Wikivoyage:Travellers' 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

Red linksEdit

Continued from Talk:Red Sea Coast

What’s the line on red-linking places? They’re most often seen in lists of cities on a Region page. They’re an ugly wash of red ink and create a wrong emphasis on the least informative aspect of that page. Many such lists look to be Wikipedia category dumps from away back. My approach is only to retain a red link if the place so obviously needs its own page that I’m prepared to build it myself in the near future. Anything in the category of “nice to do, if someone else would put in the work” can’t be that important. Grahamsands (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Often, you might not be able to create that article because you don't know anything about the place, but someone else might be familiar with it, even an anonymous user who decided to contribute because that person knows about that destination. While I can understand the reasons to remove red links in some cases, I think that removing almost all of them is a large task not worth doing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the red colour is chosen to make them highly visible, making them "an ugly wash" and "create a wrong emphasis". Could we perhaps change in the CSS files to make them stand out less, instead of removing them? I think there is a point in laying out what articles are needed in a region, so that anybody can see what is not yet covered, and somebody knowing the region can contribute by creating one of those without figuring out what cities belong to a certain WV region. I am asking myself not what I’m prepared to do in the near future, but what should be done to make the region reasonably covered. If a region lacks articles on most important cities, we should not hide that. Then, of course, we should not redlink every tiny village in the region. --LPfi (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
If there's a reason for a name to be prominent, then let it be prominent - eg if it's misspelled and fails to link. (It's really useful to have that check on preview.) But if there's no reason, let it be plain text, not some in-between dull mauve. Agreed that coverage needs to improve in many areas, but if candidates for new pages are mapped on the "region" page, would contributors not notice the difference between blue and black text? They would when they tried to clink on it. Grahamsands (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, the rationale for the conspicuous color is that it encourages readers to plunge forward and create an article about the destination, if they have the knowledge to do so. Of course that has to be weighed against the other considerations you mentioned. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I do not think the color is particularly important. I am not sure it creates the "ugly" impression for readers who are not editors, and if so, is it such a dreadful concern that we must remove every (or nearly every) single red link we see? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with SelfieCity. If the color is offensive (to you; it doesn't bother me), then let's change the color in CSS, but let's not remove appropriate links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
"Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." -- w:WP:REDLINK Powers (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Powers. That's a good summary of the reason why we include red links. Could we incorporate those sentences into our own Wikivoyage policy to settle the debate if there is consensus for its inclusion? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Support, it then becomes a question of which places meet the criterion of "should have articles", and these can be discussed case by case. For if they should, let that status be prominent in red-link, uniform with Wikipedia. Ditto if there's a current debate about whether a particular place does or doesn't stand. Contributors will vary in their propensity to highlight places in that way, and my own definition of "and I'm prepared to write it myself" lies at the parsimonious-going-on-Occamist end of the spectrum. But we seem to be agreed that the other extreme of "just about every place-name" isn't sensible. Grahamsands (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
That is why we have the can you sleep there? test. That would, I believe, also qualify which pages are allowed to be red-linked. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this should be about what is allowed, but how to make the judgement call. There could be lots of towns and villages where you could sleep, but which should not be listed, in a region with say five major cities, two of which have articles.
I'd think about it like districtification of cities. Redlink the major cities and some towns with important attractions and forget about the rest until the region is better developed. If it is not clear in which city article listings of some areas should be placed, the scope of each city article could be briefly explained in the city list, perhaps with some namedropping of minor places.
--LPfi (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I think by "allowed" and "judgement call" we mean the same thing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I usually prefer to think of it this way: All editors are permitted, but never required, to add (red) links to places for which we ought to have articles. Editors are not permitted to remove links to places for which we ought to have articles, unless these links would be removed even if the article currently existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Too many resorts are marred by part-built developments that will clearly never be completed let alone inhabited. The development was permitted, but not a good judgement call; if only that time and labour could have been put to better use. And many pages on WV look similar, hence my parsimony. But it's easier to remedy e-text than a sprawl of rust-stained concrete, so what we come to is much the same as "What is an article?" I'm thinking to amend my own test thus: if someone created this place as a page, would I send a thank-you, shrug and move on, or entreat the writer to reconsider? Anything in the third category should go from red link to plain text, to avoid attracting the cement mixers. Grahamsands (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
If there was an outline article, say with one or two listings, would you be wanting to merge it into a neighbouring article. If the answer is yes, then there shouldn't be a red link. If a region has poor coverage, it would be good to only have 3-5 red linked cities, rather than the 20 that are "possible articles", to focus editor's attention on the most needed articles. I think that we should be more selective about red links in other articles (not regions), and travel topics should only have very few. AlasdairW (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
We have a longstanding practice of tolerating redlinks as a way of encouraging content creation, and according to this discussion we also have a strong consensus to continue with the status quo. It's time to move on from this issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm with AlastairW and the others here but would add another thought: if there is a usable-plus page in another language, then a red link might draw attention to that, perhaps supplemented by a note somewhere. In the example of Red Sea Coast that sparked my inquiry, there is well-developed content on WV-DE that could swiftly populate absent or outline pages. That's perhaps because German speakers continued to visit during a period when English speakers were deterred, so I look forward to similar great contributions from WV-RU in future. Grahamsands (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A similar problem with San José (Costa Rica) as we've had with AlajuelaEdit

Namely many listings lack geocoordinates and some are obviously nowhere near San José. There is already a list of places "near the airport" on the talk page which would most likely have to be moved to Alajuela] .... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

What to do with Nicoya Peninsula?Edit

It is currently the only sub-region of any of the regions of Costa Rica. I think this doesn't work all that well. I tried raising that issue on the talk page four years ago, but there was no response. What say ye? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but am also concerned about the different travel advice in the two region articles. One implies the region is completely safe, while the other implies it is dangerous. It can't be both at once. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Both "safe" and "dangerous" are relative terms... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
True. If you know what's the truth here, go ahead and merge the articles. I'm just concerned that the region articles would contradict post-merge. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Central Pacific (Costa Rica) article should be fully split into regions, or the Nicoya Peninsula article should be merged, whichever is optimal. I agree the current situation doesn't work.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, if the peninsula is one of Costa Rica's more important tourist destinations, it could be categorized directly below Costa Rica as one of its regions. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Diffs in monospaced fontEdit

When I look at diffs, they now display in a monospaced font. Is this happening for other people, or have I somehow accidentally changed a setting somewhere? Nurg (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Ground Zero (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Software change? Nurg (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Happening on Wikivoyage and Wiktionary for me, but not Wikipedia.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Found the change. MediaWiki_1.35/wmf.30 led me to Phab T250393: Use monospace font (or editfont preference) for diffs. Nurg (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It's happening everywhere, but something (unrelated) went wrong and they reverted the whole week's worth of changes. It'll be back. I imagine that some people will like it, some people won't, and that most of us will be okay with it once we've had a chance to get used to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is back. If you try it out and just can't stand it, then there's a way to switch the font for your account (described at w:en:WP:VPT, but ping me if you need help). I think I might get used to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm experiencing it on Wikipedia but not here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You should now get the same font in the editing window and the diff. That font is set at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing (or in Special:GlobalPreferences, but since the two don't match, you probably haven't set it there). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Conversion templatesEdit

For those who are interested, this month's collaboration is conversion templates. Statements like "75° Fahrenheit" would be converted to the format 75 °F (24 °C) using {{F|75}}. Per Wikivoyage talk:Measurements#Using digits instead of words fractions should not be converted to the templates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hold up. I certainly appreciate the efforts to keep the fire burning over at cotm, but for accessibility reasons vis-a-vis new editors, Wikivoyage has always preferred to use templates as sparingly as possible, as elucidated at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates#Template overkill? and elsewhere. Any sitewide action that consists of wantonly replacing ordinary prose with templates needs to be cleared through a community-wide consensus at the pub and/or the relevant policy page, not merely a consensus at CotM that consists of three support votes, two of which are from no-longer-active users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. See below. (As a note, only one of the support votes comes from an inactive user.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have often used conversion templates such as Template:Fahrenheit to convert fahrenheit to celsius, etc. Apparently, though these templates are not labeled with the experimental template despite having long been on the website but have only once been approved in consensus — at the cotm nomination. Therefore, it's necessary to decide whether or not we should use these templates. See cotm for more information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As someone who's pretty useless at templates, I find the conversion templates easy to use. I am sympathetic to minimising the use of templates and think that the French Wikivoyage has gone too far down that particular rabbit hole, to the extent where there are indeed templates by the bunny-load. That wiki looks prettier, but it's not as user-friendly as this one. But, I do think the conversion templates are more user-friendly than doing the calculation externally (Google search or calculator). So, while I support the request to have a discussion, I also support the wider use of conversion templates.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's my position on the matter. I'm not opposed to the existence of the conversion template. It should be available for editors who want to use it. I've used it myself in a number of articles. But its use should definitely not be required, nor (this is the clause germane to the proposed CotM) should its use be considered the Wikivoyage default. In the section above, I spelled out the accessibility issues with overuse of templates, but there are also reasons unrelated to accessibility why a user might want to stick with prose; one I can think of off the top of my head is that when a writer is using round numbers to convey the fact that he's approximating, it looks odd to give an exact conversion when the number in the other system is not round. (This happened to me when copyediting the Birmingham (Alabama) article in advance of its DotM stint; I remember writing something like "average high temperatures in summer are around 100°F (40°C)" and it was remarked that the Celsius equivalent to 100°F is actually 38°C. I replied that the operative word in what I wrote is "around"; both of those numbers remain approximately accurate even if the conversion isn't exact.) I'm fine with the conversion template being used where appropriate and even with encouraging its wider use, but I think going back and retroactively changing other editors' prose to templates is a bridge too far in this case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that in cases where no conversion is given, it's useful to add a conversion, whether through a template or through regular text. (Especially for destinations in the United States, whose Fahrenheit system is more unfamiliar to people from Celsius-using countries than vice versa.) In cases where a conversion is given in text, I don't think it does any good to convert it to a template. Doing so carelessly can also introduce issues—AndreCarrotflower gave one example; another more subtle case is where a sentence says something like "Temperatures vary by as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit". —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposal is specifically:
"a COTM to turn text like "25 km" or "3 miles" into conversion templates, like 25 km (16 mi) or 3 mi (4.8 km)."
This is a win for readers who understand the metric system or Imperial measures but not both. WV:the traveller comes first.
It does not propose to change text where the conversion is provided, such as "around 100°F (40°C)".
Let's stick to discussing the merits of the proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I have adjusted the language at cotm to clarify your point. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @AndreCarrotflower: You can get the same effect with {{convert}}, though: {{convert|100|F|-1}} will give you 100 °F (40 °C). (edit: And to Granger's point, for converting a range or difference in temperature, that's supported too: {{convert|30|F-change}} will give you 30 °F (17 °C).)
There's undoubtedly a balance to be struck between using fewer templates (which makes things easier for unskilled editors) and using more templates (which encourages uniformity, encodes intent in semantic markup, and enables features such as making pages more accessible [e.g. for screen readers]). But isn't this part of the advantage of a wiki, that not every editor needs to be skilled with templates? If you want to write prose, go ahead. If someone else wants to upgrade it to use [approved] templates, they can also do so. On WP I frequently reformat existing prose to use w:Template:Nihongo and similar language templates, and would be doing so here if we had an equivalent template. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize the template was so versatile. That's great. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the clarification Ground Zero provided, I no longer oppose implementation of this CotM, with the caveat that when participants encounter a figure that's round, i.e. one that ends in a 0 or a 5, please first assess whether it's intended as an approximation, and if so, convert in prose to the nearest round number in the other system, rather than with the template.
To Bigpeteb's comment: as ThunderingTyphoons! pointed out, the conversion template in its most straightforward form is simple enough even for those who are otherwise uncomfortable with using templates, but when you add extra arguments whose existence and/or purpose is not immediately obvious, like the "-1" or "-change" business at the end, that's when you venture into user-unfriendly territory. I consider myself pretty handy with templates - I've figured my way around Template:Mapframe, for instance - and much like Granger, I didn't know those capabilities was built into the conversion template until just now. When even experienced editors like Granger and me aren't familiar with the full range of uses of a particular template, that's a problem.
As for "if you want to write prose, go ahead; if someone else wants to upgrade it to use [approved] templates, they can also do so", the operating principle Wikivoyage follows is that when content is converted from newbie-friendly prose to sometimes newbie-unfriendly templates, the chances of that text being edited at any time in the future become correspondingly smaller, even if updates are necessary to maintain accuracy. For instance, in the example you provided, suppose a third user comes along wanting to edit that same content and, thanks to the second user, now has a template to deal with. Is that third user unfamiliar with how to use MediaWiki templates? Will the need to learn put him off editing that content? Could the article potentially be stuck with inaccurate or outdated information as a result? These are all distinct possibilities.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there now a consensus to continue this cotm with explanations added as having been clarified in this discussion? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I will update the page to reflect the above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  Done — see cotm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That was quick. Consensus 2 hr after the discussion was started! On Walpurgis night! That was just convincing one (or a few) users, not getting a "community-wide consensus".

I am not convinced. The example above on changing 3 mi to "3 mi (4.8 km)" is certainly something that should not be done in one minute, but requires understanding the context. I'd usually make it "3 mi (5 km)". I do use the templates, but I try to consider where they are useful and where they mostly add noise. If the (approximately) same numbers are repeated, I think converting every occurrence is overkill, unless the exact figures are important. Likewise e.g. in some cases where the figure itself is not the point.

I sometimes use {{convert}}, but I have to look it up every single time. Here I agree with AndreCarrotflower: {{km|5}} is obvious, at least if you can see the result, and perhaps {{convert|5|km|sigfig=1}}, but the more complex variants should be used very sparingly.

I might not make further comments for some days.

LPfi (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean the agreement of every single Wikivoyage editor. This was a sort of "emergency," as we briefly had a cotm that was going against consensus. That seems to be resolved now.
I'm not sure I understand the "context" to which you refer. Sure, some context helps, but surely the editor doesn't need to read whole paragraphs just to know that it's not a rounded conversion or a changing value rather than a temperature. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
If one calls for a wider community discussion and it is closed in two hours, that is odd. There are certainly regulars who did not log in tonight. Are you sure this cotm is not still going against consensus? Or rather, that there might not yet be a consensus about doing this – and that it could be done in a better way if we gather some more understanding about the role of the figures in different contexts.
[some too wordy explanations about "context"]
But now I wish you a good night. I hope I got some of my message across, although I am not in the mood of thinking carefully about guidelines for this project and finding good examples. I am still just trying to use the emergency brake. If I am the only one who was not part of a consensus, then do as you might. I really try to keep away from this for some days.
-- LPfi (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The C and F templates are relatively self-explanatory, and are a useful way to present the temperature in both scales. But generally I think we should use only as many templates as needed (and not mimick for example fr-WV where they are using a template for everything that can be put into a template – heure, prix and what have you). Templates, while practical, make wikicode harder to read and edit, particularly for new users. --Ypsilon (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that there was community-wide consensus for this cotm; I just meant that there seemed to be consensus among the people who had participated in the discussion. In the past we haven't usually required community-wide consensus for collaborations, just consensus at the cotm page. (Usually successful cotm proposals don't turn out to be this controversial!) There appears to be community consensus that Template:convert etc. is permissible, based on Wikivoyage:Measurements.
I'll reiterate the suggestion I made at the cotm page, which is that we postpone this collaboration and do something less controversial this month. That'll give us time to see if there's community-wide consensus and solidify exactly what the scope of the collaboration should be. It seems to me there's no harm in swapping this collaboration with a different one in the calendar. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger, LPfi, AndreCarrotflower: Accordingly, I've adjusted the cotm schedule so that this month is "style fixes." I did it, quite conveniently, just after 24:00 UTC, which is when the COTM should be changed anyway. I had to do some rescheduling because the June 2020 collaboration was roughly the same as March/April, but I think this will work well.
It's been an interesting start to the COTM's second (no, third, fourth, fifth?) revival, but hopefully things will become smoother after this. At least we have achieved more interest in the COTM than ever before! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Style fixesEdit

There's a problem with the "task" section of the new cotm: I can't load the links to examples of style tags within articles. Does anyone have an idea what's gone wrong here? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been having trouble with Petscan links lately too. Not sure what the problem is, maybe something to do with the WMF's servers. The alternative is to use the category page, I guess. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Postal codes in AustraliaEdit

In light of this, should postal codes be part of listings in articles on Australian destinations? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a thread for Wikivoyage talk:Listings. Post an argument there for why to include postal codes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance operation scheduledEdit

A maintenance operation will be performed on Thursday May 5 at 05:00 AM UTC.

It is supposed to take around 15 minutes.

During this time, you may not be able to edit the wikis. For more details about the operation and on all impacted services, please check on Phabricator.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before the operation.

Please help making your community aware of this maintenance operation.

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The word "officially"Edit

In light of this, I think it is simpler to say "officially" then to introduce this weird parenthetical. However, there seem to be others that this common word is some sort of "code", so what do third voices think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would be interested to know if others understand that "officially" here meant "Panama has some "totally not a military" forces which look a lot like a military". I didn't know that, and I don't think I'm being dense. Ground Zero (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it was decent, but an explanation is definitely helpful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Without the word "officially" one could get the impression that there is no military of any kind. With it, people can draw the conclusion "officially" they got rid of it, "inofficially" may be a different story. And this is - if anything - a discussion on airports in the context of the article, not on military or the abolishment thereof, which more properly belongs into the main Panama article or rather its "understand" section... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure everyone will draw the same conclusion from the "hint" about an official military; however, I agree on your second point. This isn't the correct part of the article to have a potentially controversial description of Panama's (lack of?) military. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Having an explanation is better. The very fact that you wrote an explanation in your edit summary shows the need for this. Without an explanation, there's no way of knowing that "officially" is significant in the sentence.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this explanation is a good one. Now I feel like we have to explain what these "limited military duties" are, and why we think that Panama's national police and border patrol organizations should be counted as "limited military duties" but the US's national police and border patrol organizations shouldn't.
A brief explanation might be appropriate in Panama, but for the purposes of this article, all that matters is that former military airports were turned into civilian ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
That wording comes from Wikipedia. If it isn't a sufficient explanation, then, like "officially", it isn't informing the reader, so there is no reason for it to be there. If saying that Panama abolished its armed forces is problematic, then maybe we should just take it out. Ground Zero (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Ground Zero. This seems like an unnecessary but also controversial detail that can be left out of the article. Only if this non-official military (or whatever it is?) is a travel concern does it make a mention necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical help neededEdit

The United States of America article is showing a bunch of big red errors saying "Lua error: not enough memory." Does anyone know what the problem is or how we can fix it? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's something related to the post-include template size, or whatever that problem is that amounts to "too many templates". User:Redrose64 and User:Johnuniq, do I remember you talking about this problem over at enwiki in the past? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
The error message is "Lua error: not enough memory". The cause is that some templates invoke modules. Each module which is currently active while the page is being parsed uses a certain amount of memory. The total allowed is 50 MB. The error is due to that limit being exceeded. Unfortunately, there is no information on which module is using how much memory at the crash. It's likely that one or two of them are using more than their fair share and some serious reworking might fix them. Or, possibly the article is too long and the templates are trying to do too much work. If you edit the article then preview without making any changes, you can see "Lua memory usage" near the bottom. I've tried deleting various things to see what difference it makes (in an attempt to locate a greedy module) but have had inconsistent results. For example, deleting {{Regionlist}} and previewing showed 41.53 MB/50 MB (good), but deleting everything except Regionlist showed 1.6 MB/50 MB which is confusing because 41.53 + 1.6 should be well under 50 MB. Strangely, deleting {{pagebanner}} and {{warningbox}} from the top gives 44.03 MB/50 MB, yet those templates do not use any modules (so how come deleting them saved Lua memory?). I'll try to think more another time but meanwhile some creative trial-and-error might find a template which is using too much memory. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, there are two red-linked categories at the bottom of the article. It's conceivable that the error is causing bad categories to be added, but if someone understands what they are, perhaps a problem could be found and fixed in the wikitext. I forgot to mention that "related changes" shows no changes at all in the last 30 days to templates/modules used in the article, and displaying some old revisions of the article from early April showed the same problem (why is there no notice saying that I am looking at an old version when I do that?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Thank you for this helpful guidance. You should see a yellow notice "This is an old revision of this page..." at the very top when looking at an old revision (at least I see that notice). This problem has been happening on and off at least since last July, when User:ThunderingTyphoons! brought it up at Talk:United States of America. I feel like we solved it that time, but I don't know how.
The two red-linked categories are a new kind of maintenance category that no one has bothered to create yet. I doubt they're related to this problem, as removing the responsible VisaRestriction templates doesn't get rid of the errors. I'll create the red-linked categories in a moment.
I just noticed another error that's showing up in the article too: "Expression error: Unexpected < operator." Apparently it's related to Template:Exchange rate US, but then why isn't the same error showing up in articles like Bermuda that also use that template? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
If US$ is the base currency for the template/module, then it's possible that a problem could affect it and not other currencies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Those other articles use the same currency (and therefore exactly the same template, with no difference in parameters).
I seem to have solved the problem for now by getting rid of most of the unit conversion templates that were in the article, bringing Lua memory usage down to 43.01 MB/50 MB. The error in the exchange rate template is gone too, suggesting that it was somehow caused by the Lua memory issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The expression errors occurred because some template in the expression called a module, and that module crashed because the 50 MB limit had already been exceeded, so the module returned some error text which caused the expression to fail when it tried to do arithmetic with the text. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lede Paragraphs ExpeditionEdit

In accordance with Wikivoyage:Expeditions, I'm suggesting a new expedition pending consensus: an expedition to improve lede paragraphs of articles. Contributors would add lede paragraphs based on local knowledge; "it's a matter of their best judgment whether or not [contributors] can incorporate information from the "understand" section..." an alternative to local knowledge. The goal is to reduce the number of articles that begin with "X is a city in [country]," a lede that does not introduce tourists to a destination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Related to this, on Wikivoyage talk:Article skeleton templates‎, I suggested rewording the lead in the quick article templates and the corresponding MediaWiki templates, to further giving some more interesting information in the lead. --LPfi (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This feels timely. A preliminary task is to re-state the principles of a good lede, to act as a pithy intro to a place. It's almost a sound-bite, and the lede should form the basis for the reply to “Alexa, tell me about X” since a casual enquiry is more likely interested in travel than a ponderous WP recitation of geographical stats. The expedition may be limited by the overall condition of the page – it’s easy to write ledes for well-developed pages, even if we don't know the area. It's more daunting for the all-too-common messy scrappy ones. But that’s part of the challenge: if a good lede indicates why you might travel there, it can also attract you to edit there. Grahamsands (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Grahamsands, do you have any principles that you believe should be included on the expedition page, if/when it is created? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Nil beyond the above, feels like there's plenty enough implicit understanding that we can just plunge forward. But I thought it worth re-stating the obvious here, because I've had several pithy ledes reduced to the likes of "Rome is a city in Italy, full stop". In future I can revert them and refer the culprit to this discussion. Grahamsands (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. What about a good name? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hesse - some notes and some questionsEdit

I recently created two new articles in Hesse, mostly by translating from de-wv and using wikidata and wikipedia for listings. The articles are Friedberg (Hessen) and Bad Nauheim, both in a region known to Germans as w:Wetterau. I put them in North Hesse - probably wrongly - because the region map at Hesse doesn't exist and there is - to my knowledge no unambiguous subdivision of Hesse and de-wv does not have a non-overlapping subdivision of Hesse either. This is highly frustrating for me as an editor but also potentially a disservice for our readers who are likely to get confused. At Talk:Hesse one can observe several attempts to subdivide which however seem to have yielded little. User:Feuermond16 had weighed in but for some reason or other soon quit the discussion, but I think their local knowledge could be of use. What do you think should be done about Hesse? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  • personally I trust your ability to plunge forward and come to optimal results. Wish I had my dynamic map chops to assist on that part, and hope our colleagues proficient on them will help here. Ibaman (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Anybody else willing to weigh in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a problem stretching back to the 2000s. If the regions' boundaries aren't even defined, then they need redefining. If you're capable of doing that, do so. I don't really understand some of your post so it may not be feasible, but if you can't find a way to make the regions on en.wikivoyage work or don't know the state well enough to redraft, why not just copy de:Hessen, or else liaise with that articles' authors to reach a crosswiki consensus? I'm afraid there won't be many people on en.wikivoyage who know enough to comment. I'm confused just from writing this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately the subdivsion on de-wv is not all that clear and there is considerable overlap between some of the regions... I mean I could simply put all the "dots" on the map that have wv articles and then draw an essentially arbitrary line, but that wouldn't be all that satisfactory... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the Norhessischer Verkehrsverbund cover all/almost all of the cities currently named in that article? If so, then that could be a real-world basis for our division. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't cover Friedberg (Hesse) or Bad Nauheim. If I am not mistaken, the term often used for Gießen and Wetzlar is "Mittelhessen"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hobbitschuster, I coloured in the Landkrieβe on the dynamic map at Talk:Hesse to approximate the current regions. If this division makes sense, then we could use it. If using the Landkreise doesn't make sense, we've got to come up with boundaries on our own. In which case, I agree with Ibaman and think you should run with it if you have ideas. -Shaundd (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for coloring the Landkreise. I think it is quite recognizable that "North Hesse is a bit too large in relation to the other regions, but I'm still not sure how to proceed from there. Imho Bad Nauheim and Friedberg (Hessen) should be put together in one region, but only one is served by the Frankfurt S-Bahn, so putting both in Rhine Main might be a bad idea... Giving them both their own region is overkill as there is not likely to be more in that region on en-wv for some time... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: I read through all the Hesse region discussions and I'd say the one that was implemented is the 2015 discussion that created the Rheingau/Rhine-Main/South Hesse split we currently have in the south. Unfortunately, it didn't clearly lay out what to do with towns close to Frankfurt, it just says "Towns north of Frankfurt (Taunus), need to look at each individually." So now we have towns like Bad Homburg and Hanau part of Rhine-Main while Bad Orb, even though it's in the same Landkreise as Hanau, is not. According to Wikipedia, the w:Frankfurt Rhine-Main includes the Wetterau, Main-Kinzig and Hochtaunus, so maybe the easiest thing is the extend Rhine-Main to include all of those three Landkreise? North Hesse would be the Landkreise north of them (and north of Rheingau). I doubt it's perfect but it solves the issue of where to put the two articles you created and provides a clear boundary until a better structure can be agreed. -Shaundd (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The boundary between non-interference with userspace and the accuracy of our contentEdit

Have a look at User:DAZ14LPA#No-Go's, which states that "I heard that if you speak English [in Quebec], you get dirty looks, unintentionally start a fight, or could get shot". Needless to say, this is patently and, I would say, offensively untrue. There are over a million Québécois who speak English natively, to say nothing of the millions more tourists who visit uneventfully each year from English-speaking regions of Canada, the U.S., and elsewhere in the Anglosphere, not to mention that gun violence (of any kind, let alone for reasons as innocuous as speaking the "wrong" language) is extremely rare in Canada.

I realize that the Wiki custom is to allow editors a little bit more leeway when it comes to their own userspace, and I also realize that some random editor's user page is going to see far less traffic than our actual Quebec destination article. However, we must also consider Wikivoyage's responsibility to ensure that the information we provide to our readers is as accurate as possible, and I think the chance, however unlikely, of someone reading that and being misled as to the safety of travelling in Quebec handily outweighs whatever value it may bring to this editor's userspace.

My initial inclination was to simply delete the passage, but on second thought, I figured it might be better to bring up the issue here.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not that worried about people getting wrong information from user pages, but this indeed seems it might need curating. As the user seems to be serious, I think one should point to this discussion on the user talk, tell the user he or she has got the wrong impression and ask them to reword such passages. Blatant passages can be removed and the removal explained afterwards, but I suppose that is not needed here. --LPfi (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd leave it. I think most readers will recognise from context — he or she craps on a long list of places, IMHO mostly for silly reasons — that he or she is just acting dumb & repeating hearsay. Pashley (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Either of Pashley's or LPfi's approach are better than charging in and changing it yourself. I personally wouldn't even bother bringing it up as it's obvious to anyone reading that it's someone's ill-informed opinion. On balance, Babel boxes which claim a level of English higher than a user is obviously capable of are more damaging, but I still wouldn't tell a user to "downgrade" themselves from e.g. en-4 to en-2. But if you feel you must tackle this person on Quebec, then leave them a message, explain your reasons etc. But if they refuse to change it, that's their prerogative. You should then drop the issue; it's not worth a fight.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. It's best to leave userspace alone, and if people read misinformation outside of our "official" website content, it is their duty to recognize it and ignore it. After all, how would someone even find this user's content without specifically searching for his/her userspace, let alone assume said misinformation is more accurate than our mainspace article specifically dedicated to Quebec? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Though I've been unable to figure out where it was swept to, I remember a discussion in the pub about the trend in web traffic to Wikivoyage vis-à-vis COVID in which it was noted that the user page of long-inactive editor User:Nicholasjf21 had become one of the most-visited pages on the site for some reason. I'm not sure what that signifies, but I think it serves to complicate any arguments based on the obscurity of this user's userspace. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought we (being those who participated in that discussion) generally agreed that was due to an error in how page views were counted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
You may well be right; I don't remember how that discussion resolved. At any rate, while I continue to think the idea of an editor trash-talking specific destinations is in poor taste and unbecoming a travel site (and doing so based on untrue information worse still), I don't see any point in forcing the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is the discussion. I think it was right to inform the user, as you have done, but at that point s/he ought to make the right decision on his/her own. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Note: actually I think I have the wrong discussion.
A couple of discussions about this user's User Page:User_talk:DAZ14LPA#Montreal, User_talk:Traveler100bot#Do_not_touch_my_page. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not pro-censorship, but I'm also opposed to Wikivoyage user pages being used to make false and offensive statements. They really shouldn't be used for anything beyond Wikivoyage business and whatever biographical information the user wants to share, but we really only need be concerned where the user crosses a line like this one. Wikipedia has a useful and reasonable policy on this that I think we should adopt. I will paraphrase some key points to illustrate what I mean:

  • Wikivoyage is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikivoyager.
  • A user page should not be used to post material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offence (e.g., pro-pedophilia advocacy). Wikivoyage is not a soapbox.

We have had an issue with one contributor who, after a long spell of contributing useful travel information, began editing articles to promote anti-Semitic and racist views. That person was banned from the site, appropriately. I don't think that we can trust in the judgement of all of our contributors.

In this case, the editor was notified five years ago that the statement about Quebec are blatantly false, and yet s/he has left the statement in place.

I suggest notifying the user that the statement is false and offensive and that it must be removed. If so/he fails to do so, it will be removed by an admin. Ground Zero (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the contributor you're talking about, Ground Zero, but we still have a set of politically charged userpages about a made-up country from a user who is now banned. As long as we're talking about how to handle controversial userspace content, should we delete these? Given the userban for related issues and how extensive and irrelevant the pages are, I lean towards deleting them. I'm not sure how best to handle the Quebec issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
These have been deleted. Wikivoyage is not free web-hosting for personal stuff. Ground Zero (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I was referring to User:ArticCynda, who I think is a different person. But yes, why would we host these pages? Ground Zero (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It took me a moment to find it. We have our own policy on user pages, Wikivoyage:User page help, which says, in part,
"Remember that Wikivoyage is not a personal home page service or a vacation photo service. Overloaded User pages are considered a form of abuse. In addition, while it is OK to associate yourself with your company if you work for or run a business, user pages should not be used for advertising."
On that basis, we can delete made-up country pages. I think we should expand the "should not be used for advertising" to include "false statements, and statements that denigrate another user or identifiable group". Ground Zero (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. Who decides what constitutes a "false statement"? It's not your intention, as stated, but that sounds like the excuse authoritarian regimes give for censorship of free speech to me. I fail to see any justification for intervening over a mild bit of userpage moaning, especially when links are being drawn with two users who systematically inserted hate-speech across Wikivoyage. These are two completely different things. Anyone who denigrates another user or who actually engages in hate speech, advocacy of paedophilia etc can already be sanctioned by existing policy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Btw, I support deleting the Libmod made up countries, which again are completely different to the situation which triggered this discussion. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Going behind my back to discuss a joke I made on my userpage without consulting is not okay. I will delete the passage, as is implied and close my account. Donny (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No one has been shot in Quebec for speaking English. You can google it. Free speech does not give anyone the right to spread false news. And Wikivoyage should not be a platform for false statements. It doesn't seem like anyone understands that it is a joke, so we won't treat it as one. Ground Zero (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I know that no one has been shot in Quebec for not speaking French, it was only a minor jab at the independence movement, but I have deleted the passage and will not edit anymore; it seems that is what you want. Donny (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: While existing policy allows us to sanctions users for such statements, under what policy can we delete them from user pages? If there is a policy, I'll be happy. This is really about clarifying that a Wikivoyage user page is not the property of the user. Ground Zero (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ground Zero:Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits, Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun, Wikivoyage:Child protection policy, through Revision deletion.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Those don't specifically mention user talk pages, and they don't address the comment in question in this discussion, so I think it would be helpful to clarify at Wikivoyage:User page help that user pages are not a place for false statements about a person, group or place. Ground Zero (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
They don't need to mention user pages, because any hate speech/paedophilia content is removed and usually rev del'd wherever it shows up in Wikivoyage, per those policies. But again, who defines a "false statement"? The truth police? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be the Wikivoyage Community, by a warm and friendly consensus, like everything else we do here. Not very truth police-y at all. Ground Zero (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Should I post User:Libertarianmoderate/Alex Nation and his other fictional destination userspace pages at vfd? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


The immediate issue has been resolved. @DAZ14LPA: has removed the comment from his user page. Thank you, Donny, for doing so, and for being reasonable about this. I'll bring up the broader issue at Wikivoyage:User page help at some point. Ground Zero (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for going behind my back to bring it up. Please, next time there is an issue, bring it up on my talk page instead.Donny (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Please see my response to your comment at User talk:AndreCarrotflower. Thanks, Ground Zero (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad this has been resolved, but yes, in the future I think it's best to bring these things up on the relevant user talk page before starting a discussion in the pub. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Granger, please see the related discussion at User talk:AndreCarrotflower#Why didn't you just talk to me?, specifically my comment timestamped 23:29, 13 May 2020. Taking the issue to the pub was not a first resort. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, the "first resort" was a comment five years ago in which you didn't specifically ask the user to remove the material. When you discovered the material had reappeared this year, it would have been more diplomatic to first leave a message on the user talk page asking the user to remove it, and only come to the pub if that was unsuccessful. The rest of us (including me) could also be more thoughtful about how to comment, remembering that, as ThunderingTyphoons! said, we're talking about a real person. With a big community-wide discussion after the issue hadn't come up for years, I think it's easy to see how this could feel like a sudden and unpleasant pile-on. Not trying to blame anyone, just offering a suggestion for the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
On the face of it, I agree with you. And I'm generally of the opinion that we should normally avoid editing user pages except in cases of spam and vandalism and other extreme cases. Remarks that are merely untrue and perhaps stupid could be discussed on the user's talk page and nominated for deletion if no satisfactory solution is arrived at, but let's face it, this isn't a high-traffic wiki like Wikipedia, so a few dumb words in a dark corner are unlikely to have severe ill effects on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal about offensive material on user pagesEdit

I've made a proposal to provide additional guidance on user pages about not using them to post offensive material here. Ground Zero (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion wanted on JerusalemEdit

An IP editor has reverted my reversion of their edit. I think the IP editor is acting in good faith and there are some aspects of the edit that might merit salvaging, but I would very much like someone else to give their opinion and maybe propose a solution. Nota bene: This is not in the slightest about politics, thankfully. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with the IP editor. The other text is ungrammatical & uses "best", listed at Wikivoyage:Words to avoid. Pashley (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, good edits except that "children's" requires an apostrophe every time and "post box" perhaps should be changed back to "mailbox", per American usage, unless Israeli usage is normally different in this case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There's also "vents" instead of "events". Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the IP's edits, except for "childrens" and "vents". I would leave "red British "pillar" post boxes" because they aren't "British "pillar" mail boxes", but use American spelling/usage elsewhere in the article. And yes, it is a relief to be able to discuss edits to the Jerusalem article without politics coming into it. Ground Zero (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the original revert was done with no edit summary. Uncommented reverts should, in my opinion, be done only when the reverted edit obviously was not a try at improving the article. Regardless of what version is better, this edit seems at least an honest try at improvement, with quite an amount of effort. --LPfi (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
As an admin, I often fail to justify my edits and reversions, which always raises merited complaint, so I have been making conscious real efforts on always "saying something" in the summary. I remember having looked at this edit, and saying to myself, "humm, this anonymous user seems to have read Words to avoid actually, this edit may stand". Ibaman (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Lede Paragraphs ExpeditionEdit

This new expedition’s goal is to improve lede articles. However, a problem we face is creating a metric that counts ledes with fewer than 100 bytes. Does Wikipedia use any such mechanism? Or how would one be created? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for setting this up, SelfieCity. In just 15 days, we've improved more than 100 articles that needed better lead paragraphs. I'm looking forward to our second list, and hoping that more editors will join this expedition that help our articles do a better job of drawing readers in, and hopefully will generate more readers and more contributors. Ground Zero (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd "blanking"Edit

I noticed the abuse filter caught a few cases of "blanking", which do not at all look like blanking to me (but I understand why they were caught). Could somebody take a look at Special:AbuseLog/43567 and tell whether the filter works as expected? It seems like somebody who previously has edited under a different name did quite a lot of changes, the merits of which I cannot judge. --LPfi (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lübeck - Guide and featuring?Edit

So as can be seen by taking a look at the page history, I did some work on Lübeck, a city I've not been in in a while (sadly) but which I know well from memory and which de-wp covers extensively, no doubt in part due to the positive obsession of its citizens with its history (a tendency evident even in the 1920s written book "Buddenbrooks"). At any rate, the work I did while it may look like it produced many bytes was actually quite slight - we have had a raw diamond sitting around for ages. I know some of the sections that aren't "see" - and there is just so damn much to see on the island alone - are a bit sparse, so I'd really like your input as to how to get this even more polished... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything as far as the bottom of 'Get in' looks top-notch. After that, most listings could do with more information, both qualitative stuff and contact details, opening hours etc. 'Get around' could also go into more detail about the different modes, e.g. have links to the bus operator, explain fares, list a few taxi companies etc. Get both of those done and it would be much improved.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Subdivision of Schleswig HolsteinEdit

Our article on this state now contains 17 listed "cities" plus the islands of Fehmarn (under "other destinations") and the North Frisian islands. I had already proposed subdividing it in the past but this got nowhere, can we reopen this discussion please? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

And the addition of Ratzeburg brings us to 18 Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The addition of Husum now brings the number of "cities" to 19... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I gave my opinion on Talk:Schleswig-Holstein and suggest further discussion takes place there.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


In this article I found some content that seemed somewhat biased at best, racist at worst, which I've removed. The connections between "modern and western," etc. may mean that this article needs a closer look and perhaps even some copyediting. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I fear part of the new text might read as if NATO were the only reason Turks could ever be educated. Obviously the old text implied a "foreign" education was ipso facto better, but the connection between NATO and "educated Turks" is also problematic. I think it might be best to rewrite from scratch rather than fix what is full of problems... But thank you for drawing our attention to that issue... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I didn’t want to make any drastic changes without consensus, but I think that paragraph probably should be removed altogether.   Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Hobbitschuster that the business about NATO and education should be phrased differently, but I disagree about the rest. It's fine to note when a particular place is more or less Westernized relative to the rest of the country or region it's in - culture shock is not a thing to be taken lightly - and I don't necessarily think the article as originally worded implied a connection between "modern" and "Western", regardless if they were next to each other in the sentence. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I should have stated the concerns more clearly. My concern here (including the entire paragraph) is that the article implies that Adana is an advanced city only due to Western influence. The placement of wording does matter, as this placement of wording implies — indirectly, you could argue — that there's only one reason the city is modern, and that reason allegedly makes it better than the rest of Turkey.
The reason I'm convinced the intentions of the author are in bad faith here is that an older version of the article said that it was "modern and Western" "despite the location." In other words, implying that somewhere in this region of the world somehow should have low expectations...simply because of its location. While there's clearly inequality between countries, implying that this region of the world is backward ignores the prosperity of many countries and cities throughout Asia. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Borders in dynamic mapsEdit

Spain's borders are mostly fine, but on Firefox the borders are gone in most of France and to the east.

On Firefox, national and regional borders in some large chunks of the world have disappeared (especially in the southern and eastern hemispheres), and others appear and disappear depending on whether the zoom level is even or odd. On Safari there seems to be no problem. What is causing this? How can we fix it? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've opened Firefox and I'm not experiencing this problem. (Is it perhaps limited to one computer?) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe. Now on my computer France's borders are mostly fine, but the ones to the west have disappeared (but only on zoom level 3). —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
My Firefox (68.5.0esr 64-bit LTS on Debian) shows them OK, at least in that region. I don't see what the zoom level is, but it seems country borders appear at 3 and region borders at 4 (if counting is from 1). --LPfi (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that a type of problem that can appear when allowed memory use is approaching? --LPfi (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's hard for me to see how that would explain the different behavior between even and odd zoom levels. That version of the problem has come back for me, by the way—all national and regional borders seem to disappear at odd zoom levels (3, 5, 7...), and many of them are gone at even zoom levels too. (The map in this section is at zoom level 3 by default; every time you click the button to zoom in, it adds 1.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This looks to be a problem with the tile renderer. I don't see them at zoom 3, but at zoom 4 I see them only in some places. OSM renders maps into fixed-size "tile" images, and it's clear from what I see that some tiles have them and some don't. My guess is that either someone made a bad change in the stylesheet controlling visibility and rendering, which is either slowly turning up as tiles get rerendered (or slowly disappearing after the error was reverted), or that there's a problem on the tile rendering servers. It's certainly not a problem on anyone's PC or browser. --Bigpeteb (talk)
Good to know it's not just me! It is strange the way the problem comes and goes. The map on this page seems to be back to normal for me now. We'll see if that changes again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting Canberra tram on the mapEdit

Can someone please fetch the necessary data to put the tram on the dynamic map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: Should be done. I linked a new Wikidata item to the northbound route on OSM and added {{Mapshapes}} to the article. Since the Wikidata ID is new, I suspect it might take a day or two to update, as it has always done from my experience.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Formatting issue with Guide city templateEdit

I noticed that the article Iqaluit#Go next has a guide city template that does not have the border around it when viewed on a mobile device. Compare that template with the usable city template in Ellesmere Island#Go next. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you see on mobile if you go to Template:Guidecity and Template:Usablecity? What about Template:Stbox? Powers (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Same on those first two. Could Safari (that’s the web browser I use on mobile) have something to do with it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I see the same issue as SelfieCity on the Iqaluit and Ellesmere Island articles (using Firefox on an Android phone). —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have an easy way to test a fix, so I can't make the change myself, but I suspect the problem is related to the first several lines of Template:stbox, where the outline, usable, and star statuses define a specific border style but the guide status does not. If I'm right, the default table style on mobile must be borderless, unlike on desktop. Powers (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I've tried viewing the template on mobile and desktop and you're right, that's where the problem exists. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed Template:Stbox to be explicit about the border style rather than rely on the default CSS definition. Please check to make sure it worked. This does not address the other differences between the default CSS styles on mobile vs desktop, though, such as the color of the border. Powers (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeploy Insider and Listings extensionsEdit

I've opened the ticket T253096 on Phabricator to remove those extensions on it:voy. A couple of years ago has been removed the listing one from de:voy with the ticket T206102.

Why to remove them? Briefly: less extensions higher web-speed, but most of all, what doesn't exist cannot be buggy and create problems :-)

In order to remove the listing one in en:voy this search should return zero results, hence, all the special tag shall be substituted with the equivalent Template:listing. Once done a dedicated ticket can be opened.

Regarding Insider extension, since it doesn't work anymore from long time, I reasonably tend to suppose that it's not used here :-)

Any volunteers to clean up that list? --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the last few from the mainspace. Does it matter if it stops working on talk pages or old user pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing all the remaining ones, after the deactivation of the extension, will be shown as pure plain text. Not nice to see, but at least is not a big deal for the readers. In any case I would suggest, if possible, to replace also those occurrencies. I would just leave the ones inside "nowiki" tag, that maybe have been placed there to show someone that exact syntax. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe a quarter of the (mostly talk page) hits are on pages that also contain a nowiki tag (although perhaps for an unrelated part of the page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
In this case if you want we can start the community discussion to get the consensus to remove the extension and then fill the ticket. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeploy Listings extensionEdit

After the work done by WhatamIdoing on main namespace (NS:0), this extension (whose use has been replaced by Template:listing) can be safely remove (~300 occurrences still exist on talk and user pages). According to the Wikimedia process, each wiki community shall express consensus in a dedicated discussion like this one. Specifying:   Support,   Oppose or comments. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  Support Pashley (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Formatting tweakEdit

I noticed at Washington, D.C. that the tooltip for the green checkmark in the upper right says "Previous Destinations of the month". Could someone with the necessary rights change Template:Pagebanner so that it'll read "Previous destination of the month". The plurality fix makes it a lot clearer, and the capitalization fix is needed, too. Sdkb (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, because of the current Extension:WikidataPageBanner design, there is no easy way to change that label because is supposed to be identical to the target, hence at the first glance these are the options:
  • Cleanest: open a ticket to ask to implement the possibility to specify a label for each target
  • Quickest: create a new page whose name is equal to the label that redirect to target
  • Dirtiest: add a JS that changes dinamically the label after the creation of the page
I don't see other alternatives. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andyrom75: A lot of that is over my head technically. I'm happy with whatever approach you/others feel is best and want to pursue. Sdkb (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it clearer? I have got confused when I click on it, because it doesn't tell about this page as destination of the month, but indeed previous Dotms (I just read carelessly). Of course, the symbol tells this was a previous Dotm, so the question is: should the tooltip tell teh meaning of the symbol or the target of the link? If we want the former, creating the redirect should be no problem, we could create it right away regardless. --LPfi (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think almost anyone can create a redirect and change the icon name in the template, but if support is needed please ping me. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad mapsEdit

Maps look very strange if an area is located on the 180th longitude. Is this a known problem? I spotted this problem because I happened to look at the article about Chukotka and found that the map was close to useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A workaround would be to use two maps, one for either side of the dateline. Lat/long and zoom would need to be added to each map. As a starter try: 67|175|zoom=5 and 67|-175|zoom=5. Not a neat solution, but better than the current world maps.
It would also be better to add the actual the actual lat/long to the markers in the article, rather than just getting them from Wikidata, as this then works with the full page map (from the icon at the top right of the article), which doesn't have a problem with the dateline. AlasdairW (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
And where a region straddles 180, in the Antarctic Islands my workaround was to mark the Balleny Islands as west-of-west at long=-196, rather than +164 east which detached them from the others. Grahamsands (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Grahamsands. I have combined the two "fixes" on Chukotka and it looks better, but the map shape doesn't cross the date line. AlasdairW (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Should continent articles be semi-protected?Edit

This has been discussed at User talk:Ibaman#Europe semi-protection but I think it's appropriate to give the discussion a broader audience here: should the semi-protection of continent articles be allowed for a period of a week or so due to edits that could be considered disruptive, such as the semi-protection that has been added on the page Europe? I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I think this merits a discussion beyond the original semi-protection that caused the debate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • As the instigator, let me talk about this rationale. I'm active in Wikipedia too, not as admin, just as plunger-forward and revisor. I've been familiarizing me with WP policies, and edit wars, and its blocks and suspensions, and think we should definitely improve our spam-prevention game. Thousands of WP articles are protected from unregistered users as of this moment. We're talking about less than a hundred here, not all, just the more visited and graffitied. That's my point. Ibaman (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think temporary semi-protection should be allowed in case of real disruption that can't be managed in another way, but there were only two IP edits to the Europe article, and they weren't really disruptive. Personally, I would have left in (or maybe modified) the sentence about boutiques. I don't think semi-protection was justified in this particular case (or in the case of Africa, which has been semi-protected today too). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ibaman: This isn't Wikipedia. Vandalism and disruptive edits aren't anywhere near as severe here as they are there, and our need for updates from new users is much greater (because travel advice goes out of date faster than encyclopedic information on average). And anyway, a Wikipedia article would be very unlikely to get semi-protected on the basis of just one or two edits. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
...expanding my point, we don't need to explain again the "Transnistrian issue", next time this edit is made again. I wish there were smarter ways to deal with it. I'm trying to get creative and preventive. I won't fight for this change, I'd rather invite us all to get creative on this. Ibaman (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with not rehashing old ground with conversations we've had before with (fake) new editors. The next time someone makes a fuss about Transnistria, just revert and point them to the previous discussion. Ditto with anything else like that. But we need to carry on encouraging new Wikivoyagers to join us, otherwise this project will die. Preventing people from editing articles they're most likely to want to edit doesn't encourage anyone.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protection is something to do when an article receives persistent unwanted edits (vandalism, touting, offensive content etc.) and edit warring where such edits are made from new accounts and IPs when the first ones are blocked.
I don't think articles should be permanently protected "just in case", though, the protection should just last long enough that the person adding bad content will give up and go away. Because even among anonymous editors there are more good than bad editors and the good ones are also affected by a protection and as TT pointed out, we should encourage new editors to contribute to Wikivoyage. And semi-protections can always be reinstated later if necessary. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks as ever, sir.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi I'm on mobile.Edit

Anything I can work on ??? Mobile is hard to nav but I'm willing to work on anything. Thnx. Icekinggoop (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Icekinggoop, it looks like you're editing from the desktop site. Something that's always useful is to check the places you're familiar with, and see whether the restaurants and other listings in those articles still point to existing businesses. Some attractions, such as museums and hotels, tend to last for decades, but restaurants, shops, and other small businesses can disappear over night. If you find one that's permanently closed (not just a temporary closure due to the pandemic), then please remove the listing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yelp is not a reliable source for phone numbersEdit

See Apparently, Yelp and Grubhub have inserted fake phone numbers, to drive business to Grubhub instead of local restaurants. Please keep an eye out for that if you're looking up contact information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Is there any website where we could find a list of all phone numbers owned by Grubhub? We could then see if any are listed on Wikivoyage and replace them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks a lot for this but please don't use Google AMP. I've changed it to the proper URI and hope you don't mind. I recommend But yes, definitely do not trust Yelp and especially GrubHub for phone numbers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
When I create a listing for a place I have not personally been to, I always base the information on their own website. Where else would I get accurate information? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Not every place maintains a website. In that case, a web search is the normal way to find contact information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikivoyage on the behalf of someone elseEdit

I know someone who has a larger knowledge of England than I do, but who doesn’t have an account. Per attribution rules could I contribute on that person’s behalf, perhaps using a separate account that I clarify is me? Just curious. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are contributing non-copyrightable knowledge (say, adding contact information), then you don't need to bother. You also don't need to worry if you are editing the article on the basis of what the other person suggested (e.g., your friend recommended adding or removing a listing, but you're writing it all yourself). If you are pasting in sentences that the other person wrote, then it's more complicated.
Remember that attribution is about copyright law, so it's about the way of expressing the content, not about whether the ==Eat== section recommends Alice's restaurant instead of Bob's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Selfie City, what prevents your acquaintance from creating an account? Nurg (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I routinely do something like that because I often point to WV articles in mailing list or social media posts & sometimes get interesting responses. My posts always mention that it is an open wiki & encourage people to edit, but some prefer to just comment on the post or to send me email about it. In those cases, I see no problem using their ideas & do not bother with attribution since ideas cannot be copyrighted & I'm doing the actual writing. Pashley (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, guys. If you see me edit articles in England you'll know why! I'll make sure none of the content is copyright-able. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible way to generate static mapsEdit

Recently I was bored and stumbled into a static map generator. It calls itself a "fantasy" map generator, but you can also import static maps and add labels, and even rivers and provinces/countries, as desired, and then export to JSON, SVG, JPG, etc. I thought perhaps this would be a better (and faster) way to create static maps than the current method. However, I'm not sure that using the website to create maps used on other website, under our license, would be allowed.

Note: to import a static map go to the arrow in the top-left corner/Tools/Heightmap/Erase data/Erase map/Image converter. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. It seems to assume anything you import will be a color-coded topographical map. And if you already have a static map you can import, what do you need this tool for? Powers (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, the idea is that you can import an image, such as an outline of a region, and then label it with rivers, cities, roads, etc. and then export it with the new data. Just a thought. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Some CSS for Vector has been simplifiedEdit


I'd like to make a double-check about a change that was announced in Tech/News/2020/21.

Over-qualified CSS selectors have been changed. div#p-personal, div#p-navigation, div#p-interaction, div#p-tb, div#p-lang, div#p-namespaces or div#p-variants are now all removed of the div qualifier, as in for example it is #p-personal, #p-navigation …. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. This only impacts the Vector skin.

On this wiki, this impacted or still impacts the following pages:

How to proceed now? Just visit all these pages and remove div before these CSS selectors if it hasn't been removed so far.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Easy task, but only an admin can change the above 4 user pages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I am reluctant to intrude on personal CSS. You say this only impacts the Vector skin, so it doesn't break the other skins? Some own tweaks? I suspect those who have their own understand enough of this to do the changes themselves, or at least, if they do, they know what broke the functionality. @Danapit, Nicholasjf21, Texugo, TheGallery:? --LPfi (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


A lot of the listings probably have to be moved to appropriate city articles, right? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree. It's a region. The mostest specialest of them can stay on a selected list. Let's do it. Ibaman (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cycling related Wikidata issuesEdit

I tried to link Cycling in Germany to de:Deutschland per Rad and Cycling in Switzerland to de:Veloland Schweiz. Unfortunately, Wikidata won't let me. I hereby propose the hypothesis that this is because the Wikidata objects contain more than would automagically be created, but can one of you please have a look and fix this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Likewise Cycling in the Netherlands cannot be linked to de:Landesweite Radrouten in den Niederlanden Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Nor can Cycling in Scotland be linked to de:Radfahren in Schottland Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
WD only allows 1-1 linking. If an article is linked to one WD item, it cannot be linked to another. Cycling in Scotland was linked to 7stanes (Q4643939), which is one particular cycle route in Scotland. I moved this link, but had to enable the Move Gadget in WD to be able to do that. An earlier attempt to do this manually by deleting the old link failed. See Wikidata:Wikidata:Tools/Edit items. AlasdairW (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
In the German case the wikidata items should probably be merged, by Special:MergeItems or the Merge gadget. It seems one is older while the other is more complete, so I don't know in what direction the merge should be done. --LPfi (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I've merged the Wikidata items for Germany. For Switzerland the topics seem to be slightly different, so I don't think a Wikidata merge makes sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
On sv-wp there is a template to link near matches. I think it is still possible to use the old iw format (and I suspect that is what the template does). --LPfi (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Cycling in Europe also cannot be linked per WD with de:Radreisen in Europa Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I've merged those two on Wikidata. Let me know if there are any others! —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the deal with RNO PDX Bus Lines?Edit

A few days ago, User:Tim Shelsea added this bus company to several articles, such as Medford (Oregon) and Mount Shasta. Now IP User: is going through saying that the company is fake. Is it? The website looks real, but when I start poking around, a few things do seem odd. For instance, if I click the "Legal" link near the bottom of the page I get a warning that "Your access to this site has been limited by the site owner" and then I'm unable to access the site again from the same IP address. Is this some kind of scam? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This webpage seems rather odd as well. I'll need to do some more research. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Didn't see the question being raised here before I listed it on WV:Vandalism in progress#Tim Shelsea and/or
My gut tells me it's probably a scam. I think the website saw me clicking around too many pages and blocked me on purpose to keep me from investigating further. Trying to make a booking, it's interesting that it doesn't require making a user account, and let me continue without filling in the 'required' name and phone number fields. The domain was registered in March, and the encryption certificate was only issued on May 18 (and is only valid for 3 months). --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I've been watching scam baiters on YouTube lately. Looks like you've got this one dead to rights. I'd suggest permanently blocking this guy as a crook and reverting and blocking in case of any future mention of this fake scam company if it comes up again in articlespace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The dog2 (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
He's been adding similar information to Wikipedia. I've alerted several interested parties over there. A global ban seems appropriate to me, though that's obviously not my call to make. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Template:Comment I would suggest that that there be a checkuser investigation, either here by stewards or at enWP by their checkusers to identify the depth and scope of the problem. They can also share more broadly with other checkusers through wikis if required, as one would expect this sort of behaviour to return, and good data can be captured. (Thanks for the ping and pointer at enWP) Billinghurst (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I've gone in and made the ban, and also rolled back the user's edits. Hopefully this at least prevents him/her from potentially inflicting more damage here. If people think I've acted prematurely, I'll be happy to lift the ban though. The dog2 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I tried to search for a business named "RNO to PDX" in the state business registries of Oregon and California. Nothing turned up, how surprising... --Ypsilon (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I have blacklisted the URL.
In the UK, we have a government office which anyone can check called Companies House. It lists all UK-registered companies, gives the location of their registered head office, name of CEO etc. It's not totally crime-proof (it's possible, for instance, to bury criminal enterprises in a loop of genuine holding companies), but it does make it harder for less-sophisticated scammers to pass off their fake websites as legitimate companies. Is there not a similar list in the U.S.? —The preceding comment was added by User:ThunderingTyphoons!
There are 50 separate lists for US corporations. The state of incorporation is not necessarily the state(s) you're doing business in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah. The intricacies of federalism.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Does the Delaware list contain a plurality of the corporations? If so it may be the best starting place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, now try googling for "tim shelsea". That will lead you to this, a story about another apparently fantastic bus line centered in Reno. Jpgordon (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh and then! That company shuts down after two months. I can't help but think they are related. I wish I had saved or cached a copy of the current website -- it had a picture of their one bus, and I bet it was the same unit as the one on the Inland Streamliner stories. Filing irregularities seem to be a theme here. Jpgordon (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The links you provided above are certainly interesting, and Shelsea certainly does seem to take an avid interest in and have strong opinions about the Inland Streamliner controversy, but the nature of his relationship with the company is not at all clear. In your first link, the owner of Inland Streamliner is identified as a man named John Wang, and Shelsea is identified as a "Seattle-based motorcoach driver" who goes on to comment about the practice of bus companies operating without licenses and insurance. Here he is again, for the record, defending Inland Streamliner in the comment section of an article on In my estimation, it's certainly possible and even probable that Shelsea is personally involved with the company somehow (though he claims not to be), and his claim that it's a common practice for upstart bus companies to begin operations before insurance and licensing paperwork is finalized seems ridiculous on its face, but it also can't be ruled out that he's just a guy who's passionate about intercity bus travel and oblivious to, or willing to overlook, the racism and blatant Neo-Nazi references in Inland Streamliner's corporate materials. I'm no lawyer, but as a general rule it's a good idea to avoid making accusations you can't prove in public forums like this. As for us at Wikivoyage, the Tim Shelsea user account has been indefinitely banned and the business URL blacklisted, which is "problem solved" as far as I'm concerned. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi! Could someone help me? I want to create a dynamic map for a multi-route pilgrimage... each route has already been created by someone from the sections (M01, M02, M03, M05, M10, M21), but only 1 item can be specified on the wikida page which I can then use for the dynamic map... someone?... Fauvirt (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

One possibility is to make a separate Wikidata item for each section and then list all the wikidata items in a mapshape template like {{mapshape|wikidata=Q488813,Q488461,Q488859,Q505417}}. There may be other ways to do it too (such as combining all the sections into a single OpenStreetMap relation? I don't know if that's possible). —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Fauvirt: The issue here is that only one of the parts of the routes (M01) has been linked to the whole of the route/network on Wikidata. This Wikidata item also doesn't link back to the OSM relation, so the line cannot be fetched from OSM (sidenote, OSM does not display a line for me to begin with, not for any of the relations linked above, but that might be just an issue on my side). What you can do is make Wikidata items for each part of the route, link those items to the OSM relations and vice versa, and make them all listed as a part (P527) of Via Maria (Q1212209). From there, use {{Mapshapes|Q1212209}} to display the whole of those relations. As a sidenote, {{Mapshapes}} is pretty much just used for displaying urban rail networks, but if it fits the purpose, it fits the purpose. That said, the clearer and more detailed version of my explanation here can be found on that template's page :)
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Mx. Granger, Wauteurz:! I already started with the M01 on Wikidata (wikidata:Q95735225).. I hope, it works that way! Fauvirt (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger, Wauteurz, Shaundd, SelfieCity: The hungarian wikipadian Whitepixels have fix it: - Now it turns out it works ... *excited* Fauvirt (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Spitzingsee merge discussionEdit

On the talk page of the article in question it was asked in 2014 whether to merge the article. Nobody ever answered... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Support merger with Schliersee, though the mountain facilities could be expanded on. If I'm reading the map correctly, you can hike and perhaps ski across to Tegernsee but that's a separate valley and wouldn't be a merger target. Grahamsands (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)