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

Not here to build a travel guideEdit

Over the years we've imported some policies from Wikipedia, for instance Wikivoyage:Deny recognition. Wikipedia has quite a few policy/guideline pages (maybe some of them overlapping?), but I stumbled upon an interesting one that might be of use here: w:WP:NOTHERE. It does not only cover traditional vandalism, but all sorts of disruptive editing.

I'm especially thinking about one user that has been here for years but almost exclusively edited their user page, and when Ikan asked about it last November they responded by basically showing him the middle finger and then deleted the discussion. The user has been active over the last couple of days too. --Ypsilon (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:User page help is not as helpful as one would like here. The user page doesn't contain anything offensive that violates this policy, but on the other hand, the guideline does say "Remember that Wikivoyage is not a personal home page service or a vacation photo service." I don't think we've contemplated the possibility of someone not contributing to the project but taking up user space.
It doesn't really matter. The space doesn't cost us anything, but we wouldn't lose anything by telling this user to take his business to MySpace. I don't think we should spend time developing a policy (although copying the Wikipedia one would take no time if others think it's worth doing). I think if this user bothers people, an admin could blank his page and protect it, then we can move on, and he can move elsewhere. Ground Zero (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. If we add a policy, we should be sure it adds something that is truly needed to our existing policy. As it stands currently I wouldn’t see the issue with this user as being particularly important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This individual user may not be important, but remember this isn't the first and won't be the last user who wastes our time and resources on what basically amounts to self-promotion in their userspace, and when you add all those users up, and all the time we spend trying to figure out what to do about them in the absence of a clear procedure (e.g. this discussion), that's when filling the hole in our policy becomes the path of least resistance. It wouldn't bother me if we simply copied Wikipedia's, but it would bother me if we shrugged this issue off and did nothing, especially after the tone of the user's remarks to Ikan Kekek, which under current policy would only earn him a 3-day ban per Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun and Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I just thought this Wikipedia policy page is a really good one, because the hallmarks of each of our major "problematic editors" over the years are listed there. So if there are some points we haven't mentioned in our policies as unacceptable behavior, then those could be good to copy. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the versatility of the policy is another argument in its favor. On that note, I think it would also be a good idea if we incorporated w:WP:Competence is required into this proposed policy. I know a local CIR policy was a controversial idea when it was proposed before, but the objections were mainly based on the notion that we'd be instituting it solely to deal with one individual user. My final remarks on that discussion were that I thought I remembered some past occasions unrelated to that user where the policy would have been useful, and that I would keep my eye out for future cases to bolster the argument in favor of the policy. True to my prediction, I identified another one earlier this year, and here's yet another one from just this past week. (Yes, I was able to use Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban to justify banning that second user based on the fact that she was already banned at Wikipedia. That's not the point. Our ability to deal with disruptive users at Wikivoyage should not be dependent on what Wikipedia does or doesn't do, and anyway I'm still not 100% sure the ban was justified since Wikipedia seems to unequivocally define this user's pattern of behavior as disruptive whereas the question seems a lot more ambiguous according to our policy.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
We luckily don't need all the tools that WP has for our serious problematic users because there are probably a thousand times more of them at WP, but CIR seems like a good addition. --Ypsilon (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I took a closer look at w:WP:NOTHERE. It looks fine to me. I think we can copy it in as a Wikivoyage policy, so it belongs to our community and then adjust it from there if needed. w:WP:Competence is required is worthy of consideration, but may need more tailoring to fit our needs and should be considered in a separate discussion. Ground Zero (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
While I don't think the example user is worth bothering over at all, importing the Not Here policy makes sense more broadly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Per AndreCarrotflower's comment I've blocked the user for three days, as s/he definitely has no interest in collaborating on a wiki whatsoever, demonstrated by "I'm not gonna just create a random page by copying a city from Wikipedia, you can use bots for that" and "How rude are you." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the "nothere" policy, suitably edited for Wikivoyage, is a good thing to have here. I'm still unconvinced about a competence policy and concerned that it could be mean. If there is a consensus to have some version of it here, I would consider it necessary to agree on how to tread lightly on the wording. For example, I can think of an excellent example of someone who doesn't have or doesn't act on this - the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. - but I think we would need to make it abundantly clear that we're talking about large volumes of writing that's absolutely chock full of grammar, spelling, punctuation and spacing errors, not just people who might make some significant errors because English is not their first language but provide great content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Shall we try to get consensus for Not Here first, or treat them as a package? They are related, but I can see some people supporting Not Here by itself, but opposing Not Here and CIR as a package.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it would be best to work on Nothere first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft policyEdit

So, I have copied W:Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and adapted it into Wikivoyage:Here to build a travel guide, which is currently in my userspace as a draft. It's closely based on the Wikipedia policy, though I removed some things that didn't seem relevant to us and have added some new bits that are not in the original version. I have also tried to adapt the tone to be more in keeping with our other policy pages, mainly through use of the second person, and by dropping the overly-formal Wikipediese in favour of our more down-to-earth house style.

Friends, please feed back your thoughts here and feel free to edit the draft directly. I'll be going offline for the night shortly after posting this comment, but look forward to reading your ideas when I return. Best wishes as always, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We mention failing to cooperate a “second,” “third,” “fourth” time, but I’m not sure we give users third or fourth chances (and that’s okay with me). WP has a system of notices and warnings, so it’s justified in their article, but we don’t, so I would remove that wording. Otherwise good. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the text of the policy is fine as is. I don't see the need to remove the wording about "third or fourth chances" - that way it reads in context, it seems obvious to me that ThunderingTyphoons! meant it as a figure of speech rather than to indicate how many chances we're required to give people. (And, frankly, if a user who's been given a second chance and squandered it were to respond by citing that clause of policy and demanding a third or fourth chance, we ought to take that as further confirmation that the user isn't here to build a travel guide.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added a sentence about bigoted edits given the issues with AC and LM that we had. But otherwise, I think the text mostly looks good. The dog2 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and I added one more section to cover the Telstra user. The dog2 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and edits, guys. I actually consider "third" and "fourth" chances to be consistent with our escalating user block policy, where the first chance is a warning and the fourth chance a three-month block, the last before indefinite. Although we have got increasingly less tolerant of trolls and vandals, with good reason, that doesn't mean we should rush to indefban everyone so quickly. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blanking the user page in questionEdit

Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals identifies, as a "non-goal":

"Personal homepage service. Each registered user on Wikivoyage has a user page; these should be used to support the development of the travel guide, and not as an all about me or my cat website. One or two photographs on your user page is reasonable; more than five is pushing it."

As @Supevan: is not doing anything to support the development of the travel guide, I think his/her user page could be blanked under this policy. He/she is welcome to explain why it should not be. Ground Zero (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That policy doesn't mention what action to take over user pages; I rather suspect it was written intending that everyone would read it and unquestioningly follow its recommendations.
But that userpage is not harming or offending anyone, not bringing the project into disrepute, not advertising for a company or trying to convert readers to a religion or political party, not costing the Wikimedia Foundation any money, and not (or shouldn't be) wasting anyone's time other than the author's. Supevan has been rightly blocked for civility issues, and I hope that engenders a change of attitude. But why does anyone want to forcibly remove his user page? What's the benefit in doing so? What's the harm in not doing so? Why can't we just leave things (and people) alone who are minding their own business? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm totally content not to waste time on this, but I thought it was worth bringing up because it's kind of irritating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
TBH, policies and actions like this are probably part of why wikivoyage has so low search ranking. Social-whatever is the main webservices direction these days and without a community of people who just hang around and perhaps can answer some "place-specific" questions, it's hard to compete with tripadvisor and such. This guys seems to just keep his travel journal here, because why not (and it's even related to WV) - and he even created some pages in the past. He doesn't do vandalism nor promote whatever. Maybe he even will do some edits eventually, again. Just hide his changes with your personal filters and leave him be... Or you can't because he's not marked as "trusted user", and thus admins have to review all his changes? -- 10:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above; there's always a chance this guy will decide one day to contribute to Wikivoyage again, but that chance goes out the window when we pester him for not volunteering his time for us, or drive him away by deleting his page. If he's a reader of Wikivoyage, then something like that will ensure he (a) doesn't use us to plan a trip again (b) doesn't recommend us to his friends. His edits do show up as needing patrolling, but if certain patrollers would rather leave that job to others like me who don't mind doing it, that's totally fine. Personally, I like the social elements of this site, and would like there to be more.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, for example Telstra has actually contributed to Wikivoyage a great deal more than this guy (and some of it has been useful content), yet he's blocked. Ypsilon (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, blocked for vandalising countless travel articles on countless occasions for years and years. It's practically the polar opposite of keeping to yourself editing just your user page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Look, I don't care; I'm sorry I brought up the question of whether he has the right to delete others' remarks on his user talk page and whether he should be blocked (and I said it was probably not worth talking about). But I don't think he'll suddenly decide to edit anything but his userpage again. I think I'll ignore this discussion going forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!. Leave well enough alone. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll withdraw the suggestion then. No need to discuss further. Ground Zero (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Logged outEdit

I hear that everyone got logged out earlier today. I don't know why, but you may want to double-check that you're logged in again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that too, and I wondered why. But now it seems to be working fine. Thanks for the heads-up! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
At least we know that anyone who doesn't come back was an imposter :) ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Found the cause. Someone had a big whoospie with server configuration so they logged everyone out as a precaution. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Was there another big whoopsie yesterday? I was logged out on all my devices.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
So was I. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Same problem, apparently: WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Uh oh, spaghettio! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on movement namesEdit

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

There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.

Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.

Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.

Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement, --The Brand Project team, 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

@Elitre (WMF): The survey is pretty much a sham because the three "options" are all Wikipedia-something: Wikipedia Foundation, Wikipedia Network Trust, Wikipedia Organization. However, it does allow for written answers as well as box-ticking, so if you feel as I do that the Wikimedia movement should not be reduced to "Wikipedia", I recommend you make your feelings known in the survey. The Wikimedia movement is not Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not the Wikimedia movement. And also sign the open letter, mentioned above. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What's their timeline for forcing this through? I can't see Wikivoyage being part of the "Wikipedia Network". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, why can't they propose "The Wiki Network" or anything else without the "pedia"? They're trying to marginalise all of the non-encyclopedic projects once again. The strength of the brand is in "Wiki". It's what many people shorten Wikipedia to in casual conversations anyway. I did the survey and strongly disagreed with every time they suggested to have a "pedia" in the overarching name. Also signed the open letter. Gizza (roam) 04:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
From what I've read, "Wiki" is a generic word the foundation has no control over, whereas "Wikipedia" can be trademarked. Personally, I'd also prefer Wiki. It's not just hapless civilians either, even Wikipedians say they edit "enwiki".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Doc James knows more about this than I do. He's not only on the Board, but he's also been thinking about ways to leverage the Wikipedia brand for years. We decided here a while ago to add the line about "The official, non-commercial sister site of Wikipedia..." to the Main Page. That's using the Wikipedia brand for (IMO) our benefit. I think Doc James' argument in favor of flexibility and options is sound. If we ever wanted to create a formal organization, then I think it'd be reasonable to call it the Wikivoyage User Group, and not be forced into something like "Wiki Travel User Group" (which is what I believe the current rules would require – can you even imagine anything less suitable for this particular group?!).
Beyond agreeing that a greater number of options might have some benefits, I have trouble caring about the various organizational names. Certainly names matter to anyone doing fundraising or organizing partnerships, but to us? The [Edit] button is likely to keep working no matter what they call any of the movement organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
A whole lot of people don't agree with you and see that their opinions aren't being considered. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that my own history of loathing re-naming and branding exercises stretches back longer than Wikipedia's founding. The first definition of a successful branding exercise is one in which I don't have to be involved at all. I am therefore very happy to say that the decision lies with the WMF's Board. They're responsible for creating rules about how movement organizations can be named, and they're responsible for deciding whether those rules should get updated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I got a private question on how people could know that the Wikimedia Foundation's board considered the views of users. The answer is as simple as it is obvious: By giving us the choice in a non-contrived survey of keeping the "Wikimedia" name or at least changing, if change is really essential, to a name other than "Wikipedia" for all Wikimedia sites. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
While I understand that technically the decision does belong to the Wikimedia Foundation as WhatamIdoing said, aren't wikis governed by consensus that is based on the input of the editors themselves, not staff who are paid to do technical maintenance? On a volunteer website the opinions of editors must be respected, since volunteers maintain the right to leave or fork to another website. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the main reasons for the fork of en.voy from Wikitravel as I remember were that the owners of that site decided to override the consensus of the users, and secondarily, that they made it very difficult to stanch the encroachment of spam on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it, the stated reason is to concentrate trademarks to a strong brand, and Wikipedia is the strongest brand of WMF. Defending more trademarks was said to be costly and hard, although how costly and hard was not stated – which would have needed for the community to form an informed opinion based on those points. They also did not explain why this was needed now. Are they afraid that Wikipedia's fame will make unscrupulous businesses conquer "Wikivoyage" & al in countries where we are less known and trademark difficult? Is defending "Wikimedia" globally really that hard? --LPfi (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Open for signatures - Community open letter on renamingEdit

Dear all,

There is an open letter that requests a pause to renaming activities being pursued by the Wikimedia Foundation 2030 Brand Project.

Individual editors and affiliates can sign with their logged-in account to show support.

The letter focuses on concerns about the process, and not about specific naming choices. With 50 major chapters and affiliates and 600+ individuals signing the statement, we are seeing great interest in this issue.

Related to this: the branding team is conducting a survey that runs until July 7. There is concern that the consultation process and options on the survey do not adequately reflect community sentiment, given the effect name changes for the foundation and movement would have. This served as a motivation for the open letter. Useful links are below:

  • Brand survey for individuals - Qualtrics survey. If there are options you would like to highlight outside of the three provided, it is possible to write in your own options and views at the end of the survey.
  • For more info, there is an English Wikipedia Signpost article about the issue and a Q&A interview with the document writers and collaborators:

There will be a WMF board meeting scheduled in July to discuss the branding issue, so it is important to express your views now.

Thanks - Fuzheado (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Signed gladly. I thought it was very interesting that not rebranding at all, and sticking with "Wikimedia Foundation", was by far the most popular opinion expressed during the community input phase, yet that wasn't presented as one of the three finalist options. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd strongly encourage anyone reading who agrees with this letter to sign it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Travel topic proposal: Wind, Wave and WaterEdit

For the Windmills, tide mills of time forgotten, right up to the modern Hydro schemes you can vist. A sub-topic of Industrial Tourism.

Does anyone want to help write a lede, or have any suggestions for key regions to list? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps, however, a different name would help better explain the travel topic, since I thought the title was referring to the words in their literal sense, until I saw your description of the travel topic. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
You almost got the name right of that Swedish 1970's pop classic XD
Jokes aside, I think this could make a good article. "Renewable energy" is maybe be a better name. There are big dams all over the world (famous ones include the Itaipu, Hoover, Aswan and Three Gorges dams), places where solar cells and modern wind turbines were first built, as well as particularly large areas for such power production (for example California had some insanely big solar cell covered area if I remember correctly), wave and tidal power plants which are in use in the UK and Netherlands... --Ypsilon (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
True, Renewable energy is probably a good name for the travel topic.
There are some wind turbines in California, particularly at a place called Altamont Pass and also near Tehachapi, and there are some more near Ely in Nevada. But I doubt travelers would visit those — none of them are scenic and the latter is far from the beaten path. There are many reservoirs in California as well, though my understanding is that these are used for storing water rather than for renewable energy, though there's a lake near Auburn and a couple along the Colorado River which I believe are exceptions. These are worth visiting if I am correct.
Solar power in California is, according to my knowledge, usually generated by individuals at their own homes (usually by placing solar panels on or inside the roof), who are then paid by the government for producing the electricity. Therefore I'm not aware of any solar power destinations in California.
Perhaps a travel topic for California reservoirs could be created as well? These lakes and their surroundings provide some of the state's most beautiful scenery. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually I wanted somewhere to put some Windmills you can visit in the UK, as much as it was about modern Wind Turbines, hence why I didn't choose Renewable Energy. If you include Hydro Schemes, than any list would have to have the Hoover Dam, and the Tennesse Valley Scheme, alongside Dinorwic. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if we could find some related factories that offer tours. You can normally tour the Hoover Dam, and maybe there are other similar things to do.[1] Just driving past wind turbines is pretty boring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we need to consider whether the focus is 21st century renewable energy or 17th century ways of making flour or pumping water. I think that there are enough old windmills and watermills that are run on a museum basis to create an article. These are often open for tours and to sell the odd bag of flour. In the past few months some of these have been working flat out as Covid lockdown has caused a boom in home baking. See Lincolnshire, Oldambt and Schiedam for lists of windmills to get started. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Monuments and statuesEdit

The last weeks has seen debate over monuments and statues; especially in the United States, but also in other countries. Should Wikivoyage have a policy on monuments? Of all public monuments in the world, most are not controversial (or at least less so than a Confederate general). Should Wikivoyage have a policy for how to describe public monuments? /Yvwv (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we need a policy other than Wikivoyage:Be fair? I doubt it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the traveler can come to his/her own conclusion as to whether or not they are controversial. Presumably our readers are well enough aware of history for that.
However, we may need to focus more on updating our travel information when we, for example, list a monument that no longer exists. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
A monument or statue prominent enough to have a listing on its own, should preferrably say some words about the commemorated person/event, as well as the time when it was erected. /Yvwv (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
When an editor describes a point of interest, context is always appreciated per Plunge forward. That’s the choice of the person adding the information, IHMO. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Even for Confederate statues, I don't think we need a policy banning their mention. If it is a prominent landmark, it should be mentioned in a travel guide. It is fine to give a history behind the statue so people know why it's controversial, but ultimately, a tourist is not going to be able to change government policy and get the statue torn down. And for your own safety, I'd also not recommend a tourist pulling one down himself/herself or you risk getting arrested and thrown in jail. This is in line with how we treat say, Stalin statues, which still exist in parts of the former Soviet Union today. The dog2 (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre spam, please revdelEdit (koavf)TCM 03:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

While all spam should of course be reverted, revdel is not appropriate in anything other than the most extreme of cases, nor frankly is this spam particularly bizarre by comparison with what I usually tend to see. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's also at wikiquote:User talk:, but I don't see any other edits by this IP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2020 #3Edit

12:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing a new wiki project! Welcome, Abstract WikipediaEdit

Sent by m:User:Elitre (WMF) 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC) - m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement

Sussex woodlandsEdit

There was recently a deletion discussion on Wikipedia of four Sussex woodland articles. Two got deleted and two couldn't get consensus either way. I didn't think of it at the time, but it occured to me afterwards that Wikivoyage might be interested in these articles. I can't import them myself as I don't have the importer right here, but as an administrator on Wikipedia I can undelete the deleted articles for someone else to import if they are wanted. Please ping me if you reply as I don't monitor this wiki.

By the way, there is also w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage if anyone is interested. It lists pages considered better off on the Wikivoyage project and some have been sitting there for some time. Spinningspark (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: thank you for bringing this to our attention. For my part, I don't think it's worth spending the time to import this material. The two deleted articles have almost no travel-related information, and little other useful information. "W:Graylands Copse is a largely inaccessible woodland", so it's not really worth putting in a travel guide. W:Upper Rapeland Wood has some unmaintained trails, so I have added a listing to our Horsham article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I have started looking at w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage. I've adapted one article into a Wikivoyage article (Hernandarias), and used information from a couple of others to create listings in existing Wikivoyage article. I removed from the category a couple of articles that had no useful content. It seems like some people think, "well, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia — maybe Wikivoyage would take it." In these two cases, we'll politely decline. I will look at the other articles listed in due course. Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably, however, there are times when a transwiki (that's the technical name for moving an article across wikis, I believe) would be appropriate for WP articles. I would expect that many WP contributors who add articles not suited to that website simply don't understand or even know that WV exists. Perhaps we should keep an eye on Wikipedia's deletion discussions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
There are now three articles remaining in the Wikipedia category, and I think the best approach would be to transwiki them, and then adapt them to Wikivoyage format and content. I've tried reading the transwiki documentation three times, and can't figure it out. If someone else is willing to do the transwiki, I will work on bringing the resulting Wikivoyage up to our standards. Ground Zero (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I noticed today that in Special:UserRights there is an option that bureaucrats can allow called "transwiki importer." Perhaps one of us could be given this right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The proper way to do that, I think, would be to create a nomination at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations (sidebar: is that page perhaps due for a name change? Wikivoyage:User rights nominations or somesuch?) and if you're a trusted sysop, the approval should be a matter of course. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure. I was thinking that, as we don't nominate patrollers, the same would be the case for transwiki importers, but a nomination works fine with me. (To clarify, I am not putting myself forward currently.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
SelfieCity has kindly agreed to accept a nomination. Ground Zero (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Why does an admin need to pass an additional nomination to be able to transwiki? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the big question is whether to enable transwiki-ing. Perhaps enabling it technically is done by adding the right to somebody, but I agree that an administrator should be trusted enough for that.
The question about allowing transwiki imports is not trivial: the page history will then include history from another wiki, with contributions from people who never were active here (and perhaps confusing user names from before the SUL unification). On sv-wp it was not enabled, then mostly from concern about contributions in other languages, which would seem odd. As long as the original article is not deleted, a permalink to the "imported" version works well.
--LPfi (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be much easier to copy the content over, but in the cases of these three articles, doing so without preserving the edit history seems contrary to the spirit of attribution. The point of w:Category:Copy to Wikivoyage is that these articles are considered by Wikipedians to be travel articles, and not encyclopedia articles, so I would expect that the original articles will not be maintained in Wikipedia. (Wikipedians are not always right about what constitutes a travel article. I removed the "copy to Wikivoyage" tag from 7 8 Wikipedia articles that I felt would not make good travel articles.) Ground Zero (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding those 7 articles, are they still flagged for some sort of action from Wikipedians? If they were marked for copying to Wikivoyage they may need to be deleted outright if Wikipedians decided they weren't suitable for the encyclopedia. Powers (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Often such articles can be cut down to sensible Wikipedia articles by removing the travel info, perhaps to stubs or redirects. In those cases there is no need to delete them and our permalink would keep working. --LPfi (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
They are no longer flagged. I left a note on the article talk pages indicating that I had removed the tag and why. It is up to other Wikipedians to decide what they want to do next. Keep in mind that anyone can add a tag like that if they think it is appropriate. That doesn't mean that that person is right and that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. In several cases, I didn't see what the problem was. But if these articles are a problem for Wikipedia, making them a problem for Wikivoyage is not the right solution. If you are interested, here are the articles in question: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] [9]. If you think that there is information in these articles that can be harvested for Wikivoyage, go right ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (updated 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We can't copy and paste an article entirely from Wikipedia if that article is subsequently deleted from Wikipedia, because attribution is then made impossible. In order for us to take these articles on board, we need to transwiki them, unless Wikipedia can be persuaded to keep them as read-only archives in perpetuity, which would be silly.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have proposed an addition to our policy to reflect this discussion: Wikivoyage talk:Cooperating with Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I explained my thoughts there. --LPfi (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Languages in the sidebarEdit

This is not specifically to do with WV, but has anyone else noticed the order of the languages in the sidebar has changed from alphabetical to... some other order that's not entirely apparent? I noticed this on WP a couple of days ago, though at that point they were still normal here, but now they're all jumbled up on WV too. Anyone know about this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently it's a bug: see phabricator:T257625. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :) ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Los Angeles hierarchyEdit

There seems to be some confusion in the hierarchy of Los Angeles. There have been a lot of discussions, so part of it is probably as good as it can get, but I noticed problems with Antelope Valley, where its parent regions are listed as subregions (I put a note on the talk page).

The immediate problem is that the scope of Antelope Valley is ill defined in the article. The scope should probably be just the part of the valley that belongs to Los Angeles County.

The problem with Los Angeles is (at least) that it is a "huge city" with both districts and subregions. Wouldn't it be more sensible to have Los Angeles County as parent region for on the one hand the huge city of Los Angeles and on the other the regions of the county? (Or some other name if not everything belongs to the county.)

--LPfi (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The City of Los Angeles is an entity only for government. The people consider L.A. to be L.A. County. I agree with you that the scope of Antelope Valley is ill defined in the article. The part of it that's in L.A. County needs to be a region of L.A. with constituent cities and/or rural areas that completely cover it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
OK. But having regions as districts is unusual, and may be a problem at least for automatic tools (and for editors like me, who don't know the region and the corresponding discussion). It is clearly presented for the reader in the L.A. article, but should perhaps also be explained at the top of the talk page, and may require some special care in the subregion articles. --LPfi (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In the U.S., small suburban towns typically aren’t incorporated into larger cities, even when those suburbs are de facto part of the larger city. Examples include Greater Orlando, Chicago, Metro Atlanta, etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Another unusual city article hierarchy is New Taipei. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Suburban areas being independent towns is quite common. Paris proper or City of London cover only part of the centre and even most suburbs of Helsinki are outside the city boundaries. But that is irrelevant as we ignore formal boundaries when they don't make sense (with or without a short comment). L.A. differs in that we include regions as districts, which breaks the consistency of our hierarchy. I don't want to question the decision, but I hope our tools do handle it. Such exceptions should probably be mentioned in Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy. --LPfi (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks wrong to me. Wide-open regions like Antelope Valley should not be part of a Huge City. Shouldn't we put L.A. Central and the other regions underneath a Los Angeles County guide? Powers (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. While I maintain what I said above, I think something about the region hierarchy should be changed. I've never thought of that region as part of L.A. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
L.A. County should redirect to L.A. People there distinguish "City of L.A." when they're talking about it, but by default and almost always, L.A.=L.A. County. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I've lived in the LA area for 15 years and also asked the opinion of someone born & raised, and the consensus was that most people from LA would not consider LA County & Los Angeles to be synonymous. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Palmdale, Pomona, Calabasas, the Angeles National Forest, etc are all in LA County, but I think it would be rare for someone to consider those places to be "Los Angeles". -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] So should Los Angeles cover all the area as before but be transformed into a region and a new Central Los Angeles be the huge city? We wouldn't have to emphasize the article classification for readers – the wording of the {{PrintDistricts}} template is problematic in many articles – if that would be the problem. Or is the problem that there is little to say about central Los Angeles that is not better said in LA or the district articles, and the middle layer would thus just be a distraction for the reader? --LPfi (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Central (which I would take to mean Downtown) L.A. is not a city. The City of L.A. is a city, but it has odd borders that make it an arbitrary entity for Wikivoyage. Ryan, what would you consider the borders of L.A. to be? I'm not a native and haven't lived there, but my experience is that Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley are considered part of L.A., and certainly, Santa Monica - though de jure an independent city - is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Downtown L.A. is one of the districts under the heading "Central Los Angeles" in Los Angeles. Antelope Valley & al are under a separate heading, "Los Angeles County regions". These subregions are what is odd for a "huge city", so making Central L.A. a huge city listed alongside the regions would avoid having regions in the city (we'd still have an asymmetry, but I am not sure that is a problem). --LPfi (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. But would anyone consider L.A. to consist only of what's listed in Los Angeles#Central Los Angeles? I can't imagine. What about Westside (Los Angeles County) and South Bay (Los Angeles County), for example? I'd like to hear back from Ryan and hear from some Angelinos before we do anything rash. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Los Angeles#Geography is of some relevance to this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
FWIW when I was adding banners to regions a few years ago I remember noticing many oddities in how we divide California into regions and sub regions. L.A. and Antelope Valley both being subregions of each other was one thing (the other region in Antelope Valley, Kern County, is breadcrumbed below and listed in San Joaquin Valley - maybe Antelope Valley should be an extraregion), and there might have been something else with L.A. in addition to that.
Then there are San Bernardino County and Riverside County which are breadcrumbed below and listed in Southern California but also listed in Desert (California) and I think there was some overlap somewhere in the Bay Area too. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To me San Joaquin Valley is a strange region; if you look at the map it’s just part of the larger Central Valley, which IMO should be its own region. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(responding to @Ikan Kekek:) As LPfi and Selfie City alluded to, the confusion here seems to be over "city of Los Angeles" and "Los Angeles metropolitan area". If you ask someone where the Rose Bowl is, it's in Pasadena, not Los Angeles. Cities like Pasadena, Santa Monica, Malibu, Beverly Hills, etc are part of the LA metropolitan area, but they are distinct cities and regarded as separate entities from Los Angeles. Using Los Angeles to refer to everything within the LA city limits, and using Los Angeles County as a synonym (sort of) for the LA Metropolitan area, would (I think) be clearer and avoid some of the issues that have been raised above, and would be less confusing than introducing a new "Central Los Angeles" concept. Just because LA is such a sprawling city that has absorbed many of its suburbs there are still going to be challenges with districts and overlapping sub-regions, but Wikivoyage already supports extraregions so I don't think it's a unique issue to Los Angeles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright, if you think that would be the most sensible way to divide stuff up, please propose a way to do that at Talk:Los Angeles when you have a chance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
As someone who's only been to LA twice, I like the way it's organized now. So many of the things people want to see and do on a trip to LA are both inside and outside the actual city limits that I think it's easier for a casual visitor to plan a trip if it's all under "Los Angeles". Looking at the current Los Angeles#See and Los Angeles#Do sections, the coverage is comprehensive -- beaches, movie studios, museums, Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and so on. If metro LA is handled in a separate guide, we lose that single comprehensive overview, and I feel that makes our guide less useful. Separately, the quality of writing in Los Angeles is also quite good, so I think there's a high bar to meet to ensure we don't have worse articles because we changed the hierarchy. -Shaundd (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I share your reluctance to make wholesale changes to the hierarchy. I think it can be profitably tweaked around the edges, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that any big changes are needed in the current Los Angeles article, but the formal hierarchy levels differ from the rest of Wikivoyage, which makes it confusing – and the overlaps and conflicting descriptions should be handled. I suppose the divisions were well thought out, but never well described in the actual guides, and thus ignorant users have made incompatible changes. --LPfi (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I think having a 2-level districting structure is OK, but it has to be clearer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
A comprehensive regional article should have all the things mentioned by Shaundd. But it just seems incongruous to me to include all those large empty areas in the article for one of the largest cities on the continent. Powers (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Listing Editor 2.4Edit

I've just updated the Listing Editor Beta (that can be found in the Gadgets tab of the personal Preferences) with the latest version of the script that is already available for any user in it:voy.

All the changes can be found in Wikivoyage:Listing_editor#v2.4 Changes (see the script for technical details).

I've adapted it for en:voy and I've already personally tested the script, but before injecting the code in Listing Editor (the main version not the beta) for any user, I would prefer to have a broader test/feedback.

Since I'll be away for the whole August, any feedback before the end of the month would be highly appreciated. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Only spotted one small issue. The "localizza su geomap" text could do with updating. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Just fixed. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Since no other issue has been spotted, I've implemented the v2.4 for all users. In this way I'll be available for few more days before leaving, in case of need. --Andyrom75 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Andyrom75: Thank you and buon viaggio. Going anywhere nice? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ThunderingTyphoons!: :-) I'll roam "conscientiously" around the Schengen Area visiting some of the Countries I've never been before :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Abuse filter 38Edit

Please check it out when you can.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Granting template editor rights to active autopatrollersEdit

Given the AndreCarrotflower has permanently protected the Chongqing article, I think it is time to revisit this. I have adjusted the protection level to allow template editors to edit it, and I don't see a reason why we should prevent trusted editors from editing articles if the goal is to prevent vandalism. If people find this a little too liberal, perhaps for a start, we can give template editor rights to all patrollers, and maybe grant them to our autopatrollers on request. What do people think? The dog2 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The permanent protection for Chongqing was done in error. As with Hong Kong, whose mistaken permanent full protection was noted on my talk page earlier, this stems from the Fuerdai vandalism spree of June 20-21 in which the bad-faith edits were coming so fast and furious that, in reverting the vandalism and preventing its recurrence, I didn't have enough time to pay attention to slips of the mouse hand. Sorry about this. Going forward, any other instances in which I've instituted permanent full protection on mainspace pages, specifically destination articles related to China where the protected status began in June 2020, should similarly be regarded as mistakes and the protection level should be reset to autoconfirmed and the duration to 3 months. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes "indef" is the best setting for a persistent vandal. If we specify a certain date, the vandal can just mark his calendar and come back as soon as protection expires. "Indefinite" doesn't have to mean "permanent".
The English Wikipedia has invented a level called "Extended Confirmed", which is automatically granted to any account with 500+ edits that was created at least 30 days ago. It is popular for hot-button articles (e.g., Israel–Palestine, high-profile politics, etc.). The general notion is that it's hard to reach on purpose, so few people would go to that much trouble just to get access to a protected article. If we want that intermediate level of protection, then we could ask the WMF to set it up for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
We could do that, or we could ask if the WMF can make it possible for us to grant additional editing privileges to autopatrollers, or at the very least patrollers. Some of the articles that I think we might need permanent protection for are the United States of America article and the China article. If we could have something along the lines of "allow autopatrollers only", that would work out. After all, autopatrollers are people we have deemed trustworthy, and AC is the only autopatroller I can remember who has gone rogue. The dog2 (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Are there any articles where semi-protection hasn't been enough to bring vandalism down to a manageable level? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Other admins have been quicker than me in catching the vandalism, but the Fuerdai vandal is certainly a serious one for China articles. AndreCarrotflower, Ikan Kekek, Ibaman and SelfieCity, what do you guys think? You guys seem to be the ones to have caught most of the vandalism. The dog2 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't tend to pay close attention to whether a vandal is autoconfirmed, but I think that's rare, and if so, semi-protection should be sufficient in the great majority of cases, but I'd like to hear from anyone else on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not by any means unheard of for a vandal to become autoconfirmed. I think ExtendedConfirmed is worth looking into, especially for the highest-profile articles on the site as The dog2 suggested. It may be hard for a bad-faith editor to "reach 500 edits on purpose", but it's not that difficult for those who have a genuine interest in contributing to the travel guide. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
When I checked at the English Wikipedia, less than 1% of all editors ever reached extended-confirmed. There are more than 30 auto-confirmed accounts there for every extended-confirmed account.
If you want to see exactly who would be affected, then this RecentChanges list (with the 'new' 2017 filters enabled) will show you all the recent editors who have made more than 10 edits but fewer than 500, and so would be excluded by extended-confirmed. (This is also a good search system for finding promising contributors to encourage, so warm up your 'Thanks' button.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah. The Fuerdai vandal is very persistent, and if we don't permanently semi-protect some articles, all we will be doing is playing cat-and-mouse with this guy. So as of this post, I am formally proposing that we introduce Extended Confirmed status to Wikivoyage along the lines of w:Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extendedconfirmed. The dog2 (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection would also prevent helpful edits from new or casual contributors, so the benefits must be weighed against the costs. Can you or anyone come up with examples of articles where this is needed (in other words, articles where vandalism remains unmanageably severe despite semi-protection)? If not, I don't think this is something we need to worry about right now. We can always come back to this idea if it becomes necessary someday in the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: Rereading your last comment, I'm confused. First you said "if we don't permanently semi-protect some articles, all we will be doing is playing cat-and-mouse with this guy", but then you said "I am formally proposing that we introduce Extended Confirmed status". Are you trying to argue for indefinite semi-protection or for extended confirmed protection? Indefinite semi-protection is already possible and would not be changed by introducing extended confirmed status. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Granger - "Helpful edits from new or casual contributors" probably aren't needed on the super prominent articles like United States of America that ExtendedConfirmed would cover. If a change takes place that's of such import that it would need to be noted on an article that high up the breadcrumb hierarchy, one of our regulars will almost certainly take care of it. Where edits from new or casual contributors are most helpful is mainly on bottom-level destinations that, by and large, tend not to be magnets for vandalism. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Yes, we can permanently semi-protect by allowing only autoconfirmed users, but as AndreCarrotflower mentioned, it is not unheard of for a persistent vandal to reach autoconfirmed status. Extended confirm will give us an additional tool in the arsenal to deal with persistent vandals like the Fuerdai guy. Of course, an extremely committed vandal could possibly reach extended confirmed status, but it will take a really serious amount to commitment to vandalism to do so. And if anyone is trying to use Wikivoyage to push a political agenda, we could probably catch them before they hit that status. The dog2 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @AndreCarrotflower: Thank you for giving a concrete example. As far as I can tell, the United States of America has not gotten any vandalism while semi-protected, let alone an unmanageable amount, so extended confirmed protection doesn't seem like it would be helpful. Moreover, that article has gotten constructive edits from users who would not be extended-confirmed, such as this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: I don't think extended confirmed protection would be particularly helpful in preventing Fuerdai vandalism, as that user tends to switch accounts frequently and edit articles that aren't semi-protected. With respect to the issue of pushing a political agenda, I again ask you to provide examples of articles where extended confirmed protection would be helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Just a question here since you work for the WMF. If we do not introduce extended confirmed status, would it possible introduce a new protection level to only allow autopatrollers to edit specific articles? Of course, the autopatrollers group would presumably cover patrollers, administrators and bureaucrats as well. The dog2 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: I guess one that comes into mind is the China article, and also the Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong articles. This is only my guess but given the articles the Fuerdai vandal targets, it is certainly possible that there is a political motivation behind it. The dog2 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for giving specific examples. It seems that extended-confirmed protection would not be appropriate for those articles, as they have not gotten any vandalism while semi-protected (as far as I can tell from looking at the past year or two of edits—please correct me if I missed anything), while they have gotten constructive contributions from users who would not be extended-confirmed. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It seems that in all four of these articles, extended-confirmed protection would prevent good edits but would not stop any more vandalism than semi-protection. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Granger - Your continued objections to stronger measures against vandalism are duly noted, but it does not follow that semiprotection will necessarily continue to prevent vandalism on prominent articles just because it has managed to do so thus far. For instance, the Fuerdai vandalism spree of last month just so happened to occur at a time when there were admins on Recent Changes patrol. As the person who most often handles the Deny Recognition procedures related to the Fuerdai vandal, there are many times when I have seen his sockpuppets amass as many as three or four dozen edits before being caught and blocked, apparently because no one was watching Recent Changes at the time they emerged. These are sockpuppets that would have attained autoconfirmed status and, if they had been part of a coordinated attack like last month's instead of one-offs, would have done great damage even to semiprotected articles if there hadn't been any admins around to notice. That that didn't happen was purely by chance. It is important that we stop burying our heads in the sand, pretending there aren't any limits on our policy of open access, and obstructing paths toward viable solutions to the problem of malicious edits and begin taking this issue with the seriousness it deserves. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Citing facts, which Granger has done, is not "burying our heads in the sand". I take your point that it is possible that a vandal could become autoconfirmed and continue to vandalize before we can block them, but right now, these proposals are solutions in search of a problem, and therefore, I oppose them for the time being. And I think the solution going forward is probably something less drastic than anyone has mentioned so far: Increasing the number of edits for auto-confirmation to something like 50. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I support stronger measures against vandalism when they seem like they would be effective and would not cause excessive collateral damage. You may remember that I helped add to our policies in order to reduce Fuerdai vandalism not long ago.

Extended-confirmed protection is useful on Wikipedia, where vandalism and disruptive edits are a much bigger problem than on Wikivoyage and take different forms. But I don't think it would be useful here, and the examples AndreCarrotflower and The dog2 gave seem to illustrate that point.

In terms of ideas that might be effective here, what if we try copying Wikipedia's abuse filter 918 and implementing it here? User:Ground Zero might be able to help with that, as he's an admin on both sites. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The dog2, I'm not a dev (usual disclaimers apply, etc.), but what we call 'admin' or 'template editor' or whatever is usually a bundle of separable rights (e.g., viewdeleted protect editprotected, etc.; if you look at the middle of mw:Manual:$wgGrantPermissionGroups#Default_value, you'll see a typical list of the separate rights that we call "admin"). Which rights appear under which names is configurable. So with that in mind, whatever we're calling 'autopatroller' could likely have other rights assigned to it.
We could also change the autoconfirmed status, to make it harder for newcomers to edit semi-protected articles. Once upon a time, it was zero edits and zero days, and I don't know what it is now. That wouldn't do much good for pages that aren't semi'd already, but it's another option to consider if people feel like there are widespread problems.
On the theoretical side, some vandals might be pleased when articles get locked down. Making you restrict the entire world just to slow them down gives some people a sense of power. Sometimes, the best defense is making it boring. Having your edits immediately reverted by a tireless bot would probably have that effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any candidates for the role of "Tireless Bot"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I hope she doesn't mean one of us :-)
Our page about autoconfirmed users doesn't mention a necessary number of edits, just a time period. Is this not accurate?
What does the Wikipedia filter 918 do, for those of us with insufficient rights to see?
As to the broader proposal, I am convinced by Granger's arguments that this is a step too far right now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know precisely what Wikipedia abuse filter 918 does, but it is the filter they use for Fuerdai vandalism according to this page.
I suppose one takeaway from the point about a tireless bot is that it's best to solve the problem (e.g., by blocking and reverting) and move on, without any fanfare or displays of irritation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, as opposed to having a police-style case file on them, like the page you linked. Good way to impart a false sense of notoriety.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Right, I'm glad we don't have those... I'll also spend more time patrolling recent changes (in as botlike a manner as I can) to try to reduce the load on other admins. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
TT, I think we might see whether Rich Smith could set up w:User:ClueBot NG for us. An actual bot, not a human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: In theory yes, but it will use the ENWP dataset which means it may false positive on a few things on Voyage. I can look in to setting it up if this is really something WikiVoyagers are interested in and on a side-note, this Pub could do with some ClueBot III treatment :) Rich Smith (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I have been impressed by how effective Cluebot is on WP, and think it could be useful here. I realise it may be a big job to adjust the dataset. AlasdairW (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
I think having a bot to do it will be useful. This will free up our time and energy to actually contribute constructive content. And perhaps the bot can also be configured to handle the Telstra vandal too. The dog2 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Rich Smith, we have an unusual archiving system that requires manual intervention. We put relatively little in central talk pages. If we talk about an article here, then the discussion gets archived to that article's talk page.
Is there a way to make a list of some sample diffs that ClueBot would revert, so we can check them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Might be able to run it in "dry run" mode so it will log the reverts, but not do them - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's another suggestion in addition to having a bit. How about granting rollback rights to our patrollers? Wikipedia has a separate group of users called rollbackers. I'm not sure we need that here on Wikivoyage, but I think giving our patrollers rollback rights would give us a few extra pair of hands to fight vandalism. After all, the role of a patroller is to patrol recent changes, and giving them rollback rights will allow them to respond to vandalism much more effectively. The dog2 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe patrollers already have the rollback right, but if I'm wrong about that, I support granting it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I remember using the rollback tool when I was (only) a patroller on WV. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rich Smith: That sounds like a good idea. Why don't we try that out first, and if it works well, we can then implement it. The dog2 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of which, would it also be possible for a bot to go after the Telstra vandal. It's not as pressing as the Fuerdai vandal because (s)he is not as destructive, but I think having a bot to do that will be helpful too. The dog2 (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Listing formatEdit

Working on Listing Editor v2.4 I've noticed that here in en:voy has been changed the listing format from the original format:

* {{see
| name= | alt= | url= | email=

into this format

* {{listing | type=see
| name= | alt= | url= | email=

Personally I've found a 2017 bug record on Wikivoyage:Listing editor#Bugs and feedback that maybe has originated this change, but that bug it's not anymore present. It can be tested on the first listing of Cleveland#By plane.

@Wrh2: highlighted me a Decembre 5th conversation in Wikivoyage talk:Listing editor#New changes between @ARR8: and @Mx. Granger: where they briefly discussed about it. ARR8, unfortunately miss from en:voy since 1 year ago, and since March 2020 from any wiki, so I don't know if he can provide further background information.

From my point of view the only benefit I see is to create potentially an endless series of listings without creating the relevant templates, because type is just a parameter, but since the set of listing is almost constant over the time, I think that this advantage do not compensate this more "verbose title".

Which is the preferred approach that the en:voy would like to follow?

Furthermore another note. I've noticed that the buttons on top of the standard editor pages (e.g.  ) generate the following listing code:

* {{listing | type=see
| name= | alt= | url= | email=
| address= | lat= | long= | directions=
| phone= | tollfree=
| hours= | price=
| wikipedia= | wikidata=
| lastedit=2020-07-29
| content=

I strongly discourage to propose the "wikipedia" parameter because it expose the listing to have an inconsistent link to Wikipedia when the page is move without any redirect in Wikipedia itself. This information should be obtained transparently providing the "wikidata" parameter. That's the way the Listing Editor works during sync phase (i.e. deleting "wikipedia" and "image" information from the listing). Note that when also "wikidata" is present, a category can find and list these errors, but when is missing only a bot can find and list them.

Also in this case let me know which is the desired approach. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand your reason for excluding the Wikipedia and Image parameters from the generated template, but does that also result in the corresponding fields vanishing from the listing editor? It's not a huge thing, but it does require an extra step or two of edits if the Wikipedia article is incorrect or the image hosted on Wikidata is not suitable for Wikivoyage, or if there isn't an image hosted on Wikidata at all. There is also the occasion (not that often, but it happens) where there is no Wikidata item, but there is a Wikipedia article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons!, the modification of the template will not affect anything else so all the mechanism will remain unchanged. For example, any editor will be still free to add it manually overriding the value stored in Wikidata (although is possibile, generally is not a good approach, but in few cases it could make sense), and also listing editor will still have the wikipedia field that can be sync with Wikidata or manually customized.
Think about the image parameter; it's not currently present in the generated template but everything works.
Regarding the existence of a Wikipedia page without a Wikidata instance, well, this is an error that should be corrected creating a new Wikidata instance or connecting it to the right existing one. Take a look at this en:voy special page that tracks all the en:voy articles that have the same issue.
I hope it clarify your doubts. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thank you :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Since today is my last day in front of a laptop, I've applied the above two changes but in case the community would decide differently is enough to rollback the followings:
PS I should be still available for chat but not for programming. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What about markers including links to Wikipedia? Do you think we should keep the marker template as-is, or make the same change we made to the listing template? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I suppose it is not too uncommon that there is a Wikipedia article that touches the subject while the Wikidata item is more precise but lacks article in English. How should one handle that situation? --LPfi (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)SelfieCity, as far as I recall, Template:marker has born this way. No "type" means generic listing, while when "type" is present, the nature of the listing is changed accordingly.
Without a "good idea" or a real need I would leave it as it is. Using the same template (e.g. {{marker|type=city| -> {{marker|city|) we would get a neglectable benefit, and changing template or (e.g. {{marker|type=city ->{{city) we would force editor to learn & use a new one.
Maybe (I repeat maybe), if it's easy to recognize if a toponym is a city (or village, town, metropolis, etc.) we could avoid to specify the type parameter at all, but this would require an analysis of Wikidata and to build an easy tool to put anyone in the condition to fix the hopefully few cases where this specification is missing, without relying only on Wikidata expert. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but I'm speaking specifically of links to Wikidata, not how the template itself functions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
SelfieCity, sorry, my fault. Are you talking of showing the Wikipedia link when the Wikivoyage article is missing? In the affirmative case I think is a good and useful idea, because readers can find information within "Wiki-world" and editors can find a first source of information to develop a Wikivoyage article. Showing Wikipedia link, is only possible if it's present a Wikidata parameter, that for sure is an optional parameter.
LPfi, as anticipated, if you want to specify a different Wikipedia article you can anytime, nothing from this point of view has changed. Changing the preset template is just a "mental approach", that suggest to provide Wikidata instance instead of Wikipedia article. I don't if I've answered to your doubt. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
No, any explanation regarding this is helpful. If we're agreed that using WP links in markers is good, then that's all I'm really concerned about. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. I suppose we think that those who are able to make a judgement call on using a WP article different from that of the WD item also know how to do it manually. I have no problem with that. --LPfi (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Last minute request for helpEdit

Hi all. I've been making sure York is up-to-date post-lockdown and have made good progress, but now realise I probably won't be able to finish before 1st August (i.e. Saturday). If any of you could spare some time, would you mind going through the Sleep section and checking accommodation options are still in business? And also if necessary update room rates, contact details etc.? Sorry for short notice, but even if you only do a couple of listings, It would be a great help. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have checked all the sleep listings, except the budget ones, and almost all appeared to be open - either the webpage said when they reopened, or I got a price for a room in August. Hostels are more complicated, as I think they can only reopen some of the facilities, and only the YHA made the situation clear at a quick read. Cheaper B&Bs with shared bathrooms may also have restrictions. AlasdairW (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant, Alasdair! Thank you, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Stilted language in article template pagesEdit

It was discussed at cotm that some of our policy pages are poorly written, and some wording is outdated. Therefore the August COTM may require some discussion on some policy talk pages, but most of the changes should involve some adjustments to grammar, etc. that do not change the meaning of the policy itself. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Switchable static/dynamic mapEdit

Since there's a big dynamic-map-dislike club around here, going around deleting {{Mapframe}}|staticmap=... , I was thinking - would something like this make the dynamic maps more acceptable? (obviously some better styling would be needed) -- 07:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it! --Renek78 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw that you were working on this earlier, and I agree that it's a really good idea and could be incorporated into some articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Worth testing out on a few articles, perhaps. Powers (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how a dynamic map would ever be preferable to a static map in an article that's not a bottom-level destination, but so long as the article doesn't display both maps simultaneously, I won't stand in the way of this idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
While helping out with a Wikipedia template (Cyclone map) I monitored/followed some work you may also be interested in: Radio buttons for switching between historical maps and Wikipedia Request for comment: Mapframe maps in infoboxes. -- Matroc (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to have that feature, unless it has drawbacks such as bandwidth use. I often want information that is not available in the static map – and information not available in, or hard to discern from, the dynamic one. One tweak suggestion: try to get identical sizes; when switching back and forth to compare the maps, having to move the mouse hinders keeping focused on the spot being compared (and is also otherwise irritating). --LPfi (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good idea! One other slight improvement to change the "Switch map" text depending on which map is displayed; e.g the dynamic map is displayed, so it says "Switch to static map".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Social media influencersEdit

I'm wondering if we should create a separate welcome page and template for social media influencers. Many people run travel vlogs and blogs these days, and we certainly want to welcome these people to Wikivoyage so the project can grow Of course, as per current policy, you can't use Wikivoyage to promote your blog or YouTube channel, but you may provide a link to them as part of your profile. Perhaps creating a separate page will help to make it clear how social media influencers are welcome to contribute, and how Wikivoyage cannot be used by them. Social media influencers weren't really a thing when I first joined (back in the days of WT), and YouTube was just in its infancy, but I think perhaps its time to have an update based on the explosive growth in social media in recent years. The dog2 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Placing the cart before the horse, I'm afraid. Let's see some social media influencers actually contribute to the site first before we create any influencer-specific welcome templates. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
An influencer probably help us most by mentioning WV elsewhere, rather than contributing here. A separate welcome page would be useful if there was a way of identifying influencers, as would a page for journalists and authors of paper guides. How would we identify a person who has done a few edits here, but has a 100k followers on YouTube, or a column in the Daily Voyager? AlasdairW (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: If they don't disclose it, we can't. If they post a link to their blog or YouTube channel on their user page, then we know, and perhaps an influencer welcome page would be welcome in such as circumstance. See User:Shegowandering for an example of an influencer though unfortunately, she hasn't really contributed in articlespace yet, though I hope she will one day. The dog2 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
There are two things here, a welcome template and a guideline page, à la {{welcomebusiness}} and Wikivoyage:Welcome business owners. For the latter we do not need to identify anybody, and it should probably be written first, so that we can link it from the template and extract the essence into it. It might be good to think about the issues before they appear, and a draft guideline could be the place for it. If and when we start working on it, I think we should not restrict them to influencers, the guidelines should be the same for any blogger/vlogger/whatever. There are many reasons we want to welcome them (not necessarily explicitly), but having read some blogs about a local path, I am a bit worried that they may describe places a little too touty, perhaps in hope of benefits. --LPfi (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
How about just drafting a guideline page then? And speaking of which, what should the collective term for vloggers and bloggers be then if not "influencers"? And with regard to places being to touty, that's what a guideline page can address. It can tell them that while they are free to share their experiences, the language must not be too touty. The dog2 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
What about simply Wikivoyage:Welcome, bloggers? It is the older term, and I suppose vloggers can feel included. We could mention both, but I am afraid we can run into the LGBTQIA madness (or have somebody feel even more left out) if we do.
Do we feel it is time to try drafting the page? Some more support is needed to make even a stub draft worthwhile, and the page has to be good to be useful.
--LPfi (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with AndreCarrotflower. I don't see enough evidence of social media influencers editing our website to make this worthwhile at the current time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)