Open main menu

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


Putting the € sign after the amountEdit

Who on earth introduced the barbarous custom unbeknownst to good citizens of Europe to write "€6" when nobody says "Euro six" but everybody says "Six Euro(s)"? Is this just laziness by our American and/or British friends who are used to having the currency sign where it does not belong or do any Euro-paying people actually do that? And how could that ever enter our Manual of Style? Or is it not in it at all and instead somebody chooses to enforce a policy we do not, in fact, have? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It is, in fact, in the MOS. I was confused when I saw it, too. ARR8 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
You do see both. commons:Category:Price tags in Germany, commons:Category:Price tags in Italy, and in many currencies how it is written is not always how it is spoken. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Try shopping online at an Irish supermarket sometime. You'll see they put the symbol before the number, as is the norm in English, no matter the currency. You'll also find that, e.g. the French Wikivoyage lists prices in pounds and U.S. dollars as e.g. 10 £ / 12,5 $ (yes, note the horrifyingly primitive use of a virgule instead of the proper decimal point. The horror!) It's a language thing, not a "barbarous custom", nor "laziness", and is an entirely proper part of our MOS.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
If that were so, it would have to be done with all currencies, but that is not - to my knowledge - currently the case. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
True, that is indeed not the case with every currency denomination, but most articles using currency symbols ($, €, £, ₹, ¥) as opposed to letters or words do conform to this rule. And in the two other examples of partially English-speaking countries which use the euro, that's how they do it on the ground in English too: Cyprus, Malta.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
And check almost any English-language newspaper, magazine or book. €100 is the standard format when writing in English, not 100 €. Ground Zero (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It's probably intended to work the same way as the dollar symbol; for example, $100, with the $ symbol before the number. I don't see anything wrong with "€6", to use Hobbitschuster's example, and while it may not be technically correct, anyone reading the article will know what it means. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The idea that English is consistent cannot honestly be believed by anyone who has learned to spell it. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

$100 is just as illogical as €100, but at least the former is used by the majority of those who pay in USD. The same cannot be said for Euros. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

100€ doesn't look like English to me. There's some Logic to german Punctuation and Spellingconventions, but this is the english Wikivoyage. I vote for €100. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
English speakers are the people who put almost all adjectives before the nouns; have "they're", "their", and "there", all pronounced the same; have "hear" and "here", pronounced the same but different words; use "be", "being", "been", "is", "was", "were", "am", and "are", all of which function as the same word; use verbs ending in "s" some of the time and not ending in "s" other times (like "he speaks" but "I speak"); include letters with sounds that vary depending on each specific example (for example, "city" and "Canada", or words like "Celts" where the "C" is pronounced differently depending on the speaker); have almost no accent marks so you cannot know where to emphasize syllables; and on the list goes. We do a lot of things that don't seem logical, but they're what people are used to and what people expect, so we do them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And what about 17, you say seven-teen, not teen-seven (but the French do say dix-sept = ten-seven), but everybody knows what you mean. However from 21 the the numbers and the words are in the same sequence. --FredTC (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Unlike German: neunundneunzig = nine and ninety. Logically, they should reverse the nines when writing the figure, so it's done in the proper way of 99, instead of that barbarous nonsense of 99.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
At one time they actually used to do numbers in expanded form, but with scores of years. For example, 42 years would be "two score and four years" — think of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. In some ways, that made more sense, but then, why use scores of years instead of tens?
All of these things make it harder to learn the English language, and honestly, Hobbitschuster, I think you're just discovering the way the English language orders currency symbols and the associated values. It's just one example of where the English language doesn't work logically, but putting the currency symbol before the amount is still correct in the English language. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
On "four score and seven": I offer you by analogy "quatre-vingt sept". Or how about "quatre-vingt onze"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
"Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of Rye,
Four-and-twenty blackbirds baked in a pie,
When the pie was open, the birds began to sing!
Oh wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?" --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And imagine how it would sound like this:
"Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of Rye,
Twenty-and-four blackbirds baked in a pie,
When the pie was open, the birds began to sing!
Oh wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king?" I think we might as well say that it's not wrong to do "$100" or the same with euros or any other currency symbol. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Parenthetical, but "twenty-and-four blackbirds baked in a pie" scans exactly the same as "four-and-twenty", etc. It sounds wrong only because we're used to the latter.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the European Union itself apparently published rules on it, specifying quite clearly that the Euro sign precedes the amount (without space) in English, Dutch, Irish, and Maltese, while following it (after a hard space) in all other (EU) languages. As in so many things, it boils down to the language it is embedded in. When writing in English, one may of course refer to Munich and Cologne, even though that's not what the locals say. Similarly, when writing in English, it seems perfectly legitimate for me to write "€6", just as we also write "¥6", and not "六块". FabHK (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info; it makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikivoyage offline Android app updatedEdit

The Android app has finally been updated:

Europe only:

As before, it does not require any Internet connection. Enjoy reading Wikivoyage even while kayaking across the Caribbeans! :-)

Syced (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Excellent app. Going to try that out when I travel to Europe in February (again). This raises a question. Why aren't our country pages have the national flag of the country? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think they should? Anyway, the answer is that a decision was made that it's not important for readers to see a country's flag before they visit the country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Where was the discussion about this decision? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Syced: Any chance of an open-source version of the app? ARR8 (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It is open source :-) Syced (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Syced: That's great to hear! Follow-up question: any chance of an F-Droid release for those of us without Google Play services? ARR8 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I opened a request: Syced (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! ARR8 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

[unindent] OhanaUnited, one discussion about flags was at Wikivoyage talk:Listings/Archive 2006–2013#Flags at the beginning of embassy/consulate listings and I remember a much more recent discussion about flag icons being used in prose sections about which countries' citizens were available for what kind of visa to countries x, y and z (that got some very negative response and was shelved). However, I think starting a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Country article template would be more relevant for you. So go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Syced: Having sideloaded the app and tried it, I found it very useful, and I'm glad all the content is there! I found a couple of bugs, though. It's possible you know about these, but: there is a large white space beneath every image; tapping on map markers throws an error; the wikipedia and wikidata icons for listings are displayed but have no link; and, after bookmarking enough pages, the app will no longer launch and requires a reset. I would also find it much easier to search for redirects to articles, if that is possible. I am running Android Pie. Please let me know if I can help troubleshoot in any way. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@ARR8: Thanks for using the app! Would you mind creating an issue for each of these problems at ? Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done, but I'm having some trouble reproducing the crash bug. I'll post it if I can. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

TTY, TDD - w:Telecommunications device for the deafEdit

How common still is the use of these devices for contacting organizations? There are a good few references to a number to call with TTY or TDD in listings, but currently less than a hundred on Wikivoyage. Is this something we should encourage and if so should be have a listing field for this, in addition to phone and tollfree parameter? Seems to me more useful than fax. Or are these numbers now outdated and obsolete because of web pages, emails and SMS? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Netjeff has done some work on the related article at the English Wikipedia. I wonder if he could answer your question about how commonly used TTYs are these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverting or saving old versions of articles on an AndroidEdit

I don't see any way to do this, and that sucks. How is it done, and how should the programmers make it evident? We are going to have more and more cellphone users, and if we keep a 90s-style display and user interface for cellphones, they will leave quickly, in disgust. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed and used a rollback button on the recent change in Recent changes patrol, but I would have rather reverted with an edit summary, and most users don't have rollback buttons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you using the mobile web site, or does the Android app support Wikivoyage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I was using the mobile site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
w:en:User:FR30799386/undo might be a usable workaround. It seems to me that one of the dev teams was talking about this limitation recently, but I can't find any notes right now, and I don't remember which one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm unlikely to be motivated enough to add more software for this, as I usually edit on my laptop. But if that extension works, it should be added to standard Wiki code for everyone's convenience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Listings with Unicode charactersEdit

  • Edited pages with unicode characters in listings - anyone available to check further - Remaining articles are:
    • Khorramabad - 1 alt=‎‎دژ 2 شاپورخواست‎, 3 Shāpūr-Khwāst"‎
    • Latakia - 1 اللاذقية‎ 2 alt=أُوجَارِيت‎
    • Sarajevo - 1 (خانقاه‎‎, 2 (شاذروان‎‎
  • Notation above is general textual area where they are located. Probable issue is the keyboard being used. -- Thanks! Matroc (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Two of these edits are by me, what is the issue? I have copied the text from English Wikipedia. Is there formatting that is needed to be done? --Jonte-- (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Those listings were identified as having a hidden unicode character in them. If all looks good then I would say nothing needs to be done. -- Matroc (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Underground works...Edit

This needs some listing entries from the North and other parts of the UK, given the entries so far are rather London-centric ? (with the exception of the Williamson tunnels which I pulled from Liverpool ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

BBC's list of 6 well-governed countriesEdit

This could be of interest for certain articles of wide geographic scope, including Retiring abroad and Working abroad, though of course some of these countries may be relatively difficult to retire to or get jobs in as a foreigner. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that article gets everything right. For a start, no matter what political position you take in the U.S., you have to agree that it is overall a well-governed country. I'm a little surprised, also, that the United Kingdom isn't on that list considering it's a BBC article. Maybe because they do not think BREXIT is a good sign for the country. These kinds of articles are always quickly written, without seriously considering the success of the countries. I'm sure these countries are well-run, but so are many other countries. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm absolutely floored by this reply. I think it's probably best for no-one to give a substantive reply to it. Let's nip any arguments in the bud. I posted this link purely because I thought that on a global travel guide, it would be interesting. Let's let Selfie have his own views and not reply to them with our own opinions or counterpoints, please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, I'm surprised you took my comment so personally and I'm absolutely floored by your reply. I just have some criticisms of the article you linked to, I'm not personally criticizing or personally attacking you or the fact that you linked to it. If you seriously have this much of an issue with my opinions of the article in question, this really is your problem, not mine, and you really need to reconsider how you're taking my comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not see anything about taking it personally. Why would a country that is seldom in the top 6 of any related measures be in the BBC top 6 list? Usually being in the top 20 of many such measures is not enough. But this is not the place to discuss the governance of a country or how to collect top countries lists, as IK notes. --LPfi (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I believe that saying "I'm absolutely floored by this reply" is taking it personally. What else is it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A statement of shock, not taking it "personally". Do some more reading and reflection if you want to understand why a global news organization might not consider those two countries among the 6 best-ruled in the world; I certainly have no interest in having an argument with you about that, nor should anyone else. And note that the U.S. was specifically compared to Canada in the section on Canada. Did you actually read the article? If not, read it before drawing firm conclusions about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Back to Ikan's original point, it can surely be interesting. I hadn't actually considered Chile or Botswana potential retirement destinations before, but seems they are worth considering :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
It is an interesting list. It appears to be based on a set of indexes listed in he first paragraph: [1], [2] and [3]. I think that it might be more useful to link to these indexes in articles. This would allow readers to consider whether the police or hospitals are likely to be as good in the country they are thinking of retiring to compared to where they are at the moment. I realise that this is duller than just saying "retire to Denmark", but I expect that most readers will already have a shortlist of retirement destination based on previous travels, climate etc. AlasdairW (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
What I don't understand is, why can't travelers just write this information from personal experience? For example, if we have a contributor who has been to Denmark, they can write about how good the hospital services are there. I think that is what we should encourage, rather than external links. However, it may be okay to have those links temporarily until a traveler can write information based on experience. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Putting such links in articles would be an exception to this site's external links guidelines. Which articles would you like to put them into? Only Retiring abroad, or any others? We could probably discuss this at Talk:Retiring abroad if it's only relevant to that article. And the argument in favor of them is that they are an attempt at comparison based on more than someone's personal impression or limited personal experience. Note that hospital services in many countries vary widely based on how much money you can pay out of pocket and/or on which hospital you are taken to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Few travellers have experienced the health care in more than a couple, perhaps a dozen countries, and probably few situations where they were at the mercy of the institution. Having got the right treatment might have been sheer luck, and a positive experience might have depended on a few key persons. General well-governance is easier, as you get a feel for whether local people trust their institutions and how frustrated they are about the bureaucracy. Still, we cannot write anything like an objective top ten list. Linking is useful for getting the details, as there are many aspects and also methodological problems (which requires linking the study itself, or its sponsor if it is part of a series). --LPfi (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I guess that what means well-governed to some people might feel like a straightjacket to others. In well-governed countries it is often expected that subjects also perform accordingly, which could make it "boring" to some folks and "secure" to others. Just my 2 cents worth. Philaweb (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"D&D Cosplay" ?Edit

Bringing something from a talk page here for a wider set of opinions


Cosplay and LARP are different things? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are different.
LARP is Live Action Role Playing, a bit like other roleplaying games like D&D except that you actually act out what your characters do.
Cosplay involves dressing up as characters, often fictional heroes like Gandalf or Wonder Woman. Pashley (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
But both could be covered by a single article, at least to begin with, as there is certainly a lot of overlap, not least among amateurs. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently LARP is grouped with historical re-enactment, and that article is an outline at best :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Planning for huge airport articlesEdit

As I understand it, if there are 100 flights every day at an airport, it can have its own article. So, why doesn't Salt Lake City's airport have an article? According to the article for Salt Lake City, there are more than 120 flights a day at the airport (for one airline, imagine what the total number must be). If it wasn't already clear, I propose we create an article for the airport at Salt Lake, but I would probably need help from others. I'm not sure about SJC, but I expect it's pretty high, as it seems from the wikipedia article.

Over the years, I would think the number of airport with at least 100 flights a day has increased dramatically, and this may not show in our Wikivoyage articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not about number of flight but about what there is to say about the airport. If the airport is a major hub with many services catering for passenger such as restaurants, shops, entertainment and hotels then it can have its own article. However even in those cases you should start by expanding the information about the airport on the city page. When the amount of information start to dominate and get out of hand there, then move to its own article. Do not create an article that is almost empty just because it could or should deserve its own article. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
That's what I mean about needing help. I fear that, by myself, the articles will not have the information I think they should have. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think Traveler100 is right: you're putting the cart before the horse. When there is enough info on an airport in a city article to warrant splitting it out, then create an airport article. Don't create an airport article just because it could qualify. I'm not discouraging you from creating new content, I'm just saying that Salt Lake City and San Jose airports don't need their own articles yet. As for me, I'd rather spend time creating content for and cleaning up destination articles, than creating new airport articles, but you're free to work on whatever you want to work on. Ground Zero (talk)
Ditto from me as well.
I was going to ask where "100 flights per day" came from, but then I found it on What is an article. In any case, that's a poor metric. 100 flights per day is a very small number. Just picking an arbitrary example, Indianapolis's airport sees more than 300 commercial flights per day, but it's certainly not significant or complex enough to merit its own article.
WV:Airport Expedition has another set of criteria, and taken in conjunction I would hope that the underlying intention is clear: it's not about the number of flights or the physical size or any such measurable numbers, it's about how "difficult" is the airport for travellers. Airports by design tend to be laid out similarly and are usually easy to navigate. If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. The airports we create articles for are the exceptions: they're so huge that their layouts require explanation rather than letting travellers just read the signs, and/or they're places where travellers are likely to spend a few hours or more and will want to know which of the hundreds of restaurants are good or where they can sleep.
Having done some editing on it recently, I would actually say that Orlando International Airport is an example of an airport that maybe doesn't need to be an article. It's not a hub, the layout looks fairly simple, and there's a paltry selection of restaurants, almost all of which are chains, and few that are good enough to recommend. The most useful information there is ground transportation, but that could be folded back into the city article if necessary.
So don't go crazy creating new airport articles just yet. Try working on one of the outline-status articles first like Miami International Airport or Newark Liberty International Airport. Having worked on a couple myself, it's hard to research anything inside an airport, and even harder to come up with good recommendations for Buy/Eat/Drink. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I would think that text about "100 flights" is from 2004, when perhaps that was a lot. Perhaps that text in WV:What is an article? should be changed? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
100 flights is a simple objective minimum (defined in 2013). In some cases finding the number of flights means counting them on a list of departures, and I don't fancy counting 250 or 500 on a list when discussing an article. I think that it is useful to have articles for international transit airports, and I am not sure what limit would start to limit these (which includes isolated islands where all flights are international). AlasdairW (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, but still, I think WV:What is an article should be changed at least a little in some way to reflect that the number of flights is not considered a standard for what is a large airport and what is not. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

London Stansted is a good example of earlier arguments. It's well over the 100 flights threshold, it's not particularly huge, but it merits detail that would unbalance a simple "get in" listing. Although it's badged "London" it's some way out, forming a little township in its own right. (The residents of historic Stansted are understandably peeved at this.) There are various little quirks and crafty wrinkles that the traveller might appreciate knowing. By contrast London Luton is almost as busy but is sufficiently described under "Luton". Grahamsands (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Another good example is Mactan-Cebu International Airport which is currently a redirect to a section of a city article. There's a fair bit of text in the city article, but I (who wrote much of that text) do not think it needs its own article yet mainly because there's not a lot to say.
It might need an article soon; they've just opened a new terminal and are adding a second runway. w:Mactan–Cebu International Airport says over 10 million passengers and over 86,000 flights (237/day on average) in 2017. My guess is it a good example of a borderline case; once someone adds text about the new terminal it might be worth moving it out. Pashley (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree about Mactan-Cebu International Airport. A lot of the length in that description comes from a laundry list of all the airlines and destinations, which I feel is something that does not belong in WV most of the time (not for a large hub airport like this). It's fine in WP where such encyclopedic knowledge is appropriate, and where there are more editors to keep such lists up to date. In WV, such a list is of minimal use to travelers. For offline reading, I can't imagine what use such information would be. Online, they can easily find the same information elsewhere if they need it, and many times they'll probably discover it themselves while searching for airfares. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I was of the opinion there was a soft floor of roughly 20 million pax/p.a. or a damn good reason otherways... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Correcting "Banner to WD" ErrorsEdit

What is the official way to clear up the "Banner to WD" errors?

I've been playing around with cleaning up the Maintenance Category of "Banner to WD" errors which currently has 612 pages that need fixes. Some of the errors are being caused by there being two Wikidata entries that are substantially the same. For instance White Sulphur Springs has at least two entries for a city in West Virginia. I added the banner to both, but the city still shows up on the error list. Out of 40 test fixes so far, only 14 have taken, so I'm guessing that there is another component that needs to be fixed besides the Wikidata entry.

If you would like to look at another example, try Waukegan. There's only one city with this name, I've added the banner and a reference in Wikidata, but Waukegan still persists on the error list. Any suggestions as to what else needs to be looked at to correct these errors would be appreciated. Zcarstvnz (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the Waukegan page, with the "show hidden categories" preference set (in the preferences appearance tab), it is not showing the "Banner missing from Wikidata" category, although it still appears on the category list. It may be worth waiting a few hours for the list to refresh. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
If you edit a Wikidata entry it will not update the category on Wikivoyage until you re-save the article on Wikivoyage (go to edit and press Publish, do not need to make a change). Otherwise you have to wait until the server does a re-sync of categories which could be soon after or a few days later.--Traveler100 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Re-saving the article as you suggested worked. Thanks Traveler100 for your suggestion!
Follow Up. In addition to adding the banner on Wikidata and then re-saving the page on Wikivoyage, there is one more item that may need to be added on Wikidata: the Wikivoyage link must be added as shown in the photo below (in this case the entry for the city of Waukegan).
Below all of the Wikidata Statements and Identifiers is a list of links to Wikipedia and other sister sites. If the Wikivoyage statement is blank the Wikivoyage page is not removed from the "Banner to WD" error page. The combination of the page banner and link is the complete Wikidata entry.Most of the remaining "Banner to WD" errors are pages that have not been created in Wikidata which I am in the process of creating.
There are a couple of sandbox pages in the "Banner to WD" list, and a few other entries that are likely not going to be able to be removed. I hope this explanation helps to better document the process of fixing these entries. Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia sidebarEdit

I noticed that several articles on Wikipedia have a sidebar where the Wikivoyage link has a star next to it (In other projects section). When I hover the mouse to the star, it either says "recommended article" or "good article". I worked on the Brownsville Wikivoyage article, getting it to "guide" status. Would it qualify to have a star designated in its section? The Lincoln, Nebraska Wikipedia page has a "good article" star on its sidebar though it had a "usable" status on their Wikivoyage page. De88 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly, I think the article for Lincoln (Nebraska) is quite good, but there is only one listing in "sleep", which puts it close to outline status. Probably, the star should be removed — Wikipedia has a good article for the place, so there is little need to direct travelers elsewhere for information, in that case. I'd remove the star but keep the link to the WV article for Lincoln. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Would the Brownsville, Texas article be eligible for this though? The Amarillo, Texas page also has a star on their sidebar; theirs say "recommended article", however. Their Wikivoyage page has "usable" status. De88 (talk) 08:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia and Wikivoyage ratings are not related. Wikivoyage:Star articles has information about how to identify a star-worthy article here at Wikivoyage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I think De88 is talking about the little star icon that shows up next to the Wikivoyage link in the sidebar to the left on some Wikipedia articles. This icon is managed via Wikidata. You can add it for Brownsville by going to wikidata:Q51693, scrolling to the Wikivoyage section, clicking "edit", and then clicking on the badge icon that appears next to the link to the English Wikivoyage article. (If that wasn't clear, please let me know and I can explain in more detail.) I think we should get someone to run a bot to do this for all guide-status articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I was referring to. You explained the solution well. I just fixed it. I agree though. A bot should be run for these things. Actually, scratch that. It won't let me add a badge. De88 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
It ideally shouldn't let people add arbitrary stars, and if it did, then I'm sure that a bot would simply revert it later. Those stars are meant to indicate the special status of those pages. The idea is that if one of the lists pages is particularly good quality, people might want to know that, so they could decide to visit it. Every Featured Article at any Wikipedia has a gold star showing next to their link (as seen on other the other Wikipedias and non-Wikipedia sites). Example: Albuquerque is a star article here, and the sidebar at w:en:Albuquerque, New Mexico shows a gold star for Wikivoyage. The English Wikipedia article is not as well developed, and it has no star in our sidebar. Bristol is guide status, so the English Wikipedia shows a silver star for us, and w:en:Bristol is a Featured Article at the English Wikipedia, so we show a gold star for the link to their article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Horse Racing...Edit

I found this list on Wikipedia, w:List_of_British_racecourses#Current_racecourses.

Any volunteers to start adding a listing for the courses in relevant articles, as well possibly writing a summary as an overview?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Peaky76 might be interested in starting a page on visiting racecourses here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
However, what would go on the list and what wouldn't? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That was why I was sugessting the courses go in the Destinations articles.. The major courses in the uk would be Aintree, Ascot and Epsom I think. Not sure if the UK has any museums that go into the history of Equestrianism in the UK in any depth. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
in follow up to the above, another contributor added a number of UK courses to appropriate destination articles, I'd been adding some of the Irish courses in edits like this Concise but probably a little too short :(

I think a summary overview topic such as Horse racing in Britain and Ireland is now desirable given that a good proportion of the UK courses are now in destination articles, and I will be slowly adding some more of the Irish courses in appropriate destinations, over the next few weeks. A summary overview would also be the place to explain the various types of races such as Flat vs National Hunt (being hedge/jump based races) which may differ from terms and forms of "meeting" in the US or Europe. Also given that gambling (on track or off) forms an essential part of Going to the races for a considerable number of people, a concise explanation of this aspect would also be something to include possibly

I know practically nothing about Horse racing (and what to expect at a meeting, structur of them etc), even with the UK though, so would appreciate someone with more expertise developing such an article...

Of course if someone wanted to Plunge Forward and do a global topic on Horse racing , plunge forward.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Airports and Link InfoboxesEdit

I don't know where else to put this, but I think that the images that show up when you hold over the link to some cities should be photos of the city, rather than (one of) the airport(s) that service the city (for example, if you hold over the Ohrid link). I don't know if the airports are the images for the links for a reason or not, but as a traveler, I prefer seeing an image of the city I am researching, rather than of the airport I am flying into. Also, sometimes the airport's photo doesn't even exist on the city page. If this is irrelevant, just ignore it. I can understand the airports being the photos since they might be the first part of the city a traveler goes to, but if they are just there for no other reason I think it'd be better to put city photos in their place. Donaudamphschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I usually work with the preference disabled so had not noticed this. Would have also though it would be the first image on the page but it appears to be the image in the first listing on the page, which will often be the airport or the rail station in the Get in section. Agree not the best choice. Would be better to pick, first image or pagebanner or the image given in Wikidata for the article. Not sure what is controlling this, anyone know?--Traveler100 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently selection is more to do with a size ranking of images on the page. See mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice, but cannot say I fully understand it. info of page. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Flooding risk..Edit

Prompted by the addition of a section in York , are there other places that have a higher risk?

I was going to consider asking for a rename of Flash floods to Floods to cover the more general traveller risks in more depth ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In the case of York, there's not much to say beyond a couple of paragraphs without losing focus on summarising the ways to 'stay safe'. I would have thought the same to be true of other places which regularly flood, so it might be an idea to group what general information there is into a single article, which can be fleshed out.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That is why I was considering asking for an article rename of Flash floods ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it wouldn't be flash floods in York. Those (aka "pluvial" floods) are a risk in steep narrow valleys, eg the central Pennines, where a downpour on the moors above turns into a raging torrent of cocoa within the hour. York is on a meander plain where it's slow-responder (aka "fluvial") flooding: a whole 50-mile stretch of Pennine rainfall has nowhere else to drain, and 24-48 hours later the city wharves are inundated. Continue downstream to East Yorks and the risk is "alluvial", ie when storms driving a sea-surge upriver coincide with high tide, and the levees are overtopped. Grahamsands (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This source names "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; San Diego, California; Clearlake, California; San Jose, California; Madera, California; Riverside-San Bernardino, California, Bakersfield, California; Houston, Texas, Santa Cruz, California; and Huntsville, Alabama" as being the 10 US cities at highest risk of some natural disaster, but the type varies. Oklahoma City is probably a tornado risk, and the seven California cities are probably earthquake risks. The page has an interactive map that lets you see risks for US counties, and you can filter it to only certain types of risks. That can be interesting both for what's there (half of Alaska is high risk for floods?) and what's not (Tulsa, Oklahoma is naturally prone to flooding, but has world-class flood control measures, and the resulting risk in that area is only moderate). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Recommended Android appEdit

I tried searching is there some recommended Android app using

So far I found but I am wondering is there some sensible alternative, preferably one that is open source with basic documentation allowing to contribute to it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: See above. I had the same concern; that app is open source. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Page preview pop-upsEdit

We've had this discussion several months ago, but as per this discussion, I am making an attempt at reviving this discussion. This time, though, I have done some more research into the symptoms:

Firstly, to recap, currently the page previews on Wikivoyage have the issue of wanting to fetch preview images from listings (with or without Wikidata IDs linked) rather than the article itself, which is far from ideal, as evidenced by some of these articles:

  • Washington D.C. - unrecognisable and non-representative landmark,
  • Amsterdam/Zuidoost - picture of historical event (Bijlmerramp). The sight of a cargo plane bored into a apartment building is far from appealing to anyone, let alone representative of the district,
  • Haarlem and Alkmaar - pictures of the train station, which are unrepresentative of the destination,
  • Hilversum - picture of Hilversum Airport, which isn't useful for many travellers, since it is a training ground and private airfield.
You barely have to try to run into bad images, is the point. Browse for a bit and you'll find them easily.

Secondly, how do these images make it into the preview? Well, Page Previews, which creates these previews, isn't at fault, it is PageImages instead. It's scoring for images is favoured towards Listings and Markers, especially those with an image that can be fetched from Wikidata IDs linked within said listing. The images added in the source code itself, the ones the reader always gets to see, and which are picked to be representative, are somewhere way down the scoring list. The only images with worse scoring seem to be pagebanners, which are blacklisted all-together. I can't exactly point at a certain part of the extension and say that it is at fault, since my ability to read the code is lacking, so perhaps someone else may be able to point that out.

Third, what can be done about this? The easy option is of course disabling Page Previews, but I'm out-ruling that as an option because all in all, it's not a bad feature, it's just badly optimised for usage here. Also out-ruled is manually going around articles to make sure they display useful images, for the simple reason that we editors have many better things to do. Much more plausible by my judgement would be either only fetching images from the lead section (described here) or reaching out to the developers of PageImages to explore the possibilities of optimising the extension for usage here. I've also explored the possibility of adding an empty {{marker}} in the lead section of articles to bump its priority, but that went without success. Making a template of sorts to force a certain image therefore isn't a very plausible approach.

What I'm looking for here is a consensus on what images are desirable: Only those defined and visible in the article? Those of listings as well, and if so, which types of listings? Et cetera. After that we can discuss our actions. Do we change the way PageImages works here by changing its settings, or do we ask for changes to its code and inner workings, or do we simply disable the extension here? All in all, a discussion on this topic is much needed. I'll be here to answer any questions you may have to the best of my abilities. Thank you in advance.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not pick up the first image listed at the articles Wikidata? Either change the PageImages code or I was also thinking of placing a small collapsed icon of {{Wikidata Infobox}} at the top of pages. Maybe that would force a better image. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If I was selecting the image manually, the first place I would look is the image which was cropped to create the banner image. My second choice would be the banner image, or possibly the left half or third of the banner image if a taller image was wanted. A well chosen banner image reflects the character of the destination. It is also an image that the reader will see then they go to the article page, and so can be useful if the reader is unsure if they have already looked at that page. Banner images are all at least 1800 pixels wide and so we can be sure that they have enough resolution, and with few exceptions are of good enough quality. After that I would prefer using an image that is in the article, ideally avoiding those in Get in and Get around, which includes maps and photos of airports. I would avoid using images which are not displayed in the article. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Wauteurz for taking the time to do some research and write all this out for us. To answer the questions you posed in the final paragraph, for my part, I think only images with are visible in the article should be used, for the reason that at least then an image a Wikivoyager has chosen will show up on the preview, rather than being something which almost seems randomly generated. I also think we should "ask for changes to its code and inner workings"; disabling what ought to be a useful extension should be a last resort if the developers of PageImages can't or won't help us.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: That would be an option, yes, but I didn't find anything that suggested that PageImages supports that as-is. I figured it'd be easier to work with what we have, and if none of the options we have available out of the box suffice, we can reach out to PageImage's developers. I have no prior experience with extensions, so I don't know if every project would be able to change the entire extension to fit its needs. If anyone wants to inform me on that, then that would be much appreciated.
Fetching the article's associated Wikidata ID's image may just work in theory, since the images for cities and towns on Wikidata are generally fetched from Wikipedia, which will have a decent image most of the time. The question then is if the infobox gets picked up by PageImage. The easiest way to find out if the result for the previews is as desired, would be to put the template in a handful of articles that have 'bad' preview images and see if anything changes. You've got my support to give it a shot.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Reusing the banner images won't be a great solution. Since the banners have a 7:1 ratio, and cropping that to 4:3 or whatever the preview uses would break off a lot of the banner. Besides, some banners are oriented to the left, the right or centre of the image. We'd have to manually set the center of the banner (which is a feature, albeit a little used feature of the pagebanner) for every one of the ~15.800 custom banners. Using the banner's source material would be my preferred way of action in that scenario. Nonetheless, it might also be possible to make the preview shorter in height and force it to use the 7:1 pagebanner. I am hesitant to say that maps are a good alternative. Look at the Achterhoek, for example. It has no listings, no images in the lead section and thus defaults to the region map, which doesn't look appealing. Maps don't show much aside from some infrastructure and cities and towns. As for airports, they don't do the article justice if you'd ask me. Taking Amsterdam for example, you're seeing Schiphol in the preview, instead of the UNESCO-listed canals and city centre, which would be a lot better to show.
I fully agree that we should use images that editors on Wikivoyage have added, preferably images that can be seen when the reader reads the article (so excluding the hidden images in the listings and mapframes). I think that is something we can all agree on.
Just to put it to words, my preference goes to in-line images (thumbnails) in the first place, followed by editor-defined or editor-redacted images in listings (so ones where the image parameter is filled in), followed by banner source material, followed by no preview image at all. The easiest way to achieve something like this is to adapt the scoring system of PageImages to retract 100% of the score for listing images and images or maps in {{regionlist}} and similar templates (to be clear, I don't know whether it is possible or not for individual projects to change said scoring system), or to set $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true, meaning that only thumbnails in the lead section get used (which I know for a fact is possible for one of our administrators to change).
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't completely clear. I would like to use images displayed in the article, except those in Get in and Get around. That would usually exclude images of airports and stations which appear in Get in, and exclude maps which are usually in Get around. That would mean using images in See or Do if there aren't any in Understand. I am thinking of city articles here, and some other sections may need to be excluded for other articles. AlasdairW (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. I think the image should be visible in the article, not to cause confusion. If the pagebanner source image could be fetched it would probably be a good choice in most cases, but that would probably involve some coding and perhaps a link as a pagebanner template parameter. Without such an explicit reference there could be some weird results (the cropped-away parts can be anything). Ideally you would be able to specify the preview image manually. Using the first image (usually in Understand) should be straight-forward, but I haven't read the code. Avoiding some sections would require some parsing, which probably hasn't been coded. --LPfi (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I think, generally, as LPfi says, we should go with the first image of the article, which should be fairly easy to code. So I'd support a change, if possible (which it seems is possible).
P.S. Sorry for changing my signature again. I am finding the olive color overwhelming, so I have changed it back to blue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: You were clear on that, I just read over it. The problem with taking images from See, Do and other paragraphs like it is that listings linked to Wikidata don't always have useful imagery linked in Wikidata. The previous discussion even came to be because of such a listing.
@LPfi, SelfieCity: Understand doesn't always have images, and neither does the lead section before it. Where such a method of fetching the images would fix Sierra Nevada, it wouldn't improve Lake Tahoe since the latter has no images in these sections. Yet I support this method more than anything because we can, with relative ease, get a bot (or perhaps a petscan) to find articles without images in the lead or Understand, and organise a CotM (or a goal for 2019 if there are loads upon loads of such articles) to get images into these sections.
If we are able to configure the scoring system of PageImages, then perhaps it may be worthwhile to blacklist images used in {{listing}}, {{marker}}, {{regionlist}} and the like, and instead score images based on their order in the article, with, if possible, bonuses for images that were previously featured on Commons or ones with quality tags. Looking at some examples, I came to the conclusion that perhaps we should just blacklist all templates if possible, since getting the checkmark in nominated articles for FTT, DotM or OtBP to 'represent' articles is far from desirable. Anywho, this scoring method would ideally score the images in Rail travel in the Netherlands by their appearance in the article, and thus fetch the picture of Amsterdam Centraal, which would have a bonus for being a Quality Image according to Commons. Perhaps a template for modifying the score to allow editors to have more control over what images appear may be useful, but let's not think that far ahead just yet.
If I am not mistaken, then I am seeing an overall tendency to want images from the lead section and/or Understand. This, as I said previously, should be configurable for our admins and/or bureaucrats by setting the parameter $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true. I'm holding out on starting a vote for this since there are plenty of more options, and I'd like to hear some more Wikivoyagers leave their ten cents on the matter, so that we can eventually vote on a set of several methods. At that point, it may also be worthwhile to get some people from MediaWiki responsible for the PageImages extension in here to guide us towards a good choice.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree about your thoughts on a possible COTM, etc. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If we go the route of adding image to the Understand section, or before the Get in section if does not exist, I am not sure how we can easy track the progress of such a project. On initial look I cannot see a way of restricting an advanced Search or a Petscan to a section of an article. Any one any ideas or tips? I could see a possibility of running a bot over pages and tagging them but then there is no guarantee of being removed. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Neither am I, really. As I mentioned in my reply to your question below, the API Sandbox may be a method of finding that out, but that would mean that a bot would be needed to find and tag these pages rather than a PetScan. Only once a page has been tagged with a template (let's say {{NoImageInLead}} for further reference) is when we can find those articles more easily using a PetScan. I don't think we could do the same process without involvement of a bot.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Question - Does the size of the image displayed on the page (not its actual size) make a difference to the ranking? It would be possible to place a small image at the very top of the page (not easily seen) with an extension to the {{geo}} tag that is already in all articles. This would then be the first image in the article and could be by default the wikidata standard image or you could add an image file name to the geo template to define another one. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not understanding the PageImages calculation. For example the first image in the article Ohrid is same actual size as the one in the airport listing but is still not the selected preview image. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: In short, yes, the size of images matters. I never fully understood how the scoring works myself, but from what I gathered, I have a decent idea of the scoring system, albeit that I don't know what numbers the scoring applies:
  • Anything smaller than 119px or whatever is defined in $wgPageImagesScores['width'] is highly favoured against and anything inside of a <gallery smaller than 100px is ignored. Since we don't use galleries, small images on Wikivoyage (say, for example one 50px wide) will still get considered.
  • 400-600 pixels is the width the template searches, with a preference towards the lower bound - In other words, 400px is ideal, anything up to 50% wider is still acceptable. I am not sure how a 400×600px thumbnail of a 4.000×6.000px image gets favoured in this, but I think the thumbnail is fetched from the article as is, meaning that the thumbnail gets fetched, not the original much larger image.
  • The first four images in an article get considered, unless that number is changed with $wgPageImagesScores['position']. I suspect that in one way or another, be it the rendering order of articles, map-frames or listings, the images in listings, which are causing the most issue on Wikivoyage, get seen as having a higher position because of being rendered first. This would explain why Ohrid has its preview image, but I am only speculating here. I couldn't say that this is why with any certainty.
  • Lastly, the ratio of the image is considered. Anything wider than 2:1, such as our page banners, gets automatically discarded or highly favoured against. I am not sure if this also goes for portrait images which are, say, 1.500×500px, since documentation doesn't explicitly say so, but let's assume that they are. In that case, anything wider than 2:1 or taller than 1:2 is ignored. Again, this ratio (0.5 by default) can be customised with $wgPageImagesScores['ratio']. This would not mean that anything wider, like a pagebanner, would get preference, but merely adjusts the bounds of what gets considered.
I did my best to make the given explanation on PageImages' documentation page more readable, but in case that didn't work, the original documentation can be found here. I am not sure if adding an image in {{geo}} would help, since I don't know what templates are and are not blacklisted. You could always give it a shot. It may not, since {{geo}} is one of the last templates in the code, and only visually the first template for a reader. Machines may read it differently because of how the article gets rendered. The only way to find out is to try, I'd say. Perhaps anyone with more experience with Wikimedia API can give it a shot, but it seems that we can work out what images get considered by using the API Sandbox. If anyone is willing and able to give that a shot, then have a look at PageImages#API and see if such requests can be done for articles on Wikivoyage.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wauteurz: Thanks those comments helped me work out what is happening here. As you say listings are parsed first, but only listing with coordinates and obviously and image. So first 4 listings with coordinates and image parameters are candidates. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You are right that geo template will not work, even adding a listing in the template that shows at the top is still regarded as the last image of the listings. So only way I can see to control this without change of wikimedia code is to have a listing with a coordinate at the top of every page, say showing town centre position. Not sure if that would be wanted. I think we need to ask the developer of the image ranker code to ignore listing images.--Traveler100 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Precisely. If there are less than 4 listings with coordinates and images, the next candidates are the images in the article, more or less as they appear. Templates such as {{featurenomination}} seem to be either very negatively scored or to be blacklisted/ignored all-together. I haven't ever found that a featured article displayed the check mark in its preview. On the other hand, does it need to be blacklisted at all? The feature nominees have plenty of imagery to outrank that little check mark. I know that isn't very relevant, but I felt like I needed to rectify what I said before about that being a possibility.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
T213652 request to change ranking to put visible images before listing images. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Post-Phabricator updateEdit

Here's an update from the Phabricator ticket: A method of letting contributors manually set the previewed image is already being worked on. As per Jdlrobson's reply on Phabricator, I am led to assume that the idea as we had in mind (being able to blacklist templates) is not feasible. Feasible alternative solutions for now are as follows:

  1. Set the aforementioned parameter $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true, meaning that all images for the previews will get fetched from the lead section and only the lead section. Many articles have images, but not within the lead section, which would require a bot and a possible Collaboration of the Month to optimise. We would then manually work off the lists provided by a bot and add images where needed or set the same bot up to move the first image in the article to the lead section.
  2. Switch around listings to have preferable imagery get fetched. We know that the images get fetched by their appearance in listings. Listing #1 will always be chosen over listing #3 if both have images. If listing #3 has a better image than #1, then we can switch these two around to get the desired effect. The main downside is that is will be a much more intensive process than the option above. Where I can see option 1 get resolved with a CotM, this one will probably need a Collaboration of the Year.
  3. Do nothing. A solution that's good for us is already in the works. I haven't found an ETA for it though. The obvious downside is that we'll have to deal with the current situation for what can be anything varying from weeks to years.

It may be best to let things over on Phabricator unfold for a bit, after which we can seek some consensus on what we will do to resolve the issue as it stands now. Feel free to discuss the options above or suggest any new ones, or chime into the discussion on Phabricator as well.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Wauteurz has done a great job of explaining how this works. When I proposed enabling the page previews feature, I did flag that we'd need to rethink out descriptions and images to support it, but I figured that was good for the project and a problem with editing we could solve.
I'd strongly advise, not setting $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true. This leads to I'd guess at least 70% of articles without an image. This negatively impacts page previews, mobile web search as well as external clients. We also have data somewhere that suggests that we get more interactions when images are presented alongside the link. I'd argue this is much worse than the status quo.
The algorithm that chooses an image is also very dumb. phab:T91683 has been proposed as a long term solution for dealing with these situations and is simply lacking some impetus to fix this which would help every wiki, but in the mean time, the best possible thing to do IMO is to make sure the first image in the article represents the article and is a suitable page image! This seems useful for page preview users and users entering an article for information! For instance, it's bizarre that Siem Reap contains no image of Angkor Wat, its most iconic sight, other than in the page banner. From my POV overloading the banners is problematic - it provides no caption for mobile users (you cannot hover over banners on mobile!) and will not render on clients who are not banner aware. Could we not setup a Page image expedition? I feel that would be lots of fun.
Frustratingly, in cases like Washington,_D.C. this seems to be the case - a picture of Abe Lincoln seems pretty iconic and relevant, but for some reason that's not being chosen as the page image. I'd love to tinker with that some more, to see why that's the case. That seems like a bug to me. Hopefully that would eradicate some of the bad page images we're seeing.
Jdlrobson (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jdlrobson: I'm well-aware that I am not the only one with an opinion here, but $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly seems the best option to me. I am, however, very much in favour of an imagery expedition or Collaboration of the Month(/Season?) as I said before. A goal for such an expedition would be to get an image in every lead section, after which, we would ideally have a large majority of articles with images in their lead sections. Only once that has been achieved would I be in favour of changing $wgPageImagesLeadSectionOnly to true. I haven't been clear that that's the order I had in mind, I'll admit. Since phab:T91683 has already taken a few years and none of the goals have been ticked off, I would be more than content with achieving this goal by the end of the year or sometime in 2020.
I can report that the image for Washington, D.C. originates from the first listing in the article with coordinates: The Afghan embassy. It's not like the image gets fetched from a seemingly random place. Like you said, the algorithm isn't smart. I've already speculated before that listings get prioritized because they or the mapframe get loaded before the page content. I can't confirm any of this, but it may be worth looking into. On the same note, if the algorithm is that dumb, then why not rewrite it to differentiate images that are in plain sight (thumbnails, etc.) from the 'invisible' images (listings, etc.)? I may be massively oversimplifying the whole ordeal, but forgive me for I lack the technical knowledge. The coding and technological insight I learnt in school has long faded on me.
Anywho, I'm all for an image expedition, but I'd like to hear the insights of others as well.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that any solution which requires editing every page or manually setting preview images is problematic. While we could do this for our most popular articles, the vast majority of our pages are lean on text as-is, and many lack a custom pagebanner, let alone an image to put in the lead. Even if we do find an image, it will in many cases then dominate the article.
Would it be possible, as a fourth solution, to adjust the weights on the image scores to strongly favor Wikidata images? This, I think, is the best solution: most of our articles would immediately have a photo, which someone felt represented the destination, as the preview image, and the ones with less-than-stellar Wikidata images would be easy to change, and doing so would benefit other projects. Plus, destinations without an image in Wikidata but with a banner could have the banner source image added to Wikidata, and destinations without an image or banner will still have other kinds of images to fall back on.
If this isn't possible, seems that would be a much simpler change for the Phabricator guys to make. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Suggest more people subscribe to the two issues logged at Phabricator, cannot see why this cannot technically be possible, probably just not regarded as too important and there are lost of other issues to solve. Alternatively I think it would be possible to add a marker at the start of every city page pointing to the wikidata image (see below). But adding a location icon at the start of articles is going to need a discussion and some consensus as I see plus and minus points with it. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of any solution that involves mass edits to every page. This sort of thing should be done transparently. If we want it working now, then we do have to do something kludgy like that, but I'd rather the devs fix the underlying issue before we start changing the way all our pages look.
I do appreciate that you've found the least obtrusive way to do it, though. However, I think having an edit button right after the destination name might confuse new editors, who might click that instead of the page edit button. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 13:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ARR8: I am not suggesting that every one of our 28,969 articles gets manually edited. Wikidata has images available for most of these articles and not using those through the means of a bot would be a wasted opportunity. This will, however, still require some manual input as well, and a collaboration or expedition will help bring some structure to this. Like you said yourself, Wikidata has less desirable images too, and hopefully we can fix those along the way. Not every article has imagery in the preview right now either, if anything, that number would increase some. None of us have exact numbers on this, but it may be worthwhile to look into this, as the change in article previews with images in said preview might be a notable factor in choosing the eventual method. All in all, integration with Wikidata is something I recall as being wished for in previous years, hence the linking of listings to Wikidata. This might just be an opportunity to chase that wish and put it into further practise. I, for one, am not at all opposed to setting banner source images to be Wikidata's images for said ID, let alone using images in Wikidata IDs linked to our articles.
We all prefer for PageImages to just be working as it should be, but I don't expect it to be working as desired, allowing editors the control they are promised with T91683 to be done any time soon. This March, that task will have been up for 4 years, and I'm not sure it will be done by the end of this year. Another option would be T95026, which aims to allow PageImages to fetch images directly from the Wikidata ID linked to the article that's being previewed. Since Jdlrobson is involved in both these projects, perhaps they can tell us how process is coming along on those two projects.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Would not need any manual editing, can add a template into the pagebanner template to extract wikidata and create a listing top right corner of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

One solution I see todayEdit

Maybe this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut but here is a solution Washington, D.C./sandbox. And would not take a year to edit page, probably could be done with a bot edit. Comments? --Traveler100 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not saying we should do this but basically the only visible change would be a coordinate number (with location of city centre) at the start of city articles, e.g. Ohrid/sandbox. is this an acceptable change to get a better preview image? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to do this. The number is only a little confusing at the beginning of the article, but it's quite confusing when it displays on the dynamic map. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Can move the number to top right hand corner (see Washington, D.C./sandbox) and remove the need to edit pages (update to pagebanner), but cannot get it off the map. (note current pagebanner sandbox is fix image and coords but could change to be wikidata values of page) --Traveler100 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of this. On the one hand, it does fix the preview image, but on the other hand it does also add 1 to each and every preview blurb, which my by judgement is not a worth-while trade-off. What I would be more in favour of is this idea, but with a mapshape instead of a map marker. No template currently exists to do that trick though, and I am not sure if that can be done either. This would then not display the listing number (1) in the preview, but instead just the blurb with its mark-up -no labels, no links- just plain text as it should be. This template can then get an image and wikidata link assigned. Neither of which would show on the map.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
the number can be removed from the preview by attaching the class noexcerpt! See MW:Extension:Popups#FAQ
2607:FB90:9D55:EEEC:AD28:E0EF:5ED3:DBD0 02:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, that is a possibility indeed. Still, though, if we use noexcerpt, we will have to make a separate instance of the {{listing}} template. At that point, it is more worthwhile to look into creating a template as I described above, which adds a mapframe around the governing body rather than a marker on the map which adds no information whatsoever.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Updated solution that works todayEdit

Created a test at Bitola. This does not require any manual updates to pages as adding code to the pagebanner. Will use image and coordinates from Wikidata. Note the extra icon and text at top right of page. Still creates an icon on map but is light grey. Does not create any marker on the preview. The current test template in my user space would need to some work to be make really usable as does not handle well at the moment if wikidata not there. Can work further on this if people think this is a workable solution. Reason proposing this is that I do not think the chances to mediawiki code will happen any time soon. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

New language on walking tours - please participateEdit

We reconsidered walking tour listings, and the result so far is to open the floodgates for all walking tours. I've proposed new language, and I'd like more participation in the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Discussion/vote on new language? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


I created this a while ago, but I really can't do all the work on my own, and I haven't done any in quite a while. I have laid out basics for formatting or whatever, and I wonder if there is some space it could be moved to where work can be done on it and, perhaps, it could be used as a way to navigate to country articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Requesting a second opinion, preferably someone with knowledge of South Korea. I added coordinates to the mountains listed at the top of the See section of Daejeon. They are however a good distance away, I suspect I got them wrong. Are they the correct locations or just similar named other locations? --Traveler100 (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I rolled my own edits back. Here is what I had guessed as the locations. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Bullet list - Accessibility fixEdit

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

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

Other WikivoyagesEdit

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

Hello, friends,

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

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

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

  • @WhatamIdoing: I am not sure if there is such a problem with the Chinese Wikivoyage, but I will try to find attention to this issue.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks you for the ping, but we removed most of the bullet lists years ago. They are simply not needed when we have these nice color boxes with the map markers. --Alexander (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
We simply modified the template to show an empty color box when there are no coordinates. --Alexander (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: I've asked Spanish Wikivoyage community in local TP. Now we have to wait for user input. --Zerabat (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
We will not change list at the German Wikivoyage. The main cause is maintenance work of endless lists to remove mistakes. --RolandUnger (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A new history articleEdit

Here. Should it eventually see mainspace? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps under Travel topics-Cultural attractions-Historical travel-Military tourism as there are main articles under Military tourism. It seems to be the right place for such an article on the Spanish Civil War -- Matroc (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have started another history article in main space: Prussia (which had been proposed by another user some time ago). I am not completely happy with the "Understand" section which I perceive as too lengthy and too detailed, but I have inhibitions to cut it down. All I have written seems somewhat interesting to me. Perhaps someone with more distance finds it easier to identify digressions and side issues that are not necessary for an introduction to Prussia from a traveller's point of view. I would certainly not resist to some sensible cuts. --RJFF (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

FileExporter beta featureEdit

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Can the destination map of a Wikivoyage increase the functionality of the person's location?Edit

Wikivoyage are about to become a travel guide for any traveler, and I think the destination map needs to add a person's location (like a Google Map) to help travelers find the places they want to visit.

Once have this feature, it will be more convenient for travelers!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree is needed. Please add your support at Phabricator tickets: T208713, see meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Maps/Maps should have option to show users current location. At T208713 subscribe and ask for priority to be moved from low. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! This is very import about Wikivoyage.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way, when will it be officially activated? --Yuriy kosygin (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
At the moment there is no intention to implement this. These are user requests to the MediaWiki development team. If you think it is important you, and others, need to voice this on the pages linked above. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Well... I will go to Phabricator to voice!--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dangers of carrying pirated goods?Edit

Stories are told about travellers who get in trouble with police or customs officers for carrying pirated goods (handbags, watches, sunglasses etc) with fake designer labels; the goods can be confiscated and the owner might be prosecuted. Is this a real danger, or are the stories exaggerated? Is advice on pirated goods relevant for shopping or other articles? /Yvwv (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have heard of people having pirated goods confiscated by customs. I think that prosecution is only likely if you are carrying large quantities of goods - enough to sell, more than just gifts for a couple of friends. This is already mentioned in Shopping#Restrictions - "Copyright or trademark law may also be an issue; dirt cheap copies of various items with high-end brand names are readily available in various places, but they may be confiscated at the border..." AlasdairW (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
There is also discussion at China#Brand-name_goods.
As an aside, I detest the use of the term "pirated" here. Copyright or trademark infringers are not at all the same as people with boats and weapons. Pashley (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that piracy has been romanticized to hell and back and hardly anybody thinks of Somalia or the Malacca Strait when they hear of "pirate".... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Piedra BlancaEdit

Location from the geo coordinates of this article are wrong. From description appears to be near San Luis de Pambil. Can anyone find information about the location and the lodge mentioned? As there are many other places with this name that are larger [4] thinking of making disambiguous. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is at lat=-1.2895 long=-79.2256. However I think that will only find a small cabin there - see [5], [6] and [7]. As there is so little there, I would suggest merging with San Luis de Pambil, which already has a one line listing for the lodge, but the link is now to a web-squatter. AlasdairW (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  Done, have merged into San Luis de Pambil and removed the over the top number of links to the page, appeared to be subtle spamming for the lodge. Have redirected to disambiguation page as there are many places with this name, a few with are larger. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Where to put something....Edit

In trying to find a museum that dealt with horse racing I came across this museum connected with Horses and Equestrianism more generally..

The Museum Of The Horse at The Newcastle Arms, Tuxford

Naturally it should go in the appropriate destination article, but is there a travel topic where it would also fit? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Horse riding, if it is good enough to warrant a significant detour. --LPfi (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Due to the efforts of another contributor, another question arose which was to do with when listing racecourses, how to link the fixture/meetings list. Would it be reasonable to link this in what would otherwise be the hours field (I wanted a wider consensus on this)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Something like that's been done for businesses with wildly variable hours before.
It might be useful to add a summary of whatever can be said, like "Most weekends during spring and summer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
For Plumpton which i added to Lewes I linked the meetings/fixtures list. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sea museumEdit

This isn't really an article or even a stub.. However, Maritime history or Old ships would be better titles. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted it per the speedy deletion tag. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Or Maritime museum. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have updated the listing at Klaipėda, and added explanation on, assume newbi's, talk page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Reducing the number of pages using the Pagebanner default image.jpgEdit

Under Standard Templates, on the at the right hand side of the Maintenance panel homepage, are the categories of Has custom banner and Has standard banner. These currently total 15784 pages and 1937 pages respectively. The names of the 11,163 pages that have the Pagebanner default.jpg image at the top is missing. This is needed so that a list of pages that need a custom banner made can be easily found.

Since we can show the number of pages that Has custom banner, shouldn't we be able to show the number of pages that Has default banner or Missing custom banner? Alternatively, could we add under Maintenance Categories a list of these pages.

Since it is hard to find to find the pages with the Pagebanner default image, except by randomly displaying pages, the number of pages using this image is likely to continue to remain high. Perhaps there is some other way to find these pages on Wikivoyage without looking up individual page names on Wikimedia Commons? Zcarstvnz (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zcarstvnz: is Category:Has default banner what you are looking for? I have added to Maintenance panel. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Yes, that is exactly what I was look to see. Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Love you allEdit

I got a couple of people I work with to try out editing Wikivoyage today, and you all have been awesome – fixing little problems, making additional edits, doing what we do best. I keep telling people that they should be contributing here because this is the nicest, most collaborative community and the most fun work. Thanks. You're the best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What a lovely message =) Thanks for saying such nice things, not only to us, but to others who may be interested in joining the fun. BTW, that should be "We're the best"; you're part of this team too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, wonderful to hear! And a warm welcome to all new Voyagers. ϒψιλον (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yayyy! Definitely my favourite community here :) Jdlrobson (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit failed - disallowed wordsEdit

Just trying to edit hiking to slim it down a little and my edit appears to have failed for the following reason:

"This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Disallowed words"

I've reviewed my changes and nothing obvious stands out to me as a dodgy word - this is my first edit on Wikivoyage and I'm wondering if that has something to do with it instead?

Darren-M (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This sometimes happens when those words were already in the article, before they were "forbidden", but noticed when you try to save your edit. I have not taken a look yet, but I hope the logs show what went wrong. Probably a new rule was made too strict by mistake. --LPfi (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not really manage to check, so good if somebody else can take a look. --LPfi (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I've saved my intended edits locally so I'll check back in a day or so. Darren-M (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
User:ThunderingTyphoons! - please see the "Notes" section of Filter 37. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Darren-M - We have identified and resolved the issue with the edit filter. Please feel free to try your contribution again. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


When I first encountered the article, it was a redirect to Acadia National Park, which was not ideal: the historical context of the term, and the way in which it's still understood by the majority of Canadians as opposed to Americans, is the former French colony east of Quebec in what are now the Maritime Provinces. I refashioned it into an extraregion, but on second thought I'm thinking it might work better as a travel topic focusing on the remnants of the old French culture that still exist there today. I've got too much on my plate at the moment to flesh that idea out, but if someone else wants to pick up the baton, by all means. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Good change. I've added some Acadian sites to the article and put the price and hours info in the listings in local articles, as I understand our practice to be. Ground Zero (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dresden Tram routesEdit

Can we get the Tram Routes to show up on the dynamic map? Preferably in the right color? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"De facto countries"Edit

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Kosovo about how to label the country, and indeed whether it should be referred to as a country at all. For this travel guide, this kind of discussion totally misses the point. Wikivoyage by policy recognizes all de facto conditions, perhaps with the caveat that they should seem reasonably stable (which is why we never had an article about the IS "caliphate" in Mesopotamia).

In practice, however, I would argue that we have deviated from this policy fairly systematically, by referring to some places as "de facto countries". Can we please stop? All we need to write is "X is a country in Y area. It declared its independence from Country Z in such-and-such year, though no other country/only Country A recognizes its independence."

A related issue is not recognizing de facto borders in maps. The portion of the Golan Heights controlled by Israel should appear as Israeli territory on Wikivoyage maps, period, and be treated in Israel#Regions as simply a region of Israel - not because we approve (or disapprove) of Israeli control or annexation but simply because we recognize all de facto conditions as a matter of policy.

To summarize: As you can see in the Talk:Kosovo thread, the site suffers more from deviating from a strictly utilitarian policy of recognition of all de facto conditions than by following it, because when we follow it religiously, we can defuse all political arguments over the legitimacy of a country's existence or control of disputed territory by pointing to our strict, objective policy of indiscriminate recognition. Otherwise, we create problems a travel guide is ill-suited to handle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this. It's the best way to ensure fairness without deviating from travel content, and has the bonus of already being policy. Besides, the current ("de facto") approach may be misleading: the Golan Heights' treatment on the Israel page seems to imply danger or unsuitability for travel, but they are arguably even safer than many other regions and beautiful besides. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That said, is the way we handle the Vatican appropriate then? It's now listed as part of Rome, but as everyone knows, it's technically a different country. Sure, it's surrounded by Rome with no border controls, so the only way to get to the Vatican is to go through Rome, and visiting the Vatican is probably no different in procedure from visiting any of Rome's tourist sites. But every country, including Italy, recognises it as a separate country; there is absolutely no dispute on that. And let's say you commit a crime in the Vatican and get caught; Italian law won't apply because it's technically a different country, and you will have to be tried under Vatican law instead. The dog2 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The Vatican is an exception, for the sake of travelers, because it is part of the city of Rome. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ikan Kekek about the Vatican, though I've never been there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I have. You just take a bus or subway from another part of Rome and walk there, no border formalities whatsoever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] If you all agree with me, there are a bunch of articles that need to be substantially edited. Without checking, some that come to mind would include Transnistria, Somaliland, Abkhazia... Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the basic idea, not to get involved with politics, is sound, but the "It declared its independence from Country Z in such-and-such year, though no other country/only Country A recognizes its independence." part is important. Such issues should be told up front. No need to go into details in the lead, if the situation is complicated (leave that to Understand), but use some phrase that makes it clear that use of the word "country" in controversial. The Understand or Get in should of course also discuss possible problems for the traveller. --LPfi (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's also important to remember that many countries refuse to recognize a country like Abkhazia for reasons beside those on the surface. IMHO, the reason Russia wants to see Abkhazia and South Ossetia secede from Georgia (the country) is that Russia intends to use those countries to have more power in the region; but if those Abkhazia, etc. are not recognized by the U.S. and the EU, then it gives Russia much less right to occupy the "de facto countries" or use them to gain influence in Georgia.
Therefore, it may be best in a few cases to go along with saying "de facto country" or something similar. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If it were clear where to draw the line I would agree, but if we cannot call all disputed countries "de facto" countries, there will be a never ending dispute on some of them (Kosovo being the most obvious example). Refusing to accept the de facto situation not to allow some country to take advantage of the de facto acceptance is a political statement. What about Taiwan? Our refusing to accept its independence helps China while our accepting its independence helps its government, Western interests and arguably its people. The same with Kosovo. What legitimate interests are we supposed to support? --LPfi (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Those of the traveller, of course, which is why we should give the facts that exist on the ground.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"De facto" simply means that it exist in real life and functions either on a country or a subnational level. If the word country feels like a political statement, the word entity is neutral and could be virtually anything. Perhaps we should make it policy to call anything disputed for an entity (or perhaps a word even better suited)? Philaweb (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
But please remember that we do not have to try to be "neutral" , we have to WV:be fair and write from the traveller's point of view. If a place is de facto a country, then from the point of view of a foreigner who has to legally gain entry to that place, it's a country. Calling something an "entity" is so imprecise, it's practically meaningless. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
And making a distinction between "countries" and "entities" is not very different from making the distinction between "countries" and "de facto countries". Or would you also call Sweden "an entity in northern Europe"? You could find a better word, but not calling countries countries would still be odd. --LPfi (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Since Sweden is not disputed... no, I would not call it an entity. When someone calls some place for "de facto" something, you can be sure it is disputed, and you will always have this conversation... a conversation that is mostly about being neutral. If this discussion is not about neutrality, why do we even have it then? Philaweb (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no legal definition of a "country". The United Kingdom considers itself to be four countries governed by one parliament and one monarch. It's ridiculous to get hung up on whether Kosovo or anywhere else is a country. We should just clarify that its independence is not recognized by Serbia and some other countries, and leave it there. Fussing over not calling it a country, when it operates exactly like an independent country, plays into the agenda of Serb chauvinists, and there is no reason we would do that. Ground Zero (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, and you would not see anyone write "the de facto country England" since "de facto" implies that it would be a disputed fact. I agree on the current policy and Ikan's initial post. Philaweb (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
And for clarity, I also agree with the current policy and Ikan Kekek's post. Ground Zero (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope it's clear that I do too. Therefore, with a near-unanimity, we can start to do as Ikan proposed and start bringing the relevant articles into line with what we've agreed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've had a go at implementing this for Transnistria, South Ossetia, Artsakh and Abkhazia. Take a look and see what you think. Anywhere else applicable?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Somaliland looks OK, so I'm not sure what else there is. We can also look at controversial parts of countries, like Crimea and the Golan Heights. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the French overseas territories. Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana for instance are legally considered to be just as French as any part of Metropolitan France, and have the same visa requirements as the Schengen Area. So should we list these ones under France? The dog2 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
You mean like this? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so, because geography wins out for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
IMHO: the problem I see with an article like Somaliland is that the first sentence could give the reader the wrong impression: that we're some website full of strange conspiracy theorists that "believe in" certain countries that no one else considers to be independent. At the same time, though, if a country has its own government and really operates by itself, then it only makes sense to consider the country independent.
I agree with User:Ikan Kekek that while French Guiana and Martinique, etc. may be politically just the same as France, you've got to consider how far they are from mainland France. What it would boil down to is, do travelers who visit overseas departments/territories visit the "mother country" on the same vacation generally, or do they just visit the territory? If they generally just visit the territory on its own, from the traveller's point of view it's a separate country; if they visit the "mother country" and the territory in one go, it's pretty likely that the two are closely associated, again from the traveller's point of view. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Somaliland is certainly functionally independent, and has been so for years. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is probably the correct way to go about it for the traveler's sake but as a small clarification, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Transnistria really only exist because of the largesse of another state and are not actually independent even in a casual sense. They are just extensions of Russia and Turkey on others' sovereign territory. I can't speak to Artsakh as I'm too ignorant but this is a clear distinction from the Republic of China on Taiwan, Kosovo, Somaliland, or the SADR in Western Sahara. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Artsakh, which we call Nagorno-Karabakh because that's a better known name in English-speaking countries for now, exists due to the largesse of Armenia, so it fits into the pattern you're discussing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Sounds about rite. In that sense, they are actually pretty reasonable as "Go Next" destinations from their shell overlords. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The dependence on a large country should be made clear in the Understand ("A separated from B with the support of C, which still is the only country recognizing it"). Often of course the dependence is denied by the large country, so we should mostly keep to the undeniable facts and be careful when stating the obvious result (not "lead by a puppet regime" if we can avoid that wording). (Kosovo is not necessarily an exception, it separated from Serbia with heavy military support from NATO, and recognizing it was part of the same Western campaign of gaining influence in the former East.)
And about the overseas dependencies, I hope we are not starting to call Svalbard or New Caledonia "countries", there is no need for that, as there is no controversy.
--LPfi (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting that the discussion about "de facto" has turned into a discussion about "independence", and both of these words have absolutely no relevance on whether people travel there or not, they just do. Philaweb (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that. So far, I think this has been a constructive discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong in a discussion. My point is that if we use terms like "de facto", "independent" and "feels like a separate country" about areas that are disputed, it will eventually lead to edits to the articles that will be unconstructive. I think we should settle at describing the actual hurdles when travelling to a disputed area, and not dwell on whether they are independent, want to be independent or whatever. Just the logistics. You need to apply for the visa in another place than the one you are going to etc. Personally, I think there is too much detail in much of the nitty gritty of the local conflicts and aspirations. But that may just be my perception. If I need to read about stuff like that there are better venues. Philaweb (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
What makes Transnistria an interesting place to visit is that it had been in this twilight zone of unrecognized independence for over 25 years. It was fascinating to learn about their struggles and how they live in this weird state. If Transnistria ever rejoins Moldova, or somehow becomes part of Russia, there will no longer be any reason to go. There's really very little of touristic interest there. So the question of independence is paramount travel information, at least for Transnistria. I can't comment on the others. Ground Zero (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems you can get convicted or denied entry in other countries if you got a stamp in your passport in some of these, which definitely is worth mentioning. And even in a place like Kosovo, I think the struggle for independence, and some of the nuances about it, is something you should be aware of as a tourist. --LPfi (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I definitely agree with User:Philaweb about not getting too bogged down in using de facto, independent etc. But equally I was about to post a similar comment to User:Ground Zero's (edit: and User:LPfi's). The 'twilight zone' is a key part of these countries' attraction. Plus, the unrecognised status is an essential thing to know about a place you're going to visit. We always note details about a country's government no matter which article it is.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ground Zero - "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and that goes for travel as well. Your comment on Transnistria can be applied to many places on earth, and it has very little to do with independency (most of the places are independent). A president used the term sh*thole for countries like that, not a word I would use. Transnistria is a Soviet Union open-air museum frozen in time (even more so than Belarus). I have experienced places like that and it's a once in a lifetime experience - but not because of their legal status or their aspirations.
@LPfi, @ThunderingTyphoons - what you mention is part of the logistics, stuff that you need to consider when planning a trip. Philaweb (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
With regards to whether or not you visit it in the same trip, Hawaii is actually quite far from the mainland US, and the native Hawaiians are actually related to the citizens of Pacific island nations such as Fiji and Tonga. But I know that many Japanese tourists visit Hawaii (and Guam) without visiting the mainland U.S., to the point that ANA purchased A380s specifically to fly to Hawaii. So whether or not you visit them in one trip is not a good criterion.
But that said, I understand that it would be a challenge to have a fix set of criteria as to what defines a country here on WV. Speaking of which, if you've heard the news, the Chinese government has said that businesses have to explicitly refer to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan as part of China in order to do be allowed to do business there. I'm not sure if WV is blocked in China yet, but if it does come to that, perhaps it might be worth discussing what policy we wish to adopt regarding these. Of course, we'd like our site to be accessible to as many people as possible, and that includes Chinese netizens, but should we compromise our long-held rules for that? The dog2 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You make a good point, but do you not see the difference between including all 50 U.S. States in the United States of America article and having different articles for French Guiana, Mayotte, and other Departements Outre-Mer which are so distant from the bulk of France? I mean, yes, Hawaii is extremely distant from mainland America, but it's not appreciably further than from California to New York, and it takes a bit less time to travel from LAX to Hilo than it does to travel from New York to either SFO or LAX, if I remember correctly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
We do say that both the governments in Beijing and Taipei officially recognize Taiwan as part of China, and that we treat Taiwan as a country only for practical reasons having nothing to do with politics or whether Taiwan truly is an independent country de jure, which neither side claims. There is also no contention that Hong Kong or Macau are independent, only that visa procedures and currencies are different. I don't see how we would change things in order to conform to the Chinese government's party line and still serve travelers as well as possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm also fine with the status quo that we have. I just brought these up because I think it would be helpful for us to be clear on policy with regard to some of these ambiguous cases. The dog2 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, and I think the dividing line is between what I believe the U.S. calls an "overseas territory" vs. a state. Even if the state is not contiguous with the rest of the country, it's still likely to be a lot more connected than a territory is going to be. Still, it's good to get that sort of thing clear.

So do we have any consensus on how to treat de facto countries? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

As countries, with relevant explanations of their limited international recognition, etc.

Also, tangentially, be careful about considering every far-flung French possession analogous to a U.S. overseas territory. Some of them are Departements Outre-Mer, and therefore, integral parts of France that are politically much more analogous to Hawaii and Alaska, although we give them separate articles for practical reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. I mean Martinique, Guadeloupe, and French Guiana — the ones that were mentioned earlier in this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, those are DOMs. But they're thousands of miles away from the Metropole so are covered separately, yet mentioned in the main France article's 'Regions' section. Same goes for British Overseas Territories, though those are not integral parts of the UK.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
And for Hong Kong and Macau, while they are contiguous with mainland China, you really do feel like you're in a different country. I don't know how to put it, but the best description I can put together is that Hong Kong and Macau feel more orderly, while mainland China feels a bit more like a free-for-all. And you'll definitely notice a big difference in how the commuters behave when taking the Hong Kong MTR vs the Shenzhen Metro; I would say that Hong Kong commuters are a little more polite. And while I haven't been to Kinmen and Matsu and therefore can't comment on those, politics aside, as far as the main island goes, Taiwan also feels like a different country. So until we start getting blocked by the Great Firewall of China (if that happens, then perhaps we can re-hash those topics again), those should be treated as separate countries on WV. The dog2 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Woluwe is Where?Edit

I started a discussion on the Talk page of the Woluwe, section of Brussels, Belgium article, but only one person commented. This article states this portion of the city is in the western part of the city, but the map shows it in the eastern part. There are also several redirects to this article, that may or might not be obsolete. I'm not familiar enough with Woluwe to make any changes to the article, so any help in resolving the questions that I posted on the Woluwe Discussion Page would be appreciated. Zcarstvnz (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Page previews and NavpopsEdit

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

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

Updating the listing editorEdit

Hello all,

I have posted several times about the changes to the listing editor, discussed here and testable through the ListingEditor2 Beta gadget. There are several improvements, which are described at the link. However, the screenshot there is outdated, and I encourage everyone who hasn't seen the last iteration to try the gadget for themselves.

I have made several calls for feedback and have received many helpful comments. Many of the suggestions were implemented, though some are planned for future iterations, and every bug or problem pointed out has been fixed. Due to this, and wide discussion on many aspects of the changes, especially as they apply to other parts of the site, I am concluding that there is a consensus to implement the changes into the default listing editor for all users.

Is anyone opposed? Particularly, there are some new changes that may merit discussion. One change is that images in listings, when they match the image in Wikidata, are, upon sync by a contributor, removed from the source and left to auto-acquire. This is behavior I added relatively recently, due to instances when listing images were nominated for deletion and had to be replaced, while the ones on Wikidata were fine. It may also be of interest to some that I have reinstated the old behavior of putting }} on its own line, due to a discussion above.

Other than that, if nobody has any problems with the new editor, I will remove debug code and request that an interface administrator copy over the changes soon. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't yet know how it would look and work. Personally, I'd like to see a one-month trial period so I can see how it is. Probably, that would convince me to support it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: We have! The beta gadget was enabled and announced in the pub two months ago. I encourage you to try it now, if you haven't already. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Which one is it? I'd really like to try it. (The only beta gadget I have enabled at the moment is called "visual editor differences".) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
It's listed under "Gadgets," under "Experimental." ListingEditor2 (beta). ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I have just tried the beta ListingEditor2, and I got a "no data from wikidata" error when I tried it on Corgarff Castle in Ballater, but going back to the old listing editor worked ok.
It did work with another listing but there was a message about the directions differing from Wikidata - as directions are text, and depend on where you are starting from I don't see how they belong in WD - if we are going to have then there must be a link to a help page which defines what WD expect directions to be.
I am not keen on removing the images from listings. Unless there are full explanation popups this is going to confuse occasional users. If we are doing anything with the images, my preference would be for displaying a small thumbnail of the image (75px?). When it goes live we should have a one month trial period, because it will only be clear what the problems are when new users try it, unless a "conference room pilot" can be set up where 20 people are invited off the street to use it. AlasdairW (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@AlasdairW: Thanks for the feedback.
  1. That's no error; it means the data is already up-to-date. I guess I should make the message clearer.
  2. Eh, I don't really see how they belong, either, but that's more a question for the Wikidata community. I've found it useful in some cases already. For most listings, unambiguously located in one location, the usage is pretty clear.
  3. It shouldn't be too confusing; when you sync the image it displays the name of the image in the field.
  4. Post-rollout, I'll be fixing problems new users report as they come up. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
By the way - no reason to switch back to the old one. The old behavior is still available as "quick fetch," and I won't be removing it, for editors who preferred it. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@ARR8:, Thanks for the reply.
  1. Fine, maybe something like "No update required, listing matches Wikidata"
  2. As they are text, directions will be different in other languages. Also directions often assume a starting point - "10 miles north of the city centre" only makes sense if you know what city the listing is in. I think that in this case the pop-up should suggest that no change is the preferred option if you are unsure.
  3. The "images in listings ...are... removed from the source and left to auto-acquire" suggests that the image is removed from the listing and that the image box in the editor will become empty. Please explain if something different happens.
  4. Fine
Thanks for the hard word on this useful feature. AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. I changed it after your first message to "No differences found between local and Wikidata values." The change hasn't been pushed to the beta yet, though.
  2. The directions property stores each language individually, so no need to worry there. See this item, which has directions in English, Portuguese, and Esperanto. Regarding instructions, I used to provide considerations for individual fields, but was advised to shorten the text, because people might not read it. I guess not uploading that text for listings accessible from multiple destinations is common sense. If you think it's very important to have instructions per field, I can probably find a way to put it in a tooltip.
  3. They are removed from the wikicode, but the filename stays in the editor, grayed out, until the changes are submitted. Try it yourself: modify the text in the image field for any listing which has a wikidata image and sync the values; you'll see what I mean.
And thank you for thinking about usability. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it fair to assume that "one-month trial" in these comments means "Let's turn it on now, and in a month (or later), we'll talk about whether we think we should turn it off again"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but we also stop at any point within the month if significant problems are reported. AlasdairW (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Could easily be rolled back if there are any signifiant problems. Shall I make it live then? -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@WOSlinker: Yes, let's! I won't take the debug code out quite yet; if there are any problems, I may ask for console logs. It can be taken out later. Also, please copy over the userspace version; I've changed a minor aspect of the table appearance over there by request. Glad to be wrapping this up (hopefully). ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm good with it going live now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The updated version is now live. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────When I look in the "Gadgets" section, though, it still shows up as "Experimental". Does it perhaps take a while to update? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: It's been copied in place of the other one, so the experimental and non-experimental versions are currently identical. You can switch to whichever one you want. If there are to be more changes, they would be tested as part of the experimental one first. It's up to every editor whether they'd want to test those changes if and when they come. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I plan now to switch to the non-experimental version. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Western MA Merging?Edit

Hello! Any interest in a little merging? The one new article this would generate could look like this? Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Any Dubliners or James Joyce enthusiasts around here?Edit

I created James Joyce's Dublin but while I have read like one of the stories in "Dubliners", I really have no idea about the urban geography of Ireland's capital (or how it has changed since the early 1900s) and I am not currently at liberty to spend much time getting into Joyce (a famously hard to read author) so any help you could provide would be much appreciated. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have a dearth of Irish contributors full stop. I have been pondering this for a while, and now you've brought this up, I wonder if there's anything we can do to attract some; target requests at Irish Wikipedians, perhaps, or post in the W:Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland? It strikes me that we have at least one active Wikivoyager from every major English-speaking country, with the notable exception of Ireland, and this is definitely reflected in our Ireland articles, which are not in good shape on the whole.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Start an Irish language WV? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Again, that would need at least one (really dedicated) Irish Wikivoyager, which AFAIK we don't have. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. And for the record, we do not have anyone to be the custodian for Irish English in our English language varieties article, so that person would also be useful for that article. Speaking of which, we don't seem to have any Scottish or Welsh Wikivoyagers here either. At least to my knowledge, all the British Wikivoyagers we have here are English. The dog2 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Twll dîn pob Saes! Only kidding, I'm Anglo-Welsh really :-) But AlasdairW might have a few words to say about you calling him English! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: Why don't you or ThunderingTyphoons! make a post on W:Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Requests and see where we can go from there? The dog2 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Will do.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done - W:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Requests#Wikivoyage_needs_you! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

ARR8 is being nominated for administratorEdit

Just wanted to give everyone out there a heads-up in case they didn't already know: I have recently nominated one of the best WV users, ARR8, for administrator. If you know the user's trustworthy edit history, please go to the administrator nominations page and show your support.


--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Searching Wikivoyage:Tourist office's past questionsEdit

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

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

Can an industrial park create an article?Edit

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

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

Alexa rankEdit

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

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

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

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


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

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

DOTM bannersEdit

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

Updating the Main Page textEdit

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

The FREE worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

But it is now

The free worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it is good to go. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: Yay, glad to see it live! Just add a period after "tourist office" and it'll mirror the sandbox. - Sdkb (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Traveler100: also, the sister site link doesn't seem to be working for me. - Sdkb (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's trying to link to [8] for some reason. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Always a risk with simultaneous collaborative work. Link again takes you to bottom section of the page. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my fault! ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Not a problem, we would not have got this far without your edits. I am also learning a lot with what your are doing. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

DOTM banners/CommonsEdit

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

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

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

Banners needed everywhere?Edit

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

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

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

mobile main pageEdit

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

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

Travellers' pubEdit

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

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

Wikivoyage:Community portalEdit

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

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

Help resourcesEdit

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

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

Macedonia renamedEdit

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Responsive designEdit

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

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

An update on templates on mobile webEdit


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

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

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

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

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

Static Map vs Dynamic Map: Which is preferred ?Edit

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

This opens a can of worms. A short answer would be, that it depends on the situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talkingEdit

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

s:Outlook Traveller/2018/July/A Deul StoryEdit

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

Boston travel guide in WikibooksEdit

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

The nomination is now closed and that page has been deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)