Open main menu

Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

(Redirected from Pub)
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


Maps instabilityEdit

There are ongoing issues with the sliding maps at the moment. Site administrators are working on it. Until they are resolved, those maps may take more time to load or fail to load completely. Thank you for your understanding and sorry for the disruption. More info available on the linked ticket. --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, JCrespo (WMF). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that takes quite long, JCrespo (WMF). Any news?--Renek78 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I noticed that the maps work well if the zoom is set to 14. Anything else and they don't render properly. For now, I'm setting zoom to 14 even where it is not totally appropriate. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Chenies Manor HouseEdit

w:Chenies_Manor_House - Grade I, Ocassional opening, so worth mentioning as a See item, I'm not sure if it belongs with Amersham/Chesham or given repsective distances with Rickmansworth/ Chorleywood.

I'd like some thoughts on this.

Also does anyone else on Wikivoyage, have a list of Grade I buildings in the UK with public opening? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The posttown is listed as Rickmansworth, so if all other things are equal (distance, ease of access from the population centre - the website mentions no bus service so it's presumably only accessible by car), put it there.
Wikipedia has lists of Grade-I listed buildings by county, though does not mention whether they are open to the public.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
There's (is/was) a Bus (, that runs along the Amersham/Chalfont/Rickmansworth main road, It used to stop outside the Garden Centre. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Rickmansworth looks the closest, and the 103 bus from there goes nearby (15 mins walk) hourly. AlasdairW (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Added a listing. If someone wants to add the bus details, feel free. Should probably add a paragraph concerning the village more generally, It's too small for it's own article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Related:- Where to put a Garden Centre? It's not linked with the Manor House in any way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure Wikivoyage is the place to list garden centres. If for some reason it's relevant to travellers, then the Buy section.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I did add the one at Wendover, previously, but might remove it if the policy is aginst adding them generally, given it's nothing special, apart from the specialist food outlet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "exotic", and making assumptions about our readershipEdit

I just saw two recent edits that included this word: "exotic wildlife" in Bangladesh and "exotic restaurants" in Yongin, Korea. I don't like that word, because it means "strange and foreign to you", with the implication that "you" are a white person from somewhere in what's called the "West". But in 1975 Tokyo, where white people were scarce, unlike today, and white 10-year-olds were so rare that when my parents took me to the zoo, all the Japanese families seemed to be asking to take a picture with me such that I felt I was the animal on display, I was the "exotic" - not to mention when I then went to the rural Malaysia of those days, where people stared, pointed and said "Orang putih!" ("White person!") But that's not the default meaning of the word. Korean food is not "exotic" to me and neither are tropical flora and fauna, because of my own experiences and travels, and to some people, the word is likely to be insulting. I don't think it's useful on a travel site with a worldwide readership, and I think the word should be on "words to avoid", as long as we choose to maintain that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although it is more "use with care" rather "avoid completely". I think that it is acceptable to use it to describe how locals view something. "The inhabitants of <remote fishing village> regard hamburgers as exotic, but scallops are everyday food." AlasdairW (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
And what about stuff that is out of place for where it is? So Tresco Abbey Garden in the Scilly Isles has a frost-free microclimate right by the gulf stream, allowing the mass cultivation of plants (such as bananas, cycads, birds of paradise etc) which are exotic - to Cornwall. The word is meaningful in that sense (indeed, I think exotic is a botanical term, albeit a Eurocentric one).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm with AlasdairW and ThunderingTyphoons!. The word is culturally insensitive in some contexts, but too useful in other contexts to be proscribed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with all of you, but I think virtually all the words on words to avoid are really "think carefully before you use". Perhaps we could discuss a clearer name for that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it was André who made the point a while ago that "Words to avoid" doesn't actually mean "words which must never ever be used", even if sometimes we treat the page that way. Whether it was him or not, we would do well to remember it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've put that in the relevant paragraph of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek because our audience is not, and does not need to be, concentrated completely in the supposedly "non-exotic" countries. For example, certain kinds of birds are considered exotic, and that opinion can be shared universally by identifying those birds' various colors; therefore, I would say that exotic birds are an exception to Words to Avoid. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I made a brief entry in wta, also discouraging usage of "exotic" as a euphemism for striptease and such. /Yvwv (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I support the idea of renaming the page. Maybe Wikivoyage:Words to watch, which is close to what Wikipedia calls their equivalent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I reverted Yvwv's advice to avoid "exotic" with reference to striptease, as that particular aspect was never put up for discussion. Please don't alter the wording of policy documents in ways that have not been vetted by consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the page should be moved to a title that better describes what it's about. The problem is, some of the phrases on that list, like "look no further," qualify as touting and therefore should never be used — we don't want people thinking those phrases are allowed in certain circumstances. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Granger, despite the "Words to watch" title, the English Wikipedia has regular problems with editors claiming that it's a list of banned words. This problem probably can't be solved in the title, unless we try calling it something like "Words that might be okay sometimes, but are probably not a good choice in most cases, so you're going to have to be thoughtful and use your judgment every single time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] We could probably find an exception, but this can always be addressed in specific entries in the article. By the way, I think it's much clearer to call a bird colorful than exotic; I wouldn't know an "exotic" bird was colorful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Hong_Kong_to_Kunming_overland#Understand (which I wrote) and the intro to Southwest China (not me) are exceptions; even most Chinese find these areas exotic, and foreigners certainly do. Pashley (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that for the same reason - in this case, that most Chinese people are Han and that many border areas such as this are populated by many non-Han people, who thereby feel strange and foreign to the Han who dominate them? I think it's fine to say that Han Chinese or Chinese people from other parts of the country find the area exotic, but a context should be given (it probably is - no time for me to check right now). Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think flora/fauna is not that controversial. Who would be offended by pointing out that Madagascar has exotic wildlife? In Pashley's example, the metric is given that it is exotic compared to the rest of the nation. Seems like Hawaii; from a continental American perspective it's "exotic" with its completely different culture, climate, flora/fauna, and landscapes. Without context or parameters, I would agree that the perspective is typically Western (rather than "white"), although I don't think just because some people are well-traveled and want to flaunt it by saying nothing is exotic to them that the word is not meaningful. I'm not sure how prolific the word's usage is, and I would agree that there are times it's not appropriate, but the reverse of the "It's offensive because it singles something out as different" argument is that "exotic" denotes that something is different in an appealing and enticing way. It's a positive word, certainly in the travel context. More than being "offensive", I think it can be a bit fluffy in some contexts, but I agree with others that the term is not altogether bad or unworthy of use. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I've argued in the past, and continue to feel, that an even better option than renaming Wikivoyage:Words to avoid would be getting rid of it entirely. In general, I think we should not be in the business of language-policing our editors. By that I mean that if anyone comes across a passage that could do with better wording, they should absolutely edit as they see fit, but it should be on a purely case-by-case basis rather than systematic or enshrined in policy. Most of the exceptions to that rule, i.e. words or phrases that are never appropriate under any circumstances whatsoever, either fall under Captain Obvious (racial slurs, for example) or Don't Tout (the examples SelfieCity mentioned upthread, for example). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
User:ChubbyWimbus: I obviously disagree with you and have explained why. It has nothing to do with my "flaunting" anything. But that said, if you described Hawaii's flora and fauna as "unique, and appealingly exotic to visitors from the Continental United States and other mainly temperate countries", or some similar phrasing, that would be fine with me, keeping in mind that there are loads of Japanese people who visit Hawaii. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
It does appear that most of the complaints about the words on our list are covered in the "Don't Tout" article. It doesn't list the words, but it certainly lists the sentiments that you could still use to justify changing/deleting the same words/phrases. Maybe our words to avoid list isn't really very useful. I have seen edits that seem to be referencing that list (or maybe just the idea of being succinct) that I have felt were made at the detriment of "lively writing". I doubt we'd be losing much by deleting the list altogether. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I think CW has it pretty much exactly right, and re: Ikan's comment above, why would someone say "unique, and appealingly exotic to visitors from the Continental United States and other mainly temperate countries" when they could just say "exotic" and treat the other words as redundant? In point of fact, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about re: wta doing more harm than good. When systematically proscribing a word means you have to expand a one-word phrase to sixteen just to get your point across, we need to rethink whether it's a good idea to systematically proscribe words. (And IMO that's equally true whether they're banned outright or merely considered "words to watch".) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] Since Hawaii is a group of islands, its native flora and fauna are unique, a more meaningful word than exotic. That said, if you really insist on using "exotic" about Hawaiian plants or, like, birds, that's not as bad as using the word for tropical Asian flora and fauna that are familiar to a very large number of people. Whether we have an official "words to watch" list or not is not going to change the views I have expressed above, and I'm a bit annoyed at the tone of your last reply. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Andre, you've made your case for scrapping WTA on many, many occasions. Other than ChubbyWimbus I have yet to see anyone won over to your way of thinking. There are still many editors involving in refining the list, so I don't think we need to discuss it again now, but if you want to start another thread on its talk page, you can, of course. Ground Zero (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a note on the semantics of "exotic", FWIW. When applied to flora and fauna it often has a somewhat technical meaning of non-native, non-indigenous or non-naturalised. The Auckland Zoo, for example, invites visitors to see "Both New Zealand and exotic birds". In this sense, a species can be drab and nondescript, not necessarily colourful or especially foreign looking. Nurg (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

True. The word can be equivalent to "foreign" when applied to wildlife. The problem is, with a travel guide like Wikivoyage, if "foreign" and "exotic" are synonyms, something can be "exotic" to me, but is it exotic to you, or any of the other contributors taking part in this discussion? Many of us are from different parts of the world. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the discussion I started a while ago, Wikivoyage talk:Words to avoid#Requests for removing from this list, demonstrates how I did not fully understand the meaning of the list. I was probably thinking, "these words should be avoided at all costs" when I brought up that discussion, which led to a misunderstanding, which in turn led to a less productive discussion on that front. We can at least start by changing the name of the page to "Words to Watch," so the meaning of the list is clear. Then, we can decide whether or not we want to keep the list. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both of SelfieCity's posts above. Nurg, thanks for that contribution to the discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't have much to add to the above discussion, but I'm sold by the argument that "exotic" should generally be avoided. Hopefully it shouldn't be impossible to create a wta page that communicates that idea while also noting the possibility of exceptions. Sdkb (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
So how should we describe food ingredients then? While I understand that ingredients like alligator meat or turtle will be exotic to many visitors but not to the locals in Louisiana, how else can we describe those ingredients that are not common outside the region? Another example would be when you describe authentic Cantonese food, since it uses many ingredients that foreigners or even Chinese people from elsewhere would not be comfortable eating. The dog2 (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are writing and want to use the word "exotic", you can still use it, but I understand that having words added to this list does make you feel like you can't use them, and another user could also delete or change your writing on the basis that you used a word on "the list". The language policing aspect of the list is of course a downside, as mentioned previously. I do worry that the more we talk about the list and add to the list, the more seriously people will take the list. I feel like that's the wrong direction. We shouldn't be having conversations about "how to replace the word exotic" if exotic fits, and you shouldn't have to worry about your edit being altered and made boring solely on the basis that you used a "forbidden word". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The dog2: It can be fine to use "exotic" if the word is given a context. In the example you give, the best way to explain things is that locals eat ingredients such as x, y and z that outsiders/many visitors (and even some locals, if that's true) find exotic. Anyone who wants to keep all articles as short as possible may object, but that's really the clearest phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Here in Finland we love visitors thinking our winter, archipelagos and forests are exotic. On the other hand the Sámi want to be treated as people, not as exotic creatures to take photos of. Sámi with tourist businesses seldom dress up as Sámi for visitors, while many Finnish competitors do. The Finnish are playing a role for their guests, while the Sámi are showing (some aspects of) their own life. I suppose calling everyday food exotic may contribute to making the locals exotic creatures instead of people. "Exotic to many visitors" is not very cumbersome, and where it has an advantage it should be used over plain "exotic". And if we want to point out something as exotic, we should afford also an explication. --LPfi (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Very well argued. Excellent example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That also works for me. I certainly agree that Wikivoyage should be written from a global perspective and not a Eurocentric or Western-centric perspective. Unfortunately, at least in the U.S., there has been a history of non-white and disabled people being dehumanised and put on display in freak shows as "exotic creatures" just like animals in a zoo, so we need to treat this issue with utmost sensitivity. On the other hand, we need to be able to convey information to potential travellers that some local ingredients may not be what they are comfortable eating (eg. dog meat in China and Korea). I guess "exotic to many visitors" does the trick. The dog2 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's not make WV too bland and boring. I think people should and do understand that when they read about their own region in an international travel guide, the point of view will sometimes be a bit external. Which is fine. For example on Denmark (where I live) VW now says: "Drinking alcoholic beverages is, however strange it can seem, a key component in the social life there.". Well, it is not so strange to me, but it is in the Culture section which I would expect to target visitors. The Copenhagen article say "If all this strange outdoor shopping takes you too far from your usual habitat, head for Magasin du Nord ...". Which makes little sense to me, but might be relevant for visitors (malls might be typical North American, but many Asian an European visitors to Denmark prefer malls too) Elgaard (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
As a New Yorker, on the face of it, neither of those things is strange to me, and I would indeed edit out claims about their strangeness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook has gone bust.Edit

Thomas Cook (a leading UK package travel operator) has ceased trading.

I'll run a quick check for in wiki references, but if other contributors want to make appropriate changes.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Cook: warning somewhere?Edit

I think Thomas Cook are Britain's largest travel company. Certainly they arrange lots of package holidays. Back in the 70s & 80s we found that their travellers' cheques were accepted more readily in much of Asia than the less-known brand American Express.

However, now Roughly 600,000 travelers are stranded around the world after the British travel provider Thomas Cook declares bankruptcy and some travellers are being asked for extra fees Thomas Cook customers say they were 'held hostage' at Tunisian hotel.

Is this something we need a warning about? Where?

Is there some form of travel insurance that will protect travellers if their tour company goes belly up? In a quick scan, I do not find that in the article. Pashley (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Common_scams#Guests_asked_for_additional_payment,_due_to_dispute_with_another_party_(like_a_package_operator)?_..... Pashley (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
More information? - Thomas Cook has ceased trading - Information for customers and travel businesses (on the UK CAA website). Looks to be official. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The ATOL scheme may cover some packages sold in the UK - see [[1]] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Do we have an article on what to do when the travel operator can't operate? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Were Thomas Cook still issuing Traveller's Cheques? because that's not something the media coverage I've been reading mentions anything about. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It also affects the subsidaries of Thomas Cook, for example Tjäreborg here in Finland. Hundreds of their customers did learn this morning that their planes aren't going to be taking off, and thousands more are stuck in different Mediterranean countries.
Maybe a warning could be approporiate, but I don't know what article to place it in. On the other hand, I somehow believe few package tour readers have discovered/use our travel guide, due to our comparatively weak coverage of places like the Caribbean or the Canary Islands that draw millions of visitors every year.
Also, it's sort of sad that the company that once enabled people that weren't millionares or royalty to travel for pleasure for the first time is gone. Ypsilon (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The Main Page? That's where they put travel warnings on Wikitravel. I wouldn't suggest it for our normal geographical travel warnings, but something like this affects more than half a million travellers around the world.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
When thinking about it, it could actually be appropriate to put a warning on the Main Page. Ypsilon (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have had travel insurance which (as an extra cost option) offered cover for failure of transport operators. In the specific case of Thomas Cook, I expect that most UK travellers booked with them will be get home (or get money back if they have yet to start) from ATOL protection - the UK CAA is arranging flights. Those who have booked flights alone (no hotel etc) don't qualify for ATOL, but were included in flights home when Monarch failed, and may be able to claim from their credit card company. As Thomas Cook won't be taking new bookings, I don't see a need for a warning - those already booked will hear directly. AlasdairW (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Should we get a new banner for Travel agencies as it uses a 1910 Thomas Cook poster? AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree—it's hard for me to see who the warning would be useful for. I don't think the Travel agencies banner needs to be changed—it's obvious that it's a historical image, and the "Thomas Cook" name is not visible in the image. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Double check your travel insurance. Many policies actually don't cover any incurred additional expenses if the airline/transportation provider declares bankruptcy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There may be other impacts.Edit concerning impact on prices from other operators/agencies. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC) and ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not a news agency, and the travellers will all be brought home by CAA / ATOL scheme in the next few days. The Med season is ending so predatory pricing has natural limits. But if, as stated, our coverage of TCX destinations is weak, that's an editing priority right there. There's an awful lot of those: I've made a start on Dalmatia coast in Croatia. Can we identify any where TCX was such a dominant operator that "Get in" and viability of resort facilities are compromised? I recall operator bankruptcies that scuppered North Cyprus and Montenegro for a couple of years till others took over. Grahamsands (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Dracut, Mass, USAEdit

im interested in contributing to this. any sugguestions? Cactusflies22 (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, go to this region article: Merrimack Valley (Massachusetts). Click the (currently red) link for Dracut, which will then prompt you to create a new page. Read this sentence: "To start, please click on one of the following links to pre-fill this article with the standard sections:" then click on the word "City"; this will automatically create an empty template for a city article. You can then start writing. This page will help you to know what kind of things to write about in each section.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Content campaignsEdit

If you're interested in content campaigns (like Wiki Loves Earth to encourage photo uploads, or like our fifth anniversary project), then you might want to watch the project described in They're working on a sort of guidebook for people who want to start new campaigns to encourage content creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

for some types of content, consider making a nomination at Collaboration of the month. For larger projects consider creating a Wikivoyage:Expeditions.Pashley (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


A re-title to meet a well defined scope, If someone wants to add some additional info about Russia, China and so on, this is almost at a 'usable' status . I didn't feel confident in moving it to main-space, without a second opinion though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

How would you feel about first getting it up to usable status, and then adding it? Otherwise, we are simply expanding the number of outlines we have. Thank you, however, for doing this work! I'm sure, with a little more time, it will be good! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd reached the limit of my working knowledge. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
At the English Wikipedia, they started a Draft: namespace a few years ago. The WMF staff who were behind the proposal originally now regret it. One of them described the draftspace as "the place where articles go to die", because nobody except the original author contributes to pages in the Draft: namespace. As a space for collaboration outside the normal range of readers' view, it's a failure. I suspect that userspace drafts work the same way. Once you reach the limit of your working knowledge, you should move it into the mainspace, which will encourage others to join in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage educational assignmentEdit

Hey guys, two years ago I had my students do some edits to Korean Wikivoyage (improved pages on Ansan, Debudo and others). Now the class is back, so expect some newbie edits in Korean topics. As usual, they'll get better in few weeks and we should end up with a bunch of new and improved pages. Feel free to help out, just note that it takes some time for students (new editors...) to figure out they even have a talk page etc. :) Class syllabi is here: [2] and class wiki dashboard entry is here: [3]. The dashboard is not sadly designed to show contribs for anything outside English Wikipedia :/ If you want to get in touch we me quickly please ping me under my main account (Piotrus). --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I assumed something like that was going on. Thank you for doing this again! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about this great project. We'll do cleanup as needed, but appreciate the additional content from local experts. Ground Zero (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Sage (Wiki Ed), what would it take to get the dashboard working here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
대박!! Ypsilon (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, Piotrus: you can set the dashboard to show Wikivoyage mainspace contributions; you must add en.wikivoyage as one of the tracked wikis, and then it should start pulling in Wikivoyage edits.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sage (Wiki Ed): How can I do this? I don't know where the option to add more wikis to tracked edits is. I'd love to do it for all my classes since I use multiple wikis. --Piotrus (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus: Click 'Edit Details' and there is a field for 'tracked wikis' where you can add new ones.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Done. --Piotrus (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a great idea for a university class. I agree, knowing the basics of wikis is (or will probably become) something that many technology-related jobs will require in the near future.
"It takes some time for students (new editors...) to figure out they even have a talk page etc. :)" ... Well, maybe you should be sure to teach them that! :-) Looking at the syllabus, I don't see where you would cover topics like no one "owns" an article on a wiki, wv:consensus, or how wiki editors collaborate such as by using talk pages.
In terms of content (both looking at the older articles students have worked on, and based on my own experience trying to write about places I know nothing about), I have some thoughts on how they can have the biggest impact on WV. Just like I would have an easy time looking up things in American cities by asking people I know who live there or have been there, or knowing which American websites and apps I can easily search for recommendations, your students have a lot of knowledge and resources about Korea that I don't. (For example, since I don't read Korean I can't use NAVER very easily.)
  • It's pretty easy for anyone to look up directions for the "Get in" section, or search on a map for "hotels" to find someplace to sleep. The hardest sections to fill out are the middle ones: "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", and "Drink". Are there annual events or festivals? Is there a local product or food I should look for? Are there any famous restaurants, or ones that aren't famous but locals like it because it's good? Where would I go drinking if I wanted to dance at a club, or talk to locals over some beer or soju, or have a quiet drink by myself? Just look at a bunch of Seoul's districts... surely there's somewhere to eat in Seodaemun, but there isn't a single "Eat" listing!
  • After a name, the most important thing we need for a listing is a description. The rest of the details (website, latitude/longitude, address, phone, prices) can be looked up by someone else, but the description is usually the hardest thing to write, and it's a lot easier for someone from that country to write one than for a foreigner. If it just says something basic like "This restaurant serves bibimbap", that's a start, but it's better if it can include at least a little bit more detail that would be harder to learn. (Is it famous, or do locals like it, or what? Is it formal or casual, noisy or quiet, brightly-lit or dim, old or new? Tell me something to make it sound interesting, more than just "the food is good".)
Good luck to your students! If you can, maybe let us know what pages they end up working on; I'd be happy to keep an eye open for their work. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Teaching and learning is not the same. I do show them how to leave a talk page message and even require they leave one for me, but that doesn't mean I can force all of them to complete this and remember how to do it, nor can I make sure they'll all check their talk page, etc. As for where I cover OWN and such, the syllabus links to a few presentations, but I often just simply show them various policies (last class we talked about WV:ABOUT and such) and we just discuss stuff. I think I will copy your suggestions of what to do into the next class's screen to give students some idea on what to do. PS. I haven't mentioned this this time, but all the students are ESL so their prose will likely need some copyediting for grammar mistakes and such. --Piotrus (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course. ESL is no problem; I think most of us here would rather have some basic content that needs to be improved (grammar, details, etc.) rather than no content at all.
I wonder... perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone (the internet tells me you'd call this 일석이조, with the same meaning) by encouraging students to use a Talk page or Project page to request that someone copyedit or give feedback on their writing. The obvious place to do that would be on that article's Talk page, although unless several people are watching it, they may not get much of a response. Maybe someone else can suggest a better place for that; wv:Welcome, copyeditors doesn't have a place for requests, and the Pub is probably too broad as well (or maybe it's fine). --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Requests for comment is exactly the right place for this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, just a heads-up that RFCs are different here compared to what you're used to. You start a discussion somewhere (anywhere that seems reasonable), and then add a link to the discussion and a short note to the RFC page. The note could say something as simple as "How can we improve this page?" or "I need some help". RFCs stay "open" for at least two months and/or until the person who started it is satisfied (which could be within minutes for an easy question). If you encourage students to use the RFC process, then please remind them to check back in a few days and end the RFC (by removing the note from the RFC page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok! I will ask every group to submit an RfC about their chosen topic over the next ~2 weeks, this will result in 5-10 RfC requests. Even if you end up copy-pasting the same few generic pieces of advice into each it will be appreciated, as it is great for students to see 'someone out there' really cares about what they are doing here :) --Piotrus (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, would you please talk to your class about the importance of not reverting or overwriting edits to their work without comment and not ignoring edit summaries? It comes off as rude and irritating, but it's undoubtedly just because they are unaware of edit summaries and probably think the edits to their work were just something that went technically wrong, not intentional changes. At least three of your students have been doing these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Sure - can you give me diffs? --Piotrus (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's easiest for you to look at these article histories, look at my edit summaries and click the relevant diffs: History of Suwon, history of Ansan. There was also the district article for Incheon which we had the Vfd thread on, and I am pretty sure some other long-time users have been involved in edit wars in other articles about Korea, but I'll leave it to them to post relevant histories if they like, rather than spending my time searching through a bunch of articles. I've posted to a few students' user talk pages, but if you could explain edit summaries and avoiding edit warring to your whole class, it could save everyone a lot of time and help make the process of improving articles about Korea unfold more smoothly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I will try my best, but keep in mind those are ESL students. Setting aside that a portion of the class has trouble understanding most of what I say because they are not used to listing to English, I did notice some of your and other edit summaries where pointing out various errors in English (capitalize Korean, etc.). This is a common error that speakers of Asian languages repeat, because, among other things, Korean (or Japanese, etc.) has no concept of capital letters... And, in all honestly, my class is not a language class, and I can't focus on language issues. I will certainly ask students to pay attention to edit summaries; last class had a big segment on how to leave messages, read messages, etc., but I simply can't make them not make grammar mistakes or such. Contributions from ESL editors will have grammar errors, and at your average Asian tertiary education level, expect quite a lot. I am sorry I don't have a great solution, but this is the language fluency level of my students (from one of the Top 10 universities in South Korea, FYI). I can teach those who listen to read messages, reply, read edit summaries, etc. (but not all of them will, of course). But to teach them to not make grammar errors etc. is neither in the scope of my class, nor is it simply possible in its timeframe. --Piotrus (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Would it help if we wrote our messages to them in more basic English? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to teach them English. We're happy to correct their errors and explain why we're doing it. All they have to do is not restore the errors after we fix them! And if they don't understand what we're writing, they should feel free to post to our user talk pages and ask for more of an explanation than we can give in an edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposalEdit

Hi everyone, I started a discussion to merge World War II in Africa into World War II in Europe on that article's talk page. Please comment there and let me know what you think. The dog2 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

GPX export useless with the Wikidata approachEdit

Now that we are converting city listings to only using the Wikidata reference, and also support Wikidata-only listing for sights, due to the on the fly addition of Wikipedia and GPS, the GPX export does not function properly anymore. This is because it does not derive GPS for these simple Wikidata-only listings.

Should we tackle this issue? Could we maybe use the approach from German Wikivoyage, which can properly handle such simple listings?

If this topic was discussed before, please refer. But it seems still to be open, considering the GPX export issue.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. Furthermore it would be a huge addition, if GeoJSON paths for itineraries (e.g. E11 hiking trail) are also exported.--Renek78 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
"Discussed" several times, actually... see Mapframe and Marker discussions... -- 06:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, should we fix it then and use the German approach? In favor ... Cheers Ceever (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Three "sister infoboxes" at AMS IST and FRAEdit

I made infoboxes at our articles on AMS, IST and FRA informing readers of their rivalry (mostly exhibited by their home carriers) as to which airport is the "best connected". Not only is this an interesting tidbit, but I think it is of obvious value to travelers to know that those airports have direct flights nearly everywhere... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'm surprised Dubai and/or Doha don't have the same number of destinations. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. It's nice to find something interesting to say about airports beyond the essentials. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage's YouTube channel requires more language administratorsEdit

I want to add Wikivoyage friends from English and other languages ​​to manage and upload YouTube instructional videos so that wikivoyage can fully advertise in all languages. We already have a lot of videos and live broadcasts in Chinese, and we hope that more English and other languages ​​will be added to the channel!

If you are an administrator of any language in a Wikivoyage, I look forward to provide your personal G-Mail to me, so that I can add you become a YouTube administrator, you will can upload videos on the YouTube channel! and everyone can click subscribe it, Thank you!(see Wikivoyage Channel)--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you also plan on doing 'travel' content in English Language on the chnanel? Like for example a London resident talking about the obscure museum that exists in Hampstead for example, or a Melbourne Resident talking about the trams. (There are other independent You Tubers that make travel related content.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: We have English List, but I only using Chinese. Your Idea is good, I hope you can help us with YouTube Channel. After all, my English is very poor and really bad.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the ability or skill level to help with that sadly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If you want travel content for the YouTube channel, I wonder whether m:VideoWiki would be useful to you. User:Ian Furst could probably explain it better than I can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of a video script [4] The video is than auto generated from the script. And here is the video up on youtube[5] Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, Doc_James: Good idea, but m:VideoWiki no videos about travel...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll think about doing that, as the more we can use the YouTube account, the better. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Thanks.✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The only thing is that I have multiple G-Mail accounts (one is specifically for Wiki). I guess I'd use that one, then; I just don't want to get the accounts confused. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: OK.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I imagine you would want to keep the scripts on Wikivoyage? Build one in a sandbox on WP. Than move over to Wikivoyage and I can see about getting this tool working here. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc_James: After all, I don't know how to move to a Wikivoyage... as like this?--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Have started building some of the background tools at Template:Videowiki
Basically you want to create something like this[6] on a travel topic correct? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Doc_James: Yes!--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 17:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay you can create one on Wikipedia to start with. I will try to figure out how to get this working on Wikivoyage. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It appears we do not have the template for infoboxes here. This does not format well Template:Videowiki Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless the VideoWiki project is meant to only work at a couple of wikis, then its dependence upon any templates, especially the English Wikipedia's complicated Infobox module system, needs to be removed. Until Global Templates are a reality (that's a large, multi-year technical project), then projects like this have to choose between "works everywhere" or "uses local templates". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks complicated; I just hoped that everyone could help promote Wikivoyage by providing YouTube videos.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What app do you use? iMovie? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I have reply mail to you, and I use Wondershare Filmora, thanks.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll take a look at that app when I have the time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just startedEdit

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your wiki will be on read only for a few minutes on 15th OctoberEdit


On Tuesday 15th October from 05:00 to 05:30 AM UTC, your wiki will be on read-only mode for a few minutes. This is due to a change on the database server. For more information about the operation, please see the corresponding task on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed just before the read-only time. Please share this information with others.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: it is happening soon. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Understand section of Frankfurt AirportEdit

If you look at recent edits, it should be clear why I wish for a third voice to try and make the language succinct and well-flowing without introducing awkward wordings or errors. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I had a go.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, TT, that looks much better. I was trying sort out the long and rambling sentence on my phone, but didn't make things better. I have no idea why Hobbitschuster feels he has to raise everything as A Big Issue in the pub instead of dealing with it on the talk page like everybody else does, but I will repeat what I have told him dozens of times: I am always prepared to work with other editors to improve articles and resolve disagreements amicably. Ground Zero (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I have proposed an edit of the infobox for Schiphol Airport at Talk:Schiphol_Airport#New_infobox, and welcome comments. Ground Zero (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

How people talk on wikiEdit

I'd like you all to go to and introduce the PM to how we communicate over here at Wikivoyage. It'd be great if at least one person could to take him through the whole lifecycle of a significant conversation here (where it started, who contributed, what got changed in the article, how it was resolved, where the discussion was swept to, etc.), but he's also going to benefit from lots of people giving him a quick link and a sentence or two that explains why you remembered that conversation. Examples of both good and bad communication will be useful.

Please feel free to share this request with other languages/other projects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Broken filter to be fixedEdit

Hello all! Lately, we've been switching all wikis to use a new, faster parser for the AbuseFilter. Unfortunately, this wiki cannot be switched because one of the filters contains unsupported syntax. Specifically, it is filter 36. In order to fix it, you should remove the trailing &! at line 5. Could anyone please take a look? Should you have any questions, please feel free to ping me back! Thanks, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I've simply removed the text you mention. If that removal harms the filter in any way, it will be necessary for someone with more knowledge to make those fixes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Thanks! Technically, that part was equivalent to & !null, i.e. & true, so removing it has no effect at all. Thanks again, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Good — thanks for explaining that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: Hi, I've just realized that filter 34 has the same problem, at line 7. Could you please fix it as well? Also, FTR, the new parser is now enabled here on enwikivoyage as well :) Thanks, --Daimona Eaytoy (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

More prominent linking from Wikipedia?Edit

I have a sense that many people looking for travel information about a place go to the Wikipedia page for it, often not noticing the link to the Wikivoyage article at the bottom in the sister projects portal, mixed in amongst less relevant links like the Wiktionary definition and the Wikiquote collection. I think it might better serve readers there and drive more traffic to WV if we were able to make the link more prominent, perhaps by moving it from the bottom to the top. Given WP's separate purpose, I could see some objections to something like that, but I do think there's an argument to be made that, for a geographic destination, understanding the travel information pertinent to it (i.e. WV's aim) is a large part of understanding it as a whole (i.e. WP's aim). Thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What you can do today, but is on a page for page manual edit basis, is to use w:Template:Wikivoyage or w:Template:Sister project links at the bottom of city pages. See for example w:Berlin and w:Aberdeen. Also if on Wikivoyage there is a good amount of tourist information in a listing for a point of interest it can be used on the Wikipedia article about the site. For example look at w:Eiffel Tower and w:Tower of London. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Making Wikivoyage more prominent on Wikipedia is a good idea. I think the best method to do this would be to update w:Template:Infobox settlement to also display a link to the Wikivoyage page when exits. This would be a one off edit to the template and would add to almost all major settlement pages. For example w:Washington, D.C. look at the infobox on the right-hand-side. Take a look at for example at commons:Category:York, England on showing other project links. Suggest adding Wikivoyage link at bottom of settlement template after the link to the city's internet website. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone at Wikivoyage would oppose making links to our articles more prominent in Wikipedia. You are likely to encounter resistance in Wikipedia. But I agree that many readers of Wikipedia geography and tourist sight articles are reading them with a purpose of possibly travelling there, and many of them will not end up at Wikivoyage where there is more relevant information. Gizza (roam) 06:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I agree that it should be easier to get to Wikivoyage from Wikipedia in this manner. The question is, how do we get that kind of discussion going (and successfully) on Wikipedia? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
How to get it going is that you start a discussion at w:en:WP:VPIL to develop some specific proposals, and then you take it to w:en:WP:VPPR for a more thorough discussion of each specific proposal.
How to do it successfully... That's not something that can be guaranteed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be framed as adding a "Travel information" or "Tourist information" section with a Wikivoyage link immediately above the "In other projects" section. A Wikivoyage link in the inbox is a good idea but, I suspect, there will be a lot of pushback because linking to wikiprojects in content area is very strongly discouraged. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkmenbashi BannerEdit

The current Turkmenbashi city banner looks rather gross and inappropriate. I tried to change it back to the default, but even after clearing the cache it is still visible. Is there a way to make it the default again? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The default is changed if a banner is defined at Wikidata. I have changed it for another image. If you can find a better one, either let me know or update yourself. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I stumbled upon the article, so I don't have any pictures for banners myself. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at current OtBP Letchworth State Park which requires immediate attentionEdit

In as few words as possible: there's a currently ongoing edit war at the above-linked page involving myself and Powers, who many of you know is a user whose advocacy against dynamic maps and for static ones has grown from strong, to strident, and now it seems to fanatical and disruptive.

A few days ago, I replaced Letchworth's static map - which, as you can see, includes no listed POIs and is basically useless to travellers - with a dynamic one in which all POIs are labeled. My edit was reverted, on the basis that the park entrances were not marked on the dynamic map. I then reverted the reversion, stating that the simplest solution to that problem would be to mark the entrances on the dynamic map (which I did), rather than 1) restoring a static map that is, again, basically useless to travellers and 2) sabotaging the dynamic map by downsizing it to a point where it's no more useful than the static one, which was also a part of the earlier edit. For my troubles, my revert of the reversion was then itself reverted. Needless to say, this is not the sort of conduct that is acceptable, especially from a user of Powers' standing.

Zooming out, our community has recently been able to come to a resolution of a protracted dispute about when dynamic maps should be used and when static maps are appropriate - respectively, in bottom-level destinations like Letchworth and in the case of region articles whose specifics (national boundaries, location of cities, etc.) change very infrequently or not at all (important when the number of active Wikivoyagers who know how to edit static maps is very small). And to be perfectly honest and frank about it, a big part of the reason why we succeeded in forging this consensus despite being unable to do so before was because Powers' edit history has become increasingly sporadic, and we've thus been able to enjoy breaks from his one-man anti-dynamic map crusade that were long enough to push policy through while he was away. Furthermore, we've also recently come to the consensus that with the exception of a few special cases, articles should generally only contain one map, and should never contain multiple maps with redundant information, as indeed is the case with the two Letchworth maps. Now I'll be damned if we're going to re-litigate these issues for the benefit of a barely-active user who can't handle the idea of consensus disagreeing with him, and I'll be double-damned if a currently-active Main Page feature, one of the most-viewed articles on Wikivoyage for this month, is going to be the place where this conflict plays itself out.

Ordinarily under these circumstances, the easiest solution would be to semiprotect the article for the duration of its term on the Main Page. However, since Powers is an admin/bureaucrat, there's no level of article lockdown that would affect him. Given that, the solution I propose is to revert the article back to its status at the time of its placement on the Main Page - i.e. prominent and usable dynamic map, no static map - and that further disruption on Powers' part will result in a partial ban covering the Letchworth State Park article only, to take immediate effect (waiting fourteen days for a userban discussion to resolve would be fairly pointless) and to last the duration of the article's tenure as OtBP. However, because partial bans are a relatively new software feature that have never been used on this site, I would rather not enact that solution unilaterally. Your feedback is appreciated, the more expeditiously the better.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how a ban of a bureaucrat/admin could be effective without their assent, because they have the power to revert the ban. My feeling is this: Static maps are, all things being equal, just plain better. However, in this instance, it's patently obvious that the better map is the one that shows points of interest, which is the dynamic map. My feeling is that if a user ban has to be proposed, it would be necessary to also desysop Powers, and that would require a vote, normally at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations, but in this case, I suppose at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, concurrent with the topic ban proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Ikan - I'm pretty sure userbans enacted on sysops also block use of the sysop tools, making it impossible for them to unban themselves. Otherwise my accidental blocks of Ibaman and Traveler100 last year (sorry again, guys) wouldn't have caused the problems they did. I'm not sure if it works differently for bureaucrats, but I doubt it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, if so, no problem, then. Let's hope the edit warring will cease and we won't have to do anything more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Restore the status quo until it's off the OTBP. Then we can decide whether we want to "de-bureaucrat" Powers. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
SelfieCity - This isn't about desysopping Powers, which would have to be a separate discussion (nor for that matter would this be a topic ban, a phrase I heard floated above). This is about how to prevent edits to an article by an editor whose level of user rights renders them unaffected by page protection, either semi- or full. If we're treating this as an emergency case that's handled outside the usual userban channels, then I think it's important that we keep the scope as narrow as possible; in the case of a partial ban for Powers, he would remain fully able to both edit and use the sysop tools on all pages except Letchworth State Park. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. I was busy at the time and I didn't read much of what you wrote. I think we could do with a rule that says changes to a featured article are not allowed unless they are an important correction, update, or revert of a problematic edit. If there is a clear rule and punishment, I don't think this will happen again. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
(Also, reading your post: I did use a partial block once on a user.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree the dynamic map is better in this case but talking about blocking a long standing user, even temporary I think a bit excessive for what I see is two reverts and no discussion of differences in views between editors on the article talk page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the above. I see no attempt from either André or Powers to discuss this disagreement respectfully on any talk page, which would be by far the best and simplest option. Any ban in these circumstances is absurd and sets a bad precedent. I would encourage you both to talk about it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not think a ban is warranted. If we did ban anyone. I'd say block both users for edit warring & failing to discuss it on the talk page. Pashley (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If someone gives a reason for an edit that's not obviously against policy (or demonstrably poor grammar, factually incorrect or whatever), and you've edited the page once and they've restored it with a reason, your job is to take it upon yourself to start a talk page thread. The standard of edit warring, as I understand it, is to revert something twice. I will do that only when someone is touting, vandalizing or restoring text I find impossible to really understand because it's in such bad English, or demonstrably incorrect spelling or grammar - and in that latter case, I also start a talk page thread on the page or their user talk page, explaining why their edit was in my view clearly incorrect, and may hold off on reverting a second time for a day or so.
What that means to me is that Powers is more at fault here, especially as we seem to all agree so far that his argument isn't logical in this instance. Yes, Andre could have started a thread on that talk page, but I don't see where he was incorrect to start the thread here, since that page is being featured and he wanted to make sure more people paid attention to his position. This thread can be swept to that page's talk page any time we like.
The other thing is that no-one, I think, is suggesting any kind of ban now. The proposal is about what to do if Powers persists in edit warring. And those of you who are objecting to the lack of a thread at Talk:Letchworth State Park would in my opinion do better to focus on what we should do if the edit warring persists than only on your preferred procedure. So what do you think? Would it be OK for these reversions to go on and on, or not? And if not, what do you propose to do about it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Well since no discussion has been had, we have no idea whether Powers intends to continue edit warring over this, or what his thoughts are beyond a single edit summary. I would say it's pretty self evident that were he to continue an edit war, a block would be justified in line with existing policy. But we're not at that stage yet, because a grand total of four edits doesn't equal a serious edit war.
But let's just ask him: @LtPowers: Will you please either join in a discussion about the map on Letchworth, or back off on the edit warring? Thank you.
For the record, while I agree that "Powers is more at fault here", since André's role in the 'edit war' was defending what consensus says, I also feel the way this discussion was opened (not pinging the other person involved, and describing them as a "fanatic" while discussing banning them in front of the whole community when they're not here to defend themselves, and all before any attempt to *speak* directly) was below the belt. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The edit war has stopped, so I don't think it's fair to continue a "What if he..." discussion about a particular user. Making it a gossip/slam thread I'd say is worse than edit warring. If he has something he wants to say or discuss, we should wait and allow him to do that. The edit warring has stopped, so there's nothing else to talk about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons! - I thought I made it clear in my original comment that this is not an isolated incident, but rather part of an issue we've had with Powers going back to when dynamic maps were first introduced to Wikivoyage, and that we have, in fact, tried on many occasions in the past to have discussions with him about maps and have pretty consistently been vexed by his unreasonable approach. (His comments at Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition/Archive 2014-2015 in particular contain many, many examples of this, and just look at how many perfectly worthy Starnoms were either scuttled or left in limbo for extended periods solely because of his objections to dynamic maps.) If I'd had reason to believe that a talk page discussion would resolve the issue, I would never have suggested what I suggested above, but I can tell you right now how such a discussion would have gone: I would have been raked over the coals for daring to suggest the map that he worked so hard on be removed, told that dynamic maps are a "cop-out" for those too lazy to learn how to edit static maps, had to hear about how the icons on dynamic maps are too close together as if the solution to that problem weren't as simple as zooming in, and all the other petty nitpicks he's used over and over again to obstruct resolution of this issue as if his points hadn't already been addressed numerous times in the past. At some point, enough becomes enough, and it's no longer our responsibility to try to reason with him for the 5,000th time but rather his responsibility to let the issue go. And if a current featured article, again one of the most visible on the site, is what's at stake, then the time for this issue to come to a head and be decisively resolved is now.
As for Powers not being "here to defend [him]sel[f]": if he wants to do that, there's nothing stopping him. We're not all huddled in some smoke-filled room where no one can see what's happening. This is the Travellers' Pub. I can scarcely think of a more visible and accessible page on which to undertake this discussion. If Powers is an admin and a bureaucrat, he should already have the Pub on his watchlist, and if he cares enough about this issue to repeatedly revert my edits, he shouldn't need to be pinged.
Pashley - your comment about "block both users for edit warring & failing to discuss it on the talk page" is unhelpful and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of edit wars and the policy regarding them. The fact of the matter is that the "discussion" has been over for a long time. We've already come to a consensus about whether and in what cases dynamic maps should be used. Again, this has become a case where one user's refusal to accept a consensus that hasn't gone his way has crossed the line into disruptive behavior. (I would actually argue that line was crossed several incidents ago, but at any rate the disruptive nature of the conduct should no longer be in question for anyone.) The blame for any edit war that may result from a scenario like that is certainly not shared equally by the person whose edits restore an article to the consensus-based status quo.
ChubbyWimbus - there's no reason to believe that "the edit war has stopped". It's simply proceeding at an unusually slow pace. It took Powers 30 and 19 hours, respectively, to respond to my edits at the Letchworth article, and it's only been 16 hours since the most recent volley. "What if" is still very much an apropos question. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Andre, I think your critics are correct about this thread, in an overall-general-approximate way. This little edit war didn't need to be an edit war, and even if it happened, we didn't need 600 words telling us that the only way to get anything done is to wait for a long-time contributor to be absent.
I really think it would have been sufficient for you to post something like "Hey, Powers and I can't seem to agree about which map is better. Could some of y'all make the decision? I promise to be cool with whatever you decide." This is really too minor for anyone to get this bothered about it.
A while ago, one of my co-workers, who lives in one of those places with lots of travel warnings, sent me a chat message in the middle of his night, asking me if I had time to talk about something serious. My first thought was that one of his children had been hurt. But, no: he was just losing sleep because he was afraid there would be a big dispute on wiki over which of two slightly different options was better. Let's not have that here. Let's not actually lose sleep over which map gets used. If two editors can't sort it out amicably, then dump the dispute on the rest of us, take the page off your watchlist, secretly resolve not to participate in further discussions, and let us handle it for you. Nobody's dying. Let's not kill our friendly environment over this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing - We can get carried away putting "our friendly environment" on a pedestal. I've been an active Wikivoyager for going on eight years, and for most of that time, Wikivoyage was a place where debates lingered unresolved and fundamental problems festered for years because people were too "friendly" to step on each other's toes. It made me want to tear what little is left of my hair out. Thankfully that's finally beginning to change, though we've got a ways to go yet before we can truly say we've learned how to handle situations where the gears are gummed up by small but vocal minorities. We don't have to become a toxic cesspool of antisocial behavior like Wikipedia, but personally, I think taking it on the chin every once in a while and losing the occasional argument is a fair price to pay for a community where things run smoothly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we get carried away with a friendly environment. I don't mind a debate: That's my day job, and then I go over to the English Wikipedia and argue about how to write policies. However, I do mind seeing minor disputes personalized like this. Which map belongs on that article is not a fundamental problem that festered for years. IMO it would have been resolved much faster and with much less hair-pulling if you had decided to bow out instead of leading the attack.
One of the things that I do at the English Wikipedia is deal with questions and complaints about RFCs. One of the things that I've learned over the years is that when someone turns up with complaints about certain subjective matters ("The question is misleading!"), then it usually means "I'm losing! Help me win on a technicality!" From that POV, if you were actually confident that consensus and policy is on your side, then you could have immediately handed this whole thing over to the rest of us, without bothering to run down the other guy and without trying to explain why you're right. If you're really right, we'd come to the same conclusion, and it's easier to stop a dispute when lots of people are saying the same thing, instead of just one contributor repeating the same claim. You can still take that approach. You can still leave this to the community. I recommend doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I wish you would stop minimizing this issue and pretending it's just about one map on one article and inferring that I'm blowing things out of proportion. This is, in fact, merely the latest chapter in a years-long pattern of unreasonable behavior on Powers' part and unreasonable accommodation of said behavior on the community's part. I've given many examples above of past occasions on which this same pattern of behavior has caused problems for the community, and there's no reason to expect that it wouldn't continue to happen going forward. So as I see it, in responding decisively here, we have the opportunity to prevent any number of future recurrences of this pattern of behavior that we might otherwise have to slog through. That last part bears repeating: I don't want to waste my time with this dispute any more than anyone else here, but if doing so now prevents us having to continue to do so over and over again into the indefinite future, then I'm willing.
Also, given that several things are happening or being proposed here that have never occurred before on Wikivoyage, this discussion is also necessary to establish precedent in those areas: namely, what to do in a situation where someone with sysop tools is making disruptive edits and file protection would be useless to stop them, and when it's appropriate to use partial bans. Those are the kind of questions that can't be answered unilaterally by one user. If I could have avoided "leading the attack" and instead resolved this quietly using established procedures, I would have, but this is a special case.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the dynamic map, but I don't see it as such an important issue. I am not opposed to having two maps, particularly when they complement each other, and having both maps on the page whilst having a discussion on the talk page might have been a better approach (just putting the two maps on the talk page doesn't work as there would be no markers). I have recently been using the Kwix offline reader, and note that it (and other offline readers) don't display dynamic maps - if the park has large areas with no signal, then that is an argument for including a static map (maybe in addition to the dynamic one). Calling the static map "rather useless" in the first edit summary was not a diplomatic start to things. AlasdairW (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Andre, I'm not minimizing the current problem or the history. I'm telling you that you (you personally) are not able to solve this problem. I'm also telling you that the more you are involved in this discussion, and especially the more you tell anyone who might disagree with you that they're wrong or bad or don't understand, the less likely this problem is to be solved this week. If you actually want this problem solved, then you have to step back and let all the people-who-are-not-Andre handle the rest of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) First, Ikan Kekek and WhatamIdoing are both saying some sensible things here that do a good job of weighing up the big picture. I don't think they're either defending Powers or attacking Andre. I've looked at the static map by going to the revision by Powers and it's really not as bad as is being implied. While I believe Powers acted wrongly, and this was to some extent an edit war, it wasn't an emergency.
However, Powers' actions need to be addressed, possibly by a removal of bureaucrat rights (which is not the same as a block or a ban). Hopefully that could be done in a positive way if Powers is not willing to submit to consensus on this issue. If he can apologize and make clear he will no longer do what he did to the article, he should absolutely keep his bureaucrat rights if he desires to do so.
I've prepared a list of statements through which I hope we can come to a consensus. Are we agreed on the following?
  1. Powers' actions on the Letchworth State Park article were improper and were made urgent by the fact that the article is featured. Powers should have known not to take such action on an important page, especially being a bureaucrat; such action created an unnecessary sense of division and urgency within the Wikivoyage community.
  2. As the dynamic map followed consensus approval and was already established as the map for that article, it should have remained until the end of the feature. Then, its potential replacement, the static map, could have been discussed. However, acting against the standard on a featured article was improper, as stated above. We must uphold consensus, especially on our featured articles.
  3. Powers needs to be told that his action is wrong, and he needs to make clear that he will not do this again.
Do we agree on any of these? If not, we need to seriously re-consider whether we can form a consensus on what to do about this issue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
SelfieCity, that sounds like a reasonable course of action and I'm in agreement with all of those points. I'd prefer, though, if for the moment we did not deviate into talking about desysopping Powers. That would be a logical next step if indeed he does revert my edits at Letchworth again, but it's far from clear that such a thing is imminent, and I'd rather not sow any more discord than necessary by speculating about a desysopping that may be moot. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That sounds fine with me, especially if that's how you feel about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Like AlasdairW, I'm a fan of having both a static and dynamic map on an article when both maps offer something unique to the reader and potential traveller. They are no more redundant to each other than two photos of a famous landmark, which is quite common on Wikivoyage articles (often where one of them is a banner and the other a non-banner but sometimes when both photos are non-banners shot at different angles or in different way). Gizza (roam) 21:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The dispute that required immediate attention has successfully been brought to the attention of the community. Perhaps next time that can be done with a little less drama. Discussions of user bans or de-sysopping can take place at the pages Ikan Kekek linked above.
With respect to the content issue, I think the dynamic map is better in this case, though including both maps would be fine too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what would be accomplished by including both maps other than rewarding Powers' bad behavior and perhaps, as a result, encouraging future incidents like this. The static map does not include any information that's not also included in the dynamic one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Including both maps helps people who can't see the dynamic map. This includes anyone who's reading offline or on a device that doesn't support Javascript. The existence of this benefit is completely independent from anyone's behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Selfie, I'm sorry, but I can't fully agree.
  1. I agree that Powers' actions were less than ideal, but I don't think Powers created any sense of division and urgency within the Wikivoyage community. I think the sense of division and urgency has come from the way Andre has chosen to respond to it, i.e., by insulting Powers and continuing to pound on the table instead of reporting the problem neutrally and trusting other people to take care of it.
  2. I cannot agree that pages should not be edited while they're featured. Whether Powers' changes constitute improvements is IMO doubtful, but discussion should be an option at any time, and plunging forward (but not edit-warring) should normally be encouraged, even when an article is featured on the Main Page.
  3. I agree that Powers needs to be told that there's a consensus to include the dynamic map (because we have generally agreed upon that, right?), and of course nobody should be edit warring. On the other half of that statement, determining whether a specific dynamic map is better than a specific static map requires people to use their best judgment. I would therefore regard any undertakings to never replace the one kind with the other kind as inappropriate and only barely credible. I do not want us to push contributors to make "piecrust promises" – as easy to make as a pie crust, and very likely to get broken when it comes time to serve the pie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(indent) I now see that I didn't fully understand the issue at the beginning. For me, even though you did try to explain that it was an ongoing and common occurrence, this all appeared out of nowhere (and it seems like a similar thing happened to others). I think I agree with SelfieCity's points. On AndreCarrotflower's point about "rewarding bad behaviors" I will add that users should refrain from "I'm okay with both maps"/"I don't care either way"/"This article isn't important so who cares"/etc type of arguments. These are not legitimate arguments. It may feel like it softens the tension, but these statements only muddy the waters and stand in the face of consensus, as well as ignore the specific concerns brought up here. Those who are ambivalent should support the status quo. Arguments in favor of the static map being reinstated need to explicitly state what benefit this map provides beyond the dynamic map and/or what benefits are lost with its deletion. In other words; the inclusion/reinstation of the static map must have a reason that is consistent with policy and consensus. Saying both are okay out of apathy towards the city/article/issue are not helpful and not fair to Andre who is acting according to consensus. And indeed if we made concessions on such a weak basis, it would be an invitation for anyone who wants to disregard a policy in the future to do so with a citation of this discussion for which we wouldn't have any defense. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think that all of those are legitimate arguments. If there are reasons to have both maps, or at least not harm, then we should say so ("I'm okay with both"). If the two maps have an equal balance of advantages/disadvantages, then that's important to call that out ("I don't care either way"). And if the cost to the community to see a pile of insults, to deal with people's emotional reactions, and the hours of people's time spent looking into this is much higher than the cost to the article of having one less-than-perfect map or the other also less-than-perfect map, then we should say that, too ("isn't important"). It's perfectly reasonable of me and others to point out that the immediate "urgent" problem could be trivially solved by Andre washing his hands of the whole thing and the rest of us camping out on RecentChanges for a few days, instead of someone actively involved in the edit war coming here to complain at very great length about an "unreasonable", "fanatical and disruptive" contributor on a "one-man anti-dynamic map crusade" "who can't handle the idea of consensus disagreeing with him" over "petty nitpicks" about which single map is better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing on all the numbered points, & the post just above as well. Pashley (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing and Pashley - No. What ChubbyWimbus said about the illigitimacy of arguments in favor of duplicate maps is exactly right. We have a consensus that dynamic maps are preferred in all articles that aren't regions, that articles should in most cases contain only one map each, and that multiple maps should never be used in the same article to display the same information. That consensus took a lot of time and a lot of hard work to forge. And it is binding. It doesn't just magically disappear whenever its existence is inconvenient vis-à-vis the resolution of an unconnected issue, or for the sake of not making waves and the maintenance of a "friendly environment", or because you personally disagree with and/or weren't involved in building that consensus, or because you personally don't think enforcing policy is important in this particular case, or because you personally think the person on the opposite side of the debate from you is a jerk, or for any other reason. If you're going to argue in favor of duplicate maps on Letchworth, you had better thoroughly read the thread I linked to above, and you had better come up with arguments in favor of duplicate maps that both 1) were not previously advanced and 2) are convincing enough to get all those who argued the opposing side to change their minds, or 3) you had better come up with a pretty convincing reason why Letchworth is the exception that proves the rule and is different from all the other articles on this site that do just fine with one or the other kind of map. Otherwise, sorry, but status quo bias applies, and the pro-duplicate maps arguments at issue in this discussion should be dismissed as non-policy-based. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Andre, though I do continue to maintain that, all things being equal, static maps are better, and I continue to argue for exceptions to the general consensus for static maps that are complete, up-to-date and clearer than dynamic maps in any article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, WhatamIdoing, regarding the tone of my original post: consider that out of all of us in this discussion, I'm the only one who came into it remembering offhand all the previous map-related incidents with Powers. A huge proportion of my original post was dedicated to rehashing the history of the conflict for the benefit of those who needed to be reminded or weren't here at the time, in hopes that people would respond to this not as an isolated incident but as the further escalation of a problematic pattern of behavior going back years. Which people did anyway, thus causing me further frustration. If because of that I came off as excessively vindictive toward Powers and/or a drama queen in general, that's unfortunate and was not intentional, but better that than failing to put the Letchworth incident in its proper context. And yes, Powers' overall behavior pattern remains an important consideration even if a lot of editors don't personally remember the past incidents. That's exactly the reason we archive old talk page discussions rather than simply deleting them.
Also, if I used some incendiary language in my original post, I apologize, but also consider that I'm a human being with emotions, and I just got done having my consensus-based edit reverted for the second time in a row, and that ever since I first changed the static map to dynamic during the final preparations before Letchworth's stint as OtBP, I kind of had it in the back of my mind that he might show up and make trouble. So yeah, I was a little miffed, as anyone would be, and maybe I let it show a little too much in the tone of what I wrote. Regardless of that, it remains incumbent on anyone responding to this thread to look past my choice of vocabulary and focus instead on the actual issues I'm conveying. And, most importantly, to not fail to see the forest for the trees.
- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that it may be time to review our draft policy at Wikivoyage:Map, which has been a draft for two years. The "Should I replace a static map with a dynamic map?" section seems to be relevant here. However it may be better to do this next month so that we are not too focussed on one particular article. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The maps aren't duplicates if they are not the same. I agree with WhatamIdoing and Pashley. Saying that having both maps improves the article is very much a legitimate argument. Being forced to pick one when neither are adequate on their own if anything is an argument that's detrimental to the traveller. I also agree with AlasdairW that it's time to review the draft policy on maps. Gizza (roam) 00:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused by this reply. How are the maps not the same? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
We could easily have 5 different kinds of maps, but in what way does that serve the traveler? This is not an atlas focusing on different ways to map a given city. The only uses for different maps, really, are when they're necessary to show different things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ikan Kekek that the static maps are overall better when all things are in fact equal, but that is quite often not the case, and in this article, the static map doesn't have any listings, so I don't think it could be argued to be better. I definitely don't think the static map should always be the one to go either (I'd still like to delete the hideous dynamic maps in the Japanese region articles). WhatamIdoing, Having an established consensus or policy means you don't have to address the emotional reaction of users to the issue. You only need to refer to the consensus. I think telling users that consensus "isn't important" because their issue is not your issue is unfair. If an issue is brought up and consensus is suddenly invalid because a group of users decides they just don't want to hear you whining/they don't like you/they don't like the consensus/etc then when is it valid? Because it's going to sound like your argument is "Consensus matters when I care about the issue and the consensus is with me, but it doesn't matter when YOU care regardless." I don't foresee that being superior to or leaving users feeling better than referencing policy or consensus. As I said, users who truly don't care should be fine upholding the status quo. If you are not okay with that then there must be something that you DO care about. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this post completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Chubby, the question of whether all of us are being asked to do w:en:emotional labor because someone was upset over an edit is completely separate from whether there's a consensus about which map is best for the article. There are things that I DO care about: I don't want to read insults here. That matters to me. I don't want to read a note that makes me think, "Oh dear, he must think none of us remember that long slog" or "he's losing his temper" or "it doesn't sound like he respects the community's ability to take care of even trivial problems like this". I care about how people treat each other. Our track record in this conversation is getting better, but it started off pretty poorly.
For those who remember the previous discussions around maps, you'll remember that I'm pretty solidly pro-dynamic map. I'm able to hold that position while acknowledging that they have some limitations (e.g., not being available to offline readers, which is kind of a big limitation in a community that lists printed copies as an official goal). My concerns here are less about the map (I trust the community to handle it, and we have), and more about the "meta" question of how we handle disputes. I hope that in the future, it will be with fewer insults, less badgering, and more trust that "there's a consensus" means that you don't need to do it all yourself, because the people who formed that consensus can and will take care of any disputes for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I apologize unreservedly. First, for the second reversion to the article to include the static map without discussing it first, and second, for the delay in responding.
It's no secret I've not been active on Wikivoyage for a while. But while I was surprised to find an article I'd started and worked on as a featured article, I was shocked and dismayed to find the map I'd taken a similar amount of time to create had been unceremoniously removed just one day before being featured -- and with a snide edit comment to boot. I found the wholesale removal of content that took me quite some time and effort to add to the article to be inappropriate without discussion. The dynamic map is not a longstanding feature of this article (even now, it's been there less than two weeks), so I felt comfortable reverting to status quo ante with an edit comment explaining that the dynamic map better shows how to get in. (Andre has interpreted this to mean "the dynamic map didn't show entrances", but it goes beyond that; the static map also shows highway and trail approaches, nearby landmarks and communities, expressway exits, etc.) As a compromise, you'll note I didn't *revert* the edit that removed the static map; I re-added the static map and shrunk the dynamic map to compensate.
If Andre disagreed with this compromise, he could have discussed it. Instead, he simply reverted it unilaterally. I shouldn't have undone the reversion, but I still maintain it was inappropriate. And I certainly reject the argument that an article's current status as featured on the front page means that edits made just one day before are sacrosanct and shouldn't be undone.
And of course this thread is horrifying to me. I'm a bit conflict-averse (which is why I've not responded until now), and this thread isn't exactly encouraging when I consider where I should spend my time.
-- Powers (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I should also point out that the reason none of the POIs are on the static map is because I always intended to add a second map showing just the southern portion of the park, where most of the POIs are, at a larger scale for readability. The crowded nature of the POIs is quite obvious in the dynamic map, which is why I find it unsuitable. Powers (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking back several days later over the way I conducted myself in the above thread, I have to reluctantly agree with some of my critics that my zeal to resolve this dispute and bring everyone back in line with consensus tipped over a few times into personal attacks against Powers. Despite the fact that the two of us often don't see eye to eye on issues related to the site, and we can both be pretty stubborn about our viewpoints when we want to be, I still consider Powers a colleague and friend. And I should not have let myself lose sight of that just because of our exchange at the Letchworth article. So, Powers, please accept my apology for those things.
However, another thing that anyone worth his salt does for a colleague or friend is to call him or her to account when necessary. And for the most part, I stand behind the substantive parts of what I've said. As far as the points in your above comment: Powers, you've made your feelings about dynamic maps known ever since we rolled the feature out, and this is far from your first clash with other editors on the issue, so perhaps the reason for my "snide edit summary" was because I couldn't help but see your act of reverting my edits to the Letchworth article through that prism. As for the amount of time it took you to create the static map for Letchworth, is that not a pretty cogent argument against using static maps for bottom-level destinations? You may be willing to donate large amounts of your uncompensated time to 1) learning how to make static maps and 2) making individual static maps for every article you work on, but how many other editors is that true of? I can count them on one hand: you, Ypsilon, Saqib, and Shaundd; and Ypsilon is the only one out of those four who's more than sporadically active on this site. Is letting articles for bottom-level destinations go without maps, or (more apropos to this case) sticking them with static maps that quickly become outdated for want of anyone who knows how and/or has the time to update them, really a better solution than presenting the same information in a less aesthetically perfect but easier-to-keep-up-to-date way? The answer is no, not only according to me but also according to consensus. (And if you really had "always intended to add a second map showing just the southern portion of the park, where most of the POIs are", why didn't you do so at any time during the 15-month period between Letchworth's nomination as DotM and its Main Page debut, especially given that its map-related deficiencies had already been singled out as a problem?)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Andre.
For the record, the edit summary to which I referred came from your initial removal of the static map, before I re-added it.
It's certainly true that some map is better than no map, and outdatedness is certainly a problem in many areas of the site (not just maps). But I'm not aware of anything in the Letchworth map actually being out of date (at least not significantly so), and I maintain it was bad form to make the replacement without discussion or preamble (especially just one day before it was to go up on the Main Page).
-- Powers (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements projectEdit

07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Offline mapsEdit

I think that User:RexxS has a flexible system that could help us deal with the dynamic-vs-static maps dispute in terms of offline (Kiwix) readers. This was tried for a different purpose over at the English Wikipedia a little while ago, but I think it might be even more useful here.

The basic idea is that when you have content that can't be displayed offline (such as a dynamic map), you can add a replacement that is only displayed offline. Think of putting something like {{show-me-only-in-kiwix|File:Static replacement map.jpg}} in an article – the linked map wouldn't show in the article if you're reading online, but it would show if you were using an offline reader that doesn't support dynamic maps (or whatever kind of content is wanted for the offline user).

I think we could set this up here. Is this something that you all are interested in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great. But there is already a key for that, which could be used: "staticmap". Example:
{{Mapframe|37.75|-122.43|height=420|width=480|zoom=12|staticmap=San Francisco districts map.png}}
--Renek78 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, whether it's implemented with a parameter or with a dedicated template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Airport informationEdit

I'm sorry to bring this to the pub, but the disagreement that I have with User:Hobbitschuster about background information about airports has flared up again in the Berlin city article. The issue in dispute this time is about how much information should be included about an airport that is not open for travellers yet. Other views would be helpful here. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has yet weighed in either way. What are we to make of this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. It seems to me that five users have weighed in (including me), including two users who commented on the infobox idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I saw this (and the lack of comments on it) before I saw the other talk page... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


i would like to start a new guide but i need to get info first. Can you set me up with a draft page or use my userpage? thanks

Baozon90 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here you go. Enjoy. You may wish to read Wikivoyage:What is an article? to make sure that what you have in mind is suitable for this wiki. Let us know if you have any further questions.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wishlist proposals for WikivoyageEdit

The wishlist for this year opens today. There will be only five wishes accepted, and they are only for non-Wikipedia sister projects. m:Community Wishlist Survey 2020/Wikivoyage is currently empty.

I have notes about two ideas that we considered last year:

  • Playing audio inline for Wikivoyage phrasebooks: Imagine being able to read the phrasebook, click a button, and hear the word being pronounced without leaving the page. (phab:T20852) This might also be interesting to the Wiktionaries.
  • Further map improvements: Disputed borders (phab:T113008) is one of them, but we could probably think of several map improvements.

Does anyone have any other ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the most important enhancement that is needed is to have current position marked on dynamic maps. Particularly important as most web users are now mobile users, and knowing what is near you is a crucial feature for any travel/location guide. (phab:T208713) --Traveler100 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The location map thing should be relatively easy (I naively think) since the mobile version already finds articles for nearby places.
Isn't the audio file on the same page thing already possible? There are definitely inline audio files in use on Wiktionary, e.g.. Has this somehow passed us by? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
We worked on the inline audio thing for a while, and I don't think we got it sorted out. When I click on the audio icon at German phrasebook#Numbers, it opens a new tab for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
How hard can it be to just use whatever system they use on Wiktionary? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess it was hard enough that we didn't figure it out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
User:TheDJ wrote phab:T208713. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
How about the ability to reorient dynamic maps in directions other than strictly up is north, down is south? In maps of Manhattan, up should be uptown, not strictly north by the compass. However, I disagree that we would want to show "disputed borders". That's against Wikivoyage policy of recognizing all reasonably stable faits accomplis and not getting into disputes, except inasmuch as they affect the traveler. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Look at a dynamic region map like on Chugoku or Japan. The shaded regions for each prefecture or region are including territorial water, because that's what the OSM relation for an administrative boundary represents. Unfortunately that's pretty ugly compared to the static map, which simply shows land that's part of each prefecture. AFAIK there's not an OSM entity that represents that; you'd have to compute it programmatically. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:Traveler100—the most important feature needed is showing the user's location on dynamic maps. I also agree that it seems like we should be able to include audios the same way Wiktionary does. User:Bigpeteb's suggestion not to show territorial waters would be nice too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Oops... I have create task about Add maps of sightseeing spot to help visitors find nearby sightseeing spots and information through maps, but not first to discussed in Travellers pub here, I am so sorry...--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What about a way to draw polygons (to form districts and regions) directly onto the mapshape? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    @SelfieCity: This is doable now. I don't remember exactly how, but I remember it's a pain in the butt. You have to create a standalone file somewhere else on the wiki that has the coordinates of the polygon, which you then link to somehow in the map. I've seen examples before but don't have time this instant to find one, but if I had one (maybe you can link me to one you know of) I can dissect it to explain how it's done. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The wishlist should have regard to whatever the readership are saying is most deficient at present. It should therefore include full mobile functionality both for reading and editing. i-phones in their present guise have been around for nigh-on a decade, a rock of stability in a maelstrom of innovation, imagine if we'd taken that long to adapt to the Blackberry. While this wish applies to all WF projects, it's particularly pressing for WV which is the most likely to be accessed on the go. I'm guessing work is in hand but how visible is it, eg with a project page, objectives and timescales and all that managerial good stuff, and a forum to debate project components? It's more than just a nice-to-do. And beyond that, we need to think ahead of the technology, and consider maximum voice-activated functionality. Alexa and her successors could become the predominant search method in the coming years, and WV needs to be positioned as first choice to answer such travel-related queries. Grahamsands (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more strongly! And when I had an Android, the user interface sucked for that, too, but it's worse for the iPhone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What about the mobile display of pagebanners? Is that something we could fix in-house, or does it need a change in the media wiki software? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The deadline is MondayEdit

We've got about 60 hours to get this finished. So far, the proposals made are:

  • Add maps of sightseeing spot to help visitors find nearby sightseeing spots and information through maps
  • Show user's current location on maps
  • ContentTranslation work for Wikivoyage
  • Comments in Local Time
  • Special page "Nearby" should show an input form and coordinate picker when geolocation is deactivated

(The "Comments in Local Time" script isn't really specific to Wikivoyage (that could be useful to any project), so it might be declared out of scope. The others are specific to Wikivoyage, but any proposal has a chance of being considered too big for this team to fulfill.)

What else do we want to add to the list? Keep in mind that theoretically Wikivoyage could win all five wishes. The proposals are being sorted according to project, but there's no rule saying that the results have to be evenly divided between the sister projects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I have added request for Wanted Pages to show only results of redlinks from main article namespace. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The first travel guideEdit (koavf)TCM 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems from the pictures more like an illustrated atlas than a travel guide but is still a fascinating piece of historical reference material. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. Thanks for posting it.
But arguably it is not the first; the ancient Greeks had books a few centuries BCE that listed the Seven_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World & for all I know the Chinese, Indians or Persians may have had something earlier as well. Pashley (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Beta feature "Reference Previews"Edit

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Johanna, and welcome to Wikivoyage. I believe that ref tags are almost entirely unused on Wikivoyage. It's probably not necessary to send updates here for this project. (I don't know if it's worth changing the whole mailing list over, though...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
More than that, they're against this site's external links guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Not all uses of ref tags necessarily involve external links.
At the moment, we seem to have 47 pages with ref tags, but only a few (example, another) actually display to readers. These are probably people who are used to Wikipedia's rules about how to link, and just need to be reformatted. Most of these 47 ref tags are related to climate boxes and aren't displayed to anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikivoyage need to add articles on the type of sightseeing spot?Edit

I have been active on Chinese Wikivoyage for more than four years, but many netizens have responded that Wikivoyages can't create sightseeing spot articles, and instead go to Wikipedia to watch sightseeing spot articles, so Wikivoyage is not an attractive condition, even though Wikivoyages is a travel guide website, but they want to know the details of the sightseeing spot need to go to Wikipedia, very troublesome.

I know the specifications of Wikivoyage to create articles, but their reaction is also worth discussing this topic us. so does the Wikivoyage need to add articles on the type of sightseeing spot?

I think the sightseeing spot article can cover the chapters of arrival, history, characteristics and nearby etc. If everyone can agree with me, I hope that everyone can provide more opinions so that Wikivoyage can become a diversified travel guide. Thanks.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 13:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We can say some details and not descriptive, but I oppose to create new articles. --Streetdeck (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikivoyage can do whatever it wants. The English Wikivoyage isn't in control of the Chinese Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@IGOR: I don't really understand. Can you link to an example of what you're describing on Chinese WV? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and equally, if Yuri or any other member of the English Wikivoyage community would like to change our policy on attraction articles, they need only head over to Wikivoyage talk:What is an article? and make a proposal.
As things stand, we have a rough guideline for whether attractions get articles or not called the "sleep test" - can a traveller legally sleep there? This way, Disneyland Paris gets an article, but the Eiffel Tower does not. But we can and should add enough information about the tower, both of practical use and just stuff that is interesting for visitors, to Paris/7th arrondissement. Any new proposal would have to address and counter this longstanding arrangement. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As everyone said, I also tried to explain it to netizens, but it seems that they can't accept our policy. This is what I explained to Chinese netizens.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Zhizu wants me to download an app just to read the comments, which I'm not going to do, so all I can read is the badly translated OP by Summer of the World. Some of her criticisms make no sense, probably due to getting lost in translation. They are about the Chinese Wikivoyage, of course, but I doubt Chinese Wikivoyagers are indulging in self-promotion within the travel guide. If they are, then it should be obvious what you need to do. One of her points is that you won't find opening hours for a particular park on Wikivoyage - did she forget that this is a wiki, and that she can add those opening hours herself? That is exactly the information all Wikivoyages should contain, in my view.
But as stated above, the Chinese community can make any policies it likes for its own Wikivoyage. If you and your colleagues think articles for individual attractions would best serve your readership and encourage more participation, plunge forward! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: I am very pleased that your advice and view, Chinese wikivoyage and other language communities are following the same rules and policies. However, her criticism is that she does not understand the ecology of wikivoyage. Her criticism is not only the Chinese community, but It is all Wikivoyage community. I also explained a lot about the role of creating article policies and wikivoyage to her know, but she never agrees; of course, the article on creating sightseeing spot does violate the established policy, and our Chinese community will follow this.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Yuriy_kosygin: Are we talking just about the opinion of one person here, or is there a group of people saying there should be articles about attractions? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Basically, there are both. --✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 22:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Yuriy_kosygin: Some but not all famous landmarks redirect to the relevant section in a destination article. For example Taj Mahal redirects to Agra#Taj_Mahal, Statue of Liberty redirects to Manhattan/Financial_District#New_York_Harbor while Buckingham Palace redirects to London/Westminster#Buckingham_Palace. Large landmarks or heritage sites which pass the sleep test have their own article like Pyramids of Giza. I personally think many more famous landmarks should redirect to the relevant city or district. Colosseum and Terracotta Army for instance are redlinks. This would at least ease the concerns that readers have that our coverage of sightseeing is not good enough. Gizza (roam) 21:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Also see this related discussion nearly two years ago here. Gizza (roam) 21:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

TedX: How to fight overtourismEdit

A short lecture about tourist-related problems and solutions in Prague. Relates to responsible travel and common scams. /Yvwv (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I should have watched this sooner! What a great short talk, and some fun ideas he's had!
The question it raises is what WV policy should be on something like his #honestlamp. What he did is akin to us writing "Admire the lovely wrought-iron statue, and be sure to touch the lamp to its right for good luck and fortune." Is it okay for us to write that now, even though it's a modern 'tradition' that people have only been doing for less than a year? Since WV is not WP and our tone is different, surely we're okay not saying "There used to be a tradition of putting locks on the artwork, but instead...". Would it even be okay for WV to do what he did, and use ourselves as a force for positive change by creating a new tradition whole cloth as he did with #honestlamp? --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand the desire to get high-minded and effect positive change, I really do. But the nature of the problem of overtourism, or even whether it is a problem, is a contentious issue about which there are cogent arguments on both sides. In situations like this, where the right answer is not obvious and taking a stand might generate ill will among a certain faction of our readers or even our editors, we should remain neutral, just as we do in the case of contentious political disputes. Our job is to provide people with information, not to tell them how to use that information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
What are the two sides to overtourism? I don't think I've ever heard any argument (cogent or otherwise) in favor of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
just how much tourism is "too much"? The "argument in favor of overtourism" could be heard recently at a CDU (German center right "natural governing party") party convention "We are the party of those who fly to Mallorca" prompting the attendants to "spontaneously" sing a song about getting drunk on MallorcaHobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Overtourism means so many people visiting that there are traffic jams, trouble visiting the attractions that interest you, an inability for locals to afford living there, accidental destruction of sites (e.g., too many people climbing the historic stone stairs = no more stairs), etc. I doubt that "the party of those who fly to Mallorca" want Mallorca to have these problems, and if most people stopped going to Mallorca, they might be pleased by the results.
"How much is too much?" is partly a matter of subjective perception (any amount of tourism that raises *my* rent is a problem; an amount of tourism that raises *your* rent is okay), but there are some cases that aren't seriously disputed by anyone (e.g., safety during Mecca pilgrimmages and some fragile ecosystems). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
In some travel topic and destination articles we talk about this, in others we hint at it. E.g. in Europe we talk against hurrying from one of the iconic sights to the next and we have Sustainable travel and Leave-no-trace camping. We should tell people not to touch that statue. Describing a until now non-existing ritual as the real one is a step too far, but we could describe the alternative as a "what about instead ..." (both for the statue and for queuing to see Mona Lisa). I think most of this is non-controversial.
Then we have two real problems: we do highlight the "top attractions" whether or not a less visited attraction would be equally nice – and we join in marketing that last untouched paradise. We do some good things about this and more could be done, but there is no complete solution.
--LPfi (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikivoyage can promote underrated and less exploited destinations near the most visited ones. Articles such as Metropolitan Venice can be expanded a lot beyond Venice itself. /Yvwv (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There are also nearby cities like Padua, where many people stay to save some money and take day trips into Venice. They also have worthwhile sights. My observation about the Venice guide is that there are many more sights that could be listed, which I know just from having looked at a bunch of photos taken by people like Commons user Moroder, and it would be best for Venice to be districted on this site, which would help to promote areas other than the core tourist sights of San Marco and so forth. I've never visited Venice myself, so I won't take the lead in such work, but that's what I think would be ideal. Now, as for not stating what the top sights are in a given city, it would ill serve a visitor to Siena not to know what they are, especially if they have limited time, and there's a reason why many of the top sights are top sights. If you like art museums at all and visit Paris, you'd be mistaken not to visit the Louvre at least once if not 2-3 times on your trip; you don't want to miss seeing the Duomo in Florence or looking at the view from one of the viewpoints on the Oltrarno side; etc. Other main tourist sights are tourist traps, but you still might want to see them once. I'd put Times Square and the Hollywood Walk of Fame in that category. A travel guide doesn't exist to discourage travel, so while we should put everything in a fair and helpful perspective, if we don't keep in mind why people travel and what they travel for, we could consider giving up and telling people that traveling is bad for the environment and they should find great things to do at home, instead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
True. But going to Louvre just to queue for Mona Lisa to be able to tick it off the list is not what I'd recommend. What I kinda thought was to try to tone down all "tick off the list" thinking, but I really don't know how to do that sensibly, other than by finding and highlighting also those alternative sights/destinations (which often requires some local knowledge or much effort) --LPfi (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
But there are many travellers who are only too happy to check boxes on their checklist of the world's most famous and popular attractions; people who revel in tacky tourist traps like Times Square, Disney World, and so forth. We don't have to understand or agree with that approach - I certainly don't - but Wikivoyage is at the service of those people too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's our responsibility to mention the main attractions of a destination, whether we'd really recommend them or not. But per anr, we can list a famous sight while still gently advising people against seeing it—for instance, our listing for the Louvre could say something like, "The long queues for a distant glimpse of the Mona Lisa aren't worth it—it's more rewarding to see the other, less crowded but equally beautiful, sections of the museum." —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Another example of what we can do: the most popular attraction in Danxiashan is a big penis-shaped rock, which I found less interesting than the interesting rock formations and panoramic views elsewhere in the park. In writing the article, while I listed the famous rock and indicated its importance, I de-emphasized it and recommended spending time exploring other parts of the park too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:] I wouldn't support that wording. I'd word it more like this: "The Mona Lisa is a famous and great painting. Unfortunately, there are nowadays long queues and great overcrowding around the work. So consider whether it wouldn't be a better use of your time to see lots of other great art in this extremely rich museum, rather than waiting for some time for a chance to get a glimpse of this painting amid a crowd." For the record, I think it's unquestionable that the Mona Lisa is a great painting. I thought it was overrated compared to some other really great paintings I saw at the Louvre, but my father, who was himself a painter, disagreed. Some attractions are hyped for a reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that works. My point isn't the exact wording (I just used the Mona Lisa as an example because it was mentioned above) but just that we can and should say something if a famous attraction is overly crowded, overrated, or not worth the trouble. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's a portrait of the same woman made by someone (or several someones) in da Vinci's workshop on exhibit in the Prado in Madrid. It's a mostly overlooked painting there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think for us, the best thing to do is just be honest. If it's a tacky tourist trap, we should state so, but whether or not people decide to go to that destination is not up to us. But we can also provide advice for people who want to avoid the crowds. For instance, if you want to avoid the crowds at the Alhambra in Spain, a good piece of advice will be to go in the winter, when it is the tourism low season in Spain. I actually enjoyed visiting the tourist attractions in Spain in the winter, when the crowds were not so crazy. The downside though is that there are fewer English speakers working at the restaurants, so you'll need to get creative if you don't speak Spanish. The dog2 (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Or just teach yourself survival-level Spanish. It's got enough overlap with English that it's not that hard for a lot of people to learn the basics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

App-based delivery services, tipping, and the American cuisine article (if you're a Wikivoyager who lives outside the U.S., this one's for you)Edit

So I recently took a second job as a GrubHub driver, and I had a few things to say in the American cuisine article about tipping conventions when using app-based food delivery services like mine (the situation is a little more nuanced than the typical $2-5 cash you give to the pizza guy). I'd like to also include the same information in the article on tipping, but the problem is, I'm not sure if what I said applies worldwide or if it's germane to the U.S. only. I imagine app-based delivery services would likely work differently in countries where tipping practices are very different from the U.S. Are there any Wikivoyagers living outside the U.S. who have experience with these apps and can confirm what the procedure is for tipping drivers in their home country? If not, should this information go in the Tipping article anyway, even with a disclaimer that it applies to the U.S. or North America only? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Here in China, tipping is rare. I've never seen anyone tip delivery people here, and the two delivery apps I use have no option to add a tip as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge those services are not really "a thing" yet in Germany, most likely due to regulatory issues. Lieferando and the likes exist but they work differently from uber eats and whatnot in that (to my knowledge) they also put price pressure on the restaurants... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I know that Uber and Lyft drivers tend to prefer cash tips. Is that the same for Grubhub drivers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Although app and phone based takeaway ordering is common in the UK, I am not a regular user. Just Eat say only a third of customers would regularly tip, and its notes for drivers say that they may not request a tip. AlasdairW (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This is all very interesting. I can't claim firsthand experience with other apps, but in the U.S., GrubHub actually makes it extremely difficult not to tip. The app interface defaults to a tip of 20%; anyone who wants to decline to tip not only has to manually change that to zero but also click through a guilt-inducing "Are you sure?" pop-up window that explains about how "drivers are GrubHub's most indispensable asset" or somesuch. It sounds like, even if food delivery apps in some other countries may offer a way to tip the driver, they're unlikely to be quite so insistent about it, so the advice I added to American cuisine is probably not germane to a non-country-specific tipping article.
Ikan Kekek - I suppose if you were to survey GrubHub drivers about it, you might hear a mild preference for cash tips, but the different ways in which the GrubHub app handles tips by comparison with Uber/Lyft make it an apples-and-oranges comparison. With Uber and Lyft, tipping happens (or doesn't happen) only after the ride is over; if a prospective passenger has a low star rating, a driver might interpret that as a sign that s/he might be a bad tipper, but that's not foolproof, and indeed star ratings can be based on any number of factors. With GrubHub, tipping is done in advance; the driver is told upon receiving the delivery offer how much the customer has tipped and then goes on to accept or reject it based on that information. There's a "notes" section in the app where the customer can indicate if s/he intends to tip in cash, but there's no guarantee the driver will bother to read it, and the universal assumption among drivers is that a zero tip is a zero tip, not an indication of intent to tip in cash.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I think UK apps default to no tip. One regular user of an app complained that the app had no way of setting a preferred default tip, it had to be selected each time. We could have country specific advice on tipping drivers, and also saying something about how the drivers are paid. In the UK there is possibly a stronger argument for tipping drivers than waiters - waiters are employees and must be paid the minimum wage for every hour they work, but drivers for apps are usually "self employed", and get paid per delivery. AlasdairW (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Here in Finland I suppose the drivers are not tipped (except in special circumstances): They are very badly paid, without any employment based social security, but I don't see that as a reason to tip, rather to boycott the delivery services unless you find one offering decent employments. --LPfi (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Issues with geomapEdit

Hi, I'm having trouble adding lat/lon coordinates to a listing with the listing editor. If I click on "find on map", I get a mostly blank map, and the browser console complains about mixed content. If I go straight to, then the map loads fine. Am I the only one with this problem? Is there something I can do about it? codl (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pagesEdit

11:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:American cuisineEdit

I've started a discussion about upgrading the article to guide status given how much it has grown in recent months. Please chip in with your opinions on that article's talk page. The dog2 (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

ID "(no element found)" is unknown to the system.Edit

The relatively new OV-chipkaart article is generating the following message in bold red letters:

The ID "(no element found)" is unknown to the system. Please use a valid entity ID.

Clicking on the message provides the messages "script error" and "No further details are available." The problem occurs for both IE and Chrome browsers. Removing the page banner tag causes the message to disappear. No other page having a banner seems to have this problem. I think this problem arose a few days after adding a banner. Would anyone have a solution? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I saw this on another article earlier. @WOSlinker: I have undone the update of {{pagebanner}} from yesterday until the source of the error is identified. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Andyrom75: can you explain what CountryData is intended to do? I think the error is because the code assumes the article has a wikidata record, that is not always the case. (I have now added OV-chipkaart to wikidata, but you can still see the error in newly created articles). I cannot find anywhere explanation of an edit that changes every mainpage article. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: is for a new release of Listing Editor currently in beta version of both en:voy and it:voy. When available, it stores data inside the page that will be used afterwards. I thought to have already manage the case of new page, but I'll check again. --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem has now gone away. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Andyrom75: thanks for the explanation. An interesting idea, look forward to seeing the improvements. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100:, @WOSlinker:, please apply this patch to Module:Wikibase and restore Template:CountryData2HTML in Template:Pagebanner.
As said is something that I've already managed in it:voy but I forgot to tell WOSlinker to update this module here as well. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100:, @WOSlinker:, I've just changed approach and I don't need Module:Wikibasea anymore, so you can directly revert the last change in Template:Pagebanner. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for copy editing expeditionEdit

One of the areas where I think we have a lot of room for improvement is in copy editing. Some fixes (such as my ongoing war against improper comma usage that some of you may have noticed) will probably just need to be done manually, but others, such as typo corrections, could probably benefit from taking inspiration from the Wikipedia Typo Team's automated and semi-automated tools, and I think it might be good to have an expedition to look into that. There are also WV-specific fixes we could implement, such as correcting improperly formatted phone numbers. I can't commit to keeping such an expedition all that active (I just don't have that sort of free time), but I do think it'd be a good idea to have a dedicated space for us to search for more systemic ways to clean up all the small errors that can make WV seem less professional if unaddressed. Sdkb (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How to Reach Female Solo Travelers, the Biggest Market in the USEdit (koavf)TCM 18:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems they interviewed seven women and then tell what "FSTs" do, reporting percentages and whatever. Did I miss something? You don't need a large random sample to get interesting viewpoints, but if you want to tell what a group like that thinks as a whole, a decent representative sample helps a lot. --LPfi (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem with miles-to-kilometers conversion templateEdit

I'd post this on the talk page for the template, if I could find out where it is (I don't know the name of the template, and it doesn't seem to be indexed at Wikivoyage:Template index:

The plus of this template is that it automatically converts between these two measures of distance. The minus is that it leaves no place for hyphens, which are more often than not needed with these measures (e.g., a 5-mile trail, a 10-km drive). Can anything be done to ameliorate this problem? Leaving hyphens out of adjectives when they're needed is a pet peeve of mine, and if this problem can't be rememdied, I will get rid of these templates wherever they are creating poor grammar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Example of the problem here. The article should refer to "5- to 10-mile (8- to 16-km) hikes". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a Template:Convert where the documentation indicates it can handle the above situation. I tried it out on Auyuittuq National Park (on a more simple example) and it works, but not the way I'd like it to -- it prints "kilometre" in full rather than abbreviated, and if I try to force the abbreviation, it won't print the hyphen. I think the template and underlying module probably needs to be tweaked. -Shaundd (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This could be done but first will need others to also agree to a change to unit formatting so we do not get into reverts of others edits. Once done would be a automatic change of all references to mi or km, or do you what to have user control only for exceptions? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Traveler100, I'm not seeing any contradiction with what's in Wikivoyage:Measurements. And this can't be an automatic change because units are not always used in hyphenated adjectives. There's a difference between "the trail is 5 miles long" and "it's a 5-mile trail". Similarly, "the drive takes 4 hours"; "it's a 4-hour drive". Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Useful grammatical example, I can see it would need to be a parameter option. The other question is related to the fact the convention at present is to use abbreviations (mi, km) not the full word, is that dependent on situation or change all to word? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with "a 4-km drive". I'd still hyphenate, but of course that's open to discussion like anything else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Quick test looks like have to use word with hyphen, cannot use abbreviation in combination with hyphen. Are other fine with: "the trail is 5 mi (8.0 km) long" and "it's a 5-mile (8.0 km) trail". --Traveler100 (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's not so bad. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:, take a look at the updated documentation for {{mile}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK with this. Thanks for the quick work! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • {{mile|2}} or {{mi|2} - will show as - 2 mi (3.2 km)
  • {{mile|10-15}} or {{mi|10-15} - will show as - 10–15 mi (16–24 km)
  • {{mile|2|on}} or {{mi|2|on} or {{mi|2|adj} - will show as - 2-mile (3.2 km)
will update {{km}} too. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Good! There's no problem with this being announced in the pub (per above); otherwise, I might not have heard about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, many thanks for taking this work on and doing it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hacking attempts?Edit

I got a notice a few minutes ago that someone has made multiple failed attempts to log in to my account from a new device. I would suggest that everyone make sure you have a good password, and whoever is savvy about security, please monitor the situation in whatever way you do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose cracking an account by trying to guess passwords manually is a quite futile attempt, unless they have some clue, like having got a password from another site and trying variations of it (or using your cat's and girlfriend's names, with variations, if you use that kind of passwords). If you deem there is such a risk, you might want to change your password.
The real risk, which motivates good passwords, is that somebody might find a way to try passwords on their own machine(s) or a way to bypass the tries-per-minute limits of the server. Then they might try billions of variations and in the former case you never know until they log in with the correct one.
--LPfi (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Does Wikivoyage have 2-factor authentication? I know Wikipedia does, but that it's still only available to admins. Sdkb (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe that "2FA" is available to any admin on any WMF-hosted project. Also, there are a couple of workarounds for non-admins, if someone really wants it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not too worried about someone hacking my password, but I thought it was good to alert people that someone was trying. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist 2020Edit

IFried (WMF) 19:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

New map for GuangdongEdit

Hey guys, I just recently tweaked the city list for that article for the purpose of regional balance. That also means that the current map doesn't reflect the cities that are currently on the city list, so if someone is able and willing to do so, would it be possible for the map to be updated? Unfortunately, I don't know how to do it myself. The dog2 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a dynamic map would be an option. Just added it to the article. Rather quickly created with Wikivoyage Districtifier, by the way. Problem currently is, that the polygon of Shanwei district is not showing on the map (Wikidata ID: Q59189, OSM Relation: 3282610). We have this problem on other maps as well. Not sure what is wrong there. --Renek78 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The polygon for Shenzhen is missing too... --Renek78 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Shanwei and Shenzhen display on my browser—maybe it was a temporary issue? I like the static map better, because I think it's easier to read, but the dynamic map works as an interim solution. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
My browser also doesn't display either polygon. Perhaps it's a browser-specific thing. The dog2 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the static map has been updated. You may need to refresh the page a couple of times to see. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Shaundd: Thank you! One small issue—"Danxiashan" is misspelled. It would be great if you can correct that. Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Done! -Shaundd (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hiking trails on dynamic mapsEdit

I've had this problem before, but it's particularly annoying at Danxiashan. Open Street Map has good coverage of this park's hiking trails, but they don't show up on our dynamic map except at high zoom levels. Is there some way to make the hiking trails show up even at the default zoom level in the map on that page? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically these steps (longer version here):
  • Create a relation in the OSM data for the path you want to show, add the needed roads/paths to that relation. Ideally, it should be some semi-official trail - "private" stuff is not welcome in OSM.
  • Create a wikidata entry and interlink it with the relation (technically, wikidata reference in the OSM relation is enough, but I recommend doing both)
  • Add mapshape referring the wikidata into your article.
  • Wait (~1-2 days)...

-- 11:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That looks like what I need. I wonder if the relation already exists—I'm not looking to highlight a particular route, just to display all the hiking trails in the geopark. I'll poke around and see if I can figure it out. Thanks for the help! —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I'm working on it, but because there are dozens of footpath features in the park, it's very tedious and I'm worried I might miss some. Is there any way to select an area and have OSM give me a list of all the footpath features in the area? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, this page makes it seem like relations aren't intended for this purpose. Again, I'm not trying to display one particular route, but rather all the hiking trails in the park. Should I make the relation anyway, or is there some other way to accomplish this? —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If you really just want to show all paths and they are not something special on their own (stuff like Tatra Mountains main road), it's likely really not a way to go... It'd be ideal to show the mapnik map as the background by default (for this particular page), but I don't think kartographer can be configured to do this. Perhaps a good point for the wishlist, then... The only real solution I can think of right now would be exporting the paths as GeoJSON, put that into commons and then make it render on the map here as geolines. Not too trivial, though - and you'd have to sync it with new stuff in OSM once in a while. @Matroc: experiments with this geoshape/geoline stuff quite a lot, maybe he has some nice tools in the pocket? :) -- 06:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I guess I'll give up for now. It's unfortunate—this feels like it should be so straightforward. Maybe I'll add it to the wishlist. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
A single Commons data file containing each set of trail coordinates is one consideration as a solution that I can think of at this time... - Matroc (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit zoning mapsEdit

Seeking advice out from experienced users proficient in adding dynamic maps, linking to Wikidata and KML-to-OSM imports (I find myself quite lost in all this OSM/KML/GPX etc. stuff, so not be doing it myself), as per Talk:Public transit in Israel#Zoning maps. Not sure though if the transit zoning mapshape layers are already in there (OSM and Wikidata), if they are, I propose referencing where relevant and inserting these 90-min and periodic pass maps, as it is easier to look in if they are layered on top of a normal proper map (such as the google mymaps refs added), than to try find out where a zone ends (if travelling on zone borders) when looking on schematic maps such as these on bottom of page. I think the data of these KMLs would also benefit in most Wikimedia articles cross-wiki, be it Wikivoyage (the Public transit in Israel guide (periodic passes and 90-min transfers) and "Get in/around" references in Israel locations guides) or Wikipedia (show transport zone id in infobox templates of locations) or Wikidata (queries such as "in which zone a given location is", fetching the data from mapshapes' tags, etc.) --Arseny1992 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy between listings and markers on mapEdit

I noticed that the markers' numbers on the map (from the icon in the corner of the article) are different from those at the listings in the article (Nordkalottleden). They do correspond if you load the map from a specific listing. The problem seems to stem from the numbering on the former map to jump over some numbers: 1,2,3,4,6,... Does anybody have an idea of how to find the root of the problem? It does not seem to be a cash issue, since no listings have been touched at least since since july. -- asked by user LPfi

The root of the problem is the usage of an oudated map service which is used in article's top-right corner. For instance, we know that this script does not count the markers if they are specified only by a Wikidata id. There is a simple way to overcome this problem: using the new map services. But this was refused by the community until now. If you are calling a map from the marker the number is correct because the new map service is used for it. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep, basically it looks like poimap2.php (the old map service) simply iterates all POIs 1...N, instead of having separate counter for each POI type (which is done by {{marker}}). I doubt anyone will fix this... -- 11:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The full page map from the icon doesn't display markers for listings which don't have lat/longs in the listing, but instead get the lat/long from Wikidata.
I was looking at the map of Bristol a few days ago, and the See marker on the map #20 was listing #23. I fixed this particular occurrance by using the pop-up listing editor to sync the lat/longs in the 3 listings that were fetching the data from WD. I encourage editors to always put the lat/long in the listing. I think that relying on WD also causes difficulties exporting the article for offline use. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's better to put the lat/long in the listing instead of relying on Wikidata. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This issue has existed for some time. It was suggested in the past to include the lat/long in addition to the wikidata ID as parameters - of possible consideration would have been to have the listing when edited and replaced look up the lat/long via Wikidata ID if available and fill in the lat/long parameters if needed (not replace them if already entered). The lat/long parameters being of a higher priority in producing map markers than that found using Wikidata ID. Note: About 2 years ago getting rid of poimap2 altogether was a main suggestion yet no replacement has been implemented if I remember correctly. (perhaps an icon that opens a mapshape instead!) -- Matroc (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree that local lat/long has priority over wikidata. The enhancements in the listing editor for synchronizing wikidata has improved usability on that topic. One of the advantage of poimap2 appears not to be working any more, namely showing regional government boundaries, so really the only major objections to swapping which map the icon on an article uses is lack of being able to display your location on the map and being able to do a fit on POI markers (useful for finding incorrectly entered values) with the map tool used by mapframe. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a wider range of options on what to show on the old map than on the new one. On the old one there is a check box for "Hiking" (trails), in the new one you have to choose the right external map and use its interface to get the trails. --LPfi (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Idea of ​​a maintenance project of the wikivoyageEdit

As can be seen, it is sometimes difficult to keep the information on wikivoyage up-to-date. Interaction between wikivoyages must help maintain these updates. Here is my idea to help. And this can work in any direction (understand this as the linguistic versions of wikivoyage). Here is what the application would offer:

  1. The application searches in the English wikivoyage for a page containing a listing whose update is older than a certain date or never update.
  2. The application "save" as "note" the name, alt and lastedit parameters.
  3. The application searches in other language versions (interwiki via wikidata) a "listing" whose name or alt is closest to one of the previous elements and whose lastedit is later than ours, at best. At worst, it searches for the text in a section containing the element.
  4. The application displays the publisher of the listings of the version as well as the source code of the element (listing or section) of each of the other languages
  5. We update the elements according to the reading thus compared and save.

Here is a summary of the work that we could do the application. What do you think ? So yes we have ideas, but to implement them, there are fewer people. But the idea is to have a fairly well structured project and advance to submit to "programmers". Crochet.david (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The ideas of being able to compare a similar listing on another language sounds interesting. Would have to be an interactive compare and the user able to chose what is transferred. Maybe something similar to the synchronise to Wikidata options in the listing editor. Also rather than an interactive run on a page, which will probably very often not give any useful results, how about a batch run of the whole site and mark any candidate listings will a tag (and category) that is only visible with the ErrorHighlighter gadget active (similar to what we do with dead links {{Dead link}}). --Traveler100 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
We certainly need something, which has to involve automatic translation, because the task is much bigger than updating listings. There are whole major destinations that are barely a series of headers in some common languages. And look at the size of the active contributorship: in the last hour English WV had 52 updates, German had 15, Russian 12 and French 12. Spanish had 11 the entire day, Hebrew 19 and Mandarin 31. Human editors can't remotely keep up. However we need to pause and consider whether WV and indeed the entire WMF can stay with the current model, of versions in multiple languages. The combination of better translations and 5G transmission suggests a future model of a single version, which is translated in real time into any known language; and in reverse for contributions. Do we see this happening soon, or is it away off? Grahamsands (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
E.g. German wikivoyage is already ahead of this discussion. They move some information to wikidata and thus the basic information could easily be shared between language editions, automatically. Description would obviously have to be translated (or private to each WV language version), but that part doesn't usually change too much, compared to emails, phone numbers etc. For example - Bergschänke hotel in Halle (Saale) / Q42298625 -- 07:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
At this point we will still need human translators, since computer translations are still awkward. Some idiomatic phrases and other expressions are extremely difficult to translate, and may not even have an equivalent in other languages. My Japanese is far from fluent, but even at my level, I am still able to spot and correct some mistakes made by Google Translate, so it's still a long way off before automated translation between different language versions of WV can become a reality. The dog2 (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Speaking as a polyglot and a translator, machine translation is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. The technology has a long, long, long way to go before machine translation programs get even basic grammar rules correct on a consistent basis, let alone can capture all the subtle nuance and colorful idioms and metaphors that human-generated language includes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we can agree that the qualitative information of a listing (i.e. the written description in the 'content' field and where appropriate the 'directions' field) will need to be a translated by humans for the foreseeable future. What I do think is worth exploring is whether, as Andree (SK) was suggesting the Germans are already doing, we can make automatic sharing of the 'quantitative' information (i.e. the address, phone number, website, pricing etc) easier to share across the different language versions of Wikivoyage. We already use Wikidata to quickly share the lat and long of a POI (with admittedly mixed results based on the differences in priority between us and Wikidata, or us and the encyclopedia) across the projects, so it is worth considering what else we can automatise to make our limited manpower more efficient.
As an unrelated aside purely triggered by Andre (NY)'s first sentence, I am moved to celebrate the fact that we have an overwhelmingly multilingual community, when compared even to English Wikipedia, with its much larger editorship.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Admins, please read an important message in the Notes section of Special:AbuseFilter/47Edit

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And a new message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Redirect Beth ShearimEdit

Hi, I just came across from german WV because I checked a language link from our new Bet She'arim to the english version and found a redirect to Nazareth which is possibly wrong, at loeast I couldn't find too much about Bet She'arim National Park on the Nazareth page. I think the redirect page should be deleted (or an article created...), kind regards Martin - Mboesch (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. We used to have an article for Beth Shearim, but this was merged into Nazareth in January 2017. At that time there was an "Around the city" section of See which included details of Beth Shearim, butt his was removed without explanation a couple of months later. Also see Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2017. There is info in Lower Galilee, so I think that the redirect should point there, but perhaps somebody familiar with the area could confirm. AlasdairW (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Liechtenstein cuisine pictureEdit

I uploaded a picture of Liechtenstein cuisine on Commons, showing bacon and cheese from Liechtenstein. Can I add it to the Liechtenstein page? The thing is, it was not actually taken in Liechtenstein, but in neighbouring Austria. JIP (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any such thing as Liechtenstein cuisine, as distinct from Austrian or Swiss cuisine of neighboring regions? I see no description whatsoever of the style of local cuisine in Liechtenstein#Eat, so I'd say that's where you should start, not with a photo out of context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Looking at the section to which IK links, I'd say that it could do with some information about local cuisine, if applicable. Once that information exists, a picture would be useful for the reader. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Competence is requiredEdit

Given the recent cases by User:Cactusflies22 and User:Gzaqp, I was wondering if we should import the Wikipedia policy w:Wikipedia:Competence is required. I understand that this should be obvious, but perhaps it will be better to have it spelt out clearly as a formal policy. The dog2 (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe I made the same suggestion a while back, though I can't remember where. At any rate, I fully support this initiative. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
How would we enforce this? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with a much more narrowly defined policy that focuses only on the ability to understand and write in English sufficiently well to be able to grasp Wikivoyage guidelines and talk page messages. But competence was not the issue in the case we're discussing. Instead, that individual is simply a troll that acts in bad faith to try to waste our time utterly pointlessly. I can think of only one Wikivoyage user who skirts close to the line of incompetence in English while operating in good faith, and this one isn't it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: You mentioned competence at Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations when speaking of User:Cactusflies22. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of banning people because their English isn't perfect except in the most extreme of circumstances though. Local knowledge is welcome here at WV, and we want to encourage locals from around the world to share things about their hometowns with us, and many of these people are not native English speakers. Unless the English is so bad that it cannot be understood, hopefully the native speakers here can be understanding and just help to correct spelling or grammatical errors. The dog2 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@The dog2: could we please stick to the proposal bring made instead of introducing straw man arguments? No-one has suggested banning users "because their English isn't perfect". That is a red herring that just derails the discussion. It isn't helpful to do that. I realise that it sounds like I'm being harsh, but please look at the Wikipedia policy that is being discussed. It describes competence as:
"the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively."
not as having "perfect English". Please stick to the discussion at hand. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I was the only who brought this up, so I know about it. I think we can be a bit more lenient for a travel guide than an encyclopaedia language-wise as we would like to encourage non-native English speakers to contribute information about their respective hometowns that would be useful for potential visitors. But yes, there should be a mechanism to deal with people acting in good faith but unable to make constructive edits. Sure, that guy was just a troll, but I think having such policies spelt out may discourage such trolling. We can guide new users, but we can't be babysitting them on what edits they make. Perhaps by spelling out such a policy, we can make that clear. The dog2 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I think what you've said makes sense, even though I have not yet decided that I support this policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the need for this policy. The example user given is a vandal that we deal with under existing policy, and the other good-faith user Ikan is referring to shouldn't be penalised in any way when it is easy enough to correct or undo some of his English clangers. When else has an otherwise good-faith user's lack of English ability had a negative effect on Wikivoyage? Or when has such a person, being unable to understand policy, become a problem for this community? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Answer: In some articles about Indonesia. But we've never felt the need to ban him, and I kind of agree that this is a policy in search of a reason for it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Ikan Kekek: For the record, I do not support banning the guy you mentioned. That's why I called for leniency with regard to bad English. I was just concerned about whether or not the troll is exploiting loopholes in our policies. The dog2 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No, he isn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The page in question is not a policy at the English Wikipedia. It is a "supplement", which is basically an essay that explains something (in this case, that explains a guideline, which in turn explains part of an actual policy). IMO it is not a good policy for any place. It's an idea, not a set of enforceable points.
I have never seen any evidence, either in my own experience or in research, that online trolls are discouraged by the existence of policies. Trolls simply don't say, "Oh, I was going to make a pest of myself, but since I see that would be 'against policy', I guess I won't do that!" Instead, they say, "Ooooh, lookit this long list of things that annoy these folks! I wonder which of these banned behaviors would be most fun to try!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Good post. Shall we put this proposal to bed? All we need to do is ban the next sock of this troll more quickly. Nothing to do with the troll's competence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
That's fine with me. The dog2 (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's interesting to read everyone else's take on the pcv vandal (User:Cactusflies22 et al.) I actually don't think he's a vandal in the strict sense of the term, implying bad faith and an intention to disrupt the site. I think he's describable as a "vandal" only because that's the closest category of user that policy allows us to ban. My own intuition, and the little social media investigation I did one day when I was bored (maybe that's an underhanded tactic, but when a person plasters their real name and city of residence all over their userspace while failing to lock down their privacy settings on Facebook, I see that as practically an invitation to snoop), lead me to believe that his professions of good faith hampered by mental illness are genuine, and that this is indeed a case of massive incompetence. And given that all of the foregoing shouldn't mean that we have to continue wasting our time on a user who is evidently impervious to our efforts to reform him into a valuable contributor, a hole in our policy is exposed. I think a "competence is required" policy is the perfect thing with which to fill that hole. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, WhatamIdoing: the same as with Wikivoyage:Deny recognition, I wish you would stop inferring that just because a Wikipedia page is a "supplement" or "essay" or something short of binding policy, that necessarily means its Wikivoyage analogue can't indeed be full-fledged binding policy. We are a different site from Wikipedia and are not obliged to follow their lead on everything. As I see it, the goal of a "competence is required" policy would not be to dissuade incompetent users (who, almost by definition, are oblivious to policy anyway) so much as to make it crystal-clear to site administrators that a userban is an appropriate remedy even in cases like Cactusflies22 that aren't exactly vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
But in the case of Cactus flies, the poor English wasn't the problem that got him banned. The justification you gave was that he was another iteration of a block-evading long-term vandal, who had previously made threats of self-harm if the community didn't do what he wanted. Further blocks will use the same justification, and rightly so. The other issue which he or a copycat have continued to exhibit is posting the same vague requests for help all over the place. That again is disruptive buzz-killing behaviour, which we can already control using existing policy.
I just don't see that poor English or general incompetence is that big of a problem that we need to legislate against it. The only other example user I can think of, the one who edits Indonesian articles from time to time, doesn't edit war, and does engage in discussion when needed. His occasional garbled edits are an easily-fixed inconvenience, not a terrible problem that we need to invent a new policy for.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Right. No new policy or guidelines are needed to deal with this situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Please forgive what might seem like obstructionism on my part; I came late to this discussion and want to make my feelings known before we come to a decision.
I think we're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on English proficiency. We actually have quite a few contributors - for example Yuriy Kosygin, Saqib, Lkcl it, and AFlorence (and if any of these users read this, I hope they understand my intent is not to insult their language skills, but to compliment their dedication and to be clear as possible regarding the argument I'm making) - whose English proficiency is deficient enough to require vigilance by copyeditors, yet who are or were invaluable members of our community and in some cases have even been named administrators. On the other hand, we have a user like Cactusflies, who is a native English speaker yet is incompetent nonetheless. I think the benchmark for a "competence is required" policy should be the question of whether a reasonable person would conclude it to be possible to reform a particular problem user into a productive one, irrespective of level of English proficiency and irrespective of whether the user is acting in good faith or bad faith. That leads into my response to ‎ThunderingTyphoons' remarks about "another iteration of a block-evading long-term vandal". It's true that Cactusflies was a block evader, but honestly the feeling I got about him was that he was simply mentally incapable of comprehending our policy, or us when we tried to explain to him why he was being repeatedly userbanned. One has to feel a certain amount of pity for a person like that, and viewed in that light, I don't think his behavior is classifiable in good conscience as "bad faith". It is, however, classifiable as "incompetence" and "not our problem". And that's the central question that IMO a "competence is required" policy is the perfect answer for: what do you do with a user who is not acting in bad faith and is thus not really a vandal, but whose actions are deleterious to the site nonetheless?
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do we need a new policy for one individual who can be dealt with under existing policies? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't. Andre, it sounds like you are worried that someone might think that admins aren't allowed to do what's right for this site and this community, unless there's a "crystal-clear" statement somewhere that provides explicit authorization for each and every situation. It doesn't sound like anyone else shares that view.
With respect to your earlier comments on enwiki's pages, I was making two completely unrelated points:
  • There was a factual error in the description of the page. If anyone was relying on that erroneous description (e.g., if they planned to repeat the erroneous claim, if that claimed status made the proposal seem stronger because it seemed to be tested and working for another community), then they might want to know that.
  • I personally do not think that page (i.e., the whole page, not just the title or the concept) should be adopted as a policy by any community anywhere. I've no objection to trying to write a different page on that concept, but I wouldn't use that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any real need for such a policy. However if we do introduce one, then it need to be written from scratch. It should focus on how to help editors to learn, and directing them to areas that thay are more competent at. For example you don't need to be able to write English to add lat/longs to listings. There may be editors who would benefit from attending an editathon and getting classroom tution, although this would be directed to WP editing (unless there is ever a WV event). AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... Wow! What next? Requiring high school, college or university transcripts to verify language proficiency or perhaps results from some ILR based test or a letter from your home room teacher or your mom if home schooled and most of all, results from some psychological exam. I don't believe in a new policy being added is in order. (The devil is in the detail(s)). I remember a Slavic phrase translated as "Throw momma from the train a kiss" that makes perfect sense in that particular language because of syntax and word endings or a Ukranian headline years ago about the building of a large derrick translated as a "Giant Ukranian Erection". Attract contributors and assist myself (yes I too make errors of course and am unfortunately not perfect) and others in a friendly manner in order to learn, develope (whoops I added an 'e') content etc. without condemnation and lengthy diatribes as to the use of a word, a comma or even policy. There are plenty of policies and tools if need be to address this issue. Be kind as we all are playing in the same sandbox. - Matroc (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
While I oppose making any policy on this matter, I don't think anyone is saying that all contributors to WV must have Noah Webster's command of the English language. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Right. Nobody here is in favour of going after editors over their English proficiency. We are only interested in going after the trolls, and the disagreement is on whether or not we need additional tools at our disposal for that. The dog2 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it's unhelpful to mischaracterize the arguments being made so wildly. Going back to WhatamIdoing's comment above, I don't necessarily think we need "a 'crystal-clear' statement somewhere that provides explicit authorization for each and every situation" (emphasis mine), but I do think we should err on the side of caution in the case of userbans, which are one of the more extreme measures admins have at their disposal "to do what's right for this site and this community", and which historically we've always avoided doling out absent a truly compelling reason and several extra layers of scrutiny. Let me reframe the issue: regardless of whether we've only yet seen one non-hypothetical user who this policy would be applicable to, what harm is there in clarifying policy? Why intentionally leave any degree of ambiguity unresolved? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Because there has yet to be one single case where this supposed ambiguity has been an issue. This policy is not needed in the real world (of Wikivoyage, as opposed to in theoretical situations that haven't happened) I will be happy to revise my position if and when that ever changes. But with respect to you, and you do have my utmost respect as a Wikivoyager (so much so my phone sometimes autocorrects "and" to "André"), there's no appetite for this proposal - it's time to let it go and move onto other things.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I'll drop the issue for now. But I'm pretty sure I remember some past occasions unrelated to Cactusflies where I've wished CIR was a Wikivoyage policy, so I'll be keeping my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of this policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: Wikivoyage:User ban nominations archive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Irregular subdivision of Western Highlands (Guatemala) articleEdit

Any of you Guatemala experts, please start a regionalization discussion at Talk:Western Highlands (Guatemala). There is but a single subregion article linked from this article, Lake Atitlán. That's irregular. Either a region should be completely subdivided into subregions that cover its entire area, with defined borders, articles for each of them, a map showing them and a listing of every one of them in, in this case, Western Highlands (Guatemala)#Regions, or there should be no subregion articles, because it messes up the breadcrumb navigation and several other things. And a subdivided region article should have no more than 9 cities listed in its "Cities" section, but we obviously can't do that yet in the Western Highlands article because this region is not properly subdivided, giving rise to the discussion at Talk:Western Highlands (Guatemala)#Problems with Lake Atitlán content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My feeling is that there should be subregions, but I don't know the area well enough to have any sense of where they should be. Hobbitschuster, do you know the area? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I've never been to Guatemala Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I wish. The closest I've been to Guatemala is being friends with someone who went on a school trip to the jungle there.
Maybe we should see what Wikiviajes does, or at least ask for their opinions? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thinking out of the box, one solution could be to elevate the Lake Atitlán article one level up as a region article directly below Guatemala? As of now there are six region articles in Guatemala#Regions, so per 7 2 there's no problem adding one more. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Their opinions would be great, but their article doesn't help: the Guatemala article on es.wikivoyage has nothing but red links for the 5 regions mentioned in the "Regiones" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Ypsilon, the real question about your suggestion is whether it makes any geographical or logical sense to excise that area from Western Highlands. It's hard to tell, because Western Highlands (Guatemala) has a dynamic map that doesn't make clear what the boundaries of the region are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The lake seems to be very close to the borders with the Central Highlands and Pacific Lowlands, and turning on the Mapnik layer in the embedded dynamic map it looks like the cities around the lake are all in the same department; Sololá (#19 in the region discussion above at Talk:Guatemala#Regions), so it shouldn't be too hard to cut it out as a separate region.
Another solution involving more work would be merging articles of cities that are close to each other (also elsewhere in the Western Highlands there are clusters of cities each with their own article) to reduce the number of cities in the Western Highlands article, then merging the content of Lake Atitlán into appropriate articles and turn it into a redirect. Ypsilon (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What about our bodies of water policy? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Some regions or for that matter towns are named after bodies of water. These articles aren't about water, they are about the inhabited area on and around the water, with all the sorts of things that make an destination article-worthy."; in this case the towns and villages around Atitlán that as of now have their own articles. --Ypsilon (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nosedive of our U.S. Alexa rankEdit

For some reason that's of yet unclear to me (it can't be seasonal variation alone) our Alexa ranking in the U.S. has taken a worse nosedive than a 737 max with mcas on steroids. It doesn't seem to have caused real world consequences yet, but we should probably find out what's going on before it's too late Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this observation is true. The cause is as unexplainable as the jump about two years ago. The nosedive started about three months ago (see here), is not yet stopped and was combined with a decrease of the count of U.S. visitors from about 15 % to 10 %. The values for India and Germany are more stable. The usual temporary changes within a year cannot explain this behavior, too. Maybe Wikitravel could improve its U.S. ranking. Unfortunately, the awareness of Wikivoyage is still low. The major part of traffic is coming from search engines and Wikipedias but not from direct access or from other websites. Social media cannot help, too, because of low usage. A better visibility of Wikivoyage could surely help but I do not know how to do this. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to compare it with other website rankings sites like SimilarWeb and see if it is a trend occurring everywhere or only on Alexa (in which case the way Alexa measures website popularity in the U.S. might have changed). The German Wikivoyage shows a Seitwert ranking though I don't quite understand it. As you say, Wikivoyage still has low general awareness. Many people who end up here from search or Wikipedia don't leave with a sufficiently strong impression that they remember the site and visit directly from then on or follow us on social media. Apart from the fork, we tend to get minimal mainstream media coverage as well. The only thing I can think of is to place "Share" buttons at the bottom of articles, so when a reader finishes an article and thinks it's worth sharing, they can share it via email or a social media platform. Gizza (roam) 08:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we should in theory enable sharing, but there's a problem with that, in that it could be controversial to associate ourselves in any way with sites like Twitter and Facebook that, shall we say, have played very dubious roles in world politics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Traffic for travel sites usually drops during northern autumn. Wikivoyage's drop in global Alexa rank is not worse than previous years. Also, the other site is no longer a relevant competitor. /Yvwv (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I support exploring the idea of a share button, though think the politics stuff is a red herring. For better or worse, billions of people use Twitter and Facebook, and our content getting shared on those platforms to reach more people should be seen as a good thing.
What do the figures say regarding Wikitravel? Can we discount them as "no longer a relevant competitor" just like that? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking about our global rank. Our U.S. rank shows dramatic short term movement that's not mirrored by that other site (in fact we've fallen behind it in the U.S.) or the global rank of either site... Could there be an explanation related to Google trying its hand with travel guides? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the data Roland linked to there are not one but two drops in the U.S. ranking as of lately; early August to mid-September 8,886 down to 18,911 (the ordinal numeral a little more than doubled) then the ranking improved somewhat up to 13,799 in October and then down to 28,458 until now (again the ordinal numeral a little more than doubled). Is that really normal? --Ypsilon (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, just chiming in here as a staff member who use to work with the search team and cares about Wikivoyage. :) It's possible that (the portal) traffic has diminished, but not the actual language variants. That's a little less alarming IMHO. Here's the stats for English Wikivoyage showing that since the beginning of 2019, page views have increased! And traffic to English Wikivoyage from the US makes up the overwhelming majority of traffic. That's pretty consistent over time too. Not to say we shouldn't be watching and be concerned, but to provide a little contextual relief (I hope!).
It could also be possible that Google, which makes upward of 95% of traffic (and there for greatly influences Alexa rankings) could be doing something different. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)