I'll probably start work on a map for South Holland next, since its regions need revamping. I'll record it all so I can later edit that down into a tutorial video/videos. I haven't a clue as to when I can start on that.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi @SelfieCity, Wauteurz:, I’ve drawn a number of static maps and my experience is it takes about 3-10 hours to draw a static map. I don’t track the time, but probably 50-60% of my time is spent on details like colours, labels and making the map readable, 30-40% of my time is spent on making the regions, roads, railroads, city markers, etc, and 0-10% is spent looking for source data. The main driver is the amount of detail in the map — the more roads, railroads and labels I need to fiddle with, the more time it takes. Other things that can slow a map down is having to draw the regions if they don’t follow administrative boundaries and getting source data if I don’t already have it (I don’t import from OSM).
For example, the map I drew at Nevada only took about 3 hours. There’s lots of good data for the US, the regions largely follow county borders so they were simple to draw, there’s only a moderate number of roads, and there was lots of space for labels (e.g., I didn’t have to adjust labels much to avoid overlap with roads and other features). By comparison, the map at Scottish Highlands took 8-9 hours. These region shapes had a fair bit of customization, there are more roads, railroads and national parks, the base data I was working with wasn't as easy to use as data for US maps, and there was a largish number of labels that needed to be placed carefully to maximize readability.
In terms of what can be done to speed up drawing static maps, I think the biggest thing is to avoid adding too much detail — keep infrastructure to a minimum (e.g., main roads, airports and rail connections if needed) so the focus is on regions and key destinations. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: I am so, so, so sorry. I missed this completely! But thanks for the information. It is really appreciated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Bermuda COTM[edit]

The new COTM is Bermuda and anything breadcrumbed underneath it. These are the tasks:

  • Improve content of listings
    • fix dead links
    • expand description
    • add coordinates, address, phone number
  • Move listings to correct city article from region article. If key POI add some text in region article about it.
  • Add understand section to city article
  • Improve city articles to get them all to usable status
    • Adding See, Sleep and Eat listings were possible.

Some of these need local knowledge or require research, but there are some here that are easy. Here's to the success of another collaboration! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Would love to see a Bermuda DotM when all this is done! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably it would be a good place to feature. I would assume that popular destinations which would interest/be accessible to a wide range of people are good choices. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Results[edit]

I think this COTM started poorly but gained momentum as it went along and proved to be fairly successful near the end of the month, when I got more involved. The main Bermuda article is currently at usable status and the parishes mostly have their own articles. The overview article no longer looks like a mess with stuff that shouldn't be there, but instead looks like a good Wikivoyage article. I'm not saying it can't be improved, but it is much better than it was.

Very good progress was made on the St. George's article; St. George, like the capital city Hamilton, is an important tourist destination at Bermuda, and notice the progress made from before the collaboration to now. Hamilton is not great when you consider that it's a capital city (sort-of; Bermuda is not an independent country), but it's not a bad article either.

Overall, I think it was a successful collaboration; I think important tourist destinations like Rio, Hawaii, Bermuda, etc. should have some of Wikivoyage's best articles since they are popular tourist destinations. Unfortunately, many of them are in need of a collaboration. But hopefully COTMs like Bermuda will see us change these problems for the better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Article on cultural attractions in sub-Saharan Africa[edit]

I understand that WV is not the place for political debates, and this might have a bit of a social justice tone to it, but after watching some documentaries and reading some articles, I think it's worth considering an article about this. When people think of Africa, they tend to think of Safaris, wild animals and "primitive" hunter gatherer societies, but the fact is that there were great civilisations in sub-Saharan Africa that built great cities. The Great Zimbabwe and Timbuktu are some of the best known, but I feel that perhaps with an article dedicated to that, we can properly showcase the sheer cultural diversity within Africa, and challenge some very widely held stereotypes of Africa. Some other sites I can think of including are the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela in Ethiopia, the ruins of Aksum, also in Ethiopia, the Nubian pyramids of Meroe in Sudan, the ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani in Tanzania, and the Dahomey Royal Palaces of Abomey in Benin.

I understand we should not use WV for political campaigning, but I feel that we should also be fair here and do our part to challenge inaccurate stereotypes. Everyone knows about the great civilisations of Asia, Europe and the Americas, so it's time we give the African civilisations the credit that they deserve. The dog2 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

All of these sound like valid travel topics to me. However, I think that it is a good idea to create separate travel topic articles for them, rather than to create one single article for all these African cultural attractions. Lumping them together would just enforce the idea of sub-Saharan Africa as one homogeneous block. A while ago I nominated an effort to upgrade Africa to usable status as a COTM. The nomination was eventually slushed (and not without good reason) but I think that it is also a good place to start if want to improve our coverage of Africa.
And for the record, I don't mind political motivations behind editing. If someone wanted to improve the coverage of their home country out of chauvinistic emotions of national pride, that would be fine be me as long as the edits were fair and helpful to travelers. MartinJacobson (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the dog that this is desirable, and with Martin that a single article would not do each civilisation justice. I suggest starting with a civilisation you know about, and go from there.
Tangentially, I have thought for some time that having both the pagebanner and lead image of Africa depict wildlife be part of the same problem, but as of yet have not found a suitable replacement candidate for one or the other.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, we would ideally have separate articles for each civilisation. Unfortunately, I'm not a historian, and I only know of the existence of these great civilisations and some of their most notable achievements, and I don't have enough knowledge to write about each of them in-depth. Perhaps we can have "African civilisations" as a landing page, and different civilisations getting their own articles that are listed on this landing page. In the same vein, I would not mind having a "pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas" article, and individual articles for the Inca, Maya, Aztec, Olmec and other civilisations listed under that.
Speaking of which, perhaps we can have a picture of Timbuktu replacing either the page banner or lead image of the Africa article. While of course there were many civilisations in Africa, and the Mali Empire by no means representative of all of Africa, Timbuktu is definitely impressive and built in a unique style that cannot be found outside sub-Saharan Africa. The dog2 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, a landing page along the same lines as European history would be appropriate, and might encourage users to expand content on places they know about in new articles. I confess total ignorance on this subject. How many African / Africa-based contributors do we have? The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Peter and DocWoKav.
Timbuktu is a nice idea, but it's also rapidly disappearing under sand and inaccessible to tourists due to being in the middle of a war zone.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"African civilizations" would include Egypt, Carthage, Nubia and Ethiopia, just saying. Also, it's presumably non-Africans who hold the mentioned stereotypes, not people in general, something to keep in mind. Coverage of ancient African civilizations is a worthy goal. We could probably facilitate this with an "Ancient African Civilizations" Expedition, to list each civilization and the points of interest associated with it. I am not an expert, either, but getting the information down will make coverage of individual archeological and historical sites and possible articles about particular civilizations easier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
In any case, sub-Saharan Africa typically also includes Nubia and Ethiopia as well, but yes, an "African Civilisations" page should most certainly include the Egyptians and Carthage. Moreover, the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula was actually initiated by Berbers, who are indigenous to what is today the Maghreb region of North Africa. And while presumably most Africans do not hold those stereotypes, you may be surprised to find out that such stereotypes of sub-Saharan Africa are widespread even among African-Americans.
But anyway, I would most certainly be in favour of an "Ancient African Civilizations" expedition, if we have enough people with expertise in the subject matter. And on a personal note, it's unfortunate that the achievements of African civilisations have been obscured for so long due to formerly widely-held racist pseudoscientific notions that black people were somehow genetically inferior to other races, so hopefully, by going on this expedition, we here can do our part as a community to reverse some of this damage. And course, many of these civilisations left behind relics of their existence, so it most certainly fits in our scope of being a travel guide too, as you can actually go to Africa to visit some of these sites. The dog2 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I really don't see an issue here. I think whoever can and wants to add travel topics about civilizations should go ahead and add them. If we created 20 travel topics on African historical groups I wouldn't mind. If you want to write articles about African history go ahead and add all you know — I don't intend to get in the way. Also, one more thing: someone said that the American civilizations were well covered, and I would at least partially object to this. While the coverage of Native American peoples is good, the coverage of the history of the South Americans is still only mediocre at best, despite the work me, Granger, and others have put into it. So while we improve African history coverage we could see what we could do with South America too. But I say, let the work go ahead! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, to add: while my knowledge on this topic, particularly outside of Egyptian history, is very limited, if there are other things I could do I would be willing to help out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I had suggested a few articles relating to African history on WV:Requested articles, namely Nubia, the Iron-Age Nok culture in West Africa and Kerma (ancient Nubian site). I also suggested the 9000-year-old Kuk Swamp archeological site in Papua New Guinea, which although obviously not in Africa, is similarly from a neglected part of the world. Not many people know that the New Guineans were among the world's oldest farmers and were the first to domesticate sugar cane and bananas. I haven't gotten around to starting any of these articles yet. While I have some knowledge of these topics along with other topics relating to non-European ancient history and culture, it's not enough to make a full-fledged article from scratch in a short space of time. The Trail of Ibn Battuta would be a great pan-continental itinerary too (as great an explorer as Marco Polo was) and there have been English-language travel documentaries replicating Ibn Battuta's journey from Morocco to China and everywhere in between so it shouldn't be too hard to write. Gizza (roam) 01:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, which reminds me, if we are going to write travel topics we need some travel topic ideas first. Do we already have an article on Egyptian history? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:Historical travel will tell you which articles we already have in this space in terms of travel topics (specific historic sites will be destinations of course) and there are some history articles that are directly in Category:Cultural attractions. Ancient Egypt exists but it's quite weak. The more I think about it, the more I believe that our coverage of history overall is underwhelming. The good news is that it can only improve from here. Gizza (roam) 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think our Roman Empire article is overwhelming, but otherwise you are probably right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also agree that we do not have the best coverage of pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas. Even the three widely known ones, the Aztecs, Mayas and Incas do not have their own articles, so there is certainly room for expansion there.
With regards to Africa, I think we can start with an "African Civilisations" page and list all the ones we know. People who know any of those well can then use that as a landing page to create articles about each individual civilisation. We have lumped the cultures of North America and South America respectively in the same way, even though these cultures are different and speak different languages. The dog2 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, in the Americas I would say the Incas, Mayas, and Aztecs were the civilizations we ought to highlight for tourists, since they left behind such amazing pyramids and other remmants of what was once a fascinating culture. Instead it seems that these groups are taking the back seat. I'm not sure what our coverage is like for Chinese and Indian history, but those are also notable. I think most of European coverage is good enough for now, but even there there are some low points and improving that could be done. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Europe apart from the Russian Empire and Cold War Europe has room for improvement. We should probably have articles on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Bulgarian Empires (spanned many modern-day countries). Gizza (roam) 03:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There is a Chinese Empire article, and it is OK, though admittedly not as well developed as the one about the Roman Empire. And likewise, we have articles about ancient Japan and Korea that could probably be improved on. We don't have an article on Southeast Asian empires, the most important ones I can think of being the Srivijaya and Majapahit, and while smaller, the Malacca Sultanate certainly was significant. And of course, there were so many others like the Vietnamese, Khmer, Siamese, Mon, Rakhine and Burmese kingdoms. There's also no article about Indian history, and it's unfortunate that there isn't one given how rich Indian history is. For one thing, there were the great empires of the Mauryas, Guptas and Cholas, and there is the Indus Valley Civilisation (in modern-day Pakistan) that dates back even earlier than the Mauryas. The dog2 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
And if I remember rightly there isn't an article at all for the Holy Roman Empire. Since historical articles make good travel topics, it would be great if they were better. I just did some work on the Ancient Egypt article a little while ago. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly it would be good to improve our coverage of historic sites in sub-Saharan Africa. I would suggest starting by putting this content in Africa#History and Africa#Historical civilizations (or in region/country/other lower-level articles). Individual travel topics like Nubia can be created too if someone knows enough to write them. I'm skeptical that something as broad as "African civilizations" would be useful as a travel topic separate from the Africa article, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Africa and its historic civilizations don't need to be thought of any differently than any others. I don't see why adding African civilizations as opposed to Asian or European needs to be "political" or have a political/advocacy slant nor do I see why you felt the need to petition here for an article when you know you can create an article for any African civilization that you want to dedicate your time to. I don't support creating articles for the purpose you outline, though. We don't need a patronizing article to "dispel myths" about anyplace. We need travel topics to provide information that is valuable to travelers not weird articles whose purpose is to argue that Africa has "just as good culture as Europe/Asia", "is actually better and more cultured if you think about it like this", or whatever weird social justice hang-up you are trying to appeal to. If we have an article on the Axumite Kingdom, for example, it should be because we have something worthwhile to showcase to travelers on the topic with a variety of places to go to experience the historic sites/events/culture and learn more not because we feel embarrassed on behalf of the nation of Ethiopia because the remnants of its horrible famine still occupy minds when they think about the country or because we want to pat ourselves on the back for "making them look good". Let's stick to travel and let the travelers decide for themselves what they care about/like/dislike/etc like we do with every other place. Most people who are interested in African travel DO in fact seek out places of historic and cultural interests. First thoughts are not final thoughts.

Most of what was proposed is already in the Africa#Historical civilizations, including briefly mentioning that it is fruitful to dig deeper than just wildlife. I wrote that section and remain the primary author (little has been changed since I wrote it). If you have nothing more to add, then just add what you want to that section. Beyond that, I agree with Granger that it's better to create an article for a specific African civilization/empire. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In any case, judging from how this discussion has gone, how about we launch an expedition on historical travel, so we can improve all our history articles. It seems that information is sorely lacking in the vast majority of them. Indian and Southeast Asian history are also very much undercovered, so I am convinced that we should expand the scope beyond just African history and expand our history articles in general.
And please, I am not trying to advocate for any civilisation being portrayed as better than others. Every civilisation has its own achievements and shortcomings, and sub-Saharan African civilisations are no different. Of course, all ancient civilisations, including European ones, will be considered barbaric by our modern-day moral standards. Sure, as a conservative American, you believe that the U.S. is the greatest civilisation that ever existed in the history of mankind, and you are free to believe that. But all I'm saying is that we should represent all peoples accurately, and it is most certainly true that most non-Africans think that sub-Saharan Africa was comprised only of hunter gatherer societies and no cities prior to the arrival of Europeans, which is just inaccurate. If anything, I was the one who added most of the stuff about African involvement in the slave trade in the Atlantic slave trade article, so if you think I'm trying to promote black power, pan-Africanism or some other specifically pro-black ideology, please look through my edit history before you come to that conclusion. The dog2 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I find the views of ChubbyWimbus and The dog2 in these recent comments good and well stated. I myself am not too crazy on creating a general article for African civilizations but I would not oppose such an article being created. I like the history expedition idea as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The dog2 Just to clarify, I said nothing about "black power" or "pro-black ideology". I was responding specifically to your claims that we need to be "more fair" to Africa and advocate on behalf of the continent to make it look good and prove it has cultural sites, cities, and other things that developed countries in Europe/Asia/the Americas have. I resent the insinuation that my comment was meant to protect "American exceptionalism". I didn't mention the US at all and my reference of Europe/Asia was because those regions currently have the most articles of the type you brought up (ancient civilizations). I'm baffled about where the "black power", "pro-black ideology", etc line is even coming from. I don't know if you think I was accusing you of that or if you are trying to insinuate that I'm racist (in which case, I also strongly resent) or both, but I wasn't even thinking about race in my response. I thought I was clear when I said create TRAVEL articles not propaganda. I even repeated that African articles should be written like any other article. I've always wished we had more well-written, guide-status African articles and I've contributed to many African articles but I don't have the travel experience to make the kind of headway required to get any featured.
Also, I don't think it's fair to our contributors to make claims that we need to be "more fair" to Africa. Your stated issues are with what you believe to be the societal perceptions of Africa, but saying we need to be "more fair" to Africa suggests that we are not being completely "fair" to it now and/or that there is an issue with our contributors as we relate to Africa and Africa-related content which I find to be untrue on both accounts. Even concerning the stereotypes you mention, any user who cares about Africa can easily find from our current content that it has cities and cultural sites, including old/ancient ones. Users who don't care, won't look, and that has to be okay, because we aren't trying to propagandize. I don't see any evidence that Africa is being treated unfairly or even that other users treat it differently than you do, and everyone has been supportive of the idea to create these articles. The only issues brought up were just to be specific rather than broad and that it needs to be a travel article and not propaganda so please be careful with making accusations against the community when it seems all you really want to say is "I wish we had some historic articles from African kingdoms, but I don't know enough to create any myself. Anyone know enough about any of them to start one." ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the two of you are fighting over what is basically a misunderstanding. I don't think thedog2 ever insinuated that you were a racist and I think thedog2 was actually saying he was opposed to the "black power" ideaology. While I agree with ChubbyWimbus that we shoudn't think of ourselves as racists just because a region's article coverage is poor, that doesn't mean that we can't make that region's article coverage better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I apologise if I misunderstood ChubbyWimbus's intentions, but I think I was misunderstood too. I was never proposing the creation of a social justice article, and I never said anything about WV being unfair to Africa or black people. But I don't think I'm wrong for saying that the stereotype of Africa that most people in the Western world have is an inaccurate one, and it is most certainly true that the reason for the prevalence of such a stereotype is because of the legacy of formerly widely-held racist ideologies, even if those ideologies themselves are no longer widespread today. In a similar vein, what they teach you in American schools about the Atlantic slave trade, specifically the story of white people going to Africa and kidnapping the black Africans in order to enslave them and ship across the Atlantic, is a gross oversimplification of the actual history, and that is why I added all the stuff about African involvement in the slave trade and Native American slave ownership to the article. If there is a very widely held misconception about something, I don't think it's wrong to briefly mention that in our articles and give a brief overview of why that is a misconception. In any case, the article I was originally proposing was more about listing the different civilisations of Africa, and perhaps a map of where those civilisations were located, as well as sites concerned with those civilisations that tourist can visit today. I'm pretty sure that fits in with our goal of being a travel guide.
And anyway, seeing how these other civilisations also suffer from a lack of coverage, I might also create articles about ancient India, Southeast Asian civilisations and pre-Columbian civilisations of the Americas if nobody has any objection. The dog2 (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'd really like to see those articles get created. History is closely related to travel, so we ought to have good coverage in that field. I know a fair amount of history, although not so good regionally. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I can't see anyone objecting to those except for some mean-spirited non-reason, so please go ahead, Dog. Our articles skew towards the urban and the "first world" because that's what most of us know best*, and any attempts to redress that are welcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
the historic civilization articles have potential to be among our richest articles, so it's great if someone can create a good article. The dog2, the way you brought up the topic made me weary that your intent was to create an article with "dispelling myths about Africa" as the primary focus and purpose of the article. What you state above in your clarification about the slave trade edits to me is just a standard corrective edit which is what we all do and should do whenever we see inaccuracies. If that's all you meant to say, then there is obviously no issue. No one wants to knowingly promote incorrect accounts no matter what it's about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic cities and sites[edit]

On a somewhat related issue, we don't seem to have a consistent classification for historic and archeological sites. Not talking about ancient cities that are still inhabited like Rome and Athens but cities and sites that now in ruins. Persepolis, Pompeii, Teotihuacan, Luxor and Mohenjo-daro are "cities" while Troy, Tikal and Tiwanaku are "parks". As many of the articles that will be potentially be created from this expedition will be archeological sites, the way they are classified should be settled. Gizza (roam) 00:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think this should be our rule: a city with ruins that is also a living town (like Pompeii) should be classified as a city. Those that are solely ruins, as I assume Great Zimbabwe and Troy are, should be parks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Since I think Pompeii is still inhabited, just that part of it isn't. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Pompei is a sizable suburb of Naples. The excavated area is a discrete section of town. Pompei and Pompei-Scavi are two different stops on the Circumvesuviana train. Pompei-Scavi is just outside the excavated area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Then it sounds like a city article IMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
In fact it is, though quite understandably, the article focuses on the excavations. Similarly, see Herculaneum. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

So I've created two travel topics in this field, one for Nubia and another for Churches of Ethiopia. Please expand these, since they are just outlines at the moment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Outside of Africa the historical travel articles for South Asian history and the Khmer Empire have also been created. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, some of the articles that will be referred to by these topics should be beefed up a bit. I just added coordinates for all the city/listing markers for Ethiopia and its Regions as an example. Adjusted some markers and maps. So please consider developing those articles further as well since some are sparse -- Matroc (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for responding late, but the reason I can't expand these travel topics is that I don't know much about these topics. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I've also created African-American history, which needs to be expanded. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the ListingEditor[edit]

I've been making some changes to the ListingEditor gadget in my userspace. I'm looking for feedback. If anyone is interested in testing the changes with me, you can disable your listing editor gadget and copy my common.js and common.css to switch over. Any feedback on the alterations to the appearance of the editor, including changes to the text, and on bugs/glitches would be appreciated. Even if not testing, I'm looking for some other feedback, so please read on if you use the listing editor.

I've copied over the preview functionality from the German version, which is very useful. I've also added the automatic updating/addition of IATA codes for airports, and trimming of a trailing period in the price box (as you sometimes see new users writing, resulting in a double period). The significant-ish thing I've written in are lock checkboxes to prevent certain fields from updating from Wikidata, specifically the URL, coordinates, and image.

I've added tooltip text to warn users against using it if the Wikidata information is inaccurate, as a way to avoid fixing the information there, and instead suggesting some "acceptable" use cases. The ones I thought of are listed below:

  • Lock URL: Use this only if Wikidata links to a non-English website, and we have the English version set.
  • Lock coords: Use this only in case of the wrong coordinates being selected. For example, if the listing is for a river, and the Wikidata coordinates show the mouth of the river, while we want a point on the river.
  • Lock image: Use this only if we have a better image that we cannot put on Commons
  • Lock image: or if we have a subjectively better photo set here, and we have been prevented from changing the one in Wikidata to match
  • Lock image: or if we do not want an image here at all.

Can anyone think of any other use cases to write into the tooltip? Maybe some of these should be fixed on Wikidata's end? Alternately, should I remove the tooltip completely, and assume all editors know the appropriate times not to update from Wikidata?

Should I add lock checkboxes for any other fields? I couldn't think of any use cases for the others. Alternately, are the checkboxes useless and should I remove them completely? I ask this question also of the other changes, and of this endeavor as a whole.

Finally, one question for the community: would we consider switching to the RFC3966 standard for phone numbers? It is very similar to what we use now; the only difference is the addition of a dash after the country code and the area code equivalent. Doing so would allow use to use Wikidata phone and fax numbers. Example here

ARR8 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I suppose usability folks would be afraid the interface could feel too complex with the lock boxes. One could have a box to activate them, with them otherwise greyed, I do not know whether that helps or makes it worse.
There are a few more reasons to lock our versions, mostly pertaining to our wanting visitor information while Wikidata may have general information. This concerns images as well as URLs. I think the tooltips are a good tool to standardise use. I think only the editors who spend time at the pub automatically get to know our reasoning.
Our current phone number standard is counter-intuitive for me and probably many others, but it tells what part of the number can be used when dialling locally (traditional phones do not allow dialling the +xx... global number). The RFC3966 standard does not provide an obvious way to do that ("." characters are allowed, should those be used? probably there is some other common use for them).
--LPfi (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You might be able to get around that complexity by not using checkboxes, and instead offering "get all from Wikidata" (what we have now) followed by a little "Advanced" button, which gives you a new form with all the checkboxes.
On the phone numbers, I've long wondered why we use different formats for regular and toll-free phone numbers. I'd support making them match any sensible system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The checkboxes are hopefully unobtrusive. They have no text next to them, just a lock icon. I would post a screenshot if I knew how. The "advanced" button is an option, though. Greying out, I'm not sure about, for a couple of reasons, one of them technical. However, in the meantime, I think I'll at least modify it to only show the checkboxes if there is a Wikidata ID set, much like the update link itself. That should simplify things at least for users adding new listings. ARR8 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
One alternative to the checkboxes would be to import the Wikidata only into fields which are currently blank. If the local and Wikidata fields are both populated, but with different info, one line of static text somewhere could be displayed to indicate the mismatch - with the local data left intact unless the user manually removes or replaces it. K7L (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Support Support: I think this makes most sense. Just extend the text to "Update empty shared fields...". The added benefit is that users that are not knowledgable/read enough won't overwrite stuff by accident...-- andree.sk(talk) 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I have to admit, I don't really like this option. It seems like it adds a lot of time-consuming copy-pasting if the editor actually does want to overwrite the values, which I find myself doing more often than not. Still, it's possible, though a little challenging to figure out a good place to put the static text in a way that makes the intent obvious and still looks okay. ARR8 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
w:en:WP:WPSHOT has directions for uploading a screenshot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't involve "a lot of time-consuming copy-pasting if the editor actually does want to overwrite the values"; all they'd have to do is blank the existing field and click "import from Wikidata". K7L (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I don't know why I didn't think of that. It's still not my favorite option, but I won't dismiss it out of hand; if there's a consensus that this is the direction we want to take the listing editor (and that we want to change it at all...), I'll do my best to implement that.
I'll also look into making that screenshot. ARR8 (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WV-en-listing-editor-proposed-changes.png

Here's a screenshot. Hopefully this clarifies things. ARR8 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I've just changed it to show a tooltip and the preview. I doubt anyone's seen the screenshot yet, but I don't want to change things without notice. ARR8 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Another update to the ListingEditor. Added a button to get the Wikidata ID from an entered Wikipedia article. I find that the Wikipedia autocomplete is much more intuitive than the Wikidata autocomplete. The button is just the letters "WP" next to the Wikidata box. Any thoughts are welcome.

I feel like I should mention that if anyone has any feature requests for tweaks to the editor, I would appreciate hearing them. I will obviously ask in the near future for this to be moved out of my userspace, once no one has any more input or objections. It would be nice if this update could address others' gripes with the editor, not just mine.

By the way, still no consensus on what to do with the checkboxes, or importing phone numbers from Wikidata. I'm leaving both as-is for now. If we don't reach a consensus, I'd like to revisit this in the future, perhaps after rolling out the uncontroversial changes (preview, etc.). Thanks to everyone who did respond so far. ARR8 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If making changes to the listing editor, can a mobile number field be added? There was a discussion ages ago which I thought came to the conclusion it wasca good idea but ascwith many things, somebody with knowledge, etc. needs to to make those changes. But I have no idea about finding those discussions PsamatheM (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not related to the listing editor. That's the template itself, {{listing}}. So while I could add a field, it wouldn't actually put the number anywhere on the page without matching template changes. ARR8 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it nowadays possible to have several comma separated numbers in the phone field, with comments in parenthesis: "phone=+358 9 123-456 (office), +358 40-123-456 (mobile)"? --LPfi (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as the listing editor goes, yes. It only validates e-mail, Wikipedia, and Image fields. ARR8 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
And the result is working phone number links (i.e. the template handles them), and the ErrorHighlighter does not warn about them. --LPfi (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing currency[edit]

Countries change their currency from time to time. I have the impression that this is more frequent lately, one prominent example being UK £ (GBP). I've added a few lines under UK / Buy / Money on the new banknote styles, and what to do if you're stuck with old notes. Plus a cross-ref under London / Get in / by plane since that's the main portal of entry, and where folk may be relying on an old stash to get them into town. Georgia and Belarus are a couple more that I've recently stumbled over, and will likewise update. So I make a general request for something similar, for any other changeover country that you may become aware of.

A related point is that when we describe an exchange kiosk's rates - often as "poor" - it helps to put a number on this. A good measure (not subject to daily fluctuation) is the spread, ie the % difference between "buy" and "sell" for major currencies. The traveller can then better judge if the "poor" rate is offset by the convenience of getting money in hand. Grahamsands (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Further evidence that the UK is going you-know-where in a handbasket. Twice now I've been caught with "expired" currency while visiting the UK. I expect that in tin-pot dictatorships, but in a supposedly modern country? Okay, rant over. Ground Zero (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of which, in Nicaragua they did replace the currency since my last visit (introducing for the first time since the last round of "cutting of zeros" a 1000 Cordoba note, which is a bit over 30 USD) but the old and the new series circulate at par and the old series will likely be withdrawn as it is torn to shreds due to having used a polymer susceptible to that... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The UK changes banknotes about once every 15-20 years. What is different about the current change to polymer notes is that there is a much shorter overlap period between introducing the new notes and withdrawing the old. The paper £10 note was withdrawn about 6 months after the polymer one was issued, but the previous change of £10 had nearly 3 years overlap, see w:Banknotes of the pound sterling. If you have any expired UK notes, you can change small amounts at a any bank branch, and deposit larger amounts in an account, in addition to the formal offer to change anytime at the Bank of England. AlasdairW (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The "unelected Eurocrats" who decided to introduce a second series of € banknotes also decided that a) it would be one note per year (i.e. the 5€ were introduced, the year after that the 10€ and so on) and b) the old ones would (for now) remain legal tender. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Canadian paper notes have been replaced by polymer, but the old ones don't expire. Once they hit a bank, they are pulled from circulation. I took less that six months for them to disappear from general use. The government has proposed making the $1, $2 and $1000 bills not legal tender, but they were last issued in 1987, 1996 and 2000, respectively. Ground Zero (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This is definitely useful information. Sweden and Norway have recently redesigned their currency, I think Norway is still halfway in the process with some denominations already renewed and some yet to be launched. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
All countries need to occasionally renew their currency, to avoid the people from noticing how governments and banks rob value out of their pockets through the inflation mechanism. The higher inflation, the more frequent the need for currency renewal (or "cutting off zeroes"). 88.128.80.107 10:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Finland did cut zeroes 1963, but that did not force us to invalidate old money (new 1 penni coins would look like the former 1 mk, and likewise new 1 mk banknotes would replace the former 100 mk ones). Any money ever released (since the markka was introduced in the 19th century, replacing Swedish and Russian money) was legal tender into the 1990s. Of course no one would use a 19th century coin or banknote, but you were allowed to (and the Jokioinen museum railroad did give change in obsolete but still valid banknotes from the 1970s). --LPfi (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Augsburg[edit]

Have a look at the last couple of edits to Augsburg. They seem to be by somebody who wants to make Augsburg look as positively as possible. Should we correct some of that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Have looked through at least 15 of the most recent edits, and don't really know what you mean. Are you suggesting the user is touting? If so, why not try to talk to them, either on their personal talk page or the article's talk page? Talking to people, rather than about them, is usually a better way of resolving an issue :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say to them. Which is why I did not mark the edits in question as patrolled and raised the issue here, after I came to the conclusion nobody else had taken a look at them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I did notice the edits to Augsburg some days ago, and found some of these edits weird, as they were basically chopping off sentences. I tried to ask the user on their talk page if they were aware what they were accomplishing but got no reply. They haven't edited since Friday night. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
These edits don't look unusual to me, merely a novice user trying their best to contribute. That aside, doesn't everyone try to make their city look as positively as possible? 88.128.80.107 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I created an itinerary in a rural region in my userspace[edit]

I created this today after hiking the trail yesterday. Please have a look and tell me what it needs before getting to mainspace or whether there are general reasons for it not being fit for mainspace... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a real/official hiking trail, so sure, it can be moved into mainspace. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Would you say something major is missing/unclear? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Not that I can see. However, a couple pictures would be good, along with a few minor corrections which I can do now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As this seems to be a hiking route along roads, I'd wonder about what the roads are like. Are they small roads you share with the cars, which will slow down on meeting you, are they passing by in 80 km/h while you have a half a metre stripe for yourself (if that), or is there a dedicated trail away from the road – or something else? Is the route marked? Are the breweries easy to find in the villages? --LPfi (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The trail is partly through the woods on trails that you will not share with any kind of motorized traffic (apart from maybe forestry related stuff), crosses some roads, some of them not that minor and also makes use of village roads, which are paved and either so calm as to not need sidewalks or equipped with sidewalks. The trail is marked with either the "Fünf Seidla Steig" logo (which contains those words) or as part of the longer "Frankenweg". The breweries are in most cases near the center of the towns or serve as a village center of sorts, but yes, there could be more information on that in the article. In general, if the weather is good and it is a holiday or weekend, there'll be plenty of other people hiking that same trail and the locals will obviously know where the brewpubs are. The website also provides the GPS track for download as well as maps. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

New currency symbol Ukraine[edit]

How can we add a new currency symbol (грн) for Ukraine (see discussion) in the list that appears underneath the editor window? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done (it can be edited at MediaWiki:Edittools btw) sumone10154(talk) 23:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
👍 Ceever (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Traveling with ADHD[edit]

I had an idea to write an article about traveling with ADHD, but I quickly ran out of ideas. Could someone help me out, maybe adding onto what I have so far? Vulcandor (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

9/11 tourism?[edit]

Isn't this new article in very poor taste? 9/11 tourism

Museums and memorials do exist in the location articles of the attacks already. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm of two minds. I hear what you're saying, but is it really in poorer taste than, for example, the article on Nazi German architecture that's being advocated for on the Tourist Office? Or, in the realm of already existing articles, the one on the Atlantic slave trade? I suppose the ultimate answer would be that it depends on how the topic is handled, and the article isn't yet well-developed enough to make that determination. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it's good to have articles on travelling to sites where you can learn about large-scale tragedies and pay respects to their victims. I think our best-developed article of this kind is Holocaust remembrance. But calling it "9/11 tourism" does seem quite strange and in poor taste to me. Would we have an article called "Holocaust tourism"? Maybe 9/11 remembrance would be better. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, 9/11 remembrance does sound better. Sorry if I offended anyone. Vulcandor (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I was actually commenting on the article title with the word 'tourism' (for which there was no content at the time). It was more concerned with the depiction of tourists heading to sites of recent atrocities for selfies. Visiting memorials is however a reasonable activity to have on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Not enthusiastic about this. Agree with the above comments on the validity of remembrance articles but this one is just a list of destinations. Having stood at the base of twin towers site and seen so many insensitive people smiling, joking and taking selfies amongst a few people clearly moved and remembering a tragic and emotional event I tend to look at this as being in bad taste at this point. It is too fresh in peoples minds, not a historical article. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I support changing it to 9/11 remembrance. Next year, people born after 9/11 will turn 18, so I don't agree that it is too soon. I've seen people talking happy-smiley selfies at Auschwitz, but that isn't a good reason for omitting it from our travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed the title, since even the article's creator seems to support that. But I admit I'm not sure there's enough to write about this topic for a separate article to make sense. Unlike the Holocaust or the Atlantic slave trade, there aren't that many places to visit related to this topic. Maybe it would be better as a subsection of Postwar United States. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a global guide, and there was another tremendous act of terrorism on a Sept. 11, in 1973. I actually think deleting this topic would be best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the deletion suggestion. There's topics on the WWI and WWII which have affected far more people across many more countries and those articles are there. Getting back on topic, I was wondering if I could add Gander, Newfoundland which hosted many stranded flyers when US closed its airspace (and the subject of the Broadway musical). OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be best to delete. Expanded, the most the article could hope for is an unsourced summary of the Wikipedia article and a handful of fairly obvious listings. ARR8 (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, if you disagree with deletion, I think you need to support including remembrance of the Sept. 11, 1973 Chilean coup d'etat. Again, this site is a worldwide guide; it isn't a U.S. guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: as you are our resident New Yorker, I'd like know why you think this article should be deleted. I think you must have better reasons than the lack of an article about the Chilean coup. If there are sites related to that event that could be assembled into an article, I'd be in favour of it. Ground Zero (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, I guess you're right, though I would point out that many people initially thought the attacks in 2001 could be revenge by Chileans, considering that the CIA had its hands all over the 1973 coup, so I would maintain my point about the significance of the date in Chile as well as the U.S. But I'll admit that I resent people going to the ugly hole in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be for tourism. I've seen it once, and in no way did its being a fountain save it for me. The only thing that saved it somewhat for me and my girlfriend is that it's an absolute delight for pigeons, who love to ride the ripples on its top, but I went only because we were somehow in the area (I forgot why). The pigeons were a living presence in what otherwise felt like a huge dead zone where there used to be a building whose interior I still have a mental picture of. I normally go to that area only to shop at Century 21. I also feel strongly that even people who try to learn a lesson from visiting sites damaged or destroyed in those terrorist atrocities are learning the wrong lessons, because focusing only on those acts of terrorism ignores what the G.W. Bush Administration did to exploit them, including the tremendously larger number of civilian deaths due to his act of aggression against Iraq, which I considered a huge act of terrorism, and the stupidity of the attempt at a long-term occupation of Afghanistan, in league with corrupt drug lords and election-thieves. And I have also never forgiven G.W. Bush for refusing to pay any attention to any of the warnings before the atrocities in the first place, and then demoting or firing the warners and promoting and decorating the ignorers. I'm sorry to bring in politics, but these attacks were deeply traumatizing for New Yorkers, and many of us don't appreciate anything about the way many visitors choose to "remember" them and would rather they do something else for tourism. Maybe you're sorry you asked now, and you'd get x different views from x different New Yorkers, but for better or worse, I've said my piece. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

ARR8 raises a good point about the article possibly being too narrow in scope. 9/11 was no doubt important, but only a single event in the global War on Terror. It's like having an article on the Battle of Gettysburg or the attack on Pearl Harbor. A broader terror attacks remembrance page would be better in theory but 1. unlike WWII and the Cold War, the War on Terror is ongoing and most relevant destinations are unsafe for travel and 2. nearly every big city in the world has been struck by terrorist attacks in the last two decades. It just might be too early to have a travel topic on it. Gizza (roam) 08:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the title "War on Terror" would give rise to political arguments, because ever since 9/11/01, the U.S. government has claimed that every hostile act they've taken, including the aggression against Iraq, was part of the "Global War on Terrorism". I oppose such an article. And if we instead called it "terrorism remembrance", would it include remembering nationalist or religious terrorists as heroes, which many monuments and countries do? Nope, no way is that a good topic, and it's also more than a little ghoulish to have lists of sites of atrocities for people to visit just because they're sites of atrocities. We do that for the Holocaust, but that's because the death camps were specifically established as factories of death. The World Trade Center, the Bataclan club, the school in Beslan, hotels and pizza parlors in Jerusalem and Netanya - these are or were ordinary places where people went to work, party, study, eat or sleep. Do we really want to encourage people to gawk at everyplace just because it's been attacked? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
VFD discussion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons, again...[edit]

It's happening again... Commons is arbitrarily deleting valid copyleft media which is in active use here. The latest is this image (CC-BY-SA) of historic commemorations at the Mary Meachum freedom crossing on the Mississippi River in St. Louis, which appeared in a recent featured travel topic on the Underground Railroad. I raised the issue at commons:User talk:Jcb#Three re-enactors at Mary Meachum Freedom Crossing by Lynn DeLearie.jpg and received no reply. (The admin in question appears to have been de-opped in the past for questionable deletions, but was reinstated for some reason.)

I've long felt uncomfortable about a policy forcing Wikivoyagers to upload content (be it images, map traces, co-ordinates, Wikidata, whatever...) to another wiki for a number of reasons. Scattering content across three different projects (WV, Wikidata, Commons) makes it more difficult for new or inexperienced users to contribute or maintain existing content. Add to this the ongoing issues with content deletions on the external wiki breaking things on this wiki, and the harm done more than outweighs the very marginal benefit of being able to re-use content a bit more readily across multiple language versions.

Commons needs to make substantial changes to its deletion policy for items in active use in individual projects to notify those communities before items are deleted. The need to give them the chance to move the items local (if they're under valid copyleft, in this case CC-BY-SA) or bring them under EDP (if they're public art or architecture which is "fair use" here but not there). Unless and until they do so, the common repository does not serve our needs and is causing us to lose valid content in a manner which does not serve the voyager.

Currently, Wikivoyage:Upload file says "Go to Wikimedia Commons' Upload Wizard to contribute your freely-licensed media. If your file meets one of the exceptions set out in the exemption doctrine policy for non-free content, you can upload it locally to this wiki. Please do not upload free files locally, as they will be deleted."

I would like to propose that we scrap this policy as it is harming the project. If something is actively in use here, users should be permitted to upload it here. K7L (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

As someone who alreday transfered more than 2000 photos from Commons to Russian Wikivoyage, I wholeheartedly support this proposal. --Alexander (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
There is in fact a deletion notification system, but we have not tried it out yet. --Alexander (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a serious shortcoming of Commons, but I'd still say they are doing a vary valuable job, and having to police the files ourselves would be a major undertaking, and not uploading to Commons would mean our images would not be available to the other projects w, ru-wv etc. other than by first finding the image here and then reuploading at Commons (or locally, repeated for every project). A big hassle. --LPfi (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like that deletion notification system would not have been helpful in this instance, as it only addresses cases where this has gone through some sort of due process (a vote for deletion or speedy deletion). The problems arise when someone arbitrarily tags an image with a template claiming that the permission information is incorrectly formatted or missing; this is usually done without any attempt to determine the actual copyright status of the image. If there's any notification given at all, it's merely posted to the talk page of some random Commons user (in this case, a n00b who uploaded this from Flickr in 2016) where it will never be seen; no notification is given to the project(s) actually using the image. Once the tag is present, the image is fair game for deletion with no further process or safeguard. Sadly, there's nothing new in this sort of thing... I remember Wikipedia was already this dysfunctional in 2006: some random Wikiproject posts a request for an image, a user shoots and uploads it with plain-text description "I took this photo twenty minutes ago, do what you want with it. I don't care.", a robot script tags it as "missing machine-readable permissions" and another robot script (impersonating a human admin, although these scripts were openly available on botwiki.sno.cc at the time) then merrily deletes it. To add insult to injury, once it's been deleted, we also lose all of the description and metadata needed to find the original source and status of the image, or even to determine why it was deleted. All that's left is a misleading one-line note like " ‎CommonsDelinker‎ (Removing Three_re-enactors_at_Mary_Meachum_Freedom_Crossing_by_Lynn_DeLearie.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: [[:c:COM:OTRS|No permiss)" which actually throws us off the trail as what happened has nothing to do with OTRS (open ticket reporting system: a "support ticket" system for handling e-mail to info@... or support@... addresses which is not open or public - which appears as a red herring to eliminate any transparency from the process).
Clearly the intention is not to produce an encyclopaedia or a travel guide, it's to create a pile of images which can be harvested by automated means for commercial reuse for purposes which have nothing to do with the original project. In the eyes of Wikimedia Commons, we do not matter because we are not the client. While the creation of a "deletion notification system" is an initiative which was long overdue, at this point I'd suggest that the onus is on the WikiCommons community to establish that this is addressing any of the problems. The need to track the removal of valid images from our articles because of Commons shenanigans is now a bigger hassle than hosting them locally, so giving users the option of uploading locally is the lesser of two evils. K7L (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The OTRS link is not a red herring: Writing to those e-mail messages is how photographers (or other copyright holders) can prove that they own images. (This is often done by revealing personal information that one would rather not have published on the internet. Consequently, e-mail is the appropriate communication medium.) If you are in a legal position to solve the problem of "no permission", then that link tells you how to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The OTRS link is a red herring in the way it was used in the edit summary for this specific deletion. An edit summary of "it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: [[:c:COM:OTRS|No permiss)" is misleading if the motive for this deletion had nothing to do with OTRS and there is nothing in OTRS relevant to this case. Basically, it misleads the reader into believing that there was some legit reason to delete the image, but the admin is magically released from any obligation to reveal that reason because it's concealed deep within the star chamber of OTRS. The CC-BY-SA flag was posted openly, on the original image, on Flickr. Being sent on a wild goose chase into OTRS serves only to throw anyone questioning what's happened off the trail, which is not nice and certainly not helpful. K7L (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This makes no sense. There is exactly one method of resolving the problem of "no permission", and that method is to send e-mail to the OTRS system. How could you possibly get from the fact that the OTRS page has the instructions on how to resolve the stated problem to a belief that "there is nothing in OTRS relevant"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It's one method of solving "no permission" problems, but not the only one. I think K7L's point is that in this case, there was a straightforward way to solve the problem that didn't involve OTRS. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
LPfi, ru-wv will certainly not bother about it. If there is a good image, I can afford spending one minute on transferring it to another project. That's considerably less time than what you need for finding any suitable image on Commons. --Alexander (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we should get the deletion notification bot set up.
Also, could we maybe just talk about this subject like it's not the end of the world? K7L "received no reply"... or at least no reply within the first 12 hours. Are we on such a tight deadline that can't wait at least a whole day for responses? The file was, in fact, incorrectly labeled, but when asked (and when it was a reasonable hour in his timezone), the Commons admin promptly restored the image and fixed the tag. Asking for help was IMO a good idea. Complaining that a volunteer didn't reply within hours, and that this failure to be instantly available at all hours should result in dramatic changes to our structure, in ways that disadvantage all of the smaller Wikivoyages, is unfair. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time these issues have come up. I would not have proposed a policy change here were this an isolated incident. We've had problems with Commons before, including one incident where they were demanding deletion of (lat, long) data just because it was sourced from the (copyleft) OpenStreetMap project. It's not even the first time that images have been removed from this one itinerary, Underground Railroad, because of Commons issues. K7L (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
On the face of it, hosting all images here seems too drastic a solution, and one that would bring problems, too. What's the total number of files that we've been using here that were erroneously deleted from Commons? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
We should enable the deletion notification bot. I do find that commons can be a bit quick to delete files, and a couple of my uploads have been deleted. However I expect that the commons admins are severely overstretched, and a quick look at some of the recent uploads shows the massive problem of non-free files being uploaded. Many of the photos which we use have been taken by people who don't edit here. We do already upload the main page banners locally, and I would agree with uploading any other small set of significant images, but not doing so generally. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I am not sure if it was K7L's original intention or not, but I think the idea is to allow more local uploads whenever editors prefer to keep files locally. It's not about storing all photos here, but about additional flexibility that the community should use.

It is true that the current situation with the single file restored after some hours was not dramatic, but as the organizer of Wiki Loves Monuments in Russia I have to deal with thousands of photos and with similar deletion issues on a much larger scale. It is a pain, and it is a pain only because the Commons community does not see themselves as an image repository for Wikimedia projects. They treat their project as a unique collection of free images (whatever "free" means in their definition), and it is their choice, but then I don't see why we should deem Commons a unique image repository for our projects. It's nothing else than a place to store photos, just like Flickr, but Flickr gives you a lot more flexibility regarding tags, attributions, and licenses. I don't see why good photographers would upload their works to Commons instead of Flickr, and in fact they don't.

Finally, we should always remember one fantastic deletion request, where a dozen of experienced Commons users was doing all kinds of stupid things, including the point-by-point analysis of geo-coordinates, instead of familiarizing themselves with details of the OSM license policy. It is a very good example of how weird the Commons community is, and why it is often safer to store files locally. --Alexander (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that idea. We should encourage local uploads, but not force anyone to upload pictures here or move thousands of pictures from one wiki to another. When fairly recently I wanted to upload some pictures I took to Wikivoyage, I was disappointed to find that you weren't allowed to do that. I'd support a change for that reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I would oppose changing the current policy. If an image can go on Commons, it should. Allowing discretion here would only hurt smaller projects, and the problem it's meant to solve is one stemming from poor communication with Commons. ARR8 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Whatever else we do, it seems to me that enabling the deletion notification bot is a good step. I see some support for that—does anyone object?
I've also started a discussion at Meta to see if the bot will tell us when a "No permission since" tag is added to an image. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the abuse of "no permission since" should be ended. I think its intended use was on new uploads, where a grace period of a week is reasonable: either the uploader is still around and sees the change, or is away not necessarily ever to return. With old uploads it is just ridiculous: who but the active Commons users will check their watchlist every week? The problem is made worse by the practice K7L describes.
I think the description is a bit exaggerated, but yes, people do mark files as missing permission when the permission in fact is there, but not formatted according to current practice (which may have been introduced long after the upload), sometimes in a language the editor does not know. Then the busy admin comes along and does not see as his or her duty to really check – if no permission is found (again, perhaps due to inadequate language skills) or there is not clear evidence of a claimed permission (perhaps due to link rot) the file is gone, and if not in use nobody will know – I doubt anybody is checking deleted files systematically.
I think such hasty deletions are against the policies, and you can usually revert them if you argue your points, but the admins (and the original template adder - a pun?) will get away with it, partly because the paths to seriously question an admins manners is convoluted, partly because they do an immense work, deleting thousands of real copyvios, adding categories to newby uploads and maintaining the collection in other ways.
--LPfi (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the notification bot (esp. if there would be a way to "subscribe" to some "watch over everything" group), that would help rule most cases of silent image removal, right? At the same time, I don't think moving images to WV is a good idea. Unless someone here wants to takeover the WC job and check copyright or the uploaded stuff... -- andree.sk(talk) 18:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that we stop using commons for photos, but it may worth considering allowing local uploads for static maps. The main difference I see are:
  • There is unlikely to be more than an average of one upload per day, so there is not a big workload increase.
  • Static maps are much less likely to be used by other projects - other WVs would want a translation, WP would have different district or region boundaries and wouldn't want our selection of eat, drink etc.
  • The impact on an article of a map being deleted is much greater than a photo being deleted.
  • Maps are harder to replace than photos.
  • It is much less likely that copyvio maps in our format would be uploaded.
  • There are complexities about maps which may be hard to explain on commons.
Is this a reasonable comprimise? AlasdairW (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure. I'd still like to see an option to upload photos locally, but I'd prefer your compromise to the current state of things. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@AlasdairW: counterpoint: It's possible another WV could decide to display maps in a country's native language, and want to use our static maps on pages for Anglophone regions. After all, translating the name of an establishment just makes it harder to find. ARR8 (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Maps are only a very small part of the content for which WV depends on other sibling wikis. Moving a handful of static maps local doesn't solve the issue that we're losing images, co-ordinate data, Wikidata {{listing}} info (which cropped up once a in de: featured article) or anything else. The use of Commons or other external wikis needs to be optional, period. Editors should have the discretion to upload locally if they so choose, as any of a number of missing pieces (not just maps) can diminish the quality of our guides. K7L (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Neither does uploading some images locally on the uploaders' discretion solve the issue. We are using loads of images uploaded by other users. To solve the problem by local uploads the editors of individual articles should upload important images here, and also images that could be important should be uploaded locally. Then we need a system to mirror useful changes on Commons (correction of descriptions, deletion of copyvios etc.), and – if we have some solidarity – of copying local uploads to Commons to be found by others.
I think the real solution is to work with Commons, to solve the issues over there. If the main problem is missing manpower, then I am not sure what to do. I for one cannot check a hundred images a day to help carry the load.
--LPfi (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@ARR8: I accept that another WV could use our maps, but in most cases they would be best edited first. City static maps should have the words "See", "Do", "Eat" etc in the key translated. Region and huge city maps are likely to need to be edited because of different boundaries, but I see that 3 of the 13 other languages that have articles on Edinburgh use our map of districts. I would consider including other map data like mapmasks. However photos should not be included, except to the extent that they are currently allowed. Copyvio uploads of photos would be likely to be a significant problem, as unfortunately many less experienced editors do not have a sufficient understanding of copyright. AlasdairW (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Good news! Over at Meta, I got a reply from User:NKohli (WMF), who says among other things that the bot can notify us when the "no permission since" template is placed (as well as the other deletion templates). If I understand correctly, enabling this would largely solve the problem K7L pointed out. So far I see support for enabling the bot and no objections. If there are no major objections in the next few days, I think we can go ahead and enable it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

By all means, let's enable it! Thanks for asking at Meta. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Because I wasn't clear and it was requested - definitely support enabling the bot. ARR8 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this bot that would tell us that some media was about to be deleted? If so, I support use of the bot. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I support use of the bot and also support the removal of the existing "Please do not upload free files locally, as they will be deleted" policy at Wikivoyage:Upload file. The author of an individual guide should be free to decide whether the resources on which that page rely are best uploaded locally or to some other repository (such as Commons or Wikidata). K7L (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'm on the team that runs the bot Granger pointed to. I'd like to mention that the bot will post a notice about the file being tagged on the talk pages of the pages where that file is being used. I hope that will suffice for your purposes. Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Great! I would tend to oppose allowing local uploads, willy-nilly. No-one has so far given a figure on how common it is for non-copyrighted images we're using on Wikivoyage to be arbitrarily deleted from Commons. I want to know whether we're using an axe on a housefly before I support this kind of drastic, unsisterly change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I support using the bot, and I think that we should leave any thoughts of changing our upload policy for a few months to see how this works out. If an image on commons is likely to be deleted because of copyright issues about the subject of the photo (not the photo itself), then it an be uploaded locally in accordance with our exiting policy. AlasdairW (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I still think, along with K7L, that we should allow uploads of pictures locally. Why have a system for local uploads of pictures if we practially never use it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Because we're part of the Wikimedia Foundation group of sites, and Commons is the repository of images for all of them. And because there is a special, narrowly-defined purpose for local uploads. And finally, because still, no-one has given any figure on how many times a file we're using on Wikivoyage has been deleted from Commons on grounds other than valid copyright grounds. I'm still waiting for that answer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why certain files were deleted has much to do with it, whether it's copyright or not.
I am willing, however, to start with us just doing static maps for local uploads if that is the best compromise. There is clearly strong opposition to local uploads, so if this is the best compromise we can do, in my opinion, it's better than nothing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Why it matters is that if a photo is copyrighted and not Copyleft and we use it, the site could be liable for copyright violation. The whole reason for local uploads is for very important attractions that are themselves copyrighted (e.g. "The Bean" in Chicago) but for which photos are important enough for a travel guide that we are willing to consider them "fair use" and hope that no-one sues and that our view would prevail if they did. And yes, they are also to protect certain images that are so sensitive to possible edits and so forth that they have to be here. That would include DotM/OtBP/FTT banners. Maybe it would include static maps, too. I fail to see why it would include anything else, and that's why I keep asking for a quantification of the problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Then perhaps the best thing to do would be to use the bot and upload static maps locally (and upload no other media except the banners we usually upload here, etc.) for a few months and then take further steps, say, around January or whenever. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to me that enabling the bot will essentially solve the problem that prompted this discussion. Let's start with that, and if there are still problems afterwards, we can reconsider other solutions. I don't see any reason why static maps should be an exception to the general policy. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Only if they might not be secure at Commons. But I think there was only once a problem with one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it was data for a mapshape, rather than a static map, if it’s the one K7L and Alexandr referred to above.
I don’t know the site-wide experience, but my experience with Commons is it’s an occasional inconvenience but not a big problem (although everyone's definition of "big problem" is going to vary. I’ve uploaded about 300 images since migration and had another 100 or so transferred over from WT Shared, and only 3 have been nominated for deletion in five years — 2 static maps and 1 banner. Two images were kept after a simple explanation on my side and the third is pending (and seems to be a case of the nominator not understanding that our district maps aren’t meant to be official city maps).
My biggest concern with hosting more images locally is the amount of work that will be required to police it if the volume of uploads gets sizeable. Having patrolled the old WT Shared pre-migration, it takes time and resources. People would upload copyrighted pictures they got from other websites, or they wouldn’t pay attention to the license. Then there are the technical things like knowing the freedom of panorama rules. It takes time to learn this and develop the expertise to fairly quickly spot what are the likely copyvios and verify it. I think implementing the bot discussed above and dealing with the occasional Commons deletion nomination seems like a much easier course than patrolling local uploads. -Shaundd (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker has made 250 edits since 3 July 2017. This is mainly files which have been deleted on commons, but does include a few file moves on commons. This is probably a slight underestimate of the scale of the "problem", because there will be a few files that were manually removed either because somebody saw that they were VFD on commons, or reacted quicker than the bot to a red link. Howvere I think that we can be confident that there is less than one file per day that is deleted on commons which is used here. AlasdairW (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very helpful because it goes some way toward quantifying the problem. However, in order to understand it better, it would be important to know how many of the delinked pictures weren't delinked because a copyrighted photo was being used, as opposed to because there was some copyrighted building or work of public art in the photo - or, most importantly, for neither reason. We have no more right to host copyrighted images not covered by Creative Commons Copyleft than Commons does, but we have given ourselves the right to show copyrighted buildings and works of public art when they are among the main sights in a city and therefore important for prospective visitors to see. However, Wikivoyage's existing policy on local uploads already deals with that issue clearly. So how many images are being affected that are neither themselves covered by restrictive copyrights nor photos of copyrighted buildings or public art that are already locally uploadable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
One file that was deleted recently was the logo on Tokyo 2020 - File:Tokyo 2020 Olympics logo.svg. Strictly this would not be allowed to be uploaded locally because it is not a photo. I did find a replacement photo on commons which will do for the moment, but is not ideal.
I have had 6 of my 1500 uploads on commons deleted - 5 of these were freedom of panorama questions (one was a banner cropped from an image that was a copyvio). I think that four of these would have been kept had we had the much longer VFD discussion that we have here, as there was some evidence of permission to photograph. AlasdairW (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
What if we let only autopatrollers upload images at first? Then policing would not be so necessary, since anyone else who uploaded a picture would just have it deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for recounting that, AlasdairW, that's very helpful. My reaction is that while these are frustrating experiences, they show Commons acting properly. The logo was obviously copyrighted, and the others were judged to violate laws not allowing freedom of panorama in those countries. And the solution is that such images should indeed be locally uploaded at Wikivoyage. Wikivoyage policies already allow for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I checked the last twenty or so CommonsDelinker actions, about a month worth (without being admin, so could not check the images, descriptions or revision histories, just logs and RfDs). One was of the Centre Pompidou, for which there probably are many deleted images we could use. One was a logo (the Tokyo Olympics), one a personal file, one just a renaming. Eight seemed to be confirmed copyvios. Seven were deleted as no permision/no source since or "copyvio" without further comment, a few of those old uploads, which should have been given an RfD. The actions come in chunks of admin action, so a bigger sample would be needed for a really representative picture. My guess is that at most one or two images were false positives, and if so, they might be uploads with little documentation by retired anonymous contributors – finding another picture may be easier. --LPfi (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing support for the bot and no opposition, I have requested that it be enabled, including for the "No permission since" template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Visual editor[edit]

A user is wondering how to add listings in the mobile visual editor at Wikivoyage talk:How to edit a page. Just thought that bringing some attention to their requests would be a good idea. I'll also post this to the Requests for comment page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The mobile visual editor is very limited at the moment. It can make links and add bold and italic character formatting. On the Wikipedias, it can add citations.
If you happen to know the magic code, then you can type {{ where you want the listing to start, then you'll be able to insert a template. (All listings are templates.) But there is no toolbar support for that (or for making bulleted lists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! I do almost all of my editing while I'm on the road while everything is fresh in my mind, so making mobile editing as easy as possible would (at least for me) increase the amount I contribute. oswiu (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Districtifier[edit]

Hi all, I took a shot at creating a districtifier web app. This tool should help to create dynamic district overview maps in less time than what is currently necessary. Please have a look, if you want:

Wikivoyage Districtifier

Under Help is a video ("Wikivoyage Districitifier - How to use") in which I try to explain how to use the app (sorry for saying the word "so" like a million times...). There are plenty of things, which can be improved. I will try to continue the work in the coming weeks. Cheers, --Renek78 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I like it! Definitely a good idea that you can more-or-less draw your own districts. In the display, though, it starts at "District Zero". That seems a little counterintuitive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Selfie City, glad to hear! Shouldn't be a big problem to rename the first district. Gonna do it ASAP. But the idea is, that editors delete this placeholder name and enter a proper one. --Renek78 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Excellent idea! Thank you for working on this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, what exactly is the JSON input? Is that so you can divide other cities into districts as well? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, Selfie City! At the very bottom you can click on the word "help" to get some instructions on how to do it. I am trying to simplify the process of getting those district areas into the tool. --Renek78 (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: The district areas can now be downloaded by simply clicking a button. Should make it a little more user-friendly. --Renek78 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? This is awesome! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata map problem[edit]

Hi, I am trying to make a Wikimedia map page as part of Melbourne districting. Can anyone tell me why the colored fill is not working? Thanks Ar2332 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ar2332, the geometry type was set to "LineString" instead of "Polygon". I fixed it. --Renek78 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Would you be able to take a look at several more maps I have created but which show up as empty? I don't understand why, as I just copied and pasted the valid one and replaced the coordinates. 1 2 3 4 Ar2332 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Ar2332, the problem this time is that latitudes and longitudes are swapped. So instead of [144.90,-37.68] your GeoJSON has the invalid value of [-37.68,144.90]. Maybe you need to play around with the export functionality a bit (on your first polygon yesterday it was correct). But the syntax of your GeoJSON is - except for the coordinate swap - perfectly fine now! --Renek78 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
You can remember that the positioning north/south (latitude) always comes first in coordinates, and then the east/west position (longitude). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused - these locations are in Australia, so isn't latitude -37 longitude 144, with latitude coming first, correct? Ar2332 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Longitude (in your case 144) comes first. Then latitude (e.g. -37). You can best understand it by going to geojson.io, draw a simple polygon around Melbourne area and check the GeoJSON, which is shown on the right. --Renek78 (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I see. I was confused because Wikivoyage "mapmask" uses the opposite order. Thanks! Ar2332 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! Until now I don't know why it is the other way round for Mapmasks... --Renek78 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Big Congrats[edit]

Similarweb states WV gets 4.13 M visits in Sept of 2.86 pageviews each.[1]

Similarweb states WT gets 3.9 M visits in Sept of 1.77 pageviews each.[2]

This means that Wikivoyage has surpassed the viewership of the old site. Congrats. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the Alexa ranks, we’re currently a fairly small 3-4,000 in rank behind Wikitravel. However, Alexa also takes into account past data, so it’s not always completely accurate for current statistics. I follow Wikivoyage’s Alexa rank fairly closely and there has been a very solid increase in rank over the past year — quite different from the sudden rank increase several months ago that largely came back down later. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes Alexa looks at a 90-day period and WV's views may have been lower in July and August. Also, while Wikivoyage didn't get as much external promotion as in February when we had the edit-a-thon, the Russian version in particular received a lot of extra coverage from the Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 campaign. As it shows, views from Russia nearly increased by 500%. Gizza (roam) 03:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Alexa provides a good graph of Wikivoyage's past views, however, at [3]. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, because Russian Wikivoyage organizes Wiki Loves Monuments in Russia. But these views will decrease (or actually have decreased) after the campaign, so it's not the relevant statistics. --Alexander (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How to report issues with https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikivoyage/w/geomap.php[edit]

I was directed to the geomap tool from the listing editor for entering additional locations in a voyage, but the geomap.php loads an unsafe script (doesn't do so over https) so the browser blocks this. I could override the unsafe activity, but I'd rather just like to fix this instead. The solution is a very straightforward, but I'm not sure where the code resides or who maintains this to report. Can someone point me in the right direction? -Wolfgang8741 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Johan (WMF) is probably the person to talk to about HTTPS things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Article or not?[edit]

Hello, I thought it is better to askː I would like to write an article about Říp, an solitary hill forming a tiny nature reserve around it. The hill is a popular tourist destination, but there is nowhere to sleep in the nature reserve area. There are however some villages around it that provide lodging. The question isː Write it as an article for itself, write an article for some of the villages or include it in the nearest town (which is not very near)? I would prefer the first option (as the hill is really important thing in the region), but I am not sure whether that copes with Policies enough. Heisy Bordel (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Could the information about the place fit into a paragraph? If so, could it fit into a listing in the region article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Říp is listed in North Bohemia, alongside Prachov Rocks and Panská skála. So it sounds like it merits a similar "park" article: it's a focal point, not just for the locality, but for the Czech national identity.

Though Prachov Rocks are listed under "North", the WV hierarchy puts them in "East". I'll amend that if you can confirm that East is not correct. Grahamsands (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Surrounding villages are often included in "park" articles, as a whole the park and surrounding villages pass the sleep test, and there is no reason to limit the park article along the formal boundaries. If you can write a decent article that way, it sounds like the way to go. --LPfi (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your options, I will do a park article as I can fill more than one paragraph with information about Říp. Prachov Rocks were indeed listed incorrectly, although these are actually in East Bohemia (I have fixed the listing) Heisy Bordel (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Park would work, and include accommodation in nearby towns and villages, or is information not too large make it a listing in an article about w:Roudnice nad Labem. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Star banners[edit]

This is a page where you can add what you are think are particularly good pagebanners. The page was fairly active in mid-2013 and was used a little from 2014-2015 and then abandoned. I only discovered it because ThunderingTyphoons! posted an image there in June 2018. Since then both of us have added quite a few banners, but I thought a few others might also know banners they'd like to share through this page. In case anyone didn't know about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - Bermuda[edit]

Requesting a little support for the final push in October. A number of contributors have reorganised and improved the contents of the parish (city) pages within this region. Could however do with more eat and sleep listings in these pages. Anyone willing to add their knowledge or do some research? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it if and when I have a chance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

In Other Projects at Wikipedia[edit]

Anyone know why Wikivoyage articles are no longer listed on Wikipedia pages under "In Other Projects"? --Traveler100 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Created T208121. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, this is fixed now. ARR8 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

New special page request[edit]

Beyond my knowledge on configuring Wiki, hoping someone can help with this. Would like to have a new Special Page. Basically almost the same as Special:WantedPages but just including a list and count of redlinks on mainspace article pages, not including links from user pages, talk pages or template. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't the page be named something like Special:WantedPages/Mainspace pages? (which seems to lead to Special:WantedPages) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oulu Airport[edit]

I'm sorry, but I think this article pushes even the most generous definition of "huge airport" per our WV:Airport Expedition. What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with thee.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The articles says, "Second biggest airport in Finland". As if that makes it a "huge airport" — sounds like the writer of the article was trying to provide arguments for it to be an article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

How to solve the part without color?[edit]

How to solve the part without color?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yuriy kosygin -- A work around can be had... left note on your talk page. -- Matroc (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Matroc: Uh... I mean that every district in Tainan City (city) needs to be colored, instead of filling up the blank parts of the city... as like Map of Taipei. --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yuriy kosygin, please have a look here: Wikidata items for dynamic map of Tainan. 2 districts are not colored so far (i.e. Eastern District - Q710281 (OSM) and North District - Q710206 (OSM)). Maybe somebody has an idea why? In the past the problem was related to Wikidata ID's, which were assigned to multiple OSM elements. But this does not seem to be the case here. Yuriy kosygin, maybe you want to try out the tool Wikivoyage districtifier to rapidly create a dynamic map of Tainan. You can message me anytime, if you have problems. --Renek78 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Because the Wikidata ID's were added only recently. Just another few hours and they should appear on the map. --Renek78 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with the capital letters being used in the templates, does it? Just checking. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Renek78: Very thank! and Wikivoyage Districtifier is good tool! Now I try it.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Yes, it has nothing to do with that.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Forest - regional subdivision[edit]

The region now has 23 listed "cities", among them small places like Schiltach. Should we subdivide it and if so, how? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it seems that the discussion died. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hobbitschuster, I just imported the mapshapes to the Black Forest article. Maybe those regions could be a good reference for subdivision. Please also have a look at this overview map.--Renek78 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
After checking the article for the black forest I actually don't see the purpose of subdividing it. The article in its current form is already pretty short. Why creating even more subarticles? Just because there is a long list of cities? Not strong enough of an argument in my opinion. --Renek78 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
There are cities currently listed in this article which are not in any sense in a mountain range. And the Black Forest is a mountain range. So the article name is a misnomer as it now stands. That if nothing else is a reason to subdivide or change the name, so that no city that is not "black forest" in any sense of the term is listed under that name. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The region area consists of 80% black forest. Good enough to keep this catchy name even though some surroundings are included as well. Just my opinion, of course. --Renek78 (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you think Wikivoyage needs currently? A better mobile Main page? --Zerabat (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Better mobile functionality all round, for all wikis. Mobile sucks:
  • Having pictures and infoboxes all lined up at the top of the section looks clunky.
  • If you look at a page revision, then try to edit, it goes to 'view source' and treats it as an old revision which can't be edited, even when it's the latest version.
  • Most administrative tools (moving / deleting / protecting pages, changing / revoking user rights) are not available in mobile; you have to navigate to the desktop version.
  • And, yes, the Main page is horrible.
But of course all this should be stated in the survey =) If you agree with me, please say so when you complete the survey.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The other key thing with mobile is that the POI maps in articles should show my current location, so I can see what is nearby. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe that another round of maps improvements has been mentioned as a possible candidate, perhaps in the context of mobile? Some of m:Wikivoyage/Wishlist might be out of date, but it might also have some valid ideas.
TT, work-me should probably hear more about your old revision problem. That sounds like a bug. Would you mind posting the details on my talk page? (I'm assuming that figuring out what needs to get filed in the bug report won't be of general interest.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The map issues are indeed on the proposed list, meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Miscellaneous#Wikimedia_Maps_Improvements. I think the lack of type-specific icons (such as a house icon for hotels) is mentioned already; I'm tempted to also add the 99, 99, 99... bug as one more subpoint in the Kartographer wishlist item. K7L (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
If the marker limit was increased to "999" instead of "99", that would make a huge difference. Of course, it would require making the digits smaller so another one could be added, unless the markers were increased in size. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a map that's expandable to an entire page with a mouseover? But how would that translate for mobile phone users? A swipe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────About the maps, though: I get the feeling that the tech group would be reluctant to work on the same thing twice in a row. I think we ought to have at least somewhat different suggestions this time so it doesn't seem like we're just dissatisfied with the work the tech group did last year. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In terms of dev teams, there are advantages to working with stuff that you're familiar with. It would be easier to do map stuff two years in a row than to do it every other year. Consequently, I think that they would be pleased if something map-related won. (It's of course not really up to them what wins anyway, but we should not be discouraged from asking for more map things.)
What exactly to ask for is a separate question. For example, do we want something more style-oriented, such as phab:T146343, or more function-oriented, such as having it work better on mobile?
I think we all know from the past that the only way that Wikivoyages will get what they need is to band together towards one (or perhaps two) priorities. Otherwise, the big wikis will basically outvote us, and we'll get nothing. User:Atsirlin has been very good at organizing ideas, and perhaps he could share his thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have to admit that I am really busy in the next 10 days because of Wiki Loves Monuments, and I am afraid that we already lost the priority in adding Kartographer issues to the Community Wishlist. Several map-related proposals are around, but none of them is focused on our needs, and they will generally disperse the support of the community, as well as the attention of the developers who will probably not pick up more than one such proposal for 2019.
It may be better to think which of the existing proposals is of potential interest for us, and try to tune it to our needs. But I can't of much help with it right now. --Alexander (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If multiple maps projects win, then the team will address multiple maps projects. They will respond to the top 10 vote-getters, even if all ten are about maps. But I agree with Alexander that multiple proposals tend to disperse the support. We can also recommend that any closely related maps proposals be merged. (Voting doesn't start for a couple of weeks.)
In a non-maps idea, we've struggled with getting inline audio for our phrasebooks. Maybe something like phab:T20852 would be helpful to us, as well as other projects? (That task is specifically about an inline player for MIDI files, but we could write something fresh that covered exactly what we wanted.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
We're focusing a lot on dynamic maps. But I don't see much else that would help us. So I think we should probably stick to the dynamic maps for wishlist proposals, along with maybe the audio files. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Below, we recognized a potential wishlist proposal, to see changes on Wikidata in recent changes+watchlists 1) only for relevant properties and 2) for Wikidata items linked to on the page, in addition to the page itself (i.e. listings and markers). There is a proposal for (1), but not for (2). Thoughts? ARR8 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you think if we ask for help to make a mobile version of the Listing Editor? It would be very beneficial. --Zerabat (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we need help with that. That's front-end scripting, and the devs' efforts would be wasted on it. Add to that the cross-platform framework we're already using that should make such development easy, and that the German WV has already done it, and it doesn't seem necessary. However, to get the ListingEditor to load on mobile at all, the German WVers had to load it through common.js, because gadgets aren't loaded on mobile. So we could ask for that. ARR8 (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

IP edits to Erfurt[edit]

So an IP editor made some edits to Erfurt which on balance seem to me to be a lot of "why was that information removed" compared to rather little added information. I would like to revert them, but I understand a lot of the removed stuff was originally added by me, plus all the newbie biting and whatnot. Can somebody please have a look and advise me? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Don't bite newbies" doesn't mean "stand by while newbies run roughshod". If I were you, I would feel free to revert the edits and drop the IP editor a note on his/her talk page to explain why you did so. A good-faith editor will understand. And I wouldn't get too hung up over the fact that the excised content was your work. If the information you added wasn't valuable, someone would have reverted it when you added it in the first place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How to handle proof of existence of POI?[edit]

Working on November cotm, I am finding a number of restaurant and hotel listings that I cannot find any other information on from the internet. Checking others' views on how to handle this? Not finding anything on a location/business on the internet does not mean it does not exist, it could just simply be off the beaten track or a small establishment. Could however be an old entry of a business that no longer exists. I am tempted to move these entries to the talk page and request someone else to prove their current existence. Example, the eat entries with no lat long coordinates in the Bangkok - Yaowarat and Phahurat article. Where they should be is clear from address given but if they are still there is not. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I just searched for the address of the first sleep listing and found another hostel was at that address. I would suggest searching for the address without the hotel / restaurant name - if a different business comes up then it is reasonable to assume that the listed place has closed (or changed name). There are also often other country specific ways of checking, like directories of safety certificates etc. Google Streetview can also be useful to see what was on the ground when they drove past. AlasdairW (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes I do look at the address itself and search on that. As you say often shows change of name/ownership. But in some cases does not show anything and Street View does not always help. Also check on other travel hotel and restaurant review sites, if contains reviews but non of them in the last couple of years, also assume closed. But when you cannot find anything new or old, then what? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2018[edit]

14:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For now, I've actually stopped editing on a mobile device so I don't accidentally press the "rollback" button on an edit that's okay. I know that's not exactly "virtual editor", but it's closely related.
I support improvements to the visual editor, even if they don't involve the rollback button. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Games and traditional pastimes[edit]

I was just wondering, since we have articles on sports, how about creating articles on some traditional board games or other activities as well? Some I can think of are chess and bridge, and while these are not specific to one area, people can and do travel to participate in and watch chess and bridge tournaments. And for people interested in traditional games, I can think of Chinese chess (xiangqi), Go and mahjong, which are Chinese traditional games that people visiting China (or in the latter two cases, Japan as well) might be interested in learning and participating in. These three games also have professional tournaments you can watch even if you don't play. The dog2 (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There are chess tournaments, and some people do travel to view them. As long as there's a travel angle, go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
An article on game could work, particularly on museums, but not article on each type of game, that is for Wikipedia. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree that we shouldn't have articles for every single board game. For example, I don't think checkers should have its own article, like Monopoly or Scrabble. But chess probably is just about good enough. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
So a new user, Fazau11, created a Checkers page today. I have redirected to Chess because I'm not sure everyone agrees yet that we should have a "checkers" article. I don't, for one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
What's obviously non-travel-related about a "Checkers" article? Web search results for "international checkers tournaments. Note in particular that there is a World Draughts Federation, draughts being the British name for checkers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
If the consensus is to start an article about checkers, those who want to start the article can go ahead and expand it. But a new article shouldn't be 2 sentences that state the obvious and/or don't make sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that stub was useless and irrelevant. I don't think redirection to Chess is the best thing to do, though. Deletion is more appropriate, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I was only redirecting temporarily, really, not as a long-term plan. Do you think it needs a vfd, or do you think a speedy deletion tag is appropriate? Or should we turn it into a better article about checkers? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles about different board games can very well be valid travel topics, in my opinion. But like with other articles (and travel topics in particular) I think they shouldn't be created just to "have articles". The article creator should be able to write at the very least a paragraph or two about the topic (if needed with help of WP or another external source), and roughly outline the article's scope. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Ypsilon. I don't think a single non-travel-related line of text needs a vfd, just a deletion, as checkers isn't covered in an article about chess, so it makes little sense, IMO, to redirect the stub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I've changed Checkers accordingly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I forgot that you can't (yet) delete an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe in a couple weeks, but yes, not yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, we should not have articles for every single game in existence, but I think we can have articles for games, or "mind sports" as some people call them. when there's a relevance to travel. Besides chess, I'd say bridge is an article we could create if there's someone with expertise on it as like chess, there are professional bridge tournaments that you can travel to watch. Other games I think we could create articles for are those that are popular in specific geographic areas, as travellers from outside those areas might want to travel to learn and experience those games. So games like Go, xiangqi (Chinese chess) and shogi (Japanese chess) can have articles because in the areas they are popular, there are also professional tournaments you can go to watch, and in the case of xiangqi, if you go to China, you can see people playing it in many public parks, and if you are lucky, you might even be able to join one of the locals for a game. Mahjong is a bit in the grey area; it's a popular pastime in much of East Asia, but it's only recently that they have started a professional mahjong tournament circuit. The only catch is that the international rules they use in professional mahjong tournaments is very different from the rules you will encounter when playing with casual players, and every region in China has different rules, as does Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. The dog2 (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Major board and card games (chess, go, poker, etc.) can have their own articles but as others have alluded to, travel topic articles have a greater onus to be useful for travellers when the article is first created. Gizza (roam) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this point. It's not a travel topic if there's no travel-relevant content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Map destination coordinates[edit]

If I click on the map top right and then display destinations the markers do not appear to be updating. I have fix may in the last few months but they are not moving on the map display. For example Thari was corrected in May but zoom out and you see the marker is still over Ranipur. How does this data get updated? Assume we need to resync some server? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there is something wrong on the corresponding Wikidata page. For example, sometimes if you change a pagebanner from a custom pagebanner to the default, it still shows the original custom banner even after you made the change. There are coordinates at the Wikidata entry at [5]. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yep, here are the Wikidata coordinates for Thari: [6]. If those are changed to the correct ones, that should solve the problem, if I'm understanding the problem right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I've changed the Wikidata coordinates, but currently the Thari article still seems to zoom into the wrong place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The article and wikidata coordinates are (well were) correct! Te problem is with the geo map markers not moving when the coordinates are change in the geo template. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean that [7] were the right coordinates? If so, I can revert my edit to the original. Because what I did is I found the Wikivoyage coordinates and changed the Wikidata coordinates to match them. Maybe I should have changed the Wikivoyage coordinates to match the Wikidata coordinates. Or are both of them right? The two different coordinate points are quite a long way from each other. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem I raised was about the geo coordinate database not updating. It never was instant, took about a month, but now does not update at all. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps that is something the tech team could work on in relation to the wishlist. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Pinging User:Atsirlin, who's listed as a maintainer on toolforge. ARR8 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure that the destination database is even part of the scripts on toolforge. Anyway, destinations are shown only via poimap2, which is outdated and should be basically replaced by the Kartographer maps. --Alexander (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Since the marker template has been changed recently just note that if you use a wikidata parameter, they (markers) will not appear on a geo map but will on a mapframe. A marker will show up on a geo map if you use the lat/long parameters and not the wikidata parameter. On a mapframe the marker will appear but the coordinates appear to default to those found via the Wikidata id and not by any provided lat/long unless there is no wikidata parameter. present. The marker template in other words is attempting to fulfill 2 roles - working with geo and mapframe. I took the coordinates for Thari and made a marker type vicinity and it went to the correct location. I added the wikidata id and it no longer appeared on the geo map. I then changed the wikidata id to Q668 for India and the marker then appeared on a mapframe in the center of India and nowhere near Thari coordinates that were provided. I do not believe that the Destinations database has anything to do with whats discussed here. This is then what is called a conundrum (spelling) - Yes maybe 2 years ago it was discussed to get rid of the geo maps and replace them with Kartographer maps but because of funding etc. this never came to fruition. If this comes about, there should be a way to say USE the lat/long provided and not those found in Wikidata or vice versa. I have noticed some issues with opening a map and ending up somewhere different than what was intended. I believe this was corrected by some previous action by maintainers? - one solution was to change the zoom level which solved an issue I had in the past. I am not sure if the problem was caused by the tiling or not. -- just a quick note -- Matroc (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the maps always prefer coordinates given in the marker/listing over those in Wikidata? If the coordinates differ there should be a reason, and even if not, ignoring the coordinates in some situations is very confusing for editors as well as for users affected. And even worse, a map without markers is dysfunctional. Should some functionality of the template be deactivated until the problem is solved? I suppose most coordinates for listings come from here, so not using Wikidata coordinates should not be much of a problem. --LPfi (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with LPfi. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
As I often appear to come out of left-field; I apologize in advance. I think one would be surprised at the increase in the number of markers entered with just a wikidata ID - much simpler to do that as it is convenient and rightly so; however, it would be an interesting task to actually fill in those parameters (lat/long) on a more permanent basis in the template that are blank while doing the wikidata lookup for coordinates. This just might resolve some of these issues. One of the categories for Articles needing attention is Region markers without wikidata‎ (2,026 P); each page having 1 to 5 or more markers needing a Wikidata ID. I have been looking at them and putting in the Wikidata ID. As I prgress slowly, I will be adding the coordinates (lat/long) if missing and available. Do we have a category for markers without coordinates (we do for listings) - might be useful to see how many of them exist. -- Cheers! -- Matroc (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's worth discussing whether we should be adding lat/long in addition to Wikidata. The downside of doing so is we no longer stay in sync with changes on Wikidata's end, meaning we won't benefit from corrections and adjustments, and many editors will forget to publish adjustments we make back to WD, to the detriment of other-language WVs and sister sites. The benefit is that markers will display on poimap2. However, poimap2 is outdated and basically deprecated, not to mention that viewing it requires clicking a link at the top of the page, something I doubt many people do (as opposed to just using the embedded map or clicking a number). In my opinion, having a wikidata ID and no lat/long defined is fine, and what we should be moving towards. ARR8 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I suppose the "corrections and adjustments" of coordinates on Wikidata often mean moving them from pointing to the front door or parking to pointing to the centre of the POI or the like. Having wrong sign, missing first digit or similar mistakes are easily noticed on Wikivoyage, while I suppose not that many people check the coordinates on other projects (there have been some projects, like the sv-wp ones on lakes in Sweden and Finland, where coordinates and map shapes where used, but I suppose those are not common). Rather I think use of Wikidata coordinates should be postponed until things work (there is no problem in copying then semi-automatically, when there is an editor checking them, but that is a different use case). --LPfi (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You can override wikidata lat/long, or you can also put lat=NA|long=NA to disable it altogether. lat/long in the markers/listings have priority over the ones fetched from wikidata. Also, there's no issue with funding, german wv already switched to non-poimap2, It's just that around here, such bold action doesn't have enough support... -- andree.sk(talk) 07:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
To ARR8's point, I want to say it's important that local coordinates not be systematically removed in favor of Wikidata—as LPfi alluded to, the coordinates most useful in a travel guide are often for an entrance or starting point, whereas the coordinates on Wikidata are usually for the center or midpoint. Of course, in cases where the coordinates here are just wrong, they should be replaced—but when our coordinates differ from Wikidata's, there's sometimes a good reason for that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not systemically; I was thinking more along the lines of, during the course of editing an individual listing, manually removing the locally defined coordinates if they match the Wikidata coordinates (and if they don't, making them match, then removing them). ARR8 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
My point is that in some cases, they shouldn't match, because (for example) the Wikidata coordinates should be for the center of the POI whereas our coordinates should be for the entrance.
Overall I don't think we should switch to Wikidata for its own sake. Unless our coordinates are wrong, there's no reason to remove them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
As Matroc suggests, using Wikidata coordinates is easier than to find and add them using other sources. This does not mean we shouldn't add coordinates in the listings: fetching the coordinates from Wikidata and verifying them (and adjusting where necessary) should be easy. I suppose later changes on Wikidata seldom are to our advantage, so using the verified ones is the best course of action. --LPfi (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: I agree that, in these cases, we should leave coords defined. However, I've recently been comparing local coords with Wikidata coords in case of differences, and, generally, this isn't the case. Usually, the coords we have here aren't a specific point on the building, just some point within it, usually to unnecessary precision and slightly off-center, whereas the Wikidata coords are generally the center of the building. I think we both agree that, in this case, it's fine to change our coords to match Wikidata's. I am proposing that, in these cases, or in cases where our coords already perfectly match Wikidata's, or in cases where we change Wikidata's coordinates to match ours, we can just not define coords at all and let them be fetched dynamically.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this. As it happens, I was going to ask the community how they felt about this, anyway, for changes I'm working on to the Listing Editor. Now is as good a time as any. ARR8 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer WD values to only be used in listings after they have been copied over by an editor. There are many large sights (lakes, mountains rivers etc), where we want to have a marker a mile or more from the centre of the item. If we have a listing for a 500 mile long river, we want to show a convenient point near the city to walk along the bank. we don't want to have an edit war over which point on the Rhine is chosen. It is also straightforward to spot if somebody has changed a listing directly, but practically impossible to see if the change has been made on WD; the UK emergency phone number (999) was wrong for 3 months because a bot had made an incorrect change on WD and nobody had noticed. AlasdairW (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
What about unambiguous listings that aren't lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., where we could be expected to always have the same marker (e.g. small buildings)? Your point about the quality of WD is well-taken, but, since it sounded like you are more concerned with cases where having different sets of coordinates is possible, I wonder if your concern about Wikidata's quality outweighs other considerations in simple cases. ARR8 (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

[outdent]
When our coordinates are slightly off or given with ridiculous precision, that is not a problem (although copying better WD coordinates is OK). But are the cases where our coordinates are lots off and WD coordinates correct common? Otherwise I see no case for deleting local coordinates. The ones on WD pointing at a good place for us now doesn't mean they will forever. And adjusting them to point to the entrance is easier if they are already here. For small buildings it does not really matter, but having also them here avoids having exceptions for them. --LPfi (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@LPfi: Thanks for the input. I've noticed that you always respond whenever I ask for an opinion. Also, I almost never reply, and I think it's worth mentioning that that's because you always have a reasoned argument and make your opinion clear, so I almost never have anything to follow up with.
Back to the subject at hand: as usual, you make good points. Though I would say that, even if our coordinates are never lots off, there is still a case for not keeping them here (albeit a case that is looking weaker by the minute) and that is that, assuming we copy coordinates from a WD entry, it is unlikely we will ever copy them again in case of small improvements to the coordinate value there. If you assume, as User:AlasdairW seems to, that changes on Wikidata are more likely to be vandalism than constructive (although that doesn't match my experience) then, yes, maybe the protection from vandalism that we get by keeping the coordinates here outweighs any benefit we get from potential improvements to coordinate values. Although, you are also correct in pointing out that minor inaccuracies are tolerable here. ARR8 (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that edits on Wikidata are more likely to be vandalism. The problem is that vandalism or wrong good intentioned edits may not get noticed if they are done on WD. Problem edits are likely to be spotted and reverted if they are done here. I think that most occasional editors would not know how to change a value on WD. I would be happy to make full use of WD when an editor is seamlessly taken to the value to edit on WD, and when changes on WD which directly affect our articles (not any change to the related WD entry) show up on watchlists and Recent Changes. AlasdairW (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was a little surprised when I saw how, frankly, useless the Wikidata changes are in recent changes/watchlists. If I had to pick my biggest problem with WD, that would be it. Maybe that should be our community wishlist suggestion (showing changes to only relevant properties and for listings as well as pages)? ARR8 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"useless the Wikidata changes are in recent changes/watchlists" This is actually IMO the first constructive point of this discussion. We should push this with the same prio as the dynamic map improvements. Wikidata are big part of WV by now, whether some of us like it or not, so it would be great to have it integrated better. -- andree.sk(talk) 07:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I found this discussion very useful for my own project and would actually like more of a consensus on keeping coordinates here vs not. But, I agree with you that this would be useful to have. The wishlist has a related proposal right now. All we need in addition to that proposal is displaying changes to hyperlinked Wikidata elements, and not just the main one for each page. Should we create a new proposal or try to add on to that one? I have no experience with this. Maybe User:WhatamIdoing can weigh in? ARR8 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether unnoticed vandalism is common on Wikidata is irrelevant for the original discussion as long as good edits on Wikidata may be bad for us. I suppose the most important scenario is a big outdoor museum with our entrance coordinates copied to WD, later verified to be identical with ours and removed from here, and later changed on WD to point at the central point instead. Monitoring such changes to reinsert them here after the fact is extra job, avoided if they were never removed. In the worst case the change is noticed by a novice WV editor (perhaps the guide author), which then gets involved in an edit war at WD with no clue about what is going on, perhaps using the WV talk page to explain their edits. I think some infrastructure for handling conflicts between WD editors and editors from other projects should be a priority for the WD project. --LPfi (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Fandom tourism?[edit]

We have pages for Fiction tourism, where we point people at the locations where particular movies and television shows were filmed. Do we have anything similar for fandom tourism, where the locals have embraced a particular work of fiction and added so many references to that work to their town that the location becomes a tourist attraction in itself for other fans of the work? The only such place I can think of is Vulcan (Alberta), where you can't throw a tribble without hitting a Star Trek model, display, or mural, but that can't be the only such place in existence. --Robkelk (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Juzcar and Smurfs come to mind, but this is adequately addressable as fiction tourism. I'd prefer not to use "fan-dumb" as an article title. K7L (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bad Wildbad[edit]

The article in question was created by a new user whose only contributions were the creation of a picture heavy stub. What should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The German article is quite detailed, so maybe the stub is worth keeping until someone (you, maybe?) takes it upon themselves to translate. The pictures should probably go, though. ARR8 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The original creator may or may not have been a vandal... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I know vandalism has been an issue of late, but I'm having difficulty believing these edits are vandalism. Perhaps they could be accused of displaying underwhelming enthusiasm to their new article, but not more than that. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The original creator uploaded some of the photos and made several edits to the German article, so I don't suspect vandalism. The article now has some content, based in part on the French and German articles, but there is still a lot more that could be translated. AlasdairW (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
(ec) From what I've seen, PCV generally targets tiny places with little value or possible content, whereas Bad Wildbad seems to have enough to write about and valuable interwiki articles. Doesn't match up for me. ARR8 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not vandalism. Has anyone checked for copyright violation on the part of the new user? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
What copyvio? They didn't write anything. Unless you mean the photos? ARR8 (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
For anglophone people, it's worth keeping just for the place name. :-) Nurg (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I checked again at the last revision of article's creator, and yes, "What copyvio" is a good description of it. When I originally saw the article, there were some listings in it, etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. This is the article as the new user wrote it. There are no listings. ARR8 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It appears that an editor uploaded a few photos to commons. The editor also added about 8k of text to the German article, and created similar skeleton articles with photos on English, French and Spanish WV - see global contributions. I also saw IP edits adding the same photos to WP articles. I guess somebody really wanted to show off their photos. (I have just added to the WD item.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing star status altogether[edit]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to star status. However, since things can get out of date, and many of star articles don't even have coordinates (and, therefore, do not really showcase the best of Wikivoyage), I think it might be worthwhile to consider removing star status for articles and merge these into "guide" status.

The problem is that there are some articles which are really good and perhaps deserve even more than just guide status. However, I think requirements like custom pagebanners, etc. make guide status a high level to reach for an article, let alone star status. Star status seems to be over-the-top; e.g., all the nominating just to give an article a status that most people wouldn't notice anyway, or understand what it all means.

An example of a star article that's not particularly good is Menzies. Quite a few of the listings don't even have coordinates. I brought this up on the Menzies talk page but got no response. There are probably many guide articles that are just as good as the Menzies article, just that they haven't been nominated yet.

What do others think about this? Removing star status would be a big step, but it would save us a lot of time over something that isn't particularly important, IMO.

Is everyone okay with this being posted here? If it should be at Wikivoyage talk:Star articles or somewhere like that, I'll move it, but I doubt it would get the attention there that is necessary for discussing something this important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to star status, but there are some editors who put a lot of effort into improving articles to get them to star status, and improving articles is good. So I'd be in favour if keeping it. Would we consider making the status a tine-limited thing, i.e., it automatically expires after two years, after which it is reviewed to see if it has been updated enough (and kept up with our changing requirements for star status) to warrant the status being renewed? Ground Zero (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Star status is a good way to motivate people to improve an article and to highlight a good article, but yes with 45 star status articles that have listings without coordinates a time limit or formal review would be a good idea. Not sure the Nominations to remove Star status process is working at the moment. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Star articles are written one by one over time and probably edited less than others (not that much to improve), so it is quite natural they are written to older standards – and not updated much more often than articles in general. But they are not too many, 74 in Category:Star articles, so making an expedition to find banner images, update listings etc. would not be too difficult. I do not use the star status too much, but when trying to learn what to aim for, the star articles of similar type are a good starting point. And besides motivating editors, I am sure many readers enjoy the star guides. So, I suggest making a concerted effort to get the star articles worth their stars. Later, I think the periodic review is also a good tool. When we have assured star articles are up to current standards, I think we should start giving them more visibility, e.g. wp-sv features a star of the day on their main page. --LPfi (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that some people really enjoy that process and status, so I'm inclined to keep it.
It sounds like adding coordinates to star articles could be a useful COTM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing star status altogether, but conversely strongly support reviewing articles marked as stars to check whether they really fulfil the criteria. Fixer-uppers should be fixed, and those which require more work may be bumped down to whatever status is appropriate. A COTM could well be the best way to handle this, and one which I may even participate in. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Just in case people have not noticed, this months cotm is adding coordinates to listings of star status articles. Although a few have been done in the last week, it is a lot of work. Will need more contributors to complete them all by the end of the month. All welcome to join in. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd keep the concept of Star status articles, though we somehow need to streamline the process for the nomination, and that might include rethinking the requirements for Star status. For years the Star article nomination has been at a standstill, with the oldest discussion being started back in 2014. When you notice this, you probably don't feel much enthusiasm nominating new articles or otherwise participating in the discussions.
Almost all of the current star articles were largely written back in the Wikitravel era before we had dynamic maps and by editors that have left the project. This means we don't necessarily have anyone on board who knows all the small details about e.g. districts of Chicago and Washington, D.C. or Bali, and as the Star articles almost certainly are out of date to some extent, their status should be reviewed. Instead, there might be other articles that are worthy of Star status — for instance articles that have been recently featured on the Main Page. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As the discussion period stated on Wikivoyage:Star nominations is 3 weeks, should we not remove most of the nomanation proposals currently there. Then maybe start afresh with hopefully more people assisting. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, although there are some 2018 nominations that are still valid and haven't been reviewed much yet. All the other nominations are like Jarndyce v Jarndyce. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Clearly the 3 week period is too short. It's not just a question of deciding whether or not an article is good enough (akin to deciding whether or not a user is fit to be admin), there's a process whereby the community gives suggestions on how the article can be improved, and these suggestions then have to be agreed to and effectuated. There has been, for instance, much useful feedback on my Farnborough nomination which I intend to implement, but haven't had the chance to do so, and no-one else seems bothered to. I don't see why there has to be an arbitrary time limit - the articles aren't going anywhere and, for the most part, neither are we - but it does take time to imagine and implement perfection :-) Time that we, as volunteers with busy lives, don't always have in spades. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, the 3-week period hasn't been followed at least since mid-2014; perhaps if it was followed, we'd get more done in relation to our star articles. And with the nominations that are 3+ years old, enough feedback has been provided, IMO. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with feedback, but after a few years it's long past time to decide whether the nomination should succeed or fail. Reasons to support/oppose were listed years ago; long ago, it was time to come to a decision, and we didn't, so now we should.
However, with the newer nominations, feedback is needed and would be very helpful. And I think the period for nominating could be expanded to 2 months, perhaps, but not much more. What's needed at the WV:Star nominations page is more activity, not more time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Extending discussion period to 2 months sound like a good idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I suppose two months is enough for people to see the nomination and give initial feedback. If the discussion is then moved to the article's talk page, the improvements can be made and the discussions go on. I have not been involved, so I cannot say whether there is some timeframe beyond two months in which the articles could get ready for being accepted, but if it takes more than a year, a new nomination is probably more useful. --LPfi (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Are there any objections to expanding the time to 2 months? If not, I will make the change; however, if we set 2 months as the limit, I think we should get those really old nominations out of the way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
As long as the discussions are swept to the article's talk page, as LPfi suggested, and not uselessly archived into oblivion, I can support a two month limit. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay; I'll adjust accordingly. And now it's time to keep the page current so that Wikivoyage:Star nominations never gets abandoned again. Once again, thanks for all the input on this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

K7L plunged forward with this edit. I'm not exactly opposed to it, but after a decision was made by the community I don't see why this should be edited so quickly.
Hopefully, though, everyone's okay with K7L's edit. Then we can move ahead with the star nominations. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The whole point of the proposed two-month period was to leave a reasonable amount of time to fix any deficiencies in the article. If there's consensus that a page is ready to go as-is, why wait so long? K7L (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree there. If there's consensus to make it a star article, we should go ahead and make it one. I think I understand your edit better now; I thought more that you were reinforcing the old three-week rule despite the consensus on this page. But if you're just helping articles reach star status faster if there is consensus, then I don't think anyone will be against that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Progress on the star nominations[edit]

We've brought down the list of star nominations from 11 to 9 and I'm waiting a little before I look to slush a couple more. The star nominations revival back in early September was short-lived, and while there was quite a lot of activity, not any real progress was made other than expanding the list of nominations. This time, a lot to do with Traveler100's nomination to de-star La Macarena and update some policy details, real progress is being made.

The progress is that T100 has upgraded Travemunde to star and I've made a couple minor edits to the article itself — things like bullets before a couple listings, a better spot for paragraph, so we can get moving with these nominations. I also slushed the nomination for Indianapolis. I'm hoping to get consensus to slush Quy Nhon and perhaps slush Kraainem, along with a support vote for Childs. All that is needed is input, which does not require too much knowledge about the articles. Really just confirmations so we can get the star nominations going the way they should again.

Everyone who has helped on this, thanks for your help so far as we continue to make Wikivoyage a great travel guide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the progress continues. We're getting close to being able to slush one and we've also nominated a new one, Bouzigues and there are 2 de-star nominations, La Macarena and Isle Royale National Park. Technically, I still should mention this information here per policy, but we'll see how that goes soon. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up your watchlist[edit]

A little heads-up for everyone; I just checked out what articles and pages I had on my watchlist. There were almost 200 of them — more than half of them articles that I've created, worked on or otherwise had interest a long time ago (some were redirects or even deleted). And user pages/talk pages that were added to the watchlist because I've created a talk page by welcoming a new user (registered or IP) and forgot to turn off the blue star before creating the article.

It's of course up to yourself what articles you want to watch, but why not check out your watchlist just for the lulz and you will probably find some articles and pages that you had no idea you were watching. ϒψιλον (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I've at least partially cleared out my list of 200+ watchlist pages in the past. I should do it again the future, perhaps the near future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It is just too much work. Most of the "uninteresting" pages on the list are no problem, as they just sit around, they never show up as nobody edits them. But if trying to edit the watchlist 80 % of the items are that kind of pages, and I have to check them to know they are. Pages that show up can be removed from the watchlist while I check an edit (from the watchlist or Resent Changes).
There should be a way to temporarily add a page to one's watchlist: if I welcome a new user, revert a test edit or contribute to an article, I want to watch the page for enough time for me to see any reactions. After a week the page is just adding clutter to the watchlist, but removing it is not worth the effort. I sometimes thought of having a clean list on my own computer and doing diffs once a month or so, but I suppose that too is more work than just having the cluttered list (I suppose the technical limits are high enough not to be a problem for me).
--LPfi (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic map boundary request for Austin[edit]

Anyone who knows how to do this and willing to give it some time. We could do with good map shapes for the districts of Austin in preparation for next months cotm. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I think this may require design map boundaries from OpenStreetMap.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think someone created a webpage for dividing districts. Yes, here is the webpage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
first, You may need to provide the Wikidata ID for each districts to the OSM tag.(the answer maybe as like Tainan)--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
True. No district boundaries for Austin have been created in OpenStreetMap yet. So either someone adds them to OSM or a self-made district map has to be created with JSOM or geojson.io and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. --Renek78 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank Renek78 to share geojson.io. I have try draw map(draw a poly gon) about Hyde Park, and upload to Wikimedia Commons, Am I doing is this right?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Yuriy kosygin, looks good! I personally add all of the polygons into one GeoJSON, but this way also works. --Renek78 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100: I have try to draw a districts map of Chupei, It's use geojson.io, by the way, you need paste GeoJSON code to Wikimedia Commons(see the example). but this is not easy... You can try it! --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyone willing to work on this? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Traveler100, Renek78: Sorry... I only draw to Downtown, UT and the Drag, and Hyde Park & North Loop districts map of Austin, but I don't know how to draw East Austin, Northwest Austin, and South Austin districts map of Austin... Hi Renek78, Can you help draw to East Austin, Northwest Austin, and South Austin districts map of Austin?(see the map) --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Something like this maybe: Austin District Map --Renek78 (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Renek78: Wow! your drawing the Austin map is pretty cool!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Yuriy kosygin, I used JOSM. It is a lot easier with this tool. Nodes of neighbouring districts can be aligned, so it looks cleaner. --Renek78 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Traveler100, I added a first draft to the article. Hope it is okay. --Renek78 (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
To all then helped and contributed, thanks. Will help the task of sorting listings a lot easier. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Patrollers[edit]

Shouldn't there be a page about patroller abilities, similar to that of WV:Administrators and WV:Autopatrollers. I also mentioned this in WV:RA. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol should explain both the "patroller" and "autopatrolled" status bits, instead of creating a page for Wikivoyage:Patrollers and Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers. K7L (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
True, it could be a page for both, since Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers is not very long. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Pagebanner default vs. continent pagebanner default[edit]

There is a default pagebanner for destinations but there are also versions for continents, etc., like this banner. Should we use the regional defaults or the world default for our articles? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Pagebanner default.jpg is (sadly) automagically entered when creating a new stub. I've considered bringing this up before because automatically inserting this makes it to where we cannot accept banners defined on Wikidata linked by other language editions, which is a shame. The code is there in {{Pagebanner}} to work perfectly fine with the regional banners, and it needs just a little bit of code to work out which one to show if no custom one is entered (which can be achieved through {{IsIn}}, for example). I personally like the idea of regional differences (they may not be noticeable if you don't look at it, but it adds a nice touch nonetheless), it's just that the tools we have created over time make it an unused feature. I'd be supportive of wiping Pagebanner default.jpg from every instance of pagebanner and automatically make the pagebanner template work out which banner to show. I don't think I possess the knowledge or tools to switch this myself. If I could, I would have mentioned this a long time ago.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, if you add {{pagebanner}}, it shows up in red like it was a mistake, right? But it still works. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
IMO the "global default banner" is better than no banner at all, and if you can't remember the file name for the "local default banner", I think it's useful that the global version is automatically added. Just my opinion. ϒψιλον (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Strongly agree with User:Wauteurz. Although I have been told that we do like to have custom banners defined locally here, there's no reason for that to be the case with generic banners, which the template handles on its own. @Ypsilon: You don't have to remember anything. The template does the appropriate regional variation for you. ARR8 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, @SelfieCity: I've adjusted the templatedata, setting the image parameter to suggested, not required. Shouldn't throw an error anymore. ARR8 (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No, in the source code it's still showing up red, unfortunately. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: I can't say I've heard this before. What are you doing to get that result? Just adding the template without parameters?
@Ypsilon: {{Pagebanner}} should work to display the standard banner for Mena-asia if you enter {{Pagebanner|Asia}}. From my brief testing using page previews, this does work. You can type in the continent or region rather than having to remember the filename. Some of the options include Asia, Europe, North-Africa, TT, Itinerary, Diving, Phrasebook, New Zealand, Australia, Caribbean and North America.
@ARR8: There is a preference to locally define banners, I know that from experience, but there are some good banners out there on other language projects. It's a waste of time if we'd not accept those in where they are already available. If they suck, then we can always replace them, but I'd argue that the Pagebanner is essential to Wikivoyage's identity, and that having a colourful custom one is infinitely better than having the default banner. Besides, there aren't that many destinations that had a custom banner. I've seen at most 20 custom ones when creating the 750 banners I have made, and 20 is a high estimate, I'm sure. If that number is representative, then we're talking about 302 existing banners that would be imported. Besides, there surely is a way to group that into a category for "Pagebanner fetched from Wikidata" if that doesn't happen yet, just so these banners can be easily reviewed at one point or another.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, all I was adding was {{pagebanner}}. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know that — thanks for the heads up! ϒψιλον (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: Yes. I'm pretty sure we're in complete agreement; I was told about the practice for custom banners here in my first post to the Pub. I still think we should switch to Wikidata-only definitions at some point in the future, maybe when concerns about reliability of Wikidata are addressed. Either way, I think it would be great to passively benefit from the work of other WV languages and vice-versa. ARR8 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing in Wikicode[edit]

I always add a space after headings if I'm editing the source. Do you have to do that? I thought I read that somewhere in the manual of style, but that might have not even been on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A space character after last equal sign (=) - No; if you are talking about a newline after a heading, for readability it would be nice to do - not necessary though as needed newline is taken care of... A newline after listings is ok to do as well for visual editorial ease and listing separation but also not necessary when using the mediawiki editor. -- Matroc (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not make my original comment clear; I am talking about a newline after the heading. Thanks for the answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think newlines are nice around templates and images, to separate them from the text. If the lines happens to be the same length it is otherwise easy to miss, especially frustrating when you see something in a diff or the article itself and cannot find the right place in the section when you try to edit it (on WP the typical problem is the end of the fact box template, here I think the problem is smaller, but I still like the newlines for clarity).
For list items there is a problem: if you put a newline between items MediaWiki starts a new list. The break is usually not visible, but speech synthesizers usually make it audible. If the listings end with "}}" on its own line, that is enough for separation.
--LPfi (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Newline should note be between listings, as LPfi point out, it starts a new list which for people using browsers for the blind could cause unnecessary complication when being verbalised. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Separate page for bureaucrat nominations[edit]

While they're not particularly common, so far bureaucrat nominations have always taken place on the WV:Administrator nominations page, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense really. Should a new Wikivoyage:Bureaucrat nominations page be created just for bureaucrats? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point, but also don't have any specific arguments against. It seems like a waste of time to both do it and discuss it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Totally a waste of time, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
What TT and IK said. Ground Zero (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
If all requests for user rights are made on that page (I couldn't find any others), then we could always rename the page to "Requests for user rights" or something similarly generic. But mostly I think that the page title shouldn't be a big deal. If you don't already know where to make your request for buro rights, then you probably shouldn't be making the request anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New7wonders[edit]

Recently I ran into this w:New7Wonders of the World. What do you say, should there be a (list) article for those here on Wikivoyage too? The same organization also has compiled lists of w:New7Wonders of Nature and w:New7Wonders Cities, those could be included in the same article. ϒψιλον (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Wikivoyage article for the original 7 wonders? Because that should be on Wikivoyage, definitely. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this about WV or WP? w:Template:Unreferenced and w:Template:More citations needed do not exist on Wikivoyage. Please see Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians: specifically the bit that says "Wikivoyage articles use no references. It's fine to point to authoritative primary source external sites for additional information (eg. visa sections are usually linked into the country's immigration website), but individual claims are not referenced. If a claim is dubious or in dispute, it's best to hammer out a reworded consensus on the Talk page, not try to 'prove' that it's true." K7L (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks like Chris got stuck in the multi-day meeting about the wishlist proposals. They have 300+ to process before the end of the week.
This isn't my project, but: AFAICT this change will technically affect all sites, but the practical effects here should be small. Tech folks might want to review the linked information on ambox templates. For the rest of us, if, a few weeks from now, you see some boring maintenance template appearing on the mobile site, and you don't want think casual readers should be seeing it (nearly all editors use the desktop site), then this change is why, and if we ping Chris about it, he should be able to help us figure out how to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Starpotential[edit]

SelfieCity just posted this on Talk:Buffalo after what I gather is a temporary slushing of its starnom. I've never actually seen this template in the wild before - in general, an article has almost always been either a full-fledged nominee or nothing - and I have to say I object to some of its language, specifically that Star articles need "to perfectly match the Manual of style" (emphasis in original). mos says "[o]ur manual of style is a collection of rules of thumb and guidelines", not carved-in-stone policy. If an article contravenes mos in a way that can be demonstrated to work better or make more sense, we've always held it to be Star-worthy regardless. The text of the template should reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just doing what it says to do at Wikivoyage:Star nominations#Failed nominations. But I can understand that there would be reason to change it. Because saying that something has to be perfect invites people to say, "Well, I don't quite like this" or, "This could be just a little better" and the result is a lot of criticism and not much work done. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't calling you out for doing anything wrong, just pinged you so you'd see this thread and maybe share your thoughts (which you did). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I also think there is a problem with "perfectly". A few misformatting times or phone numbers, or an intentional deviation from our style because it suits the destination to do so, shouldn't prevent an article from being a star. I realise this isn't the place to propose a change, but since we're talking about it, would a proposal to change this to "to closely match the Manual of style" get support? We do want to avoid situations like Windsor (Ontario), which was riddled with formatting errors when it was nominated (and outdated listings, and clumsy text). Ground Zero (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone would disagree with a change to "closely" matches our mos. Indeed, that is a more accurate description of the star-criteria anyway. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "closely" is nearly good enough for a Star. "Perfectly" may be overdoing it, though that's arguable. How about "very closely matches"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Haha, alright, strike my comment :-) Very closely (or a similar wording) would be fine for me too (even though I wouldn't read "closely" as leaving all that much space either, but that might just be me). JuliasTravels (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The way I see it is that Guide articles need to closely follow the Manual of style, so Star articles would have to follow it really closely. And it's very nice to see you here. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say though, that if something is so close to star status that it literally just has "a few misformatted times", it would be a failure on our part to let such a nomination get slushed rather than a failure of the policy. I sort of see the "perfectly" as a way to ensure that an article is fully scrutinized, so that in a case like the time-formatting mentioned, we actually fix it rather than saying "Meh, it CLOSELY matches, so just make it a star." That's just as bad as slushing it. It also forces any abnormalities to be justified as part of the nomination (if it's not already justified in a Talk discussion) which can be vital in determining if something is relevant for precedent or not. I don't think it's valid anyway for someone to just say "I don't like this" or "It could be better". If a user is unable to actually pinpoint areas to improve and why they are inaccurate/hard to understand/too encyclopedic/etc. then it is an invalid critique, just like saying "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to oppose a Destination of the Month nomination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed. Although, just because an argument isn't valid doesn't mean that people don't make it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, too. But I'm not really clear on why we're debating this. Does this reflect the actual nature of discussions in Starnom threads? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It reflects some of the arguments I had made about Buffalo's starnom, and will probably make again when it's revived. As for the template itself, Wikivoyage:City guide status says that Star articles' "[l]ayout and listing formats either match the manual of style exactly or are the exception that proves the rule", and I think that wording or some variation on it would be a fine replacement for the current text. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month - November 2018[edit]

Halfway through the month, the number of Star status articles without listing coordinates has been reduced from 53 to 40. A good deal of work done but without more input from the community looks like a number of articles will be destared in the next few months. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's only 37 now. I may help out in the near future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
yes but 2 of those I had been working on since the start of the month. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Just added a couple coordinates; Chicago skyline guide seems fairly close. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
So the skyline guide is done, and we're now down to 36. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Huge changes in price[edit]

By no means would I accuse this of being vandalism or anything, but I'm a little taken aback by this. Is it extreme inflation or is this an IP address trying to create problems? I think the first is quite likely, but I think it's best to make sure.

If the inflation is this bad, what's the rest of our Argentina articles like? Could there possibly be some sort of currency template created that automatically adjusts for inflation for these kinds of places? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems plausible to me. Argentina has had a lot of inflation and currency fluctuation in recent years (see Argentina#Buy), and some of the prices in question hadn't been updated since well before the fork. When I was traveling in Argentina last year, I found that many of the prices on Wikivoyage were way out of date. This is a reason why it's important to attach dates to prices when adding them to articles, especially in countries like Argentina with unstable currencies. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks; this is useful information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Just found a good example from last year—these bus fares in Salta were off by a factor of seven before I updated them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)