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

Proposed Afrotour project by Free Knowledge Africa GroupEdit

Greetings

Free Knowledge Africa is a group that seek to promote free knowledge and wikimedia projects by Africans, in travel, geography, and cultural heritage.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Knowledge_Africa

We intend to launch a project/contest that will encourage active participation and contributions to the English wikivoyage from Africans and towards African travel content for towns, cities and countries.

We seek your partnerships and support towards achieving this.

We look forward to a favorable response from you.

Thank you. Timmylegend (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Timmylegend: That sounds like a great initiative. What support can we offer to help you make it a success? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: We would appreciate it if case studies from past projects can be shared as well as learning modules and putting up a banner. Timmylegend (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is exciting! Our coverage of Africa needs a lot of improvement. Just quickly on banners, for now: Information about banners is at Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition and Wikivoyage:Banners. If a page has no custom banner (banner with a photo) on it, any banner with the right dimensions is welcome and can be added without a discussion. If someone wants to suggest a different banner for an article that already has one, a proposal should be made on the article's talk page with thumbnails of the existing and proposed new banners, so that we can discuss and reach a consensus on which one to use. Ikan Kekek (talk)
I assumed "putting up a banner" meant making a cross-wiki advert, like we did for the Editathon a couple of years ago, but I could be wrong. Not sure how easy it is to get one of those, but it's certainly possible.
As far as I know, we don't have any learning modules as such, but there are extensive help pages already and if the group needed a specific portal gathering the relevant how-tos in a single place, I'm sure we could manage that. I wouldn't have thought you would need a comprehensive knowledge of policies and style norms, because there are plenty of Wikivoyagers on recent-change patrol who can 'tidy up' in the wake of your groups' (hopefully copious) additions, but information on how/whether to start a new article, where to put certain information, what the basic layout of an article should look like, etc. would presumably be very useful.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For reference: the "inter-wiki banners" are called central notices and can be requested here; I haven't looked into the process in any detail.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Your contributions are definitely welcome! As others have said, Africa is a part of the world where there's certainly room for improvement. Also, if contributors don't feel like reading through policies and style guides, they can have a look at (good) existing articles instead to see what information goes where and how it should be formatted. For example the articles nominated at Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates are good examples. Ypsilon (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
And I hope we can improve our coverage of African history, in particular sub-Saharan African history. I have been an advocate of promoting historical sites in Africa, because many people have a misconception that sub-Saharan Africa is good only for safaris, and most non-Africans are unaware that there are pre-colonial cities in sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do it myself. With this project, hopefully someone can start an article along the lines of Historical sites in Africa. The dog2 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a great idea. Timmylegend, we've had some good projects in the past. It's really helpful to remind us when it starts, so we can be on the look out to help newcomers. Are you expecting (mostly) existing Wikipedia editors to participate? If so, then Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians might be a good starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As for making page banners (I see other types of banners were mentioned), I could contribute in that area. I did a couple for Namibia in the past and could continue, though in the DRC I found it difficult to find pagebanner images. But there would be many places and countries and I'm sure I could find some where there is a suitable picture that no-one has used for a pagebanner yet. After all Wikimedia Commons is always growing! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I support having an edit-a-thon. It drums up a lot of editing interest over a short period of time. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Africa ExpeditionEdit

I've started a draft of an Africa Expedition page, which could be a starting point for participants in this project. I think it is best to keep it brief, and high-level so that it does not overwhelm new contributors. I used Wikivoyage:India Expedition as a starting point, but that page goes into a lot of detail. It would be a great resource for experienced contributors, but way too much information for newbies. (We should also avoid spending too much time working up a "wish list" of everything we'd like to see as that takes time away from actually improving articles.) The page is already long. What could we take out to make this a better starting point for new contributors?

Timmylegend: do you think this would be useful? How can it be better? Ground Zero (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Before I finished the draft in my workspace, this expedition attracted another member, which indicates that Wikivoyagers are eager to support this project. Ground Zero (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC))
Thanks for taking the initiative to create that page! I made a few edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Quick question: What would make me a project supporter? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a very exclusive inner circle of important contributors, i.e., those who add their names to the list. Ground Zero (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be a great way to monitor the growth and progress of contributions, while also providing a guide to newbies. Although it could be difficult when the page is bulky. Africa is a big continent with over 50 countries, I believe if shared with the various African communities it could be easily achieved. Maybe a contest could also help in driving contributions, what do you think? Timmylegend (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ground Zero, I meant what I needed to do to be a project supporter, but someone (perhaps you) made an edit explaining that. Timmylegend, if you think a contest could help, I suppose we could take a vote on which 5 people made the best contributions or something. Dunno. How about giving everyone a prize of 10 years' free membership to Wikivoyage, with an option of 10 more years after that... ;-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I've moved the page from my draft to the main space now. Ground Zero (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Timmylegend: Sure, please, get all the other African communities involved if you can. I understand that Africa is a very big and diverse place, but the great thing about an online travel guide like this is if an article gets too long, we can always create spin-off articles to move some of that information to. In the example I mentioned, we can have an umbrella article about African history, but if we have a contributor who is an expert on the Benin Kingdom for instance, we can always create a separate Benin Kingdom article, and leave a cursory and brief summary in the umbrella African history article with a link to the new article. The dog2 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
How can I help even though I have never been to Africa? (It's on my to-do list once pandemic is over) OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Copy edit and fix any formatting that doesn't conform to standard Wikivoyage style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Try adding lat/long coordinates. Major attractions should be fairly easy to locate (and may already be in Wikidata). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a cool idea ! Anthere (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So are we doing an edit-a-thon so that we can track how many pages and images have been added? OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our African friends seem to have lost interest, but I would participate if you want to set something up. Ground Zero (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: an edit-a-thon is a great idea. As our core editing base doesn't have many Africa experts, we would need to reach out to WMF, get editors interested in improving African content to edit Wikivoyage while the established editors can mentor them on style and formatting. Gizza (roam) 00:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
We really need a lot better coverage of Africa, but it would be good to know why the Expedition petered out after a short while. Timmylegend, do you have any thoughts on that, and on how we should best go about getting more sustained and broader contributions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
A worthy cause to improve our coverage of an all-too-neglected continent. I can't commit 100%, but I'll try my hand at improving listings in capital/major cities in Lusophone nations. I've already made some updates on Luanda. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Ground Zero Ikan Kekek, We are still very much interested in improving the gap on African content on the English Wikivoyage, however as I stated on the Wikivoyage:Africa Expedition discussion page that we would be starting with Nigerian towns and cities as a pilot phase later this year, pending the approval of a grant to organize a contest. As that seems like a more sustainable strategy and to increase the number of potential editors. Apologies for the long silence. Timmylegend (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Timmylegend: There is no need to apologise. We are volunteers, and everyone contributes according to their own schedule. I am very glad to hear that there is still interest amongst our Nigerian friends,and look forward to seeing Nigerian articles expanded when you get organised. And we will be here to assist you. Best regards, Ground Zero (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

tr.voy is now openEdit

Check out tr: and say hoş geldiniz to our fellow travellers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's Turkish, for those of us who haven't memorised all the ISO 639 alpha-1 codes. Nurg (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll just say congratulations and happy editing to our Turkish-speaking brothers and sisters! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hooray! It's been a long time coming - something like five years or more in the incubator. I was going to suggest leaving a welcome message at their village pump, but there weren't any other posts and I didn't think they'd appreciate the first post of the live era being written in a language other than Turkish - maybe give it a few days. But best of luck to them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've just created a redirect from Istanbul to İstanbul. I'm hoping this doesn't create an international incident. 😀 --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that Turkish/Türkçe isn't listed at the multilingual WV homepage at https://www.wikivoyage.org. I don't think mere mortals can edit this page. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm an administrator and I don't see an edit button there. My guess is that only WMF staff could add it to the list of wikis. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bureaucrat and don't see an edit button there, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Whatamidoing (WMF), would you be able to add Turkish Wikivoyage to that page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Those homepages are managed by the admins at Meta-Wiki. m:Www.wikivoyage.org template seems to be where the code is stored. I think it's already updated on wiki, but I don't know why it isn't showing in production yet. Someone like DannyS712 probably knows more about this process. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a lag (not sure what it is) between updating the onwiki templates and the live pages changes, but if its on the meta page it should be on the actual site shortly DannyS712 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that it's up. Good stuff. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual EventEdit

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open CallEdit

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantsTemplate:Atwikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion"Edit

Folks, please pay attention when you see that in recent changes. A lot of the time, the photos being deleted (or not deleted) aren't visible on the page, but right now, it looks likely that everything including the pagebanner will be deleted from the Pekanbaru article and a whole bunch of photos will be deleted from Commons just because a sockpuppet has been adding thumbnails of them to sister sites (but I added some to Venice, for example). I think we'd better at least locally upload photos of Indonesia that are being deleted for lack of super-official assurance of total freedom of panorama. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded the pagebanner and the photo of the mosque in Pekanbaru to Wikivoyage, but the sizes are smaller than the original. I don't understand the problem and hope someone else can fix it and explain what you have to do to download the full-size photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The solution was that I had to download the photo when it was fully open, not from the photo page thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
[answering the postings in Talk:Pekanbaru#Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion]
There seems to be a problem in that we don't have enough people that know Indonesian law. The law does not mention FoP, so interpretation relies on whether these photographs are regarded to infringe on the copyright of the architect, which in turn might depend on local tradition.
However, the "precautionary principle" is sound. Wikimedia Commons intends their media to be used also commercially by people who could not afford paying damages or losing an edition of a book because of an infringing photo. Even if that would be the first Indonesian FoP case ever, we don't want it to happen.
Perhaps we indeed should upload locally all photos we use of (new) architecture in Indonesia. I suppose collecting a list of photos and uploading them locally should be a bot job, with the list made in a way where a user easily could tick upload or don't upload for each photo. Are the photos many thousands?
LPfi (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea how many such photos we use. I'm skeptical that the "precautionary principle" is being applied well in a situation in which a country is leaving well enough alone and last I checked, it appeared that the participants in the discussion that actually have expertise and have read the sources in Indonesian don't agree that there's an issue, but I'm not a lawyer. I should say, though, there's also the issue of the need to substitute photos that look likely to be deleted just because they were uploaded to Commons by a sockpuppet. Those photos are not from Indonesia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Those latter images should not be our problem. The uploader being a sockpuppet is no reason for deletion of files on Commons. Some change images to tout their business, somebody substituting their quality images, for whatever reason, is not the form of vandalism we should get overly worried about. The Indonesian images are a worse problem, and I suppose you are right that the problem is in handling the Indonesian law on Commons, but if I understood correctly, there is valid concern. –LPfi (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I get the concern but would defer to the experts. But of course my opinion is not going to carry the day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Impending deletion of nearly all photos of Italy on Commons?Edit

This is very threatening and must be taken seriously. Look at Liuxinyu970226's comment in this thread and now look at the reference they link. I think we're going to have to upload every goddamned photo of Italy we want to use here, and we might want to consider forking from Wikimedia and declaring that any commercial use of the images on our site is forbidden. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe Commons should be split into two projects: one for the WMF wikis to use internally with a special licence, the other with a full CC licence that anyone (but primarily commercial entities) can use. It seems that the possibility that someone in charge of an ad campaign or editing a magazine may use a photo from Commons that turns out to be non-free (e.g. in a country with no FOP) is having an increasingly damaging effect on the wikis that Commons is there primarily for.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The other thing Commons could do is have a special template that says "This photo may not be used for commercial purposes". But I doubt we're going to get Commons to change. I'll propose it, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!: Commons won't be changing its licensing. See m:NonFreeWiki (2). —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand the frustration, but "all our media is free" is a founding principle of Commons. Expecting that to change -- and swearing about it -- is Sisyphean. Frankly, simply allowing non-free media on individual products is controversial in some quarters. Powers (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at the links in a bit more detail, I'm not so sure there's an imminent threat to all the photos of Italy. Liuxinyu970226 certainly doesn't say as much, and there doesn't seem to be an actual mass-deletion process underway or even proposed, but then I don't know the ins and outs of Commons very well. Even if the worst case scenario comes true, don't expect me to be at all enthusiastic about a fork; better to fix the system from the inside than become irrelevant on the outside. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm more or less in agreement with ThunderingTyphoons! about this. I support localizing all our images of Italy as a precautionary measure, but any reaction beyond that is overkill. As to the question of fundamental changes to Commons licensing, if what Ikan Kekek says is correct, and the stark choice Commons faces is to either change its licensing or else 1) allow entire countries to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage and 2) face the prospect of Commons becoming an irrelevancy within the WMF as the individual wikis move more and more toward hosting images locally, then I think they'll find they have no choice but to change. And that's assuming the Italian government wouldn't reverse course in the event of a mass cull of images from Commons (and, ergo, from the much better-known Wikipedia), which would certainly generate negative press about the real-world effects of unnecessarily stringent interpretations of copyright law. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact, upon further inspection, the Commons template referenced by Liuxinyu970226 (i.e. the second link Ikan Kekek cites in his original post) has been in existence since 2012, and the law itself has been in effect since 2004. Occam's Razor says Liuxinyu970226's personal interpretation of which images of Italy are permissible on Commons, as he expressed it in that thread, is not shared by the WMF. Otherwise, the "actual mass-deletion process" that ThunderingTyphoons! notes hasn't begun yet would have happened at least nine - or, more likely, 17 - years ago. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@AndreCarrotflower: "allow entire countries to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage": that is the situation at Commons. The WMF can't determine anyone's laws. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: You're missing the point. Regardless of whether countries hypothetically have the power "to effectively declare themselves off-limits to Commons coverage", as yet no country actually has done that. It's easy enough to be a hardcore dyed-in-the-wool free-media purist when the threat of being barred from an entire country is just a farfetched hypothetical, but would such a purist stance survive if that threat became an impending occurrence? For the reasons I cited, it's very, very doubtful that it would. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"would such a purist stance survive if that threat became an impending occurrence?" Yes. To use media on Commons, it has to be freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States as well as whatever was the original jurisdiction of the creation of said media: there is a 0% likelihood of that changing, barring the United States essentially abolishing the public domain. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Essentially, you're saying "Commons policy is to only use freely licensed media, and that won't change even if entire countries declare them off-limits because Commons policy is to only use freely licensed media." Not only is that circular logic, it's also quite a naïve view of human motivation. For reasonable people, which I believe most WMF contributors are, at some point preserving the integrity of the work to which they've dedicated so much time and effort becomes more important than stubbornly holding fast to some pie-in-the-sky philosophical ideal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
"Not only is that circular logic, it's also quite a naïve view of human motivation..." No, it's not circular logic: I am not stating a premise as my conclusion. I'm saying that Commons only allows media that are freely licensed in the place of origin and the United States; if media are not licensed in the place of origin, then it's not allowed on Commons. That's just being consistent and explaining the most basic rules about licensing media on Commons to you. "For reasonable people, which I believe most WMF contributors are, at some point preserving the integrity of the work to which they've dedicated so much time and effort becomes more important than stubbornly holding fast to some pie-in-the-sky philosophical ideal." It seems like you have fundamentally misunderstood what Commons is: the entire point is that you know that you can use these media without restrictions. If there are some restrictions, then somewhere other than Commons is where that media should be. It could be localized on individual projects or it could be off-wiki but when you go to Commons, you have to know that you can use the media that you're getting with no restrictions other than (at most) -BY or -SA. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The "new" Italian law is about a non-copyright restriction, and Commons policy is that such restrictions do not affect their willingness to host a file. There will just be a warning template. This is from the Commons viewpoint a restriction similar to trademarks or personality rights, something that the reuser has to take into account, possibly filing a request to the Italian authorities before using the file – or knowingly ignoring Italian law on the matter. –LPfi (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, Liuxinyu970226's deletion rationale is invalid. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Justin, the proposal for a "non-free Wiki" is more complicated than simply tagging some images as non-commercial use only. I don't really see a clear advantage in farming out local use of exemption doctrine based on fair use and important educational purposes when the only issue is that a file can be used for any purpose other than making money. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I'm just suggesting that there is an existing proposal to fix this issue in a systematic way rather than the piecemeal, panicked response offered here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Justin Do you mean NonFreeWiki? It is not much of a solution to this problem, I think. Fair use rationals depend on a file being in use, so you cannot store good files for potential use there. In most cases you have to find the image and upload it, just as you now upload it locally.
For the hardcore dyed-in-the-wool free-media purist issue, I'd say that it sometimes works. We wouldn't have GNU/Linux without them. WMF showed a similar stance when Wikipedia was blocked by Turkey. And Commons has lots more of free media than it would have if "free" hadn't been a requirement. Of course, not all contributers to Wikipedia and Commons are hardcore privacy-and-freedom-of-speech or free-media purists (most are probably "reasonable" it-works-so-who-cares types), but the movement has attracted quite a few of the hardcore ones.
LPfi (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
At least this bunch of files is looking more likely to be deleted. We need to upload any of the ones we want to keep locally. Fortunately, there are many photos of Italy on Commons - for now. So as long as they're not all deleted en masse, we're likely to have options. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The argument in favor of deleting those files specifically doesn't seem to have anything to do with FoP in Italy. We at Wikivoyage have our own problems with sockpuppets, and I actually think it would be a nice show of solidarity to at least attempt to find other images to replace those for use on our site. As for a mass deletion of material from Italy, I feel confident in saying we have nothing to worry about, regardless of Liuxinyu970226's misconceptions. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that trying to find suitable replacements for those photos is a good idea. I had meant to include that in my post above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!Edit

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Putting dates on thingsEdit

I've encountered resistance from some contributors who think that putting dates on numbers and prices adds "clutter" to articles. I believe that the dates show us when something should be updated. This edit shows what can happen when we are using an out-of-date statistic. In this case, it was the town's population from 2000. Ground Zero (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Until/unless we have a bot that updates all of these data in real time or we have ~250,000 active members, so that we can assume that most data are fairly up to date, then I think that this is useful for the readers: ttcf and all. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
In most cases, I am not too bothered whether the population figures in the article are from a 1980s census or a 2010s one, as 50% change doesn't make much difference to what the city looks like. However Woodstock (Georgia) is clearly an exception - the population has grown from 870 in 1970 to 33,039 in 2019, and I would like to have 2 or 3 figures to see this growth, which tells me that I am going to see loads of new buildings and very few old ones. As a contrast the population of Edinburgh grew by 42% between 1901 and 2001, and so dates are much less important. I am happy to have the dates on population figures, but am not bothered about those without dates. AlasdairW (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty much of the same mind as AlasdairW (with regards to both population figures and prices). Avoiding clutter is a worthy goal, but ttcf is our prime directive which trumps all other considerations. I would be very much opposed to requiring dates on numbers and prices, but as an optional thing, I think the benefit to the reader is self-evident. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Alasdair and Andre. It's a good option to include the date but shouldn't be compulsory. The majority of our articles are small towns whose populations haven't increased significantly (some remain stable or decline slightly). I've updated population figures from old censuses recently and the growth in Woodstock, Georgia is the exception. Smaller levels of growth like this, this, and this are more common. It doesn't make a meaningful difference to the traveller if the stated population of a town was 5,000 from a few decades ago or 5,600 now. Gizza (roam) 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Who proposed making it compulsory? Changes to policies should be discussed on the talk page of the policy in question, not in the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Is there maybe a way to tag numbers with dates in wiki markup so that it doesn't appear in text directly, but is automatically converted to a "outdated" superscript behind the number in question if the tagged date is older than 3 - 5 years? This already exists on Wikipedia to tag claims that are missing references or citations. Having such tags in wiki markup also enables automated scripts and bots to aggregate outdated numbers. 87.74.131.12 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It is quite easy to construct such a template, but then you need to add the template markup, including the date (which can be added automatically if you subst the template, but will show in the wikitext anyway). The question is what statistics we want to enclose in such templates. A template for population figures was developed, but I think we never introduced it. –LPfi (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese cuisine articleEdit

I wonder if anyone has the expertise to create this. Vietnamese cuisine is one of the great cuisines of Asia, and I think it's kind of a pity that we don't have any articles covering it. The dog2 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There are always Wikipedia articles to consult, and they're usually much more comprehensive than Wikivoyage articles, which should remind us to be focused squarely on practical travel-related questions like where to go for the best examples of this or that dish and what kind of behavior is normal and expected when eating and drinking. That said, I think a lot of us have at least some experience eating Vietnamese food. I have yet to visit Vietnam but have eaten Vietnamese food in France, the U.S., Canada and Hong Kong. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been to Vietnam, but only for short trips; once to the north and once to the south. The Vietnamese food you get in the U.S., Canada and Australia is mainly southern Vietnamese food. The pho in the north is different; you typically don't get the condiments like lemon, basil and mint, as that's a very southern thing. But you may get some fritters to dip in the soup. Generally, Vietnamese people regard pho to be better in the north, but there are other dishes like banh xeo which are more famous in the south. A potential article could cover the regional differences in Vietnamese cuisine. And just like in Thai cuisine, Vietnamese cuisine makes heavy use of fish sauce, so that could make things a little tough for vegetarians. And in general (not just in Vietnam, but in other Asian countries like Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand too), I will advise you to avoid your hotel restaurant, and try the local food at the street stalls where you see many locals eating at; not only is it cheaper, it usually tastes better too. The dog2 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Our rule when travelling in Vietnam was to look for places with plastic chairs or stools. If it didn't have plastic chairs, Vietnamese people wouldn't eat there, and neither would we. Ground Zero (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

People in photosEdit

Our upload form says "Avoid people in photos, unless you have their written permission". I do not know from where that comes. At least our image policy does not have any corresponding wording in People in photos. I suppose we don't want to have images that show deserted roads when visitors will see them crowded (and you wouldn't get the written permission of a crowd). Sometimes also having somebody look out over a landscape makes a better photo than the landscape alone. Commons' guideline Photographs of identifiable people is quite lenient.

Can we simply remove the wording from the upload form, should we have a link to the relevant section in our policy, and perhaps a link to the Commons guideline, or is there any reason we would want the present language to stay in some form?

LPfi (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur. This policy has always struck me as unnecessary. Perhaps in the Wikitravel days, before we were affiliated with the WMF, it made sense because as a small independent wiki, we would have been less able to finance a legal defense in case someone sued (regardless if such a case had merit or not). But we're in a different situation now. First of all, in the vast majority of cases we're supposed to source our media from Commons, with local hosting remaining appropriate in only a narrow range of special cases which mostly exclude any context in which you'd see images of people. Secondly, LPfi correctly points out how much more lenient Commons' "photographs of identifiable people" policy is than ours; as a sister project whose entire purpose is to serve as a repository for copyleft-compatible media, they presumably know better than we do what passes legal muster and what doesn't, so it's perfectly sensible to follow their lead in determining where the boundary lies. Thirdly, in the infinitesimal chance that we do miscalculate and find ourselves in legal trouble for allegedly violating someone's privacy in a locally-hosted image, WMF Legal is a resource we now have at our disposal that we didn't before. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, we don't really want people uploading photos of themselves posing in front of the attraction. A crowd of people or a few incidental people in the background, but I don't think we want photos that feature identifiable individuals prominently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
True, but if we want written permissions, that is easier to get from your own company – the wording furthers exactly that kind of images. The wording in our image policy, on the other hand, discourages exactly such selfies. –LPfi (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Former policy ca April 2006 (text by Evan and WTjk44)

In general, photos of people will be removed from Wikitravel. There are two reasons for this policy:

  1. A photo of the Taj Mahal is useful for travellers; a photo of your girlfriend in a funny hat standing in front of the Taj Mahal is not. In general, we don't really want pictures of travellers or other people in Wikitravel. Some exceptions might be for particular sports or activities or crowd scenes or illustrating some costume or uniform.
  2. In the United States and elsewhere human beings have privacy rights, that is, a right to control the use of their own image, even if they didn't create the image. Image creators need to get authorization from human subjects of photos to publish the images. See http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html for a description of why and when a model release is required. A general rule of thumb is that if an image contains a subject that is identifiable, a model release is needed.
"Avoid people in photos, unless you have their permission to publish their image" was present in the very first revision of the Upload page, written by Evan. At the time that was written, our image policy read as seen here. For convenience, I've put the text in an infobox. Powers (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

NewsVoyage and Wikimedia Small Projects User GroupEdit

This is fun: m:Wikimedia Small Projects/NewsVoyage. For those of us gringos who can't parse Spanish, it's a friendly competition between the Spanish Wikinews and Wikivoyage and part of the first spate of challenges initiated by the Small Projects User Group. This is a recognized user group fostering growth and promotion of smaller WMF wikis, particularly Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage. As someone who speaks decent Spanish and who is interested in all of these projects, I figured I'd extend the invitation here that if users on the English-language editions want to have a similar friendly contest or otherwise want to get involved but feel like there's a language barrier, I'm happy to mediate. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Emergency numbersEdit

I noticed our country article template says:

If there are local or national safety contacts (or even standards such as "911" in the USA), note them.

I'd prefer there to be a note anyway. That way reading the country guide is enough for knowing at what level you should search for the numbers, and whether you have to update for every new city (or neighbourhood?). For editors it is good to know, as those numbers would be essential lower down in the hierarchy if there is no country-wide standard – and you'd know to note if they are missing at the relevant level. –LPfi (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what change you want to make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd like any country page to have a mention about whether there are standard emergency numbers in the country, and if not, point to the Stay safe sections at whatever level they should be mentioned at. And any article at that level should either have the numbers or some kind of pointer. –LPfi (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Copycat siteEdit

See Talk:Tourist Drive 33#Wow, just wow.

It seems traveloca.org has copied all of Wikivoyage (with InstantCommons direct links for the images) without giving us any credit or attribution. See e.g. the travellers' pub. Their contact fields seem to be blank.

Do we have any standard procedures? I was thinking about a complaint mail to their internet provider. I think there is some (kind) letter template for the purpose at Commons. If I write myself, I might be rude.

What do you think?

LPfi (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We keep the copyright to our work at Commons and Wikivoyage. The only way they can use it is through being licensed by us. If they don't comply with the licence, they are breaking the copyright law. I am not personally very interested in going to court in Arizona, but you US folks might have an easier time doing it. And I suppose they either comply or take down the site just through some correspondence. –LPfi (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I recommend looking at Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution and then if you want a template / inspiration for an email of mine that was successful in getting copyrighted material deleted without resorting to legal action, its talk page. Remember also that we have an in-house legal team. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It's also not true, by the way, that "the only way they can use it is through being licensed by us" - under copyleft anyone and everyone is free to reuse or remix any and all of Wikivoyage's content, without our knowledge or permission. That's how we get third-party organisations making offline apps based on our content, and that's also how the Wikivoyage community was able to legally fork from Wikitravel without the permission of that site's owners. However, the licence requires a reuser to credit us as their source and also to place any work of theirs that uses our content under a compatible copyleft licence. The above website is in breach of these terms.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I am probably writing an e-mail later on, but as they have copied all the site, any interested contributor could write.
Our work is licensed by us through our CC-BY-SA licence. What I tried to say is that there is no other mechanism making our content free to use. We have not resigned our copyright and that we share it by a free licence does not make it public domain. I said it because many contributors talk about "copyrighted" content in contrast with free content. The difference is just in the specific terms set forth in the licence, and BY-SA is definitely not a public domain dedication.
LPfi (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Geez, looks like they're not just plagiarizing our entire site (from articles to user talk pages, just try replacing what comes after /wiki/ with anything we have here and you'll find a copy of it) but doing so pretty much in realtime – this discussion including LP's last comment is already in their "Travellers' pub". Could be a good idea to involve the WMF legal team. Ypsilon (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
My comment appeared there when reloading their Travellers' pub immediately after posting it. Ypsilon (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(conflict) Interesting; it's obviously an automatic process.
@LPfi: If there's any way I can help, just ping me.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Contact the legal team, see https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a draft for a message to the legal team, feel free to modify (and copyedit) it as needed: --Ypsilon (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear staff of the Wikimedia legal team,
As a contributor to English Wikivoyage I'm writing to notify you about a gross copyright violation that members of the Wikivoyage community have recently discovered. The whole English Wikivoyage is being re-published in real time at https://traveloca.org/wiki/*insert name of an article or indeed anything on en-WV here* . In violation of the copyleft licence, they do not credit Wikivoyage as the source for their content, nor do they notify readers of their lawful right to reuse the content.
You can see the community's discussion about the matter here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Copycat_site
The traveloca website doesn't seem to provide any contact information, so there is not much more we can do about it. Therefore we're asking you to take it from here, as you have the knowledge and tools to investigate and deal with this kind of issue, and also because the copyright violators probably are less likely to ignore messages from you than from Wikivoyage contributors.
Thank you.
[someone's name here]
That's looking good. My only major change is to the last part of the first paragraph: your version seemed to repeat the attribution issue twice, whereas there are actually two ways in which the licence has been broken.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
A w:whois request gives an abuse address (sorry for forgetting to include it here): abuse@namesilo.com, phone +1.4805240066. –LPfi (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
So in theory, that's a way of contacting the people behind Traveloca? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't risk sending it by just us contributors. It's best if the legal team did so. TravelAroundOz (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that WMF (and its legal department) cannot act on our behalf because of the rules on lawyers and clients. The client is WMF, and representing us would mud the waters, which is disallowed. See Wikimedia Legal Disclaimer. They can help informally, but we must respect their not giving formal advice nor acting as our attorney. –LPfi (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As we own the copyright of our own work, each of us can legally defend it independently. Nobody needs to represent the community. As long as one doesn't do something stupid, as in actually going to court without having a clear case, there is little legal risk, and the risk is on the individual. Of course, uncivil or badly founded complaints will risk our reputation, and might make other complains less effective, but I don't think any of us will act without due thought. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose Namesilo isn't there to help infringing on copyrights (there are probably also that sort of providers, but there is no reason to think they are one). So, to avoid legal risk, they might gladly shut down the site. Often providers reserve that right in their terms of use. They could also notify the site owners and ask them to clear with us, which would not harm their business, nor be much work for them. –LPfi (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Fill in this form https://www.namesilo.com/report_abuse.php TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
abuse@ is probably not the right address; that is mainly for complaints about user actions such as spamming or stalking. This complaint should go to webmaster@ or www@. The official list of what addresses should be available is in RFC 2142; not all sites follow it.
If they are in the US, some obligations & a complaint mechanism are defined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, & some other countries have similar legislation. I do not think that should be the first thing tried, or that our editors should try to invoke this formal legal mechanism without first consulting WMF legal, but it is another string to our bow if polite requests do not solve the problem. Pashley (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The best address would be webmaster@traveloca.org, but I doubt that address is in use. Most hosted sites not even read postmaster@site.example, the only one that is mandated. Webmaster@namesilo.com would be a little off, as they might handle only their own web site, not issues about their customers' sites. It seems (using traceroute) that the web server of traveloca.org is hosted at Cloudflare or some customer of theirs, not at Namesilo, but as they don't have reverse DNS at the web server, I cannot tell. Traveloca's web server's email is handled by emailowl.com. Oh dear. –LPfi (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe focus on what we can do right now, and worry about the rest later. Ypsilon drafted an email to Legal above, which I then modified. Is it suitable to be sent like that, or should it be rewritten further? We want Legal to provide us with the most help they can without breaking their own terms; would it therefore be better to change the focus of the email somewhat and instead of ending with "Therefore we're asking you to take it from here...", we go more down the route of something along the line of "We are in need of some help. Are you able to advise on courses of actions that we could take? Are there any actions you can take on our behalf?" It's a bit more open-ended, and avoids giving the impression that we presume we're entitled to their help but are grateful for anything they can offer.
Also worth noting that, when writing to Traveloca (or their server provider or whoever), the merest hint of involvement from lawyers (i.e. just stating that we have informed the legal department of the WMF) may be enough for them to comply without the need for further action. I don't claim to be an expert, but it worked like a charm with a similar copycat a few years ago.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd also remove the sentence on not having contact information (they'll found out for themselves, either way). Feels funny, though, that our discussion about the matter can be found at their web site. Kind of emphasizes how openly we act. –LPfi (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Remove the sentence on not having contact information from the email to Legal? They won't necessarily even try to contact Traveloca, and if not won't find out about the lack of contact info unless we tell them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, it would be a nice surprise if Traveloca would just take down the copy (or add the information required by the copyleft license) after an e-mail from us, though I'm afraid they won't do that. If the WMF legal team cannot do much about this other than give us advice, then is there some other Wikimedia department we could ask to contact the copycat site? After all they're plagiarizing a whole Wikimedia project. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps just remove the "so there is not much ..." part of the sentence. We are at least able to write the abuse address.
I suppose legal action from our side is very much possible, with or without help from the WMF, and the copyright infringement is quite obvious, so I donẗ think they want to be taken to court, and their providers have even less reason to let it deteriorate that far. I think we should contact WMF and then proceed based on their advice. As they have plagiarized so much, it should not be too difficult to find e.g. a photographer based in Arizona interesting in cashing in some copyright infringement damages, or WMF could give me a lawyer contact interested in representing me for a percentage of damages. And Traveloca and their providers know that, so a polite but firm email communication should certainly be enough.
LPfi (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if this is obvious to everyone else, but what is the significance of Arizona? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Whois gave "Registrant State/Province" as "AZ". I suppose that is Arizona. I don't know whether that is relevant, but it could be. Cloudflare in California hosts their DNS and probably also their web server, so that would be another contact, and probably closer to more people. –LPfi (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Any updates? TravelAroundOz (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have died. Is everyone happy for this email to be sent to Legal? And would someone please refine the sentence about being able to contact Traveloca, i.e. insert the correct address? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear staff of the Wikimedia legal team,
As a contributor to English Wikivoyage I'm writing to notify you about a gross copyright violation that members of the Wikivoyage community have recently discovered. The whole English Wikivoyage is being re-published in real time at https://traveloca.org/wiki/any_article (or indeed nearly anything on en-WV). In violation of the copyleft licence, they do not credit Wikivoyage as the source for their content, nor do they notify readers of their lawful right to reuse the content.
You can see the community's discussion about the matter here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Copycat_site
The traveloca website doesn't seem to provide any contact information (ISPs seem to be Namesilo and Cloudflare, according to whois and traceroute). We are in need of some help. Are you able to advise on courses of actions that we could take? Are there any actions you can take on our behalf?
Thank you.
[someone's name here]
That's cool. Perfect draft Jamie. If it were an article, do Tourist Drive 33 since there is a little bit of discussion about the copyright violation and where I originally found the copycat site. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we can send it. I adjusted the link not to return 404 and the wording accordingly (and added "nearly": they don't seem to include Special:*), and added the ISPs. Remove the parenthesis if you think it is useless. Personally I won't do anything about in in a week or so. –LPfi (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, my editing activities will be reduced in the next week due to personal reasons. I'll see what happens then. TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ypsilon, ThunderingTyphoons!, LPfi: Anything back from the legal team? TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
No idea, I for one haven't sent any e-mail. Maybe would be best if one of our admins or bureaucrats would get in touch with them. Ypsilon (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero, AndreCarrotflower, The dog2, Mx. Granger:, any thoughts? --Ypsilon (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The letter looks fine to me. Gets straight to the point. The dog2 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been following this issue closely, but I have no objections. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll copy edit slightly (unindented for ease in copying):

Dear Wikimedia Legal Team,

As a contributor to English Wikivoyage, I'm writing to notify you about a gross copyright violation that members of the Wikivoyage community have recently discovered. The entire English Wikivoyage site is being re-published in real time at https://traveloca.org/wiki/(name of article). In violation of the copyleft licence, they do not credit Wikivoyage or its editors as the source for their content, nor do they notify readers of their lawful right to reuse the content.

You can see the community's discussion about the matter here: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Copycat_site

The Traveloca website doesn't seem to provide any contact information (ISPs seem to be Namesilo and Cloudflare, according to Whois and Traceroute). Would you be able to advise us on courses of actions that we could take to address this situation? Are there any actions you can take on our behalf?

Thank you very much

[someone's name here]

And yes, I approve of this letter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

April foolsEdit

This year, I want to go to Before Times. They were kind of nice the last time I was there, and it was so much easier for the traveler. Take a leisurely drive on back highways, knowing that you could stop at any gas station or convenience store to get what you forgot to pack. Speed through the airport without getting your temperature checked. Set foot on a cruise ship with only norovirus to fear. Join the surging crowds on the subway. Hug family members when you arrive. Does anyone want to go with me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As a travel wiki, and especially as a wiki that during the pandemic has explicitly offered itself up as an escapist vehicle for "armchair travellers" who would otherwise be travelling in real life, we need to be very careful about how we treat the pandemic and pandemic-related themes. It goes without saying that we should include information in Wikivoyage that's legitimately useful to travellers, such as the COVID-19 pandemic article itself and the COVID-related infoboxes at the top of country articles and others higher up in the breadcrumb hierarchy. But reminders of the "Before Times" - a term I viscerally loathe, FWIW - are a very serious emotional trigger for many of our readers and editors, and it would be insensitive and inappropriate to make light of the subject in a joke article, least of all one that gets top billing on our Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Reminding people of what was normal in the past also gives us hope for the future, and talking about what we miss promotes good mental health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
That may be true for you. But for others - including me, and including a large majority of those I've interacted with on both a personal and professional level - normality is already something that seems to exist in some inaccessible fantastic realm not unlike how we portray our April Fool's joke articles, and living through this pandemic is incredibly distressing. In these trying times, it's more necessary than ever for people to try to see things from others' point of view. And coming up with a different topic that we can all enjoy is not a difficult proposition, especially this early in the game when the article hasn't even begun to be written yet. So again, let's please have a little more consideration, especially for those who are on Wikivoyage for escapist purposes and would prefer not to have reminders of the pandemic thrown in their face at every turn, as happens in real life. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Andre, did you just say that it's necessary for me to see things from your point of view, right after you forcefully dismissed mine as a point of new that only "may" be true "for me"? I hope you didn't mean that.
If you think that there should be a different topic, I'd be happy to hear your suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
First of all, no, I didn't say it was necessary for to see things through my point of view. If you reread my remarks, hopefully you will see they are in the spirit of ttcf first and foremost. It happens to also be my personal viewpoint, but that has no bearing on the validity of my argument. Second of all, I'm confused as to the position you're staking out here. I've already explained the downside of running Before Times as our April Fool's article, but what I've yet to hear is the alleged downside of "coming up with a different topic that we can all enjoy", as I suggested above? Why is it absolutely necessary that we publish this particular article, regardless of what our readers' reaction may be? I'm honestly trying to assume good faith and see this as something other than you feeling disappointed that your idea didn't get the reception you were hoping for. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Remaining in good taste has always been a problem when considering what topic to go with for April Fools Day and how to cover it. I agree with Andre that the topic you're proposing would be deeply depressing and not funny at all, except maybe in a very darkly sardonic way. I'd much rather have no joke article than the one you want to run. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
For anyone interested, there are already a couple of suggestions at Wikivoyage talk:Joke articles#April Fool's 2021.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Andre, I repeat: I'd be happy to hear your suggestions. NB that I don't want to hear a suggestion from you that other people should do the work of coming up with other ideas. I'm asking that you make a constructive suggestion yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the original proposal was unacceptable remains true regardless of whether or not I have offered an alternative. As a Wikivoyager, I am interested in the overall reader experience, hence my participation in this discussion, but I have never been particularly interested in participating in the April Fool's article tradition, even during non-COVID times. I don't begrudge those who do enjoy it, but I personally don't, and the act of exercising my right not to participate in it does not mean I waive my right to participate in other areas of site governance, such as determining what does and doesn't belong on the Main Page. If you'd like some alternative ideas, ChubbyWimbus has already suggested two, ThunderingTyphoons! has pointed you to a place where there are others, and I'm sure anyone else who enjoys the April Fool's tradition would love to share their preference. But, to make myself absolutely clear, I will not be sharing any of my own. And quite frankly, your insistence on hearing one specifically from me comes off as rather dismissive of the ideas others have already offered, which seem quite well-considered. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I liked the original idea and I'm surprised that it could be considered triggering. There are reminders of the pandemic everywhere, including on this site. Powers (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(indent) Of the article suggestions linked by ThunderingTyphoons!, I like the Captain Obvious suggestion. I also like the suggestion of the Simpson's Springfield IF there are enough people with knowledge about the places in Springfield and events that occurred there or other tidbits to make it fun and interesting. I have of course seen many episodes of the Simpsons myself, but it's been a long time, so I probably don't have the memory to make such an article funny/fun/nostalgic. If others do, it would be a fun feature. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd be enthusiastic to help out with a Springfield article. (A relative owns a travel guide!) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Simpsons idea has been proposed many times over the years. The obvious problem is that almost all conceivably relevant images would be copyright-protected. If we manage to find a way around that, it would make for a great article, but it's a pretty formidable barrier. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Commons has a small handful of images that it seems to either consider acceptable or has at least turned a blind eye to that we could use, such as c:File:Gran Sello de la Alcadia de Springfield.svg, c:File:North Takoma mapa.png (not in English, but only sort of an issue), and c:File:MoesBarConcepcion2016.jpg. I think there's definitely something we can do. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think deliberately violating the copyright of a TV show that might be likely to sue is a good idea, just because some images haven't yet been deleted from Commons. This isn't a case of fair use in regard to a permanent work of architecture somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, we can start a Simpsons Tour article along the lines of Seinfeld Tour. Gizza (roam) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikiProjectsEdit

I have just reached out to WikiProject Portugal (w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Portugal#Wikivoyage), hoping to entice participants of that project to contribute over here. I wonder if anyone thinks that similar outreach to other geographic WikiProjects would be fruitful. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In cases such as Portugal where there is already a Wikivoyage in the local language, we should be directing them there and not to en:. pt: is even more badly in need of new contributors than we are, and the same is true for most non-English Wikivoyages. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and agree with you in principle. PT WV is basically dead, as evidenced by their Recent Changes. I am not confident enough in my Portuguese to contribute much, and the broken listing templates deter me from even trying. However, educated people in Portugal (and other Lusophone countries) are often conversant in English, as it's a required subject in school. They also recognize that English is largely a lingua franca among those most likely to travel internationally. People contributing to an EN WikiProject would seem to be the sort of folks who might enjoy contributing here at EN WV. I wouldn't advertise this on PT WP or other languages, though I would cross-advertise same-language WV and WP instances. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I did something like this once before on Wikiproject:Ireland; it didn't result in any interest expressed or in any apparent increase in edits to Ireland articles. Let's hope Wikipedia's lusophiles have a bit more gumption about them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're reaching out in the English-language Wikipedia, then editing at the English-language Wikivoyage makes most sense even if they usually edit and add content related to Portugal. You may meet people who are interested in the country for one reason or another but are not fluent in the language. The best way to attract editors at the Portuguese-language Wikivoyage would be to go to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia. Gizza (roam) 21:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. Thanks for doing that. It's a low-traffic page, though, so it might be better to have equally low expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I also think we lack Aussie and Kiwi editors too. TravelAroundOz (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Incorrectly identified as a vandalEdit

Dear Admins,

I'm trying to work on my own sandbox, when it says my edits have been not updated and I have been identified as a vandal called Brendan John Williams. I am not a vandal, and how can I vandalise my own sandbox when theoretically I could type anything into it before I publish it? Could you please remove the block.

Thank you.

KevRobbAU (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You are clearly not blocked; if you were, you couldn't have posted here. What is the error message you're getting, and did you try to insert any link when you got the message? Sometimes, there are problems with blacklisted URLs, and if that's the issue and you can figure out which URL is causing the problem, that's something we can remedy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, to avoid any problem: If there are links that might be an issue, you can type them here as [name] dot com, so that they're not blocked here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@KevRobbAU: By any chance is your internet service provider Telstra? We have had problems with edits from this ISP before, and as a result there's an edit filter which prevents certain edits from IP addresses registered to Telstra. Now that you're logged into your account you should be able to edit the sandbox, and I see that you have. If you have trouble again please let me know.
@Ikan Kekek: KevRobbAU probably referred to a block because MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-telstra says "please leave a message on the Travellers' pub to get the block removed." It might be good to rephrase that warning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ikan, the issue seems to have been resolved after 1-2 hours, so I assumed it was either a glitch or an admin had removed the block. There was no mention of any URLs causing issues in the warning. I had rebooted my modem to see if a new ISP address might resolve the issue, but it didn't at the time, therefore I concluded I was actually blocked due to this and the warning message sayihg so. Maybe the vandal-filter policy for Telstra should be tweaked - Telstra is Australia's largest communications provider, not some little fly-by-night company favoured by troublemakers - being negatively affected simply because I am with a certain internet provider did not sit well with me.

KevRobbAU (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had that trouble. We'll consider the costs and benefits of the Telstra filter and whether it should be tweaked or eliminated, but the constant stream of different uncommunicative sockpuppets posting inane or unreliable (sometimes plagiarized) stuff from that ISP causes us a lot of unnecessary work, so it's tempting to eliminate some of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
So, technical people, what do you think? Are there ways to better avoid false positives? If we eliminate this filter completely, I suppose somewhat more work will be needed to revert undesirable edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not one of the technical people, but does this filter even work? We still get plenty of edits from the vandal, and this isn't the first time someone else has been caught as a false positive.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Idk but I frequently use a Telstra wifi and I get no problems. I also can't see why you decide to block telstra entirely considering it's Australia's largest network provider. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@KevRobbAU: Anyway, I'll be on the lookout. Btw, I'm currently using iinet so it's not a problem for me now but which part are you in? TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the tweaking should be discussed behind the scenes, as any tweaking would be depending on the specific edit patterns by the vandal – which they could change accordingly. Regardless, it would be easy to exempt established users and specific Australian users. –LPfi (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
TravelAroundOz, we don't block Tesltra entirely, as should be obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd still say we are pretty draconian. See AbuseFilter/17. –LPfi (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we should talk at the filter, so that we agree on the current situation. –LPfi (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Oops. I might have made something unintentional. Can somebody check my filter edit? –LPfi (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sex tourism, porn, etc.Edit

Just so you know, whenever I see editors adding links to things like porn sites, escort sites, brothels and so on, I have been adding them to the spam blacklist even if they were only added once. It may seem harsh, but since porn is irrelevant and inappropriate for a travel guide, and we do not cover sex tourism as per Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy, I think a "one strike and you're out" approach to such sites is appropriate since I don't see any reason why anybody editing in good faith would want to add such links to a travel guide. The dog2 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have thought for a long time that the sex tourism policy needs a rewrite, though I've failed to convince others. My suggested rewrite is at User talk:Pashley/STP. Pashley (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if it did, though, online porn links couldn't possibly be relevant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not appropriate; even on en.wiki, commons or any wikimedia project. TravelAroundOz (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, articles about particularly high-profile or in some other way important porn sites are relevant, because it's an encyclopedia. Wikivoyage is not, and there really isn't an active debate about this site's sex tourism policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that for spambots, advertising porn or anything else, "one strike & you're out" is the right policy. A permanent block on the account should be the minimum response, then consider additional things like a WMF-wide block or adding the advertised site to the spam blacklist.
I also agree with Ikan that "there really isn't an active debate about this site's sex tourism policy", though I'm inclined to think there should be. My last attempt is at Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy#Re-start_discussion?; it failed.
However, we should be careful not to impose a long ban on anyone for good faith edits, adding information for travellers on things like Bangkok go-go bars or other sexy facilities. Some such stuff should be deleted & in a few cases a short block might be needed, but nothing close to "one strike & you're out". For one discussion of such edits, see Talk:Philippines/Archive_2017-2018#Prostitution. Pashley (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The advertised site can generally be added to the list without problems, as we don't want links to it, and it can be removed after discussion if we ever do want to link them. For the user account I don't see much difference from other spam accounts. They are probably one-offs, so a one week block is effectively a permanent one (and so could be used if there is any doubt about the bad faith).
I agree with Pashley, that a good faith user adding a link about a go-go bar they would like to recommend should not be blocked for that, just pointed to our sex tourism policy, if the link or language were inappropriate. The porn links I've seen have all been obvious touting spam; I suppose we could err on the side of good faith with no bad effects.
On the policy: There are tweaks I might want to make, but that is opening a can of worms. I think there is quite strong consensus on most of it, and little support for Pashley's version. It is unlikely that has changed in less than two years. We can have a new discussion next year, if something new turns up.
LPfi (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure. In the case of someone adding listings for a Go-go bar in Bangkok, or a brothel in Amsterdam's red light district, those are actual tourist attractions, the person adding them could potentially just be unfamiliar with our policy, so we should show leniency in such cases. Those sites I've been adding to the blacklist after only one strike are very obviously inappropriate for a travel guide (eg. porn sites, and more recently, an escort agency). The dog2 (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Mobile AppEdit

I wrote this same article to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), Wikimedia Forum and Wikivoyage/Lounge page but I share my ideas one more time to here. Wikivoyage is one of the best projects of Wikimedia. In last days, I'm so concentrated to develop the new opened Turkish Wikivoyage page. And I think, an official mobile app for Wikivoyage is a good idea. It can be perfect for the travelers around the world. The people mostly use their smart phones during traveling. This project will not make much sense if there is no app of WV. I think the Wikimedia Foundation should consider that.UcuncuUlus (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A well-designed website does not need an app. A good website is responsive and will adjust itself as needed for the platform it's being displayed on. The existing Wikipedia app is unnecessary. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
There is already the kiwix app for offline browsing. Also, e.g. OsmAnd or maps.me support WV articles... If you need some additional functionality, probably it's best to extend one of those, than to write it from scratch...? -- andree.sk(talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A well designed website may be easy to navigate on a smartphone but that doesn't mean an app is not necessary. Millennials and Gen Z increasingly use apps instead of mobile browsers because of their ease of use and efficiency. Instead of typing the website url or searching for it on Google or another engine and then going to the website, it's much easier to click on an app. And the Wikimedian urls are not intuitive. Rather than wikiname.com it's en.wikiname.org as we're non-commercial. Nobody bookmarks websites like they did 20 years ago. Any organisation providing an online service that thinks an app is unnecessary in 2021 will go the way of the dinosaurs. Gizza (roam) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd love a mobile app. The only reason why I don't edit so much is because I'm on desktop, and editing on mobile isn't convenient. TravelAroundOz (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
DaGizza: That may be true, but for a dinosaur like me (who has used gopher), it sounds absurd. What about an app that just starts the web browser, feeding it with the address? Like icons on desktop. You need a fancy image of course. But no need for any code that you fetch from an app store if you can use the favicon or something similar. But you need a black box app to give control to the .com site, so that is what they have made people use. –LPfi (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@LPfi: Yes, but time goes, things change and what we do changes. TravelAroundOz (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
There are apps that are useful, such as a Wikivoyage app for offline use. But having to install an app because the freaking smartphone won't let you save a bookmark or make a simple scripted icon is absurd (as is the website not letting you access advance features without the app). Yes, the times goes and absurd things become common, while we get rid of other absurd things. And sometimes we have to adopt to others doing absurd things. But to do absurd things just because that is how things are done, that I do not understand. –LPfi (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That may be okay for some but for most, it's inconvenient. If I weren't an editor here; I may as well use tripadvisor due to convenience. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose an app is useful, both as people expect one, and e.g. for offline use. Still, I don't understand why it is more convenient to go to an app store, download and install the app (after checking whether it seems trustworthy), and place the app icon where you want it, than just asking the web browser to add a favicon based icon where you usually want to have them. I rest my case. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Downloading an app may feel less convenient to you, but that's not how it feels to most young people. I'm on the oldest end of Generation Z, and a nontrivial proportion of my peers -- and many more people the younger you go -- interact with the internet almost entirely through apps. (I'm considered weird for using Facebook on the mobile website rather than in the app, for instance.) For travel, this is even bigger, because people are more phone-based, and as you might guess from that bracket using apps seems to be overwhelmingly preferred over using mobile sites for whatever reason. Whether it makes sense to you or not, this is overwhelmingly how multiple growing cohorts of people interact with the internet, and a travel site without an app is hampering itself. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, being born in the middle of Gen Z, I'd say; editing on mobile website is terrible. No one would want to use WV if there isn't an app. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that editing on mobile is awful, across the Wikimedia family. But it's no easy matter to just create an app that allows editing in sync with the website from scratch. I can also see value in an official Wikivoyage/Wikimedia-branded offline app, but again it's easier said than done.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
After all of this arguments I think we can easily say that: Yes, editing on phone is more difficult than editing on pc but our first goal is creating a guide for people on the travel. If we can't reach to the travelers (taking into account the habits of the users), our effots on this site are in vain. So a official mobile app for WikiVoyage from Wikimedia is important.UcuncuUlus (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd also add that when travelling, people are less likely to have their finest smartphone with them, and are more likley to have secondary phones instead. To this end, a KaiOS app would be extremely useful for travellers. KaiOS is used on a lot of cheap/basic feature phones with extended features (most Nokia feature phones use it, including the 800 Tough) that are popular with travellers as they are cheap enough to be disposable, but still have a basic app ecosystem with apps like Google Maps, WhatsApp etc. Wikipedia have a very well made KaiOS app, so that could be a good starting point for WikiVoyage, as the KaiOS default browser doesn't render the wiki sites very well at all. --JasminLovesTheOcean (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not the case from people who I know well. I myself generally want to look at WV but end up using trip-advisor instead due to convenience. Plus who has more than one smart phone with them? I have two but one is a satellite phone, not two smart phones. TravelAroundOz (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Having an app that works on KaiOS in addition to Android and iOS sounds good, though having one that only works on KaiOS sounds about as worthwhile as not having one at all, considering its market share (0.1% worldwide in 2020, compared to 72% Android and 27.5% iOS). I have to concur with TravelAroundOz about the 'secondary phone' comment -- most people don't own multiple smartphones. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure about whats it like in other countries but here in Australia; we usually only have two phones. A normal one and a satellite one. That's it. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that in India, KaiOS has about 15% of the market share these days.
The arrangements you will take depend upon your risk level. If you're already traveling with a burner laptop (one cheap enough that you don't mind losing it; if you're in a sensitive industry, it will contain only the content that you need to have with you during that trip), then you're probably going to travel with a burner phone, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree. We need one for iOS. TravelAroundOz (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A mobile app doesn't make much sense if it's just a viewer, then you can just as well launch the URL in a browser like User:LPfi pointed out. But many mobile devices have additional sensors like GNSS receivers and magnetometers (electronic compass) that laptops don't have. These could be assets that offset the drawback of smaller screens and lack of a proper keyboard to type on. For example the app could blink or vibrate when the user is walking close to a POI [for which WV already has coordinates in the articles] or pop up the picture in the [image] field of a POI to make it easier to find for the user. Or it could have a Skyrim-style horizon that follows direction of heading [using compass] and shows directions of POI types in different icons. With the Wikidata links, it's also possible to fetch opening hours and admission fees for POIs automatically when the user is standing in front of them, and even hide POIs that are closed. 90.244.151.58 12:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Bringing back a dead conversation but a version that can be viewed offline would be great significant help to me and most Aussies. Most areas have only very slow 3G networks; which only really works on Telstra. Others are a hit and miss or no mobile signal entirely. Being able to view articles offline would be a great help. And typing up the URL when you've got the worst connection is no help at all. TravelAroundOz (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@TravelAroundOz: Have you tried Kiwix? That's the app I use for viewing Wikivoyage offline in places with no mobile data. It's not perfect, but it's much better than nothing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Our UAE article reads like "everything is great, pay no attention to the people in chains"Edit

I know that our policy is to be travel positive, but wv:be fair also includes calling a spade a spade and it is a bit ridiculous how the wording of the UAE article (well I tried to work on it a bit, but it's far from done) is basically fawning over the Emirs... I fear if I alone were to take the hatchet to it, I might fall into the other extreme, so please lend me a hand in striking a balance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edits seem fair to me. I'm not really an expert on the Emirates, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The article looks much better to me. The other thing about the UAE is that their military, along with Saudi Arabia's, has conducted indiscriminate bombings of Yemen for years and made it well-nigh impossible for food and medical aid to be distributed to the sick, malnourished people there. However, that's the kind of thing we would usually avoid mentioning in the travel guides to the countries whose governments are responsible, although it is briefly mentioned (though without naming the UAE) in the Yemen guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, now it looks less like propaganda. I will say though that the U.S. is hardly innocent when it comes to human rights issues though, despite the common impression that the U.S. is the gold standard when it comes to human rights; they actually tightened sanctions on Iran while they were struggling to deal with COVID-19 and as a result, medical supplies cannot get into Iran. And I'm going to leave you with a quote from Singapore's former ambassador to the UN Kishore Mahbubani. "Anybody who believes in the term benevolent great power is an idiot.". The dog2 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are you bringing up the U.S. in this discussion? Who the hell ever said the U.S. is innocent? For God's sake! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean, not only is that irrelevant to the discussion, but the U.S. government is complicit in the indiscriminate bombings I mentioned by supplying arms, logistical support and intelligence to the Saudi and Emirati regimes. It's just really, really annoying when you decide to engage in straw-man arguments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
As the other commentators said, your edits seem pretty fair. The UAE is definitely an interesting place to try strike the balance for -- I don't think I can think of anything quite as sui generis as it in tourism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
"Who the hell ever said the U.S. is innocent?" - Was the US ever innocent. To me the only innocent country is New Zealand. Since the British ever discovered it. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The British and white New Zealanders have been a lot less violent toward the Maori than British and post-colonial(?) whites have been toward the Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, etc., but if you really think there's no history of conflict in New Zealand, I suggest you read w:Māori people. I think there's no point in searching for "innocent" countries, but of course some abuses are more severe than others. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Not only that; but slavery did exist here; where people were brought from Pacific Countries. I know; there was conflict but not as bad as how Aboriginals were treated. TravelAroundOz (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Towns in wrong region - move to right regionEdit

Hi all,

The cities Gunnedah, Boggabri, and Narrabri are in the wrong region in New South Wales, Australia - they are placed in the Central West region when they actually belong in the New England (New South Wales) region. Is it easy enough to transfer them across to where they should be?

Many thanks,

KevRobbAU (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Just note in the edit summaries where you're moving them from and to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
And remember to change the {{IsPartOf|}} template at the bottom of each of the three articles (only visible in edit mode).--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean. Narrabri is in the Central West. TravelAroundOz (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Aussie link tax?Edit

Australia has a new law requiring sites like Facebook & Google to pay news organisations whenever they link to content on a news site (or whenever someone follows the link?) and to share some data about the user with the linkee. I'm more than a little hazy on details.

Here's a summary, not for those easily offended by language.

Will this affect us? How? It certainly looks like a problem for WP, who routinely cite news articles, but I cannot see that it will matter much to us. Pashley (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

AIUI that law specifically applies to only Facebook and Google, and I'm not sure that it's about the URL ("link") as much as it is about the content (headline/first sentence/image preview). Someone recommended the analysis at https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ to me, and it has more information than the page you linked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It's best to not include any links to news articles. TravelAroundOz (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This will not have any implications for any Wikimedia projects. It is explicitly only about Facebook and Google. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if it did apply to Wikimedia Projects, why would this affect WikiVoyage? TravelAroundOz (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Since Pashley said "I cannot see that it will matter much to us", I think he was posting in the hope that other people could confirm his impression (or tell him that he'd missed something). He didn't claim that it would affect Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The goverment FAQ says "Digital platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google.", so it won't apply to us. We (or Wikinews) also can't apply to receive money as we don't "operate primarily in Australia" and have annual revenue over $150,000. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contestEdit

01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Upgrading Stratford (Australia)Edit

Hi all! I've been working on upgrading the Stratford (Australia) article to make it suitable for guide status, adding a map, an understand section, and a few other changes on the road to making it a useful guide in its own right. Would someone mind taking a look over at the state of the article, and giving me their thoughts on what needs to be done to achieve guide status? --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)