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

QA icon clr.svg

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.
Wikivoyage sysop.svg

Contents

Bullet list - Accessibility fix[edit]

There was a question a few weeks ago about leaving blank lines or not between listings (not sure where it has been archived now). As pointed out at the time having a blank line basically creates separate bullet listings which can be an issue with some screen reading software for sight impaired readers, as well as being mess HTML for search engine bots. As an information to all, I will be running a bot over pages to fix this. I will start slowly and check a number of them but eventually will let it run by itself over all articles. Please check out a few edits marked Listings Accessibility, it should be a simple safe edit but there is always the change an odd syntax format turns up I have not thought of. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this; it's long overdue. One thing I'd suggest - I recall someone saying that the listing template close tags (}}) on their own line also break up the list. Could the bot remove the newline before those? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Would like conformation of that before making the extra edit. Slight more difficult an edit to do safely in batch, though not much, but would be just about every page on the site as this is what the listing editor creates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tested it and it doesn't seem to make a difference. So, nevermind for now. Maybe it only happens under some circumstances. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I said in some discussion that the "}}" on its own line separates the listings visibly enough for the edit mode, so that removing the blank line is no problem. Perhaps it was this comment ARR8 (mis)remembered. So it should indeed be kept. --LPfi (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The listings templates automatically put }} on a separate line, so I always assumed that to be the preferred format. If it's not, the templates should be changed. Ground Zero (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This is good to do for the most part; however, it is their software and not ours that is the problem and should be brought to their attention if possible. Just a note that remembering when different browsers interpreted code and sites had to accommodate for their difference created problems in the past (less likely I think today). I am just concerned about going down any future rabbit holes. In this case it is ok to do -- Matroc (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Who is "they", in your claim that "it is their software...that is the problem"? (It can't be the people who expect websites to follow HTML standards, such as the makers of screen reader software.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It was mentioned above that it could be screen reading software - I have no argument with removing extra blank lines at all period. (There must be no blank lines between list items. Blank lines terminate a list, splitting it into two separate lists_wikimedia). With ordered lists this is definitely proven; unordered lists on the other hand shouldn't be affected as much as each listing would then become a separate list wouldn't it? I did not find anything about lists and blank lines in w3.org in the past though I am not so inclined to use them. As for HTML interpretation even an ul with multiple li with separating lines appear to render correctly and two such lists would join with if only one blank line existed between them. I am not arguing with removing a blank line and probably should be our style or standard if it will resolve the issue at hand. Mediawiki does its interpretation and already removes them. Interesting thought, I wonder if it isn't following HTML standards? -- Best wishes and have a Great day! -- Matroc (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the MediaWiki software (our software) substitutes the blank line in a wikitext unordered list with "</ul><ul>" in the HTML it outputs. We cannot blame a voice HTML reader to read two consecutive lists as two separate lists. The visual difference is small with most browsers (a little more vertical space?), as there usually are other visual clues when the lists are meant to be separate, but those other clues may be lost when reading aloud. There is really no point in telling how the lists are visually separated when you have your own means of telling by your voice they are separate. --LPfi (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you LPfi and WhatamIdoing for explanation(s) and clarification. After looking at some source code and page source(s) it now makes better sense to me. Again, thank you -- Matroc (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
For those interested (which may be only me ;-), whether and how much vertical space you see between two adjacent links depends upon local formatting (e.g., what we put in MediaWiki:Common.css). After years of fixing this mistake, I can see the very small difference, but I suspect that most people don't notice it.
ARR8, after you finish here, I wonder whether you could do this at the other language editions of Wikivoyage? It would ideally happen everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ping User:Traveler100, whom I assume you meant. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The bot has run through all destination pages on English Wikivoyage. There were about 10 pages it could not edit, some issue with large in-page mapmasks, but strangely not all with mapmasks. But it appears to just hang, not make any edits. One edit blanked a page but I think that must have been a network or server error not to do with the bot code. I guess I could do it on other language pages. Do you think the existing user pages of Traveler100bot on these sites which just links to the English page be enough? With the exception of German I cannot write any native language information stating what is happening. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If you have a list of those 10 pages, I can edit by hand if desired. -- Matroc (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Other Wikivoyages[edit]

We can ask some of the other Wikivoyages for a quick answer here. User:Atsirlin is an admin at the Russian, User:Yuriy kosygin is at Chinese, User:RolandUnger and User:DerFussi at German and Italian, User:Globe-trotter at Dutch, User:Texugo at Portuguese, User:Zerabat at Spanish, User:ויקיג'אנקי at Hebrew, and User:Handrian at Greek. (I'm not sure how many others are active editors here.)

Hello, friends,

Matroc is offering a bot/script that will fix a small technical problem with HTML in your articles. This problem is caused by unnecessary blank lines between items in bulleted lists. See w:en:WP:LISTGAP for information. The English Wikivoyage had a lot of pages with this problem, but it might be a smaller problem elsewhere.

It's a pretty safe script. There's no significant risk of corrupting pages, and we ran it here without any problems. (I'd bet that it's the same code that's been used without complaint at the English Wikipedia for years.) This should be a one-time fix. The only "problem" is that your watchlists will get busy if you have a lot of pages with these errors.

Do you want Matroc to fix these errors for your community? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @WhatamIdoing: I am not sure if there is such a problem with the Chinese Wikivoyage, but I will try to find attention to this issue.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks you for the ping, but we removed most of the bullet lists years ago. They are simply not needed when we have these nice color boxes with the map markers. --Alexander (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
We simply modified the template to show an empty color box when there are no coordinates. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
We will not change list at the German Wikivoyage. The main cause is maintenance work of endless lists to remove mistakes. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem articles[edit]

I am running this over AWB script. It however stalls on a number of articles. Anyone an idea why this is happening? Articles include: Saint Petersburg/South, Saint Petersburg/North, Ljubljana, Katowice, Tusheti, Cheltenham, Madison, Dallas/North Dallas and Dallas/South Dallas. They all have in-page Mapmasks. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Page previews and Navpops[edit]

@Jdlrobson:, Page previews doesn't seem to be respecting Navpops at this wiki (for me, anyway). When the Navpops gadget is enabled, Page previews is supposed to be suppressed. However, when I hover on links to articles (on this page; I haven't checked anywhere else), I'm seeing both. Is that your territory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm this bug. I have had to manually disable page previews due to this. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
This is now fixed thanks to User:X-Savitar :-) 19:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Searching Wikivoyage:Tourist office's past questions[edit]

The first button doesn't seem to do anything after you click on it. I already tried fixing it but it has no effects. Anyone want to give it a stab? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: Yes Done. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good job. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Can an industrial park create an article?[edit]

Due to Changhua Coastal Industrial Park have someone beautiful beaches, as well as many museums and gourmet shops. The industrial park has open visitors. So I want to create a park article, is that okay?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest creating an article for the city/township area in which it is in. At the moment Changhua County lists a few townships but only Lukang has an article.--Traveler100 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Changhua Coastal Industrial Park itself contains Lugang, Xianxi and Shengang Town. The local attractions are also spread across three townships, so I would like to ask this question. If to give priority to create the city article, I also agree. But can Changhua Coastal Industrial Park create an article like this park (when it is purely tourism-only)?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
According to Wikivoyage:What is an article? the general criterion is that a destination (a city or a district) should have at the very least have a hotel, or some other place to sleep. /Yvwv (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking at this again I would merge Lukang into Changhua County and make that article a city article. Then add the extra attractions there. If the article starts to get big and complex we can discuss again how to split based on the content an their locations. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yvwv, Traveler100: OK, I see! I know how to do, thanks.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yvwv, Traveler100: But... I have question, If Chinese Wikivoyage have Lugang, Xianxi and Shengang Town article, and the industrial park have 4 museums, 2 park, 1 water road, 1 beach and 1 fishing port(7 sightseeing spots in Lugang, and 2 sightseeing spots in Xianxi), so... can an industrial park create an article in Chinese Wikivoyage?--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
That is a question for people working on that language site. Would be useful if you could translate some of the information on the Chinese site to this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: My English not good, Mmmm... But will translate some of the information on the Chinese site to this site If I have sometime! thank you provide your propose.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexa rank[edit]

I like to follow Alexa ranks. From mid-2018 to October 2018, Wikivoyage's Alexa rank climbed quite quickly, but steadily. However, the rank suddenly stopped climbing around this time, when it flattened out. Over the next couple months, it has started to fall, and though it seems to be fairly flat now, it's still not exactly in the position to start climbing greatly again. I wonder why this has occurred.

Back in early 2018, there was some kind of project where editors were encouraged to expand articles. Then more recently there was a project on Russian Wikivoyage. These were considered to be why the Alexa rank climbed in the past. Are any similar events coming up in the near future, or later this year?

Just curious. In the end of the day, we still get excellent numbers of readers, and we're working hard to make the travel guide better and better. But it would be interesting to know if these techniques could be used in future to get more readers. Just some thoughts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Anecdotally, I've noticed it seems quieter on here recently, especially during the daytime (UTC). Talking about edits, of course, rather than readers, but I imagine a certain percentage of readers will also edit too. (On that theme, anyone know if there are any studies on what the average percentage of a wiki's readership make at least one edit? And how many of those become regular contributors?) Wikimedia ought to have a small external advertising budget, imo, because as effective as initiatives like the Editathon are, they're only targetted internally, i.e. other WMF wikis. Failing that, maybe we (as in Wikivoyage) should try to be noisier on social media. We have Facebook, YouTube (Twitter?), but does anyone follow us on them?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The usual figure given is 10%. We have another problem, in that our search rankings are usually low, especially compared to Wikipedia. Most people don't come to Wikivoyage to look for travel information, but look it up and then find themselves here. I was going to propose a COTM for this - there are several high-profile pages, that, when searched for, return results from Lonely Planet, TripAdvisor, Wikitravel, etc., on the first page, but not us. Probably the worst example I've found is Croatia. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, in the case of SEO, it's probably because the Croatia article has a lot of similar (or even duplicate) content to Wikitravel, or the content of the article does not use many catchphrases that would be picked up by a search engine.
I think it's true that it has been quieter lately. I was looking at the recent changes at 5:00 UTC (today, UTC) and I found that I could easily scroll through the changes. One example was that, apart from an account being created, no edits were made in the hour from 3:00-4:00. Imagine if a vandal had been on the site then, how much damage he could have caused.
I agree about social media. We have a social media nominations page, but it is rarely used. We ought to use it more, if possible. We could mention articles that have been significantly improved lately, etc. DOTMs are published on social media as I understand it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Previous years, both Wikivoyage and The Other Site have had low activity during October-February. Not strange, since English-speakers usually make their big holiday journeys during northern summer. We can expect more traffic during the coming months. /Yvwv (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm presently the only active administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook account who is more than marginally active on Wikivoyage itself. Currently every new DotM, OtBP and FTT gets posted on Facebook. I definitely feel like our account should be more active than that, but as I've said before, I feel like it's too big of a job for one person, especially someone as overextended as I am. But every time in the past that I've called out to the Wikivoyage community for anyone interested in helping manage our FB presence, whoever takes on the challenge seems like clockwork to fall inactive before very long. I still would love the help, but I hope that if I get any responses here from folks who'd like to be inducted as administrators to our FB page, it's from someone who plans to stick around awhile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I started Uni in October. Question solved. ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you compare our Alexa rank to 12 months ago, it is much higher. It has jumped from about 21,500 to 16,500. And that's the important measure since throughout the year there are seasonal chances as Yvwv mentioned above. But of course, there is always room for improvement. I have sometimes promoted Wikivoyage articles on online travel forums where I thought it was relevant to the question or conversation. All of the anecdotal feedback I've received is that of the people who read Wikivoyage, most of them like us. Very few people are not fans. It is just that barely anyone is aware that we exist. Our target audience is quite large (anyone interested in travel with an internet connection and is English-speaking including non-native) but of this large population how many have heard of us. All of the major alternatives to WV whether similar in scope (e.g. the other site, Lonely Planet, Frommers, Rough Guides) or having somewhat different but overlapping goals like TripAdvisor, BBC Travel and Nat Geo Travel, have millions of followers on social media. We have thousands. Our goal should be just getting our name out there so that travellers get to know about this site. SEO is the big reason why many of our articles are almost ghosts but there have to be other ways to create awareness in addition to differentiating ourselves from the other site. Gizza (roam) 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Name recognition is very important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideas[edit]

Has it ever been considered for WV to have some sort of blog? Didn't WT used have that back at one time? If we started it, we'd want it to be a group effort, of course, and if so, I'd be happy to help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth trying to partner with some existing Wikipedia-focused events. For example, maybe someone who is writing about a famous artist would also like to update the entry here about a museum where the art can be seen. If anyone's in New York City, London, or Berlin, then there are a lot of potential events there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

DOTM banners[edit]

I now have the tools (GIMP) and the know-how to do banners for DOTM, OTBP, and FTT. Hopefully this can take some of the burden off AndreCarrotflower in doing the banners, which can be quite a lot of work. Ypsilon has also been a help recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexa rank rise[edit]

Suddenly, in mid-March, Wikivoyage has zoomed up to its previous heights a few months before and is now between 15,000 and 16,000. This is interesting, and perhaps someone has a theory for why this has happened. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikitravel rank[edit]

Just in case this was not yet mentioned before. Because we always compare ourself to Wikitravel; WT has gradually declined over the last couple of months/years: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikitravel.org It is almost at par with WV now. So, I reckon we are doing pretty well. Cheers Ceever (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There are people who buy old travel guides at garage sales, so I guess it is not surprising that people are still reading Wikitravel. It is also interesting that of Wikivoyage's readers, 14% are from the US, and 35% are from the next four countries combined (Germany, Italy, China, Iran), meaning that a lot of our readers are not people whose first language is English. (You need a subscription to Alexa to find out about the remaining 51% of readers.) Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep in mind, they are probably not reading our articles. They are probably going to de:, it: (the original WV sites and those with the biggest content advantage over WT), zh:, and fa:. I'm surprised ru: isn't near the top, with the all the work they do with monuments.
Based on this, I think it would be good for WV for the WMF to focus on creating more WV language editions, especially ones that WT already has, as, the later they are created, the harder it is to overcome that content gap, especially its effect on search engine rankings. There's little most of us can do about that, though. But, it is notable that 8.5% of WT's traffic comes from Japan, and ja: is still in incubator. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Updating the Main Page text[edit]

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

The FREE worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

But it is now

The free worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it is good to go. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Yay, glad to see it live! Just add a period after "tourist office" and it'll mirror the sandbox. - Sdkb (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: also, the sister site link doesn't seem to be working for me. - Sdkb (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's trying to link to [1] for some reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Always a risk with simultaneous collaborative work. Link again takes you to bottom section of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault! ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem, we would not have got this far without your edits. I am also learning a lot with what your are doing. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

DOTM banners/Commons[edit]

Ypsilon and AndreCarrotflower, when you create a DOTM banner image, how do you do it? My main problems are creating a duplicate image so I can crop it. I know this is mostly a Commons-related question, but hopefully you can explain how you crop images in Commons. Thanks.

If anyone else knows how to do it, or has a link to a tutorial, feel free to explain. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

So far, I've figured out how to get GIMP and I'm working on doing a new DOTM banner choice for Chapel Hill. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've got it worked out now. Maybe, though, just check the file pages to make sure I've got the basics right. However, hopefully the recent effort will give some people a break on having to find banner pictures! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Banners needed everywhere?[edit]

While we are at it - I really appreciate the effort and everything, but what should be the purpose of the banners? I would say probably to convince visitors to visit the area by highlighting the best part of the area? While e.g.

WV banner Abov Turna n Bodvou.jpg

is probably a good representative of the common settlements in the Abov area, I would not say this is the reason why anyone would visit there... Do the banners need to be really unique? It will increase the size of the stuff to be downloaded (e.g. for offline version) with quite little gain - unless the banner is a really nice picture. -- andree.sk(talk) 08:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the solution for bad banners is to replace them with good ones. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

mobile main page[edit]

Based on work done by @Seddon (WMF): I have changed to mobile entry page for Wikivoyage. It was very dull. Potential for more improvements, but this is a start, brings some color to the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work! Massive thank you for doing that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm so glad this has been implemented. Big improvement. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Have improved pages somewhat but now starting to struggle, particularly were tables have been used to format pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorted out format without table widths but still cannot see why {{bottomboxesn}} does not show in mobile view when on main page but works from sandbox?--Traveler100 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Wooow! Our Chinese Wikivoyage also update the mobile version about main page. :D--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to @ARR8: for making an even better mobile main page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Travellers' pub[edit]

This page was not displaying the Welcome block on mobile devices. I have split the introduction and the clean-up sections so the first part shows on mobile while the second does not. A little better but not perfect. Suggestion for improvements? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the question mark with the green background really needed? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind splitting them, but I think now the new box should be by default aligned the same as the other one, more like Pub/sandbox. But I'm not sure how that would look on mobile. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Community portal[edit]

The Community portal does not look good on a typical sized smartphone. Getting the individual blocks to run one under the other in mobile mode and side by side in desktop mode could be some over the topic piece of code to write and edit (unless someone can see an easy way of doing this). What do people think, either keep existing design for desktop viewing and a new design for mobile or come up with a new style that fits both? Any suggestions welcome. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Think I have worked out a solution Wikivoyage:Community portal/sandbox. Not totally finished but see the end of the tunnel. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The sandbox doesn't look right to me. Maybe, though, that's because you're still working on it. What if you just had one column of boxes, instead of two or three? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There were some errors in the original page which did not show up until made changes. Wikivoyage:Community portal/sandbox is where I want it to be when viewed on smart phone and on desktop using Firefox and Explorer but not working as I would like on Chrome. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Help resources[edit]

I found mw:Mobile Gateway/Mobile homepage formatting. Any more useful resources, maybe with a little more detail on class and style code to use and how to use them? Looks like the code we are using for main and project pages is not recommend for mobile viewing. Looking for resources that would help write better pages that work on all devises? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia re-designed their Main Page a few years ago, and if you can figure out who did that, then you'd probably be able to find some examples. User:Quiddity could probably tell us if there are any active editors from enwiki with an interest in making Main Pages accessible. (I miss User:Edokter.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. +1 to looking at the w:fr: mainpage code - IIRC they paid attention to accessibility, and the result does appear to look good in both desktop and mobilefrontend when viewed in a thin window. Re: Enwiki, I'm not uptodate on whos active in that area, but I know the folks at w:WT:WPACCESS and w:WT:ACCESS are usually very nice and happy to have the topic be considered! (And yeah, I wish we had some better template-style-design-variations of these things to share among the communities. (ditto templates, etc etc etc! ∞ wishlist...)) HTH. Quiddity (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia renamed[edit]

On Tuesday, Macedonia (country) was officially renamed to North Macedonia. --RolandUnger (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a move discussion at Talk:Macedonia (country). I support the move. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I have fixed the isPartOf categories for North Macedonia.

Now Macedonia (Greece) and cities in the lost sub-regions need to be fixed. There are a good number of city articles still under East Macedonia, Central Macedonia and West Macedonia.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Also need to look at links on other pages to to Macedonia and link to North Macedonia. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Some other cleanup is in order as well. Some of our maps need to be updated with the new name: File:Macedonia regions map.png, File:Europe regions minimal cities.png, File:Balkans regions map.png, File:Greece WV region map EN.png, File:Albania Regions map.png, File:Kosovo Regions map.png, File:Serbia Regions map.png, and File:Bulgaria Cultural Regions Map.png, at least. We should also think about renaming Western Macedonia and Eastern Macedonia – should they be moved to Western North Macedonia and Eastern North Macedonia? See Talk:Western Macedonia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Central Macedonia needs a rethink and discussion as a number of subregions and their city articles left without a parent region. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have the technical know-how to deal with the maps listed above? I think all that is required is to edit the source SVG files (available on Commons) to change the text from "Macedonia" to "North Macedonia" and then convert them to new PNGs. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the North Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania and Greece maps to reflect the new name. I'll work on the remaining ones over the next few days. -Shaundd (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Shaundd: I'm happy to see that these are almost all finished – thanks! It seems the only one remaining is File:Europe regions minimal cities.png. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: I've done that one, see the original svg. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks! Then I think the cleanup from the North Macedonia move is finally finished! Thanks to everyone who participated. Next, on to Eswatini... —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I can work on Eswatini/Swaziland, too. It'll probably be this weekend though before I can get to it. -Shaundd (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Also Cabo Verde and Timor-Leste. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I checked a couple of East Timor maps and they look like they're already good. For Eswatini, the following maps need to be updated: File:Swaziland Regions map.png, File:Map-Africa-Regions-Islands.png, File:Southern Africa new map.png, File:South Africa-Regions map.png, and File:Mozambique regions.png. For Cape Verde, File:Cabo Verde regions map.png is the only map I can find where the name in the map doesn't match the name of our article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Eswatini maps are updated now. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Upload[edit]

The upload process for Wikivoyage has licensing options for Commons 3.0, etc. but not 4.0. This should be added so giving appropriate credit is possible. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose the list just hasn't been updated, so I am adding the licence now. Could somebody who does local uploads check the change works as it should?
I do not understand the "so giving appropriate credit is possible" part. If you upload images taken by others, then there is a zillion of possible licences. Is there something in the CC-BY-SA 3.0 that hinders giving "appropriate credit"?
If there are technical issues, the talk page is MediaWiki talk:Licenses.
--LPfi (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I left the old version. I suppose the selection of licences is small by design, so having two versions of the same licence could be regarded redundant. On the other hand CC-BY-SA 3.0 is the licence used for text on WV, WP etc., and I for one have not studied the changes introduced in the new version and am thus not confident enough to use it for general licensing. --LPfi (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding CC4.0. The selection now implies that CC2.0 is only for Flickr images when it could be used for those based on older commons files (maybe it has always done this). It is missing a public domain licence, although if an image is public domain, then you are free to upload it using one of the CC licences. I don't think that we have much use for the more specialised licenses that commons allows. It would be good to have a page which explain licenses linked from the upload page. AlasdairW (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I just added the 4.0 ones at "Creative Commons License". I supposed the Flickr licences were Flickr specific. Having the same licences twice (ones for licence source, once for image source) makes little sense, so I merge the lists.
Licensing a PD image with a CC licence is copyright fraud. While it seems not to be criminal in USA, I think we should not do something that seems like encouraging the practice. The questions is whether {{PD}} is enough or whether we should offer several PD tags.
The question about "specialised licenses" is whether we want to support upload of images which are under some other licence. As long as the uploader is the copyright owner, it is easy to require the use of one of a small set of standard licences, but if we want to use a photo that is licensed under any other licence, we have to either do without or accept that licence, however "specialised" it is. I think "Something else" has to be offered for those cases. I will add that, and corresponding language to MediaWiki:Uploadtext.
--LPfi (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason is that, per "appropriate credit", the box with the information about the license is necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Mentioning the licence is an additional requirement to that of giving appropriate credit, a requirement of many more licences than those in the drop-down. The other licences have to be handled by inserting the template by hand, or writing name and link by hand for those licences lacking a template. But as CC-BY-SA 4.0 has become the recommended licence on Commons, it is good that we offer an easy way to use it. --LPfi (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'll try the "Upload file" now to make sure it works, but the code that I saw looked good. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

GNU[edit]

Is it okay to use pictures using the GNU license for banners? I've never really paid attention to it before, because beneath it in Commons are always Creative Commons licenses, but just checking. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it the GFDL is inconvenient for reusers and therefore generally not allowed as the sole license for new uploads to Commons (see here). This doesn't really matter for us directly. The only reason for us to avoid the license, as far as I can tell, would be to make it easier for people to meticulously follow the licensing requirements when reusing our content in offline/printed materials. Files that are dual-licensed under GFDL and CC are absolutely fine, we (or other reusers) can just use the CC license and ignore the GFDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. In my cases, I believe the files had both GNU and Commons licenses listed, so when uploading the cropped version of the file, I cited the Commons license. Thanks for explaining! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for making all those changes to "North Macedonia". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Responsive design[edit]

Just wanted to say to the community: it's been great to see all the work that has been put into responsive web design lately! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! And to everyone: please, if you have any problems or design suggestions, let us know! ARR8 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Have you thought about creating a responsive design expedition? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
At the German Wikivoyage there is such an expedition. Such an expedition seems to be necessary because of multitude of problems not only for smartphones. --RolandUnger (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
True. If there's anyone who wants to start it, I'd be willing to help and join the expedition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It may be nice to have a centralized place to discuss these things, rather than the mess of talk pages we've been using, but there may not be too many templates left to modify. I'll go along with User:Traveler100 on this, since it was he who started this whole endeavor. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I know I'm not T100, but may I add: maybe we could create a talk page for the issue, or even a Wikivoyage space page, that is not an expedition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not an Expedition just for Responsive but a general one for User Experience. Would include working on pages so they are good on all browsers, but also how listing editor works, how the main page looks and format of pages in general. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Written a few ideas down at Wikivoyage:UX_Expedition. All please expand and correct as you feel fit. And, a little ironically, think of a better layout for the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the effort you have put into the expedition! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

An update on templates on mobile web[edit]

Hello,

A few months ago we mentioned a change that was coming to how certain templates appear on mobile web. I just wanted to drop a note that this change is now in effect here on English Wikivoyage. As you may be aware, as of January mobile traffic counts for about a third of traffic on English Wikivoyage (and we're approaching twice as many unique devices using the mobile site over the desktop site), so making templates present on mobile is important.

We've deployed this update to all other wikis and we ran A/B tests on Wikipedia to measure the impact (Summary: Users interact with the new treatment more frequently than the old. They interact with higher-severity issues more than than lower-severity issues. The new design does not cause more frequent edits).

We have noticed that these templates have a few styling inconsistencies here on English Wikivoyage and would like to ask for your help. For template editors, we have some recommendations on how to make templates that are mobile-friendly and further documentation on our work so far.

If you have questions about formatting templates for mobile, please leave a note on the project talk page or file a task in Phabricator and we can help. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Good news! This should have a great impact on the WV:UX Expedition. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
These are relatively minor changes for WV, but I'm glad we were notified. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, OK. But still, good news. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This means that if you put a template about problems at the top of an article, then readers are (at least initially, and the effect may not persist) clicking on the links in the templates to learn what that newly visible template is about. Nobody extra edits the articles, so I consider it basically a failure. (To be fair, the failure may be in the whole idea of maintenance templates as a way to encourage editing, rather than a problem with the work that team did. But either way, we shouldn't expect much.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Static Map vs Dynamic Map: Which is preferred ?[edit]

This is probably been asked before, but thought to ask it again. What is preferred in 2019? A static Map or a Dynamic Map? --Joshlama1 (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This opens a can of worms. A short answer would be, that it depends on the situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Joshlama1 - A longer answer would be that dynamic maps are strongly preferred for bottom-level destinations (undistricted cities and districts of Huge Cities), while static maps are preferred for all other destinations (but dynamic maps are better than nothing in those cases). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking[edit]

Trizek (WMF) 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

s:Outlook Traveller/2018/July/A Deul Story[edit]

Anything extractable for Wikivoyage purposes? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Boston travel guide in Wikibooks[edit]

On Wikibooks there's a request for deletion about a Boston travel guide and they have considered moving the content to Wikivoyage Boston article. Probably, since our Boston article is well developed, there is little need for a transwiki, but just wanted to let other Wikivoyagers know so they can take part in that discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The nomination is now closed and that page has been deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at the page before it was deleted and it didn't seem like there was much, if anything, worth merging that wasn't already covered in our article here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same view that I took and ButteBag took as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Overly long disambiguation pages[edit]

There are quite a few disambiguation pages on Wikivoyage which contain long lists with multiple redlinks, unlinked items or redirects. The general tendency for disambiguations seems to be to list all examples of a place which share the same or a similar name. In my view, that crosses the line into encyclopaedia territory, and doesn't help the traveller find the place they're looking for quickly and easily. We should only be disambiguating places which already have an article here, or are likely to get one in the future, rather than listing every speck on the map with a common name.

One newly-created disambiguation which has almost no travel content at all is Mar (disambiguation) - nowhere on the list has a Wikivoyage article, and there's some ISO code thing which I don't think even belongs on this wiki. Far and away the most useful bit of travel info (the IATA code for Maracaibo International Airport) is tucked away near the bottom of the list. Some other examples are Lexington, Berkshire (disambiguation), York (disambiguation), and Springfield; the number of redlinks on these suggests several specks with no travel guide-worthy content.

In the case of Mar, I suggest it would be better to turn it into a redirect to Maracaibo#By plane. For others, trimming them down to only list places which qualify under WV:WIAA seems a good idea. But what do others think about this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. However, if we're going to as far as deciding if some city follows WV:WIAA, we might as well create the article, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If somebody wants to, then sure. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
As at least one of the articles mentioned was created by me and I have created some long lists in the past, I will give another point of view. The main point is that you cannot predict why someone is coming to this site, but generally they are visiting either to look up information on a location or a travel topic. Yes there are only articles on places that have POIs but it is good to know there are other places with the same name, first not to get confused, second to make sure people do not go to the wrong one. May sound like it cannot happen but today people just enter the name of a town and follow the SatNav in the car. I know of people gone to the wrong Newport in the UK and the wrong Rüdesheim in Germany. The other reason is that a page with a good bit of content and covering a few different subjects and locations is going to get picked up more by a search engine. There should be a limit, this is not Wikipedia, but the limit is locations and travel topics. On red links, I think they should be there if there is the chance of the location becoming usable, else just list as text. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Some good points raised there, though I'm not convinced we should be catering to the "follow the GPS off a cliff" crowd. Isn't the idea that Wikivoyage is for people who can think for themselves, which is why Captain Obvious is unwelcome? One benefit I can see of redlinks on a disambiguation page that you didn't mention but might have, is it could spur a new user to create an article for the place they were searching for. On the other hand, my points about making the list look untidy and harder to navigate still stand. And if they really are specks on a map, how many people are going to be looking for them? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Some of the new disambig pages take things to really comical extremes, such as Acadia (disambiguation)'s link to "Municipal District of Acadia No. 34, Alberta", an unpopulated rural expanse that not only will never have its own article, but with a name that's not even in common local usage, or known to anyone other than a handful of planners and local-government wonks. The status quo of linking only to places that currently have articles or redirects, or redlinking to places that could conceivably support their own articles per wiaa, is fine. If we're wrong about the viability of a redlink that we may have opted not to include, we can always add it back to the disambig page after the fact. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that, in some situations when we create disambiguation pages, it may be worthwhile to consider, when we add each name to the list, if the traveler is likely to the find the destination name ambiguous, before we add that name to the list. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The mess that is Oklahoma City[edit]

I would really like to help moving stuff to district articles and whatnot, but there are just no geotaggs. I recently created Oklahoma City/South because there was a redlink on the main page, but I cannot really move stuff there, because, yaknow... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ye, notices this the other day too. Would be a good cotm candidate. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo progress report, and a call for help with editing static maps[edit]

As many of you probably know, my most recent work on Wikivoyage has centered around shortening up some of the overly long descriptive blurbs for the POIs in the Buffalo district articles. Connected to that, I'm happy to announce that today, for the first time since 2012, the longest article on Wikivoyage is neither Buffalo itself nor one of its districts. This is an important milestone. I'm passionate about drawing attention to my hometown as a worthwhile tourist destination, but at the same time, it's absolutely ridiculous that an article covering an off-the-beaten-path district of a midsized, unremarkable American city once contained more content than Japan, London, China and even the United States itself.

But this business of shortening blurbs is only Phase One of a two-phase project. By the time the project is completed, the current district articles will no longer exist, at least not in their present form. The new district breakdown I have planned for Buffalo cribs from Chicago's, wherein some of the items on the list in the Districts section represent not articles per se, but groupings of adjacent districts each with their own article. This allows for the possibility of having a Huge City divided into more than 9 districts while still respecting the 7±2 policy in place for avoidance of long lists.

With that in mind, as a sort of prelude to Phase 2 of the Buffalo project, I'm soliciting volunteers who might be willing to help with a redesign of the Buffalo districts map. The changes to be made to the map consist of: 1) splitting off Black Rock and Riverside from the West Side into their own district, 2) dividing Allentown and the Delaware District into two articles rather than having them share one, and 3) some minor boundary changes elsewhere on the map. I like very much the map that Peter Fitzgerald created back in the day when Buffalo was first districtified, so if it's possible to edit that map directly, that's the way I'd prefer to go. But if it's necessary to create a whole new map, that's okay too.

I remember that Saqib made an announcement a while back that his services were available to anyone who needed help with static maps, but you don't see him around much anymore. I also know that Ypsilon has the necessary expertise, but the last thing I'd want to do is add to his workload. So if anyone else is around who might be able to assist with this task, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll brief you on exactly what I'd like to have done. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also - I'm aware that my proposal for the Buffalo redistricting scheme was not without controversy. We can debate that elsewhere, but at a bare minimum, the issues of the boundary shifts and of Allentown, the Delaware District, and Black Rock-Riverside getting independent articles of their own represent absolutely the most important of the proposed changes to Buffalo's districting scheme, which are necessary regardless of whether the other, more contentious parts of my plan are enacted or not, so there's no issue here of anyone's work potentially going to waste. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I could do it, but maybe in a week or two.
To my understanding, back in the WT days most of the regular users were familiar with vector graphics and knew how to draw static maps. Out of the active and semi-active users right now, I think it's just me, LtPowers, Shaundd, Erwin and TagaSanPedroAko who can draw them. Even as we nowadays use dynamic maps (which didn't exist here a few years ago) and as such not every map needs to be drawn by hand, it would still be nice if a few more regular users would be able to make maps.
It's a bit hard but not impossible to learn how to do it. Five years ago I noticed we had a number of districtified cities from Beirut to Tijuana that had no district maps, and also then there were almost nobody around to help. I started learning how Inkscape works and how to create static maps and it took me a little more than a week of trial and error to create my first (crappy) maps. ϒψιλον (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I can do it. I downloaded the map and it looks straightforward to edit. I just don't have lots of spare time so it could take a week to work through the changes (depending on volume) and I'd also like to finish updating maps for the North Macedonia name change. -Shaundd (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
There’s absolutely, positively no rush on this. Even after I finish the current phase of the project, I imagine I will create the new district articles in my userspace and move them to mainspace only after all the new content is written (mainly “Understand”, “History”, “Get in/around”, “Stay safe”, and “Go next” sections specific to the finer-grained districts), so any new map will not be placed on the Buffalo parent article for a few months to a year yet. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: I can still help with maps. Let me know the details on my talk page. --Saqib (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This month's cotm: custom banners![edit]

This month, the collaboration of the month is custom banners. Please go the list of non-city articles with default banners and try to find as many custom pagebanners as you can for each of the options on the list. Use images from Commons, preferably, or Flickr, and if you decide to edit the images using a tool other than CropTool, when you upload the new version of the image, be careful to make sure that you get the attribution correct. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Are private airports and jets in scope for WV?[edit]

I just removed some info on the Boston article about private jets and airports that, for all intents and purposes, are closed to the public. Is this stuff we want to cover on WV? It just seems ludicrous to me to include any of it, but thought I would ask here. I've never seen any guidebook cover this, so maybe that's an argument to keep it, but really? Really? It honestly feels too niche, like it's just more noise to force readers to sift through. Thanks for your input! --ButteBag (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:ReadyJetGo (contribs) has been adding this information. He/she may want to weigh in. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
general aviation is a legitimate way of getting places. I think there should not be a hard and fast rule. A short article where the "by plane" section would be otherwise non-existent or filled with "from City X Airport take a five hour train ride" we can mention smaller airfields open to private pilots and whatnot. We shouldn't mention every rooftop helicopter pad in major metropolises, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The important distinction is between airports that are open to the public for general aviation purposes and those that are closed to the public, i.e. that are privately owned or you need a military clearance to fly into them or whatnot. The former are unquestionably within scope; the latter, the argument is much weaker. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'll let others address User:ReadyJetGo's edits, but I want to address User:ButteBag's question: We have an article about General aviation. We mention in USA#By private plane that you can charter flights and that it can be competitive in price with (first-class) commercial flights. So why shouldn't we mention airports for general aviation in destination articles?
Remember, what makes WV unique is that, because it's not bound by the limits of print media, it can include details like GA airports. Simply listing them out is a little bit useful; you could figure out the same thing using a map. Listing charter operations provides a little more value. What I'd really like to see is actual travel info such as info on how to get to/from these airfields.
If nothing else, I don't buy your argument that these airports are "for all intents and purposes closed to the public". It's exactly the opposite; these air charter companies are open for anyone to buy a flight. --Bigpeteb (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you. This is Wikivoyage. Private plane travel is a type of voyage and very much in scope for the site, just as private boating is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I put back the content in the Boston article. Maybe should however not just concentrate on jet planes but any general aviation. Most people I know who use private and charter planes are using prop-planes or helicopters, but agree private jets are also a valid form of transport. Agree with comments above what would be really useful with these airports is what transport is available to get from the airport to centre of town; closest hire car station, phone number of local taxi service. Also I have found some very good restaurants attached to even the smallest of airfields. Also some of this detail could be moved to other more local city pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure they are. I see no problem with adding information for getting in by general aviation. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but would you at least give me that travel by private jet is staggeringly less popular than other modes of transport? Could this information be captured in an article like Luxury jet travel in the United States? Or maybe we should expand the scope of airport articles to include non-commercial/private air strips? Either would be a better solve in my opinion. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Jet maybe exclusive but light aircraft not. This is a common form of transport and with coming new technologies even more so. We should not start excluding particular types of traveller on this site. How can you judge who is and who should read pages on this site. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this topic is within scope, but I share ButteBag's concern that for most destinations it's only of interest to a tiny fraction of travelers. I suppose there's nowhere else to put it besides the destination articles, but let's keep it as concise as possible. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with concision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
But if the info will only be useful to a handful of people, why not consolidate it on a singe topic page instead of spreading it across (eventually) 1000's of destination pages? Or expanding on Traveler100's comment, why not create a "Tiny Airport" template? We could list any options for transport, food, lodging and so on. --ButteBag (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure where the problem is? Small airports should be dealt with on the closest location page same as a bus station or train station with a type=go listing. Charter flight companies the same as a bus or train company with a mention if useful for travelers in the area. More general non location information added at General aviation. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Exclusive hotels are also only available to a handful of wealthy travellers, but covering them all in a single article, as opposed to the location article which best suits, would be preposterous.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I highly doubt someone will suddenly "clutter" tons of articles with this information. Also, it is likely useful for places like northern Canada or the Australian outback where general aviation isn't that an exotic way for getting around. If it is moved to one article, given that probably not even a dozen of Wikivoyage's destination articles have information about general aviation, that article is not only going to be as spotty as agritourism but unless the reader is already familiar with Wikivoyage, chances that they will find that information is next to none. ϒψιλον (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The information that would be needed for the typical Cessna 172 on a trip can easily be condensed into a couple of sentences. The relevant questions to answer are somewhat along the lines of:
  • How long's the runway, and what surface does it have?
  • Can I get fuel there?
  • Is the place equipped for an instrument approach or is it VFR only?
  • Can I just go ahead and fly there or do I have to give them a call first (prior permission required/PPR)?
  • Can I get customs/immigration services there?
This is how I recently added that kind of information to Bayreuth. And these bare essentials is pretty much all that needs to be there for a pilot to get an idea about whether that's a destination to consider for a stop. Everything else (callsigns, frequencies, traffic patterns, approach procedures, weight limitations, …) will have to be looked up in the most recent version of the official documents anyway.
Apart from that, I think it would be a good idea to think about undeleting Template:ICAO for use in this context (and only there). Outside of the airline business, the ICAO location indicator is actually quite important, as that's what you typically use for your route planning and what you enter into your navigation system to set a waypoint. For example, the en:Garmin G1000 allows you to enter an airport's ICAO-code or search the built-in database for the airport's or city's name, but the letters "IATA" are not even mentioned once in the whole user's manual. I know that the ICAO-code does not play a large role in Canada and the US (it's the same as IATA plus one letter for larger airports and does not exist for the very small ones). But in Germany, Austria and probably other European countries, this is the only kind of location identifier code you will find on a VFR-map. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The cities in which I am creating private aviation details for are all home to busy aviation markets, both high-end and budget, with multiple "private" airports that are 100% open to the public, and have FBOs/charter operators based on-site. I'm also including companies that specialize in services to these airports from other locations. I'm using Wyvern, FlightAware, the FAA, and google search to find & validate all of my information. Please advise as to whether or not I should continue adding private aviation details to city pages. --ReadyJetGo (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@ReadyJetGo: I think you have consensus to continue. Thank you for your contributions. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @El Grafo: and @ReadyJetGo: I think the one thing I'd advise you to keep in mind (and maybe this should be discussed in a WV style guide, but I don't know what page is suitable for discussing general aviation airport listings) is "who is the target audience", and what information to include and what to omit. For example, while charter flights may tend towards jet aircraft, in the US there are about twice as many piston single and multi GA aircraft as there are turboprops and jets. Information like "is customs/immigration available" could be useful for any traveller, but info on runways, fuel/services, etc., in addition to being only useful to pilots is also something they'd need to confirm and research in much more detail anyway while planning a flight, so listing it here provides only marginal utility. In northern Canada or Alaska where GA is a more common way of getting around, it might be helpful to give such basic airfield details to save the reader a little bit of time as they research and pick destinations, but giving such details for airports around a large US city would probably not very helpful. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@ARR8: Thanks. I was concerned that my edits were being invalidated and just wanted clarification/green light before making more edits. I will take into consideration the niche aspect of private jet travel. I'm not including private/prior permission required/military airports, or anything further than 50 miles that isn't frequently used. That said, charter flights on single & twin engine props can start as low as $1500 - $2000 an hour via charter brokers, and slightly less through charter operators (which entails renting the entire aircraft, contracting/paying individually). Light jets (not the pretty ones anyway) aren't much more. These regional/county/municipal airports are also used to service shared flights and unscheduled charters, where you can purchase individual seats for substantially less. I also think ButteBag may have been thrown off by my Boston edit due to the fact that I only mentioned private/business jet travel, whereas all my other edits include single & twin engine aircraft as economical options. I'm going to include this in the Boston page, and browse my edits to make sure it's included in previous entries. My goal is to help these pages rank for private aviation within these cities, as WV has substantial SEO potential, and to expand the type of information available to readers looking for flight options in these regions. --ReadyJetGo (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bigpeteb: My target audience has been affluent neighborhoods, executive travelers, and HNWIs in cities with busy private aviation markets. The airports I'm using include charter brokers, charter operators, and/or customs & immigration services. I'm also including those companies in the content - by reaching out to them, readers can get all of their questions answered from industry professionals. I'm not wasting time including runway details or fuel services, although I am including FBOs/private terminals, it's relation to the city, and why it's often used for GA and business jets. --ReadyJetGo (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed minor adjustment to duplicate pagebanners rule[edit]

I propose that, in certain limited situations, pagebanners for a region may also be used for a phrasebook. For example, according to the text in Bashkir phrasebook, people speak that language in a specific region called Bashkortostan. Therefore, the banner used in Bashkortostan should be, IMO, used in the Bashkir phrasebook article as well.

Doing this would make it much easier to have custom pagebanners for phrasebooks.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of not convinced. Basically, you're saying that languages with relatively small numbers of speakers shouldn't have unique pagebanners? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
In the case of phrasebooks, I think that the default banner is good and is coloured unlike the main default banners. So there is little benefit to the reader in changing for the sake of it. It is more likely that a reader will have the region and phrasebook pages open at the same time that two phrasebooks. AlasdairW (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not particularly for or against this idea, but just to point out that the Welsh phrasebook already uses the same banner as Wales, and there may well be other duplicates like this already. I don't think that really impacts negatively on reader perceptions of Wikivoyage, even though I personally would prefer a banner depicting the written Welsh language.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a banner that represents the language involved would be my preference too. Specially when another alphabet is used in the language. --FredTC (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think a banner that represents the language or a banner that represents the destination is good – maybe it depends on the language in question. I don't think there's a need to duplicate the banner for Bashkortostan – it has many beautiful images on Commons, so we can easily make two good banners. In some cases it might make sense for the phrasebook banner to emphasize a different aspect of the destination than the region/country banner. For instance, since most travelers to Bashkortostan wouldn't need the phrasebook (they can just use Russian), maybe the phrasebook banner can focus on some cultural attraction that might be harder to access without speaking the language, rather than scenery like the region banner. (That's similar to what I tried to do with the Dhivehi phrasebook banner.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we should strive for each page to have a unique banner, but failing that, I think a pagebanner that's also used elsewhere is still better than the default banner. And I think that also holds true for articles other than phrasebooks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Page banners look different, have errors[edit]

Something has happened to the pagebanners, and I see it both in Safari and Firefox and both on laptop and phone. First I noticed the names of articles are written in a different font (though this is not much of a problem). But then I noticed markers in the upper right corner are all blacked out (the Star article marker has turned into a barely visible black star). Check out for instance Bali that has all three types of markers (UNESCO World Heritage Site, Star article, Previous DotM). ϒψιλον (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Seeing this too. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also seeing this on Chrome for mobile.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This is my fault; I was moving rules out of the global styles into the individual styles for the pagebanner template. It worked fine in testing, but it seems there are some issues I haven't accounted for. I've requested both interface admins to undo the change. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey ARR8! If you have the access and interest to do this, I got consensus awhile back to try out a new banner style. I never implemented it because I don't have the permissions to do so. Check out the styles here: User:ButteBag/common.css. If it's not your thing no big deal, figured I'd ask while you're poking around in there already. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Ha, I thought I had the access, but today's incident shows that I don't. Thanks for the information, though; I'm compiling all of this sort of thing to the wv:UX Expedition, and I'll put it on the list. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tyrol[edit]

Half done job on sub-regions. Would welcome comment at Talk:Tyrol on what to do with this area. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagreements regarding Austria[edit]

There is some disagreement - as evidenced by the edit history - whether and if so how to mention certain aspects of Austria's current political landscape and twentieth century history. Please opine here or on the talk page so that we can avoid an edit war Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The talk page would be the best forum for this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with both of you, will check it out. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

NSW drought...[edit]

https://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/water/allocations-availability/droughts-floods/update

Whilst this doesn't look as serious as the situation was in South Africa, does Wikivoyage have a policy on when 'drought's should be mentioned from a traveller perspective? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we have or need a specific policy on droughts; the traveller comes first covers it sufficiently. I'd say droughts that are of substantial duration or might have any affect on a visitor absolutely should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cliché views and what to find beyond them[edit]

The view of Hallstatt that everyone knows.

Johnny Harris made a great video about tourist clichés; well-known places, views and activities which might get over-exploited, with Hallstatt in Austria as a case study. He says some words about how to find experiences beyond them. What could writers of Wikivoyage learn of this video? If we describe a tourist attraction which gets overcrowded, overpriced or compromised, should we give advice about times to avoid the worst stampede? Or alternative attractions nearby? /Yvwv (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, perhaps when we show pictures of famous tourist destintaions, we could do ones that aren't so well-known. Like for London, if we tried to show some sites besides the most famous ones. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above suggestions. These are all fundamental features of a successful travel guide.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe somewhere about the WV:Banner expedition it talks about choosing pagebanners that show a more unique view of the place pictured. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Both the banners of Austria and Hallstatt are shots of Hallstatt similar to the picture mentioned above, but in reverse angle. /Yvwv (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Still, the way I see it, if it's a nice place, no harm is done in photographing it. If the banner for these two pages are considered too similar, though, the one for Austria could perhaps be changed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Scroll gallery[edit]

Moved from Wikivoyage talk:Travellers' pub

In the German version of Wikivoyage the Scroll Gallery, exists. It serves to present a picture sequence. Up to 30 pictures can be presented. If this would be adapted to the English version, that would put an end to the tiresome discussions of too many pictures.

https://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Vorlage:Scroll_Gallery

User:DocWoKav 4. March 2019

As I have stated on DocWoKav's talk page, I'm not an expert at code for this, but our friends at the WV:UX Expedition, I'm sure, could look into this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Examples of this in use are de:Alexandria/Ost and de:Canberra. I think that the Alexandia example looks better due to the use of the maxHeight parameter, which stops the rest of the page jumping as the images are scrolled. AlasdairW (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it adapted to the mobile version? This may be great!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
We don't have to import anything. It's now a built-in feature of the gallery tag: gallery mode="slideshow". See User:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox for a trivial example. Yuriy, I don't think that this (the gallery tag slideshow) works for mobile. Please let me know if you'd like work-me to figure out whether there's been a request for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I think the mobile version should require the Scroll gallery. Reduce many images to appear on one page at the same time.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
phab:T194887. I pinged you in the comment, so it should be easy to find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I can login to that site to comment. I'll give my response to this:
With a volunteer hat on: Does this also mean the end of the archaic image policy on Wikivoyage? https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal_use_of_images
Answer: Not necessarily. This is still subject to discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Any editor can log in there. It's the same accounts, etc. Click the "Log In" button in the top bar, and then click the "Log In or Register MediaWiki" button. OAuth will probably ask you to authorize it, but you'll be logged in via your regular Wikivoyage account. (Jon, if you want to talk content policies, this is probably a better venue. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"that would put an end to the tiresome discussions of too many pictures." - It was my understanding that the concern mentioned on Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal_use_of_images about "too many photos" was performance, which frankly is terribly misinformed. I'd love to see more images on English Wikivoyage and would help do anything I can to get the gallery template working in mobile to support this. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
ps. seems to works perfectly on mobile. Good job! Jdlrobson (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think performance is the only issue. There are important questions of style that are encapsulated in the following statement: "Minimal use of images doesn't mean none. Instead, it means enough images to illustrate the text and show some of the highlights but not so many as to overwhelm the text and turn the article into a photo gallery." Of course, Commons is the Wiki where there are galleries, so why, other than to avoid conflict from Wikivoyage users who are inspired to put thumbnails into every square centimeter and then go far beyond the end of the article, would we change that policy? I strongly suggest you read the long thread at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Minimal use of images - not appropriate, including the Resolution? section. Also, watch your rhetoric. You won't get more supporters by putting up straw men like "This is absolutely not a reason to prohibit adding images on article" or ridiculing the entire long-established idea that Wikivoyage is primarily a text, not a photo gallery. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates for foreign words[edit]

One thing that's always surprised me is that WV has no markup or templates for foreign words. Per wv:Foreign words words in Roman letters (or romanizations) should be written in italics, but that's it. No HTML markup, no templates.

Compare this to WP, which has templates for everything. In particular, w:Template:Nihongo and the reversed w:Template:Nihongo3 are widely used, and closely match what how foreign words are presented on WV.

Why is this important? Well, aside from enforcing consistency in the order of words and formatting them in italics, the templates wrap text with HTML tags to indicate the language (English, foreign, romanized, etc.). In Chinese and Japanese text, the language tags can actually be necessary and not just a luxury, because there's no other way to distinguish which form of a hanzi/kanji character to use (traditional, Chinese-simplified, or Japanese-simplified). It can similarly be helpful in right-to-left languages like Arabic and Hebrew text when there's Roman lettering mixed in. It also helps screenreaders so they can use different pronunciation rules, and can help any bot that scrapes and interprets content.

See also https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-lang-why.

Is anyone in favor of creating and beginning to use such templates on WV? Would it be worthwhile and feasible to create a bot to try to automatically convert text in existing articles to use such templates, or is that a fool's errand? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Count me as 100% in favor of providing structure to non-English content. This could be very useful for (e.g.) apps that translate on the fly or finding search terms or providing preferred fonts (particularly for non-Latin languages), etc. I see several benefits and no downsides other than some work but no one is mandating that everyone change every instance of "pommes frites" to "{{lang|fr|pommes frites}}" immediately. Like a lot of changes, we can can course in policy, slowly change our habits, and maybe have some bots or semi-automated tools help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems user-unfriendly for editors. And it won't enforce consistency because a lot of people won't use the new templates, just as they don't follow conventions on capitalization, not touting, not listing ordinary tours, etc., etc. It seems like it'll just create a lot more work for someone, with very little difference in what the reader sees. And I think a greater explanation is needed for why templates are needed for Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, etc., when we seemingly haven't needed them for all these years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
It is more difficult for editors, especially new and pass-by editors (which are more important for us than for Wikipedia). But as tools get better, the advantage of good markup increases. The examples Bigpeteb mentions were probably irrelevant ten years ago, as the software would't choose appropriate fonts or adapt pronunciation. I suppose the advantage still affects only a minority of readers, so I'd support keeping our present "keep it simple" policy, except where the value is clear – but choosing appropriate hanzi/kanji seems to me to be such a clear advantage. Perhaps language templates could be used in these limited cases. --LPfi (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I think the "alt" field in listings shows exactly why we have needed language templates like this for a very long time. The "alt" field awkwardly tries to serve as both "romanized name" and "name in native script(s)" and "alternative/former/other name". That's why it has hacks like "if the first character of 'alt' is a non-roman character, don't italicize the field", in which case editors must manually italicize if the field contains both foreign script and a romanization, and then there's no place to separately add an actual alternate name, and... it's a mess. I think the correct solution from the beginning should have been to have language templates, and use them in the "name" field and anywhere else that's appropriate. For example, such a listing might look like {{learn |name={{japanese|University of Tokyo|東京大学|Tōkyō daigaku}} |alt={{japanese|Todai|東大|Tōdai}} or UTokyo, formerly the {{japanese|Imperial University|帝國大學|Teikoku daigaku}} |...}}. Styles would take nesting into account, making sure that only one part of the primary name gets bolded, and romanizations are always italicized. Dynamic maps would have multiple names available, and could display all of them, or perhaps have a user setting to choose whether to show English, foreign, or romanized names. Editors would have easy but useful abilities like easily being able to reverse the name without losing any of the formatting or the markup that's helpful for bots (example: * {{listing |name={{japanese-rev|Japan Bridge|日本橋|Nihon-bashi}} |price=Free}} would generate "* Nihon-bashi (日本橋, "Japan Bridge"). Free.").
Is this more complex than formatting things manually? Perhaps so, but I wouldn't say it's any more complex than Mediawiki markup in general. (I can't tell you how many times I've miscount the number of quote in something like '''''croissant''''', so '''{{french|croissant}}''' to me is easier to get right even if it's a little more typing.) Is it user-unfriendly, something that a lot of people will ignore? Well, users will ignore whatever rules they want to, and in fact on WV we encourage them to edit even if it's not perfect, since someone else can come along later and fix it up. I would think/hope it's easier than, say, looking up correct coordinates for a listing. But the fact that something is slightly more difficult or that new users might not use it has not stopped us from making other changes; let's not use that as an argument for or against this, either. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you can designate yourself the editor who inserts all those codes all the time. I do a hell of a lot of patrolling and don't look forward to doing these kinds of edits, so I may choose to ignore them. I hope that doesn't sound unfriendly; we all choose what to do with the time we choose to volunteer on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
VisualEditor will add the HTML markup for you (from the character formatting menu, <span dir="ltr" lang="es">como éste</span>), and I prefer that to trying to remember which template name is used on which wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That is odd. I understand using a menu is easier than remembering what to write, but HTML is not easier for editors than mediawiki templates. If we do not want that code, using VE to insert it is not better than inserting it by hand. And why dir="ltr" (left-to-right)? Isn't that implied by the page being in English and the phrase in Spanish? --LPfi (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that the direction is supposed to be specified for everything, even if it "should" be obvious. There are a few wikis where I find that I have to specify three components to get English displayed properly: <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> (This is probably not required for span tags, as they don't affect whole paragraphs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Boilerplate like that is precisely the problem that templates solve. I don't know whether the ltr tags are required or not, but by putting it in a template, we can consistently apply and change formatting everywhere (for example, if we at first decide the ltr tag isn't needed but then find some browser that requires it). --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bigpeteb: I think you're making some good points here. I added some localized text by hand recently, and it was a pain. There's definitely some benefit to be had from language templates. However, I think they may also be a bit premature for this community. While we do have some text in other languages, we have many more instances of foreign currencies and measures with units, and we have had templates for them for a long time now (see, e.g. {{EUR}} and {{km}}); still, nearly all mentions of a unit or currency are regular untemplated prose, and this is despite concrete benefits, for all readers, coming from those templates (i.e. automatic currency conversion tooltips and non-breaking spaces). I would much rather see those templates made ubiquitous, something I've been working towards when I can (and hope others join me), than the addition of some more. When that's done, I'd see a much stronger case for language templates. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine dining[edit]

While the vast majority of us here (unless Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or Jack Ma are among our editors) will not get to try this too often, I was wandering if this would be a valid travel topic. The experience of fine dining is most certainly different from street food, or even from normal restaurants. The dog2 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Also, an itineraries that take you through all the Michellin-starred restaurants in an area would likely be fun reading, even for us non-billionaires. I understand that some of them have attached accommodations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In Japan, there are many luxury accommodations (ryokan) that include a fine-dining kaiseki meal as part of your stay or as an optional add-on, which is only available to guests staying at those accommodations (i.e. you can't just book the meal without staying there). I'm not sure if there's any equivalent in Europe or North America. The dog2 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree this would be a good topic. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a misconception that fine dining is equivalent to expensive dining. If you want a nice atmosphere, table and napkin cloth, real cutlery and porcelain dishes, perhaps even on an exclusive address, it should not have to cost you more than the price of 2-3 happy meals. People eating fast food are the ones getting ripped-off. Philaweb (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Was going to say the same thing. I've had some very affordable fine dining meals in cities such as Bath and Barcelona, and conversely some overpriced bad alleged fine dining experiences in London. Either way, this is most certainly within our scope. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
An experience was in the restaurant of a five star hotel in Copenhagen about ten years ago (I just walked in from the street to check out the place). A gourmet burger with all ingredients prepared by the chef. Home baked bun, thick french fries and three kinds of dip. I had a hard time eating it all, but what a heavenly joy. 105 Danish kroner. After that I went to the nearest McD to check out the price of a happy meal... damn! Philaweb (talk)
My understanding is that fine dining is always expensive, but expensive dining is not necessarily fine dining. But anyway, how expensive it is depends on where you go. You can get fine dining for about US$100 per head in Bangkok, but you most certainly won't find any fine dining for less than US$300 per head in New York City, London, Hong Kong or Tokyo. US$100 may be peanuts for Americans and Brits, but it is way beyond the reach of your average working class Thai. The dog2 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I am certain that the average working class [insert your preference here] has other things to worry about than fine dining. When that said, anyone with an interest in fine dining can afford this in most of Western Europe – but, you have to be vigilant, there are many ripp-offs. A thumbs rule is not to order beverages to the meal, especially not alcohol, then you can kiss the affordability goodbye. In the Nordic countries noone expects tip, so this makes affordability straight forward (the price on the menu card is the total amount). Fine dining is possible for €20. Philaweb (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
PS. The most expensive steak I ever had was in Eastern Europe. They should have advertised it with: "Hand over your wallet, we'll take what we need". I guess only local oligarchs and western tourists can afford fine dining there. Philaweb (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I started the article, so please plunge forward and add to it. The dog2 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article has a narrower scope than "fine dining". It says: "Fine dining refers to a particularly refined form of dining that is usually employs more creative chefs than regular dining. Many chefs of fine-dining establishments are international celebrities.". The right term is gourmet dining (w:en:Gourmet). And then you are right, it is very expensive. Philaweb (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Maps were out[edit]

Just FYI: maps weren't displaying to some people for a bit; they're fixed now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Note to admins[edit]

Please see a comment I am posting at WV:Vandalism in progress. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What to do with pages created by banned accounts[edit]

For banned accounts that are not "vandals" exactly, there is some discussion in the abuse filers about whether to delete pages created by them (or sockpuppets) or to let the pages remain. A lot of this concern has been around the Igls OTBP nomination.

Personally, I think we should keep the content because our main mission is to serve the traveler. However, I think any articles created by, for example, AC's IP addresses should be kept, but only at a low profile. In other words, pages created by such a user should not give them too much attention. I think it is a poor idea to publicize these pages too much, if you see what I mean. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The other issue is that users whose work has proven to be unreliable in the past, due to ideologically-based distortions of facts, needs to be verified with extra care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said in the OtBP nomination for Igls, by just looking at the article it could've been written by any "normal" editor and therefore it should not be deleted, even if it's not featured. If someone has time, it might be a good idea to have a look at the other articles the IP has contributed to, and anything even vaguely problematic should be deleted and hidden, but articles that there's nothing wrong with should not be deleted. ϒψιλον (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that if an article is good and well-developed (not like the stubs by the Telstra man), deleting it would actually be an act of vandalism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Main page banners[edit]

I think we ought to decide whether in future we should upload DOTM banners to Commons or here. I'm considering doing some banners for Southern Ridges Walk but before I post them, I want it to be clear to where I should upload the banners, and whether to accomplish that goal, I need to use GIMP or Croptool. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Another tool - ImageMagick ...
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any dispute about where Main Page banners should be uploaded. It is important that they be uploaded locally, so that local control of this very important content can be maintained. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
There's certainly no dispute in the case of featured banners, but I can't see any reason to locally keep banners still under consideration. Once they get selected, they can be copied over. Especially so since this means that banners made from scratch, that aren't a crop of an existing image, never get seen by most of our sister projects. I recently copied over such an image myself. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: The above comment is why I brought this up. I just want to be sure; there's no dispute. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Roadsign footers[edit]

This has been bugging me. What is the rationale for the standard footer showing highways through a locality? It's covered by "Get in" where relevant, but that's often not the best travel route; indeed WV advises against taking a car into many big cities. Accepted it is also used for railways and ferries etc, but less often, and appropriately so. There are plenty of examples where it's helpful, but mostly it feels like a knee-jerk, falsely prioritising King Car. The example that set me off was the airport article for London Stansted, since what you don't do is drive there, experience it then drive on elsewhere. I suggest these footers should be used where they tell the traveller something he / she doesn't already know and would find useful; they shouldn't be an automatic add-on. Grahamsands (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of routeboxes are to list in sequential order all the destinations that will be passed by a traveller on a particular route. Also, routeboxes do not only list roads; see Boston for an example of a multimodal one. Please see Wikivoyage:Routebox navigation for more information about routeboxes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to create a routebox for Main Donau Kanal and Romantic Road. We might also wish to create one for Elbe Radweg Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Flight rights[edit]

Should we have an article with all the common flight right websites and their costs and services? I would appreciate an overwiew. Maybe we can add the rating of trustpilot?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please could you explain. Do you mean websites about your consumer rights when flying as an airline passenger? websites giving details of where you have a right to fly your aircraft, drone or hang-glider?, or is it flight booking and comparison websites? AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I meant website where you can reclaim money if your flight was delayed and cancelled. Many charge a lot of money but there are cheap alternatives. I thought it would be a good idea to give travellers an overview of all the big sights. Nevertheless, in addition it might also be a good point listing the specific links of airlines where you can make a claim. Many have such forms in place, like Eurowings: https://www.eurowings.com/de/4u/online-service-ausgleichsanspruch.html
Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You may now become 'Wikivoyage — A Wikipedia project'[edit]

According to this discussion at Meta, Wikimedia Foundation is considering rebranding. This means for you, that rather than Wikivoyage being a Wikimedia project, it would become a Wikipedia project.

The proposed changes also include

  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.

While raising such awareness in my opinion is a good thing, do you think classifying you as a 'Wikipedia' project would cause confusion? Do you think newcomers would have a high risk of erroneously applying some of Wikipedia principles and policies here which do not apply? If so, what confusion? Could you please detail this. I have raised a query about that HERE in general, but I am looking for specific feedback.

Please translate this message to other languages. --Gryllida (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure where to stand on this; I'm not strongly opposed to the idea, but at the same time we do, currently, clearly state that we're not Wikipedia. The above seems to go against that philosophy.
However, I think WV is gradually moving from the "old-fashioned" (in quotes because it's not really old-fashioned) travel guide style to a more modern Wikipedia-influenced travel guide with plenty of general information that implies, indirectly, rather than directly, to travelers. This shows strongest in many of our articles where WP content is used, and our many travel topic articles. More Wikidata content is being used by the month, and more integration in that process, and the whole idea of including coordinates is encouraging integration with WD. Therefore, I see a lot of connections, and by saying "Wikivoyage - a Wikipedia project", a good chance of getting more interested readership. The point is, I think in that last few years we've come a long way, and even made some progress in this area since I joined in late 2017, so I see large benefits and minor downsides. However, I can imagine why a rebranding of this nature may be unpopular with many Wikivoyage users who come from before this was a Wikimedia project and, therefore, a sister project of Wikipedia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi SelfieCity. Thank you for this feedback. I am glad to know that the two projects share a lot in common. As an alternative, how would you feel about changing 'a Wikimedia project' to 'a Wikimania project' to address the concerns raised by Wikimedia in their proposal, while this does not create confusion with Wikipedia? How would you think of such an alternative change? --Gryllida (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Related discussion: voting no due to serious CC/SA violating on WV, started by SpendrupsForAll. Gryllida (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Sour grapes, with a probable side of conflict of interest. Spendrups was banned indefinitely from editing Wikivoyage after a short but incredibly disruptive history of participation here, which began shortly after the fork from Wikitravel and was characterized by a provocative and antagonistic series of edits with a hardline pro-Wikitravel and anti-Wikivoyage bias that community consensus held to be suspicious, especially in the wake of other, proven cases of trolls and vandals with essentially identical patterns of behavior whose IP addresses traced back to Internet Brands servers. It's notable that the issue he's griping about is a long-ago deprecated footer that used to be attached to each article that included a weblink to its analogous article on Wikitravel, whose removal does not actually do anything to remove proper attribution to Wikitravel contributors but does deny Wikitravel an avenue for site traffic. I would highly recommend you regard any contributions to your discussion from him through that lens. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Gryllida: does Meta have a "no legal threats" policy similar to ours? A big part of the rationale behind Spendrups' userban was the Wikivoyage community's conclusion that he was acting on behalf of a company that had engaged in litigation against us that could not truly have been said to be resolved by the settlement of the lawsuit, given the aforementioned subsequent pattern of trolling from Internet Brands. If there is such a policy, you might confer with the appropriate parties about getting that account globally locked, since the lawsuit was against the Wikimedia Foundation, and not Wikivoyage in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you think asking Wikimedia Legal about this is a good idea? Gryllida (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Gryllida - Well, one impediment for Wikivoyage in dealing with Spendrups - and, indeed, the reason why it took so long for us to get around to userbanning him - is his low volume of edits. His M.O. was to disappear for months at a time, only to pop back up again in some random projectspace discussion with another hostile attack that would sow disruption as intended, then disappear into the ether again, not even bothering to follow up on the responses to his own comment, which in our minds would obviate the need for further action. (Similarly to that: if I were you, I would not be holding my breath for a reply to the follow-up question you posed to him at Meta.) If he behaves on other WMF sites the way he's behaved here, he's not going to be a persistent problem, so I doubt it's worth your time to get Legal involved. But in terms of the amount of disruption he can wreak with a single edit, he's going to punch way above his weight, so a userban may be worth exploring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record meta:Special:CentralAuth/SpendrupsForAll.
Renaming shouldn't be a problem for us. As ARR said below, our Main Page was recently changed to clearly show that we're a sister project of Wikipedia, a site that I think almost every Internet user knows nowadays. ϒψιλον (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
We recently had a discussion that may be of interest, on changing the main page text. Some of the proposals included language about being part of the Wikimedia family. In the end, as the main page shows, it was decided that "sister site of Wikipedia" was the best phrasing, for multiple reasons outlined in that discussion, but partly because the name recognition of Wikipedia is stronger than that of Wikimedia. So, effectively, we have already come to the same conclusion, and have consensus in support of the rebrand. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I have not followed the discussion on Meta and have no time to do that now, but I am sceptic. Naming all projects after the most popular one seems to me a marketing trick, not a way to clarify matters. It seems to be a popular tactic among marketing folks, but a tactic were the interests of the company, not the consumers (or our case the readers and the editing community), is in focus. I am often angry at the tactic because of the confusion it causes.
I am concerned that the suggestion is a result of marketing tactics being given too much influence, when the project family has roots in popular education, which I find much more suitable. I know we have problems with getting enough readers and editors, but focusing on marketing tactics will make us not better, but more like our competitors.
A completely separate issue is that there has been a concern in sister projects that people forget them, as Wikipedia draws all the attention. Naming the family "Wikipedia" will not help with that.
--LPfi (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I like being a Wikimedia project. I also predict that this will harm Wikimedia Commons, where there are already many people who think of that site as just an adjunct to Wikipedia and vote against featuring any picture or even considering it a quality image if they think (sometimes wrongly) it will not be of any use in illustrating Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia does sound somewhat formal and changing the name or brand of the overall organisation to "Wikimania" or something like that may sound more exciting. And the smaller wikis including Wikivoyage can then say they are part of Wikimania. Confusing us with Wikipedia won't help anyone. Gizza (roam) 09:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK with changing the name of the umbrella organization to Wikimania and agree on all other points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with ARR8 that Wikipedia is a much stronger brand than Wikimedia, and as others have pointed out, that's why we changed our main page to refer to Wikipedia. It makes sense to associate ourselves with the more well-known project. If Wikimedia isn't a strong brand, changing it to Wikimania, which is even less well-known and doesn't sound like a serious project, will make things even worse. Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, Wikimania is (at least as of now) just the name of the annual event, nothing more. ϒψιλον (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
To me, "Wikimania" sounds like we're joining insanity, and considering how many unusual wikis there must be in the world, I think calling ourselves a "Wikimania" project would make us sound as if we weren't serious about what we are doing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the status quo is just fine. In policy pages such as Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals and Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians, we take pains to emphasize the differences between the scope of this site and that of Wikipedia. Having a symbiotic relationship with Wikipedia and the other sites in the WMF family is a good thing, and we're already using our status as a WMF site to our mutual advantage by e.g. including interwiki links to analogous articles on each site, managing some content through Wikidata where appropriate, etc. But I fear that identifying Wikivoyage too closely with Wikipedia sends mixed messages to newbies, especially ones who are already active on Wikipedia. We have enough trouble already dealing with inappropriately encyclopedic content added to our articles by people confused about what our scope is, and we've also had issues in the past with culture clash vis-à-vis differences in our respective site policies. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Please join the brainstorming page at Meta, at your convenience: at minimum share your opinion of Wikipedia, and Wikimedia, as the suggested names; how to best make them clearer to readers; at maximum please spare your precious time to comment on other names or propose your own. Cheers, --Gryllida (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

China regionalization tweaking[edit]

Please look at Talk:China#Southwest China region and express your opinion about some proposed changes to the regional groupings of provinces in the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The changes were agreed to, but now, we need someone to change the static maps for China, East China, South China (formerly Southeast China), Southwest China and South-central China. The changes needed: (1) Guangxi was moved from Southwest China to South China (formerly Southeast China); (2) Fujian was moved from the former Southeast China (now South China) to East China; (3) Sichuan and Chongqing were moved from South-central China to Southwest China. Anyone who would like to take on this important task would be much appreciated! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination to turn "don't delete real places" standard into policy[edit]

This just came up again at VFD, and it seems to me that we could save quite a lot of time if we added to policy that real places cannot be deleted, only redirected or merged. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That is policy. We make an exception for page creation vandalism, but otherwise, it's been policy since long before I was first editing here as an IP user, I think, and that takes it back to 2006 or earlier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there a policy page that includes it, though? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. I didn't see anything conclusive at wiaa or Wikivoyage:How to redirect a page. But I think it's most relevant in the introduction to the vfd page, because this relates not to creating redirects from scratch but turning articles that don't meet wiaa into redirects instead of nominating them at vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It's just that, I think we should make it very clear if we're going to hold to this viewpoint strongly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree. It's surprising this policy has never been clearly written down. It should be in the introduction to vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Whaaaat, isn't this written out anywhere? Policies should always be written down at a place people can logically expect to find them, otherwise they can't be called policies. ϒψιλον (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Spain region breakdown[edit]

I think the current region breakdwon of Spain is flawed, especially in that it does not properly account for the Basque and Catalan regions and their uniqueness. More can be found on the talk page. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing (including WP link) instead of marker for cities/towns (on region level) that do not have a WV article yet but only a WP article?[edit]

... this way, travellers have the opportunity to head to the WP article to find at least a little information. As long as we do not have an article ourself.

Would you agree with something like this? Could we make it a general rule? Example: Valles Calchaquíes.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, but it would take a lot of work because we have created so many markers for towns and cities. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's definitely no reason, I feel, to use listings over markers. However, it should be possible to add some code to the marker template so that, if there is no WV page, it displays a Wikipedia icon automatically. I'd be happy to work on that, but, coincidentally, there's an ongoing RFC on the cosmetic look of the Wikipedia icon in our listings that should be settled first. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If wikidata id is present in the marker, should be able to get the appropriate language wikipedia entry... relying on the name parameter not so much as the article title in wikivoyage may differ from that of found in wikipedia... (from adding wikidata ids I noted that some have neither a wikidata id or a matching wikipedia article) just a thought. -- Matroc (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess it would be hard for the marker to identify whether the name is a WV link to an article or not, wouldn't it. But if we add the WP and WD functionality (I actually thought it was there in the past), we can add this information gradually. Never was there the need to do everything at once.
Also, I would not treat markers and listings different in this sense, by just having the WD id, and deriving WP somehow. Furthermore, many markers now have the WD id, so adding WP would not be so difficult and could even be achieved through a script. @Andree.sk:, would you be able to achieve something like this?
Everything that needs to be changed is that the marker also displays the WP link, if it is available. But, on second thought, if it could be achieved, showing the WP link based on the WD id if there is no WV article sounds also like a good approach. What do you guys think?
Either way, I think the travellers would appreciate more information on-site. And we would push the importance of the Wikimedia Network by keeping users in the network instead of letting them find the information through Google or such.
Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Give walking distances, not times[edit]

"The City Centre is a 5 minute walk from the station"

I bet I can do it in 4. My elderly neighbour would take 15.

Distance should be given thus: "The City Centre is around half a kilometre, by foot, from the station".

Can we adopt this as standard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but don't expect most people to adhere to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It's already in the much-maligned Wikivoyage:Words to avoid under "minutes away". I think a lot of writers use that form because the walking time in what they know from experience. Determining the distance would require using a mapping app. Ground Zero (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The "a few minutes" is often used also when you have no idea how much time it really would take. Hotels "just a few minutes walk" from somewhere may be a few kilometres away. I suppose not only touts do that mistake. One more reason to avoid times. Saying one kilometre when the distance is three is much less common. --LPfi (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Providing walking distance is the most neutral statement. If a path for walking is difficult because of staircases, rough ground or crowds, it should be said. /Yvwv (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, "5 mins from the beach" is a phrase even the pro travel writers I've read seem to be wary of using. "5 mins from the beach...<pause> for a racehorse" was the comment from a humor thread on uk.games.mornington-crescent a while back... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that distances are generally better than times, but I have to admit I often write walking times, because as Ground Zero says, it's what I know from experience. When describing hiking trails, I think a time is useful, because terrain varies so much from trail to trail that it's hard to judge from the distance. For ordinary city walking, better to give the distance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Approximate distance between 2 points (as the crow flies) can be calculated using a Module. Does not take into account any twists, turns and deviations. Experimental code. -- Matroc (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Grand Place to City Hall (Brussels): Approximate distance in miles: 0.031675 Approximate distance in kilometers: 0.052283
To be clear, I don't think distance as the crow flies is very useful. Walking distance is. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Google Maps and other mapping apps will calculate walking distance including twists and turns. I don't know why you'd use something that calculates as-the-crow-flies when you can calculate but accurately and easily with a free app. Ground Zero (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Ground Zero, "minutes away" is not at all the same as "a 5-minute walk". The first is completely vague; the second has a number, though we can discuss it. I posted this "Go next" entry in Manhattan/East Village: "A bit further south but still at most a moderate-distance walk away (15-30 minutes) for a reasonably able-bodied person is Chinatown." I can't be more specific than that because Chinatown is not a point, nor is the East Village, so the distance between the two neighborhoods varies, but the timing I gave should cover pretty much the whole of both neighborhoods, with the caveat I included. As for distances, "as the crow flies" is not useful unless you're a crow. Distances have to be actually walkable. And elevation is sometimes an issue. In San Francisco, you might prefer to walk a longer distance to avoid a steep hill. I guess I'm feeling like numbers, presuming they are a rough average, aren't really that problematic, as long as there aren't a bunch of them under "directions" for hotel or restaurant listings, where they're promotional and should normally be substituted for with geo. Let's not try to ban them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, you should read the explanation of why "minutes away" is in Words to Avoid. It clearly is intended to include "a 5-minute walk". I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:
"How many minutes, on what transport and under what conditions? Distances are routinely underestimated by promoters of venues. Don't claim that Oshawa to Hamilton is "sixty minutes away" if it's 130km on congested Toronto motorways with posted 100km/h limits. Factually state accurate centre-to-centre road distances, or scheduled durations of rail, airline or ferry journeys. "15 minutes from X" can be anything from 1 km to 20+ km away depending on if you walk, drive or ride public transportation; adopt general aviation as a hobby and the sky's the limit."
And as always, WV:WTA is in no way a "ban" on any words: it is a guideline. It is misleading to suggest that WTA is a ban. We try to avoid these words. The reality is that writers will continue to describe distances in imprecise time durations in contributing useful content. If some cares to improve the information for readers by converting these to distances in metres, more power to them. Of course, adding a description of the walking conditions (steep, rough, infested by rabid dogs) is always welcome information, too. Ground Zero (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The examples in WTA are of essentially impossible times (60 minutes for 130 km on congested freeways) and cases in which it's not clear what mode of transportation is being used. The quote you're giving me does not extend to "5-minute walk". And distance is in no way the be-all and end-all. As you know, in places like Midtown Manhattan, a car trip of a half a mile could take more than 30 minutes, and if you're not carrying heavy bags and are able-bodied, your best bet in Midtown is to walk, although walking on streets that are absolutely crushed with crowds can slow you down a lot, too. The best thing would really be to combine distance and time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, you say WTA isn't a ban, but I know that your habit is generally to remove any word on that list that you find in an article. "A 5-minute walk" is better than nothing, so I hope you don't think that phrase is better simply deleted. I would oppose that, as a rule, although I think we should allow less latitude in listings where the claim may be touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That isn't my habit at all. I remove those words (and rephrase the sentence where necessary) if doing do improves the sentence. Per WV:tone, we aim to have writing that is lively, concise, informative, etc. I don't know why you think I would advocate removing useful information. I've made no such suggestion. As I explained above, if someone can improve a description by changing "5-minute walk" to "200-m walk" (or whatever it is), then then should do do. I read Wv:wta to say that distances in length measures are preferred to time measures. It does not say that time measures should be removed. I think it can be tightened up though to avoid confusion. Ground Zero (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could suggest a form of words for us to consider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have made a change to Wv:wta based on the points raised here. If anyone wants to improve if further, they should go ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I strongly prefer walking times for short trips that should be walked, and to have them based on typical "easy" adult walking speeds (which are approximately 12 minutes per kilometer/20 minutes per mile). Telling me that a distance is 200 meters (or 200 yards, or two football fields) means nothing to me. By contrast, I have a pretty clear idea of how my own walking speed compares to a typical walking pace, so if you tell me that it's a three-minute walk, I've got a pretty clear idea of what to expect.
For longer distances (perhaps >1 km, probably >1 mile), distances become relevant again (not including hiking trails or paths with complicated terrain).
(I've partially reverted Ground Zero's change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, I'm not sure about this when it comes to driving. For walking, distances are better, but when driving, a kilometer on city streets is a very different story from a kilometer on a country highway. I think "a 30-minute drive" is fine; the reader can presume this is estimated for ordinary conditions on the roads in question. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing also makes a good point that for short distances, walking time may be more intuitive, whereas distance may be more useful for longer walks. We should allow for editor discretion. We can also provide both distance and time when appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
My experience is that Google once cheated me of 80 km (that I had to ad to the trip) when going from A to B by car in Sweden, and that was approximately 15% of the actual trip. But then again, knowing how much time a long trip might take makes no sense after sitting 2½ hours in a stop'n'go on the autobahn. Giving an estimate of time makes sense to me if it is not too far away. Philaweb (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
PS. I think it is individial to the reader what the person best understands. I have given tourists advise on the street when asked for it, and often when I say "after 500m you shall...", and I can see they keep on walking, they have no idea on distance. Some people simply do not navigate well. Philaweb (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason to prefer one or the other. It can also be deceiving to measure in distances; walking a mile up and down hills on cobblestone streets (i.e. Boston's Freedom Trail) is very different from walking a flat mile on asphalt. Similarly, Captain Obvious dictates that if you know you're a slow walker or elderly, you round up walking distances measured in minutes accordingly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Emoji tag[edit]

I suppose this isn't the right place , but I did not find any better. An edit was tagged as "Emoji". I did not find any emoji in the edit, perhaps the phone icons trigged the tag? Or the space removal between "*" and "{{"? For us the difference between somebody adding emojis or phone icons is quite big, so a better description might be worthwhile, or a change in the range of Unicode code points (I suppose that is how the filter works) could be useful. The tag is described as "defined by the software", so the latter is probably not very easy. In any case it is probably good for patrollers to be aware of the somewhat misleading description. --LPfi (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it ok this being tagged as emoji edit, if someone has added a phone icon directly it usually indicates the entry should be changed to a listing. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Are there any negative effects from it being tagged as "emoji"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It is true that the listing with a phone icon probably needs to be made a listing (like in this case), but it is probably a serious edit, while emojis proper identify test edits or worse. As long as patrollers know that these are identically tagged and don't come to the diff with prejudice, there is no problem. But if one sees the tag and is not aware of this (especially if there are several changes, so that one doesn't see at once there is no emoji), one could suppose other changes are vandalism. In the worst case the edit is undone and the user warned with the patroller never realizing it was a good faith edit. --LPfi (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I created something in userspace modeled after Presidents of the United States[edit]

Have a look. I decided to limit it to "postwar" because the chancellors of Weimar Germany are virtually unknown nowadays and I don't want to link any sort of "shrines to Hitler" (which afaik don't exist) Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Progress with custom page banners (COTM update)[edit]

This month we've been focusing on adding page banners to articles, and this has been going very well. The stats are included on that page and as of 19 March (UTC), we've seen an 18% decrease in standard page banners for non-city articles; the best categories are region articles (standard banners down 35%), travel topics (standard banners down 28%), and phrasebooks (standard banners down 27%).

If you do add a pagebanner to an article, make sure to add the category "Wikivoyage banners of [country/region name]" to the page banner image, and make sure to follow the steps at the Category:Banner missing from Wikidata page. Even if you normally aren't a big cotm person, please feel free to join in and participate in the fun! For those who've contributed to the cotm, thanks so much for your work.

In November 2019 another COTM is scheduled of this nature, custom banners for usable articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to suggest banners? For example, Cycling in the United States is in the list, and any of these images might be feasible: File:Golden Gardens cyclists silhouette 02.jpg, File:Missisquoi Valley Rail Trail St. Albans Vermont.JPG, File:Tour of Utah - Stage Two (28449152780).jpg, or File:Rental bicycles and rack, downtown Nashville.JPG. I don't really want to crop and upload the images myself, but I wouldn't mind looking for source images, if someone else wanted to do the other part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. I've created User:SelfieCity/Banner suggestions where they can be suggested, for now. There's an older page for Wikivoyage:Banner expedition/Banner suggestions that is currently in the vfd process. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)