Wikivoyage talk:Cleanup

WV shared

Swept from the pub:

It seems that we're going to use the same name WV as per going on consensus but I was wondering if after the migration to WMF, will we still have WV shared or not? --Saqib (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (CEST)

It seems unlikely at this point (see commons:Commons talk:Wikitravel Shared transfer task force). Any images that can't be uploaded to Commons will have to be uploaded individually to each travel guide project. LtPowers (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2012 (CEST)

I think we might be able to keep using WV shared/WV general for coordination between different wikivoyage language versions, similar to Beta Wikiversity. But we won't use it for hosting images, as LtPowers said above. –sumone10154^(talk) 19:04, 13 October 2012 (CEST)

If we are not to use Shared for image hosting, that would make for a lot of wasted effort, and it will also mean that virtually all our images will be broken after moving (soon) to the WMF. The responses on the task force talk page seem a little idealistic/argumentative. Realistically, we'll need a transition period, and it would be good to have a response to this question from the WMF tech folks. --Peter ^Talk 02:06, 14 October 2012 (CEST)

I don't feel having WV shared will be necessary for both file hosting and coordination. There are forums on meta: to discuss cross-wiki issues and ideas, so it's just a matter of using those. And if we install the right extensions, no images will be broken as they will instead link to commons (as long as all shared images have been moved to commons). I'd agree we should get some actual WMF people to comment on this. JamesA ^>talk 02:26, 14 October 2012 (CEST)

Yes, but each image will have to be checked by a human person. Yesterday, for example, I saw a file on Shared that was taken from Commons, but had a different name on each site. That means links in the guides will need to be changed to the Commons file. It would be a hell of a job. Still, I agree we'd need to phase out Shared and let each wiki have separate guidelines and policies.--Globe-trotter (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2012 (CEST)

Definitely there will be many issues like that. Is there any way that if a bot was to upload the images, it could detect duplicate images and notify another user? The MediaWiki software is already able to detect duplicates when you are uploading, and give you a "warning". JamesA ^>talk 02:58, 14 October 2012 (CEST)

Images on Commons are licensed freely, understanding that Wikivoyage works with the same license, seems to me that every image used on Wikivoyage should be as free as files on Commons. If some images of Wikivoyage aren't allowed on Commons, there should be considered if they are wanted to be used anyway.

I understand a lot of images are used from Commons, this can mean some name changes are needed if they are uploaded under another name on Commons then Wikivoyage. Also there is a risc of double names: a name of a file is the same on Wikivoyage as Commons, but content is different. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (CEST)

Links to Dmoz

I have seen that some users started to delete the links to Dmoz. Would that be part of the cleanup as well? Imho we should than add it on the list. Jc8136 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

We use DMOZ extensively on Wikipedia. Why delete? 24.66.14.92 18:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree we should not try to be a collection of external links but simply link to DMOZ. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Salvaging content

I remember seeing some useful contributions to the articles on my watchlist over at the old site in the past weeks. Which way should be followed to salvage them? Having a re-write to avoid copyvios or is there a way to import edits one by one into the page histories on the current site, along with full attribution?

On another, perhaps unrelated, note, are we now getting rid of the links to Wikivoyage Extra (which were automatically changed from the Extra site of the former host by the import bot), since it doesn't exist? (These links can be found abundantly at the top of many talk pages.) Vidimian (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

Good point about Wikivoyage Extra, I have added it to the clean-up list. About the attribution, you can just add the information to the Wikivoyage article and then add in the summary field something like "+work by User:Seligne on Wikitravel.org/en". --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

On "Wikivoyage Extra", what should I do if it's a reference in the middle of a larger comment? I feel weird messing with someone else's comments, even though they now don't make a lot of sense? Also, fwiw, I would be in favor of creating an actual Wikivoyage Extra; I felt the original experiment died due to neglect rather than it being a bad idea. --Jonboy (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

I would say leave those as they are. We are not trying to change history. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:06, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

But we have changed history. If you look at Talk:Delhi, it includes a comment by Jani (that he didn't make) about using a "Wikivoyage Extra" site that doesn't exist. I think something needs to be done about that (removing the link or creating at least a placeholder site at least), but I'm not sure what. --Jonboy (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

I agree with Peter. It's not only weird to take some parts of the comments out, but it is also out of policy per Project:Using talk pages#Etiquette. Original authors might come in and cross or remove those bits themselves as they see fit later. Vidimian (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

I think we may have been a bit overenthusiatic with the conversion of "Wikitravel" to "Wikivoyage" on talk pages during the migration to WV. However all the history is still there and it can be changed back if it seems like a good idea later. After all at the time of the discussions, it was Wikitravel that was being discussed, and Wikitravel remains part of our history, warts and all. It is after all not Wikitravel per se that we have left, it is IB, and it just happens that they have rights to the name as a label. They don't have any control over it being used in discussion of the site, which is what our talk pages are. However to avoid hassles, I think this point can be left until we are at WMF.

Also Vidimian points out a valid item of policy. We dont revise user pages and user talk pages except to remove obvious vandalism and advertising. This is part of my personal dispute with IBobi, who took it upon himself to revise user pages and user talk pages against the express wishes of the owners. We do not do that.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:47, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

OK, then we have to rollback the substitution on talk pages. You get stuff like "The founders of Wikivoyage sold the domain to Internet Brands before starting the press." If I wrote the original, I'd be pretty cheesed off at having my words changed to say that. Should we move this discussion somewhere more visible? --Jonboy (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes, Traveller's pub is probably the place, with a notice at a high visibility page on General.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:56, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

I have put up a couple of notices. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:11, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

Links from Wikipedia

Autosubstitution has changed all "Wikitravel" to "Wikivoyage" on Wikivoyage:Links from Wikipedia. I tested the instructions out on the WP Brasilia page and it didn't work (didn't recognize a {{Wikivoyage}} template). Is this functionality coming soon or should we blank the page / delete it / write new instructions until something is up and running? At this point I'm leaning towards delete or blank since (I think) its doubtful a Wikivoyage template will be created before we migrate to the WMF. -Shaund (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

How about replace content with a "Pending migration" notice. The general principles will remain when we are on WMF, just the new temlate to be written, and not much point in getting that done before the move. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:31, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

Done. I left the old wording there (within comments) so it can be reused post-migration. -Shaund (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2012 (CEST)

Template: Unsigned

I don't think it will be possible to have an Unsigned that works well for both the important articles and going forward. What about creating a new template (Notsigned?) for future use and making sure the existing template properly credits imported comments? --Jonboy (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

If the template has been consistently substituted then presumably it can be changed, as there will be no more old edits... • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:19, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

I just checked, the first hit was transcluded, so the easy answer doesn't work. Looks like two options, (1) we go with the new templwte, and try to prevent people from using the old one, which will be very difficult, or (2) we find and change all the instances of transcluded Template:Unsigned and convert them to substitutions, before changing the template, which is a lot of work, and should be done by a bot, so out of my competence. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:29, 21 September 2012 (CEST)

I want to thank everyone, especially Vidimian, for helping with this task! Some of most mundane tasks I've done for sure :-P --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

My pleasure—just put on some nice music in the background and let your eyes roll over seemingly meaningless bunches of letters looking for those little {{unsigned:'s (talk pages of more popular destinations with longer articles are especially troublesome to go through).

More seriously, though, I'd also like to wholeheartedly thank everyone who devotes their precious times to getting this wiki ready for the grand opening. Vidimian (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

I use ctrl-f and a search string, and they all show up in yellow, and "next" takes me from one to the next. My biggest delay was the upload and download time. I agee with you on the music though, that was about as mindless a task I have done in a while. If you have finished I salute you all, I thought I was coming back to do more. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 23:20, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

Still a couple of hundred to go, but getting there. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:48, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Ctrl-f works perfectly Peter, another feature of the browser that I wasn't aware of. There is still some way to finish, though.

By the way, are we subst'ing also the incidences of {{unsigned's on User talk pages, too, including those prefixed with (WT-en)? Vidimian (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

In the interest of completeness, I think we should do all namespaces, but main space is first priority. Your speed should be up by an order of maginitude with the search function. It also tells you how many instances on the page, which is very useful. I will be back later to do a few more. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 20:00, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Thanks for noting that too—knowing the total number of instances made my life even easier and the job even more foolproof (I'm possibly as much technologically backward as I could be in this age, and had no idea on these features before).

The main space talk pages are now all done I guess. Vidimian (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Down to about 70 now. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 23:18, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Now that all of the existing uses of Template:Unsigned have been subst'd, I've removed the (WT-en) tags from it. We should now be able to start using it normally -- but always always always subst it! LtPowers (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

Is there any way a subst can be forced? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:32, 26 September 2012 (CEST)

There are ways to throw up giant warning flags if it's not, but I'm not aware of any way to prevent it entirely. LtPowers (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2012 (CEST)

That would be a start. Could you point me to an example? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:29, 27 September 2012 (CEST)

Wikipedia has a helper template, Wikipedia:Template:Require subst, that throws up an error message if a template is not substituted. LtPowers (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

Is it supposed to work like this:

{{unsigned|Pbsouthwood}}

displays as:

while:

{{subst:unsigned|Pbsouthwood}}

displays as —The preceding comment was added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs)

Something like that, I'd say. LtPowers (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

Hard to miss, shall I modify the working version? I think it would serve the purpose... • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 23:30, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

I have changed the original as it seems to be necessary (people are still transcluding). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:21, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Superceded policies

What do we do with policies that have been superceded by new policies, or combined into a single policy? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:24, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Such as? In general, I would say use a "soft redirect"; mark the old policy as superseded (but archived for posterity) and include a link to the relevant new policy. LtPowers (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

Such as Wikivoyage:Use of pronouns which combines First person pronouns and Second person pronouns, which appear to have been merged moved and redirected already. —The preceding comment was added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs)

In the case of a merger, simple redirects are fine as long as the source of the merged content is clear (for attribution purposes). LtPowers (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

File repositories will not be moved

Swept in from the pub

Maybe next week Wikivoyage will be transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Erik Möller told today in an email that they are "not moving the file repos. Files have to be manually transferred over. If you've not already been involved in this process, now is a good time to get involved."

We as the Wikivoyage association tried within the last days until yesterday in a direct contact with Erik Möller to prevent this and to establish the repositories maybe for one or two years to have enough time to make the transfers. But most of the images will be vanished after the migration.

We have now only some not known experience of the Commons users and the Wikitravel Shared transfer task force. But this is surely not enough to solve the transfer problem.

Therefore, we ask you to show your protest at the wikivoyage-l mailing list. The subscription is very easy and fast. After the subscription you have to confirm your mailing list entry. Our chances for the repositories move will increase with the number of protesters.

With deep regret we have to state the we are not strong enough to prevent this and therefore we had no success. As you know our admins and programmers were able to make a full transfer from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage. --Unger (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Let me copy my message to the mailing list:

I agree with Roland that we are not ready to transfer files to Commons until Tuesday.

First, not more than 10 people are sorting and tagging files on wts.wikivoyage. We work like hell, but we simply don't have enough manpower for this huge job. The work at the second repository, wikivoyage.org/shared, has not even started yet.

Second, details of image transfer are not yet settled. Stefan, MGA73, and Magog the Ogre offered their help and very nice scripts that could do things automatically. But every image on Commons requires a sound license information, and we have not even agreed on how to do it, see the discussion here.

Unless these problems are solved immediately, the launch of "renewed" Wikivoyage is going to be... well, not a catastrophe, but a fail.

No matter what the final decision is, we have to sort things on Shared and transfer images to Commons.

Therefore, I kindly ask everyone to take part in this work. --Atsirlin (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2012 (CET)

What to do?

Here is a brief guide to our major cleanup on Shared:

• Select a category and tag every file, one by one
• Put one of the following tags:
  • {{NowCommons|file name on Commons}} for those files that are available on Commons
  • {{Replace|file name on Commons}} for those files that should replace existing files on Commons
  • {{Move}} for those files that should be moved to Commons (note the copyright issues)
  • {{KeepLocal|reason}} for those files that can't be moved to Commons and should be stored locally according to the non-free content policy
  • {{Ignore}} for copyvios and bad or obsolete images
• Keep in mind the following:
  • NowCommons tags have been mostly added by the bot. However, we still have plenty of files that were not recognized by the bot and require human attention. So check carefully, look at the file source, or even make a search on Commons.
  • Move vs. KeepLocal depends on copyright regulations for a specific country (freedom of panorama, etc.) Check these rules for the country you choose, and sort the images accordingly. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
• Once you are done with a category, tag it with {{done}} and proceed to the next category!

Any help will be highly appreciated. Thanks! --Atsirlin (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Also, ignore maps for now (since we basically plan to import all of them not tagged by bot as NowCommons). Unless they are missing a {{map|Location}} tag—add it if you spot an instance. --Peter ^Talk 19:59, 3 November 2012 (CET)

If I just want to tag all my images I have uploaded as move is that helpful, or does it just get in the way? I know I have only uploaded them to wts, and not commons, and I know the licences are okay. --Inas (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (CET)

You may not have uploaded them to Commons, but someone else might have (I've had a couple of my images uploaded there independently of me). I think it'd be fine if you tagged your own images; someone will still check it as we go through the categories, but when we see a tag already on the file, we can skip it (we already do this with files tagged by bots). Note that if you review an entire category, there's a wts:Template:Done that you can use to mark a category as reviewed. LtPowers (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Also keep in mind that some files might need to be kept locally. --Peter ^Talk 03:54, 4 November 2012 (CET)

So stuff without any copyright templates should be tagged {{Ignore}} right?(WV-en) Geni (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Yes, that's the easiest. If you are sure that the files are copyright violations, or if they are so bad/redundant that we don't need them -- post a link on my talk page. I will delete such files right away. If an image is of any value, we better review it later and see how we could keep it in some form. --Atsirlin (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Files without copyright templates are assumed to be the work of the uploader and licensed under our default license (currently CC-by-sa 3.0). I don't see any reason to delete them unless there's a suspicion that they're nicked from some other place on the web (Google's Reverse Image Search can be invaluable for determining that). LtPowers (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Commons tends to be slightly paranoid about such things. And anything uploaded pre-4 January 2010 would be CC-BY-SA 1.0.(WV-en) Geni (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2012 (CET)‎

Honestly, I'm not sure how Commons will react. We have a good argument that these image uploads are no different than text contributions, for which we do not require any more explicit acknowledgement of license than clicking the "Save" button. LtPowers (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2012 (CET)

That was also my assumption, at least for well-known and reliable uploaders. Now I remove only obvious copyright violations as well as very bad images that we don't need anyway. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2012 (CET)

It goes beyond that, part of the upload form was a prominent declaration that by uploading, the uploader agrees to license their file CC-by-SA 1.0, unless otherwise indicated. Given the license upgrade, all images without licensing from yesteryears can be considered CC-by-SA 3.0. All that said, they should be considered much lower priority for moving to Commons than those on our WTS and Shared repositories. --Peter ^Talk 20:57, 4 November 2012 (CET)

I believe we're talking about WTS and Shared files. LtPowers (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2012 (CET)

What about stuff hosted localy here rather than on shared?(WV-en) Geni (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2012 (CET)

It is of minor importance, because all local files will be moved. We will have to sort them, but this can be done later. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Two questions. 1. Should I use NowCommons for files that are more or less the identical shot, with as good or better resolution/lighting, and at least as new? i.e it isn't exactly the same image, but for all intents and purposes of usage it is? And 2, should I be moving files to match the commons categories if that is convenient? --Inas (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2012 (CET)

1. NowCommons is meant for different copies of the same photo. Minor modifications could maybe be acceptable (especially since we're in a hurry). See the discussion about British Columbia below: I didn't want to update those links without a discussion. If you have a different photo which can be used instead, you could change file names on pages if you think that it would be acceptable, but please don't use NowCommons for that. 2. I suggest that no one moves around any files. It means extra work since links need to be updated by hand. Just leave all files where they are. Also, I don't see what file names have to do with file categorisation. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Sorry, I meant updating the categories. At the moment they are everywhere. If I group common located photos into the same category, and then name that as the appropriate category as commons, is that helpful?

And one further question. If a file has been tagged by the bot as a duplicate on shared but with a different filename, and I've verified that it isn't used on any wv language versions, and that it is the same file on commons as shared, can I delete it on shared? An example would be File:Cityrail_V_Set.jpg --Inas (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Many old files are on both Wts and Shared. Consider keeping those old files (both if they have the same name and if they have a different name); the NowCommons tags may be useful for the Shared project, and time can be saved if people don't have to locate the file on Commons a second time. It's probably too much work to check if a file really is unused. This is better done by bot.

Ask User:(WT-en) MGA73 about categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Templates and image names

Swept in from the pub

All image names have to be updated with image names on Commons. Some templates refer to image names and need to be updated, alternatively orphaned. This includes Template:Routeicon and Template:Flag. Can someone help? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2012 (CET)

With Template:Flag, I think we could just update it to copy Wikipedia's w:Template:Flagicon. That way, there is no need to rummage through Commons looking for various flag images and updating hundreds of countries/territories. There seems to be some complex templates in play though; anyone want to attempt to migrate? JamesA ^>talk 14:39, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Template:Routeicon is not widely used and I don't think it was ever approved by the community. I recommend substituting it and deleting it. LtPowers (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2012 (CET)

I'd oppose deletion of {{routeicon}} as driving directions are something we'd want to keep, but we should just steal whatever version of this Wikipedia is using as they have a far more complete set of highway symbols than we do. K7L (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Where in the world did I suggest removing driving directions? The points remain that I don't think Routeicon was ever approved by the community, and it is not widely used. LtPowers (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2012 (CET)

I've modified Template:routeicon to use commons files. –sumone10154^(talk) 21:34, 3 November 2012 (CET)

I have modified Template:Flag to use commons files. Wikipedia's w:Template:Flagicon uses hundreds of templates and has many unnecessary functions that aren't needed. –sumone10154^(talk) 21:02, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Temporary templates for image migration

Swept in from the pub

To help sort and transfer images to Wikimedia Commons (see above), we'll be porting over some temporary templates from wts:

• Template:NowCommons - for files that are already on Commons, whether under the same filename or not
• Template:Move - for files that should be moved to Commons
• Template:Replace - for files that are on Commons, but the version on WV is newer or better and should be transferred there
• Template:KeepLocal - for files that we want to use, but cannot be hosted on WMC (e.g. new building exteriors)
• Template:Ignore - for unused and unwanted files that will be trashed

Additionally, there will be a few support templates for those (Template:Imbox, Template:File other, and Template:Ncd). Ideally all of these templates will be deleted just as soon as the transition is complete, so please don't use them on other pages.

There's much more discussion in the WTS Pub.-- D. Guillaume (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2012 (CET)

If you skip the support template, AFAIK the only problem is that the layout will look very wrong, but this is maybe not an issue since it is a very short temporary issue anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Discussions about new tasks now that the site is on WMF servers

Some new tasks since we've moved to the Wikimedia servers:

• Fix red links to images by uploading the images to either commons or local, or by removing the links if that is not possible.

You mean Special:WantedFiles?

• Red interwiki links to wts: need to be removed.

Maybe a bot could help with this, but we have to implement the WMF bot policy first. --Atsirlin (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to remove all the red links or look at fixing some? I've created User:Thehelpfulone/wts links which has all the pages in the Wikivoyage: namespace that include "wts:" which is essentially all those wts: links for that namespace. Do you know which other namespaces are likely to have wts: interwiki links? I could run this script for all of the pages that would take quite a while and it might be easier to get going if we can narrow down to namespaces that are most likely to have wts: interwiki links. Thehelpfulone 00:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Many pages in the main namespace also have the wts link (for categories of pictures). Maybe we could replace those with links to Commons? –sumone10154^(talk) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm running the script for all pages in the Mainspace and will post a link to a list here once it's done - fortunately some of them appear to be redirects so that should narrow down the number a bit. Thehelpfulone 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see User:Thehelpfulone/wts mainspace for the full list of ~2000 pages in the main namespace with wts: links. Thehelpfulone 12:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We have just done the complete [[wts: --> [[commons: replacement on ru, and it worked pretty well. Although few links are still broken, the automatic replacement is by far the best solution to remove red links to wts categories. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy to do that (presumably for the main space) but can someone flag me or my alternate account User:Thehelpfulbot as a bot? Thehelpfulone 12:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, leave a note to Peter or LtPowers who are most active bureaucrats here. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Peter may not be available right now, but I am sure that Ryan is reading this. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Got your note; in general, I prefer on-wiki communication for openness and clarity. =) In this case, I'm not sure a mass replacement of wts: to commons: is desirable. In particular, I believe most of our wts: links actually point to policy pages, which should be changed to local links or to a page on Meta instead of to Commons. LtPowers (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure no problem, I just was being lazy and wanted to email all three of you together. :P On the Wikivoyage: namespace this may be true, but from what I've found on the Main Namespace, that is articles (User:Thehelpfulone/wts mainspace), all of the pages that I've looked at there don't appear to have any links to policy, because it's an article not a project page. Thehelpfulone 15:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no harm in automatic replacement because links to policy pages should be fixed manually anyway. The problem is that we have some pages (for example, Vladimir) where WTS categories were linked from the left column. Now we get red links in the bottom of the page. We can only fix them automatically, or go through every page manually, which is likely impossible. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I can see doing this in articlespace, then. But we need to decide how we want to link to Commons. A sister project template? A left-column link? And what about small communities that had categories on Shared but do not on Commons? LtPowers (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but links to sister projects is a general and potentially time-consuming discussion. Fixing the broken links is kind of urgent. That was the only point.

Regarding the small communities, I have an impression that Commons has categories for everything, so it's not a problem. Spelling may differ from our old WTS convention, though. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not even close. For example, commons:Category:Villages in New York has only 118 subcats, but there are 551 villages in the state. (Towns are even worse; 72/932.) LtPowers (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the initiative to replace "wts:" with "Commons:" in most countries and major cities. In some cases the Commons category did not exist, so I had to adopt a bit. At a later time a bot would be helpful to replace in the remaining articles but at least there is less red now on the most-viewed articles. Another bot task could be to check whether each Commons category actually exists. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Template:PrintDistricts Template:BASICPAGENAME should be fixed.

What needs to be fixed? Thehelpfulone 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The template uses Template:BASICPAGENAME which is the one that needs to be fixed. It's purpose is to remove the disambiguation in parentheses (display Newark instead of Newark (New Jersey)). Since we don't have the explode parser function anymore, I've temporarily replaced the template with {{PAGENAME}} until we can figure out how to fix it. –sumone10154^(talk) 02:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed! –sumone10154^(talk) 02:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Vote on a new logo at meta:Wikivoyage/Logo.
• Images on this local wiki could be moved to Commons (low priority).

  Not really. The images were not transferred, so the (former) local images are as urgent as those from Shared=( --Atsirlin (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Local images missing filed as a bug: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41985. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Update: per the latest Bugzilla update no images were imported, so local (language version) images will also need to either be uploaded to Commons or uploaded to the local (language version) wiki. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Also note that per https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42022 local image upload seems to be broken. WMF is looking into it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Fixed now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Phase I

Since we have moved to Wikivoyage, we've been in a transitional process of cleaning up before English Wikivoyage is ready to go public. The following jobs need your help:

To do -- Items that require resolution before the WMF migration.

• Finalising drafts of new policies. Please take a look and add comment, support or opposition.
  • Non-free content Seems to be consensus on the draft. Rubber stamp?
    • We need to find out if we're going to have a shared repository for all travel site languages, or if only Commons will be available. (The affected wording is highlighted with a red box in the draft.) We also need to find out how to get WMF to sign off on the wording of the EDP, or if they have any input on it. LtPowers (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2012 (CEST)
    • Will you be looking into that? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:39, 26 September 2012 (CEST)
  • Living persons Fair amount of support for the draft, no objections apparent. Good enough?
  • Wikivoyage:Sister project links Still some discussion going on about whether in-line links should be permitted at all. Procedures and templates have been developed and seem to work OK. Not urgent? Move to pending?
  • Cross-identification of accounts Officially still draft, but in use already. De facto policy. Rubber stamp? No objections, working fine. Stamped. To be moved into wts?
  • Starting a new language version Some consensus to use existing Wikivoyage policy as interim measure. Good enough? Rubber stamp?
  • Some cleanup was done on Wikivoyage:What is an article?, Wikivoyage:Bodies of water, but not much has changed. Not urgent?
  • There may be others, please add if you find any
• Poking around pages in the Wikivoyage namespace and updating them to get rid of stuff like "This site is owned by..."
• Looking for bad links to files that were named WT and now are WV because of auto-substitution. Things where WV doesn't make any sense, and WT was meant.
• Salvaging content added recently to WT
• Plunging forward and writing content
• Wikivoyage:Destination of the Month candidates needs restocking with viable articles that will be different to those on WT
• General cleanup of spam and external links where evident.

Pending -- Items that can be migrated as they are, but are clearly not fully resolved.

• A conflict resolution proposal was made at http://www.wikivoyage.org/general/WMF_Migration/New_policies#Chill-out_room_or_.22The_Consulate.22.3F, with some discussion, but not much participation. Not urgent?

Done -- Items that are substantially completed and ready for migration.

• Organizing policy articles
  • Policy outline moved to en: and cleaned up somewhat. There are still red links. Some are to articles that I can't find, some to articles that dont exist yet. Some of the ones I can't find may have been deleted. Probably OK to go public as it stands, but more fettling would do no harm.
  • Cleaned up even more, shortcuts added, and a few more policies found and added. Most remaining red links are to new policy proposals under discussion.
  • Pretty much done, just waiting for the last few new policy pages, to finalise links.
• Making sure that WT logo is good and gone (mostly from maps) In the lack of evidence to the contrary, lets call it done
  • Might be Probably completed, but hard to be sure.
  • wts:No real world threats Done and dusted.
  • User:Shaund/Sandbox Policies#Creating emphasis Also a summary of existing policy. Just needs to be moved to project space. Done.
  • User:Shaund/Sandbox Policies#Use of Pronouns Also a summary of existing policy. Needs to be moved to project space. Done.
  • User:Shaund/Sandbox Policies#Avoid long lists Not really new, more a clarification of existing policy. Nearly finished. Done.
• Re-designing the Main page. New format posted.
• Removing docents from WV pages that haven't already made the migration to Wikivoyage. They can re-docent themselves at a later date if they like. Use this page to find all the pages with a docent, then look and see if they've come over.
• Wikivoyage:Collaboration_of_the_month states outdated tasks from 2009. It needs to be updated!
• Removing links to "Wikivoyage Extra" at the top of Talk pages. Use this page to find all the pages with Wikivoyage Extra on them.
• Replace {{unsigned|IP address or user name}} with {{subst:unsigned|IP address or user name}}. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unsigned for a list of these! Done.
  • Less than 500 pages listed when I looked. Not too bad. If everyone does a few it will be done soon. They go quickly - most pages only have one instance.

Links to Wikitravel Shared remain

Swept from the pub:

I have found that most countries still have a tag at the bottom for "wts:Category:[name of country]" in red. I didn't remove the ones I saw, because I think this could/should be turned into a sidebar link to Wikimedia Commons by bot. When looking for the place to report this, I found that the Wikivoyage:Feature requests page (linked on the Project homepage under "Requests">"Bugs and features") is a broken page. It is a soft redirect to "wts:Category:Feature requests" which, of course, is a broken link and needs to be fixed. AHeneen (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the commons categories don't always match the wts: categories, wts:category:Urals is w:commons:category:Ural Mountains, for instance. K7L (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to start fixing them manually, but for instance when I replace [[wts:Category:Oceania]] with [[w:commons:category:Oceania]], it does not get displayed, so should I write [[Commons:Category:Oceania]] (which gets displayed fine in the sidebar) instead? Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus and we have a list of these categories with the equivalent commons one, we can go around replacing them using bots. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the logical thing to do, but we still haven't finalised how we will be linking to sister projects. The discussion is stalled, but ongoing at Wikivoyage_talk:Sister_project_links. Please chip in and offer some new breath! :) JamesA ^>talk 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am being super bold and proceeded to replace "wts:" with "Commons" which works well. I fix the category names when wts/commons differ. I understand a policy is being decided, but working links to Commons are still better that enigmatic red links at the bottom of most major article. So far I have fixed countries and major cities in Europe, and going on with North America. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Some articles (very few) have a line with a "wmc:" prefix, but it does not seem to get rendered. It sounds very much like "WikiMedia Commons" though. Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

About going ahead with the replacing, that's fine. It's much better than having the redlinked wts: and we can always run a bot later to replace the commons link with a template if that's what we decide. Right now, it's looking like we'll be sticking with the sidebar "Related sites" links. JamesA ^>talk 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Europe and Americas done. Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All countries and major cities done. There are probably many left, but at least the most viewed articles now have less red. I will fix the remaining ones once a database dump is available. Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there are 5100 wts: left Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The wmc abbreviation is a useful one, and one that will have a relatively large number of links from our keeplocal images once they get migrated here. What do we need to do to enable :wmc as an interwiki prefix to commons? --Peter ^Talk 22:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Issue still hasn't been fixed. Wikivoyage:Feature requests remains a redirect to non-existent wts page. AHeneen (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications needed

I've tried to clean this page up to make it clearer where help is needed and thus make it simpler for people to help out, but I'm not entirely clear on the specific tasks for image migration that we still need help with, so anyone who could add some detail would thus make it much easier for others to contribute. Similarly, it's not clear to me specifically what needs to be done for the wts namespace migration, so more detail would also be welcome.

Tagging and reviewing files on Commons wasn't something that was initially listed on the page, but since that seems relatively straightforward I've added some suggested tasks that people can take part in - please update with anything I've missed or gotten wrong. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter, thanks for rewriting the page on November 27 and clarifying the image cleanup process. Very helpful! Thanks! --Rogerhc (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Hopefully this is the best place to comment, you can move this comment if necessary (For some reason, I could never/still can't access the "old" WV-en/Wts sites over my usual internet connection and so haven't really helped with this task...not really concerned about it now, but sorry). I noticed that Israel uses the file "Israel_map.png" (which hasn't been changed since importing). Since Commons already has a file with the same name, that is what is currently being displayed on the Israel page (this is correct map).

Doesn't look like most of the appropriate region maps have been uploaded to commons yet for use on WV region pages, but I suggest there be a common file name for region maps to prevent mix-ups. A couple pages I've checked that have their region map already uploaded, use various file name formats: United States (Map-USA-Regions02.png), Oregon (OregonRegions.png), Florida (Map_of_Florida_Regions_with_Cities.png), France (France-regions.png). It would be great if all regions had the same file name format (such as Wikivoyage_RegionName_region.png...so "Wikivoyage_USA_regions.png", "Wikivoyage_Oregon_regions.png", and so forth) and during the import to Commons and with beta state of WV, this would be a good time to make any changes. City/park/neighborhoob maps could have a name like "Wikivoyage_Name_map.png".

Standardization can be a good thing. The benefits of this would be that:

• Country/region pages with red links to their regionmap (or the name is already taken, in Israel's case) could be changed now, with the appropriate map visible as soon as it is uploaded on Commons. So if a file needs a new name, less effort would be required by the person reviewing the Commons imports to change all the old links here on WV.
• By prefixing "Wikivoyage" to the file name, it makes for less conflict for existing files, while making clear to the viewer that these files are intended for Wikivoyage. That is, someone looking for a region map of a country may find one of the WV region maps and think it is officially-recognized regions, but by prefixing with "Wikivoyage" this chance is lowered. A line can be added by bot to the description, like: This is a region map that was generated for use on Wikivoyage—the free, worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit. Discussion of subregions and other details of this map may be discussed at [[Talk:RegionName]]. Guidelines for Wikivoyage maps can be found at [[Wikivoyage:How to draw a map]]. Making Wikivoyage clear in the name would also discourage editing by non-Wikivoyagers to the file in ways that conflict with our policies. A file like "City_map.png" would be more likely to get used by another project, say Wikipedia, and a user at that project would be more likely to come along and make huge changes to the map or upload a different version that conflict with WV guidelines and/or make it more difficult for certain users of WV (like slow-internet connection, mobile phone, touch device).
• I can't really think of other benefits to standardization, and of course saying "Standardize for standardization's sake" isn't a valid argument, but WV has naming/use conventions for many topics, why not map file names?

So, of course, who would want to come up with a new policy that would require lots of work? The process of carrying about the above suggestions can probably be carried out largely by bots, using the following steps:

• Bot can search all pages with a region template on WV for the "regions" section to get the file name of the region map (or check last version before WV import...since some users have been deleting the red-link images and a few may have not been caught/reverted during patrols). Rename the file per naming convention(if it's already uploaded to Commons) and fix the link on the WV page, plus any links to the original file name found on WV. The bot would use the name of the WV region page to rename the new file. So: "Map_of_Florida_Regions_with_Cities.png" is found on the "Florida" page and therefore gets renamed "Wikivoyage_Florida_regions.png".
• Add line to description on Commons, like suggested above, about file's use on WV.
• For maps not yet imported to Commons, I don't know how much extra work this would add, but if the file name is not in use on Commons, you could just import it with the current name and then let the above-described bot handle the name/description change. Files which need to be renamed because the name is already taken would be the only added work (I think).

Sound reasonable/doable?AHeneen (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's very reasonable, but I don't know how doable it is. LtPowers (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The bot would need to be somewhat clever to handle problems like this correctly. Doable, but not trivial. Pashley (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How to filter out {{unused}} images?

Is there a way to filter {{unused}} images out of http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:All_files_on_WTS ? That would make it easier to concentrate on urgent images. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd direct this question to the wts pub. (And yes, it would, but I don't have an answer.) --Peter ^Talk 03:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not trivial to tell if an image really is unused, since there seem to be plans to import more language versions. See incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import. It is currently only possible to check file usage on English, French, Russian, Dutch and Swedish Wikivoyage, but until the projects have been imported, it's not possible to find out if the images are used on, say, Spanish Wikivoyage. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Image migration task #2

Not sure if I missed this, but what is the next step after someone has finished reviewing all the images uploaded by a user (so we know the images are ready for upload)? Is the category tagged with {{done}} or is there a list of completed categories that needs to be updated? -Shaundd (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

List the category here and wait for User:MGA73 to import the files in the category to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Images that are still on Wikipedia

There are a few images on en.wikivoyage-old that came from a Wikipedia, and are still on that Wikipedia, usually marked as a possible move to Commons. Is there some way to mark these? Or to encourage the Commons move to go ahead? The Wikipedia image is usually better than ours. Querent (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Jain_swastika.gif and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Swastik4.GIF
• http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Nwexpy.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nwexpy.jpg
• http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Oswiecim1.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oswiecim-urzad.jpg

I have a list of lots of files to move from Wikipedia at User:Stefan2/copy from Wikipedia. If you find more, just add them to that list. I've searched through WTS and most of Shared for pages which contain the words "Wikipedia" or "Commons", but I've not started with the language projects yet. If the files are OK (and not copyvios or otherwise incompatible with Commons policies), then they need to be copied to Commons from Wikipedia. There are two useful tools for this: Commonshelper and For the Common Good. Use whichever tool you wish, and remember to tag the file with NowCommons on both Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. I believe that all Wikipedia projects support NowCommons tags using the same syntax as Wikivoyage. I've moved lots of files from Wikipedia to Commons myself, and there are also other users checking the list of files to copy from Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Replacing images that aren't going to be migrated

http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_ignored , http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_ignored , http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Files_to_be_ignored all contain files that aren't moving to any wiki that WV can use them on. Some of them are orphans but some of them are copyvios etc that may still be linked to from WV articles. Should we start with a bot or similar to alert article editors to this issue? Perhaps pulling the image out of the article and leaving a Talk: message? Or is someone on this already? Querent (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea of leaving a talk message is a really good one. --Peter ^Talk 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can probably do a bot, but not for a few days. If someone starts on one, please reply so that I know not to bother :) Querent (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Before removing a file, you also need to check that the reason in the "Ignore" tag is valid. Also, some images will be copied to this project under the exemption doctrine policy. Ideally, those images should be tagged with "KeepLocal" instead of "Ignore", but sometimes those tags may have been mixed up. Also, some files are tagged with "Ignore" because the images don't have a source or licence. Such images can often be repaired by asking the uploader for more information about the image. For example, in many "no source" cases, the problem is probably that the uploader just listed a licence without writing "I took this image". In those cases, we just need an additional statement from the user saying exactly that. Also, if a file is removed from a page, it is also useful (but maybe too time-consuming) to try to find a similar image to use instead. For example, if a photo of the Eiffel Tower has to be deleted, then replace it with a different photo of the Eiffel Tower from Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's up to the article authors ultimately: they may decide that fighting the Ignore is too much effort when there are plenty of good images on Commons. On the other hand, if we warn them they are more likely to help out with sourcing the image, etc, too. I was thinking of saying something like this (with links and so on):

ARTICLENAME presently uses FILENAME. FILENAME is marked by the multimedia cleanup team as Ignore, and will not be moved to either Wikimedia Commons or Wikivoyage. See WEBPAGE for the reasons for this decision. Editors of ARTICLENAME should either:

• visit HELPPAGE to help appeal the Ignore decision concerning FILENAME; or
• choose a new image from Wikimedia Commons to replace FILENAME and edit ARTICLENAME to use the new image .

It would be really handy if there was a one-stop-shop place where people could go to nominate images they want to discuss an Ignore decision or flag it for further review: at the moment there are "files to be reviewed by user" and "temporary refuge" and similar sites on several different wikis, and not one clear central "I want this image to be preserved and I need help to do it" location. Querent (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think, on reflection, I wouldn't actually edit the page itself with a bot, just put a notice on the Talk page (use a template, add a category etc). Removing or replacing the image is a human editor kind of thing. Querent (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Step 1: I've got a template up at "Template:Ignored media". Thoughts? Feel free to edit. Querent (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Example use at User talk:Querent/Ignored media test

I think in this case, a simple message is sufficient, rather than a large yellow box. =) LtPowers (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for wording in that case? Querent (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The wording is fine; I was only commenting on presentation. LtPowers (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm not wedded to the visuals, I'm just used to bot-edits on Wikipedia being visually marked to a degree. Have removed box. Querent (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, "Ignore" doesn't really mean that a file will be ignored, but only that it is a duplicate of a file from a different project and that it needs to be copied from the other project to get a correct original upload log. Maybe we should check the "ignore" reasons first and replace those special cases with something different. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, for the purposes of this proposed warning to page editors. How much work is it though? :-/ Querent (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the WTS pub. See http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Pub_%28temporary_refuge%29#Some_changes_to_tagging --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Backing off a bit, I suppose my concern is that I have spent the best part of a week on three or four different wikis trying to understand what's going on with image transfer, and am thinking how best to communicate this to more casual editors, who may not be familiar with Commons or its purpose, or what the difference is between red links that will be fixed in the fullness of time and red links that need to updated with new images, and etc. I might well be stuffing too much in that template, but is there an FAQ/help page on the image transfer aimed at casual editors yet, or should we start on one? Most of what I have found is for people who want to help with image transfer itself, not people who need to deal with the fallout of some images being gone for good. It's possible that coming to WV after a long break from WT I may be way at the ignorant end of the bell curve, but it's also possible I'm representative! Querent (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. Encouraging users to go through and check red links and replace them with suitable images from Commons is stage X, but we're just not there yet—we haven't even started the review and transfer process from :en [1], where arguably most of our files were from! --Peter ^Talk 22:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, will it at some point be possible for a bot to check whether images on the -old sites were deleted (which is basically equivalent for the transfer process to an ignore tag), and mark those in the same way? --Peter ^Talk 22:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as the old websites are available, it should be possible to do that somehow. Alternatively, all pages with non-working links could be put in a maintenance category. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Re stage X, I suppose I am mostly enthusiastic to give people a way to help out with image migration who aren't really confident with reviewing copyright and similar issues. (I am not that confident myself on copyright review myself, but coding is something I can do!) With provisos about not all Ignore images needing to be replaced yet, this does seem to be something that people could start on either by JFDI or with the help of a bot. I'll noodle around with some code when I get a chance and see how far I get. Querent (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been removing images that were deleted from WTS for reasons of (a) copyright violation or (b) unacceptable license (non-commercial/no-derivatives). In some cases I found a replacement image from Commons, but in many cases this still remains to be done. In rare cases I had to remove every image from the article because they were all unacceptable. A list of these removals is in my contributions, and enthusiastic users may like to attempt to find replacements on Commons. This, that and the other (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What needs doing?

Swept in from the pub

I must confess to having not followed every single email from the Google group, so could someone summarise here what jobs need doing as we clean up to get this ready for the public? Tsandell (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

That's kind of a good question. Salvaging content added recently to WT is always nice. The main non-technical projects we are working on right now, I think, are organizing policy articles, creating a few new ones, and making sure that WT logo is good and gone (mostly from maps). The first two tasks are mostly taking place on :general. The latter is mostly taking place on :en and :wts, but it's complex enough where I haven't really been able to figure out how to join the effort tonight, unfortunately. --Peter ^Talk 05:13, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Poking around pages in the Wikivoyage namespace and updating them to get rid of stuff like "This site is owned by..." is useful too. I think we have already caught most of that, but I'm sure there are more instances of outdated information lurking about. --Peter ^Talk 05:17, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Bad links to files that were named WT and now are WV because of auto-substitution. Things where WV doesn't make any sense, and WT was meant. --Inas (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Re-designing the Main page would be pretty cool. --Peter ^Talk 06:53, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Right now, I'm just doing what I normally would do; write content. I'd also like to see a new main page before we go public; shall we make that a separate discussion somewhere? We should not only redesign the main page, but everything on the site that represents us, so we can differentiate from IBtravel. ie, logo, map design, colour scheme, etc. Speaking of the logo, that could also be discussed, even before deciding on a name. We would most likely have a competition like other new WMF projects. Some of the logos that have emerged from those comps could even be good options for us (see [2]) JamesA ^>talk 08:51, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

I mostly agree with that, except for map color schemes (if that's what you mean). The maps were designed for re-use everywhere, and have been published on numerous other websites, WMF projects, published in magazines, posters, etc. I also would prefer that we not include logos in maps, since it looks weird when re-used elsewhere. I'm not sure, but I think the name might drive our logo ideas—rugendo, for example, would suggest a traveling gorilla ;) Main page design is being discussed here. --Peter ^Talk 15:57, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

I agree that the actual colour scheming of the maps should not change. But something we should do is change how we display the title, scale, compass and possibly the key/legend. That should tie in nicely with a new logo as well, just as the current "blue/aqua" colours match the old WT logo. But it's not something urgent that we would have to update immediately; it could just be a gradual change. JamesA ^>talk 03:10, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

I've taken the liberty of creating Wikivoyage:Cleanup where I've summarised and listed the jobs that have been mentioned above. I figured it would make sense to collate them and put them somewhere where people will see them. Is it worth sticking a link to the page in the banner at the top of pages? Tsandell (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

What about with pics which name include WT? e.g. http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:Roman-hangul.wikitravel.adams.JPG incl. WT. Do they need to be renamed? Jc8136 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

I think it's only a problem if they display the word Wikitravel. The point is just that we don't want to be mistaken for WT. --Peter ^Talk 15:51, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

We should wait until the policy page is actually moved into the main/project namespace on :general/:en, but a task (for admins) will be verification of cross-identification of accounts [3]. Right now I'm the only volunteer, but will be mostly inactive starting tomorrow. --Peter ^Talk 16:15, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Is there a way to find the non-working docents or shall i simply scroll the articles? Jc8136 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

I've just been scrolling through the names to ones that I don't recognise. Tsandell (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2012 (CEST)

Removing the password

Swept in from the pub

I did not watch neither the recent changes nor the discussions for the last three days. So, I'm not up to date which things still need to be done. Anyway, when I look on the recent changes, it rather looks like tuning the contents of articles. From my side, I would say it's time to remove the password and open the wiki for public access. What do you think? (preceding unsigned comment left by User:Hansm)

There's still a bit of work to be done so I would opine that would be several days premature, Hans.

While there is severe Stalinist revisionism and censorship proceeding apace at WT, it may also be useful to have a password protected back channel for at least a few more days. (grits teeth).

When do you think the switch to the Wikimedia Foundation and choice of name for the English language Travel Guide is likely to be made, please? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 12:01, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

It's too soon. We still need to remove the docents, and reorganize the policy page. Preferably we'd also redesign the main page, although it'd be a stretch. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

I think that we need updated policies and a new design of the main page before going public. The rest is more or less done. Small things can be removed later. And I am sure that we will be able to cope with "Stalinist revisionism", it is not an issue. Atsirlin (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

It depends if we want a huge, public launch or sort of a quiet opening where people can slowly trickle in. I thought it would be more of the latter, and a move to WMF would be the huge launch where we get hundreds of new users. I really can't see heaps of people banging on the doors to get in and edit at this stage, apart from us dedicated people in-the-know. By the way, everyone please feel free to chip in at Talk:Main Page on a new design; discussion has slowed in the past few days. JamesA ^>talk 13:03, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

I would prefer the soft opening, too. Imho the main page is the only thing left. We can and will work continiously on policies, or is a major part missing? Jc8136 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

The only policy I can think of that I would like to have in place prior to opening would be the Wikivoyage:No real-world threats proposed on :general [4]. Otherwise I think we're ready for a quiet opening. --Peter ^Talk 13:56, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

I wonder how quiet a "quiet opening" would actually be. It's unlikely to be as big as when we go live on Wikimedia, but there are a lot of people that will come and check it out. I imagine most people who voted on the RfC would at least pop by. Because of that, I'd love it if we could get a new main page up - even if it's a temporary solution until we get to Wikimedia. But more importantly considering our recent history elsewhere, I fully agree with Peter on getting No real world threats policy sorted before we open the floodgates. Tsandell (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

If we were to launch 'quietly', would we notify everyone who has subscribed to the mailing list that the site is live? Because that may turn it into a major launch. On the other hand, if we don't use the mailing list, I can't imagine anyone except those who check this stuff daily even noticing the new site. I would estimate about 80% of the comments on the RfC don't bother checking for updates anymore. JamesA ^>talk 14:32, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

@Peter: Yes, that's the only policy missing! Shall we label it Wikivoyage:No_real_world_threats? I dare to copy the original from general into en: to get the policy discussion started?

I think that is a good idea, and would go further to suggest that all the policy changes we have been discussing on general should be moved into en so they can be finalised. The NRWT should be policy before opening, the others are less urgent. I also think we should notify those who have requestd it, but don't need to make too big a noise yet.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:16, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

I also would prefer a silent launch by simply removing the password. The big one will come when we have moved to the WMF.-- Hansm (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

Let me resume what things need to be done before opening the wiki to public:

1. Wikivoyage:No_real_world_threats -- done. At least for en:, but this should be sufficient.
2. New layout for the Main Page.
3. Maybe set up a password protected back channel for discussions not meant for public.
4. Other policies?

Is there anything missing? Would you think it's be fine to open the wiki next Sunday, 2012-09-23?

-- Hansm (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

I'm happy with getting things going on 23rd September. I'm less happy about having a password protected back channel for private, non-community discussions. Isn't that what the mailing list is for? And surely, once we're public, we want to involve the whole community in decision making. Given all that we've gone through that led to us moving here, I'd say it's hugely important for us not to treat the community at large in the same way our previous hosts treated us. Tsandell (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

Agreed with Tim on both counts. It would be thrilling to get back to feeling like a real wiki, operating by the ideals we started out with. (Although from a janitorial standpoint, seeing the recentchanges packed to the brim with top-notch edits is kind of awesome.) I am moving NRWT to wts, as it is a policy to be shared. Ideally, it would be policy on general as well (I think?), but I guess policies there need to be vetted by the board? --Peter ^Talk 05:46, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

1. Should NRWT not remain on en: as well as on wts, which is presumably only a part of shared?
2. All new policies created by the subset of editors currently working here, are subject to review by the larger community any time they feel the need. Just like any other policy, so it is OK to accept the new policies on behalf of the community while we are the community, with the proviso that if anyone doesn't like them, the discussion can be reopened at any time, though the policy holds until it is clear that there is a significant case for change. This is inherent in the policy for consensus, but maybe there should be a procedure recommended. I have already made a space for it in the Wikivoyage:Policy outline as Wikivoyage:Decision making procedures and Wikivoyage:It's not carved in stone but the names can be changed. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:00, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Wikivoyage:Shortcuts is good but can i clean the old WT links? Doesn't make sense and less red ink looks way better. Jc8136 (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

I would say yes, and make replacements if you think them useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:55, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Policy outline pretty near up to date. New policies to be added as they become available. The fancy formatting I will leave until we have the full collection of extensions at WMF. Please look through and suggest additional links and re-arrangement. Try it out and see if you can find what you are looking for. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:53, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

While I certainly agree with Peter S' point #2, I'm not positive I understood point #1. If I did, my answer is that our practice has always been to keep cross-language version policies on wts, and to not have duplicate policies between wts and the language versions, unless that language version has a differing policy (e.g., rules governing use of admin tools does vary a bit). --Peter ^Talk 15:19, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Let's remember that when we move to the WMF, all policies will have to be localised between languages and moved to their respective wikis. As Shared will just be merged into Wikimedia Commons and vanish into thin air. JamesA ^>talk 15:48, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

I haven't heard anything about that happening, although the question has been raised. There are obvious reasons to keep it too: cross-lingual coordination, and local(-ish) image hosting for non-free content, per our non-free content policy, not mass-deleting important records of our project's history, etc. --Peter ^Talk 01:24, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

Then that is definitely a discussion we should have soon before moving to the WMF. I was under the impression that shared would merge into Commons. Having two different sites/sources to obtain images from is just very confusing and will cause a mess. In terms of cross-language communication and coordination, I guess we would have to investigate what other WMF sites do. I believe the largest site (English) would just host a separate forum for cross-language discussion. I'm pretty sure Commons can host non-free content under strict regulations; I've seen logos and other things on there. But that'd be for a Commons person to clarify. And the issue with losing all of shared's long history is a tough one. In the end, I think it'd just be a matter of copying and pasting any VERY important discussions onto en: for safekeeping. JamesA ^>talk 07:57, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

Wikivoyage general appears to serve the purpose we need. I have not looked into it in detail. Shared seems a better name though.

• Our free image content will presumably go into commons, but I don't know how this should be done. There may be file name conflicts. Is this something that should be done by a bot or by people? Should it be done as part of the merge or afterwards?
• There is a need for a repository for non-free, fair use images. should this be local to each language or shared amongst them? (local looks less complicated)
• There also seems to be a need for a shared text wiki for policies, discussions on new language versions etc. Like WV general.

What you've said about the images sounds good. Non-free content may need to be hosted locally. In terms of policy/etc, it depends on how embedded we wish to become in the WMF movement. At the WMF, new projects are proposed on meta here. It appears cross-language discussion takes place here. In terms of policies, they are all localised, as different wikis of different languages often want to take different paths. Of course, that great policy outline that was just created could be localised/translated to any new wiki that opens. JamesA ^>talk 08:38, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

That about covers point 1. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 22:34, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

It may be a stupid question, but what about translations? Atsirlin (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

I assume each language will want the policies translated on their site for use by those who can't understand the English version. At some time someone will have to translate the policy pages for each language, but it will be up to each language version's members to do that, as they have the people with the skills needed. The policies may end up being slightly different after translation, but that does not matter as long as the local communities are happy with them - different groups may have different consensus. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 22:34, 19 September 2012 (CEST)

Thanks all former-WT and WV people for your efforts put into the release of the English version. Is there any time line set for other languages? I can start to translate the policies on :fr. What else needs to be done to remove the password and publicly release this version? (WV-en) Fogg (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2012 (CEST)

Name vote at Meta

Swept in from the pub

Question: Should the new Wikimedia travel project be called Wikivoyage? being voted on at Meta. Proposed by one of the people from Meta. Oddly enough they don't seem to have considered it neccessary to tell us. I was privately informed by one of the people from de: who thought it fair to inform us. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guide/Naming_straw_poll#Board_members_and_advisory_board_members • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:35, 20 September 2012 (CEST)

Inappropriate substitution of Wikitravel by Wikivoyage on talk pages

Swept in from the pub

See discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Cleanup.

The policy of not editing user pages is violated by the substitution of Wikivoyage for all instances of Wikitravel. It also renders some text confusing, contradictory or meaningless. It is to a large extent correctable by a rollback of "Archival" user and user talk pages.

The use of the word Wikitravel in discussions is not in conflict with copyright, not can it be construed as using the Wikitravel name to improve our exposure, it is simply history and accurate attribution. The revision was done with an acceptable and neccessary purpose, but has extended beyond the appropriate scope, so should be reverted where it was not appropriate. The point has been mentioned that some users may find the substitution offensive and an invasion of their user rights/privileges.

What are we going to do about it?• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:11, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

What about the post by JamesA at the top of "Templated See and Do listings," where the link is to Wikivoyage_talk:Attraction_listings while in the original post, it obviously would have been to Wikitravel_talk:Attraction_listings? I think that should be reverted, too. Is there an easy way to do that, or does the correction have to be done manually? (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

I would guess that a rollback of user pages and user talk pages should suffice where there have been no edits since the migration. I also think that the technical people could automate a rollback of all user pages and/or talk pages, but would have difficulty if only some were to be done, hence the urgency: the sooner it is done, the simpler it is likely to be. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:22, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

The lists of mirror sites (and particularly the associated talk pages) are a mess, as everything which was mirroring WT is now claimed to be mirroring WV regardless of whether any of the content was scraped after the community moved. WT vs. WV also affects the domain names and attributions on the target sites (for instance, wiki.travel.com isn't an infringement of the wikivoyage name, although a search-and-replace on WT might give exactly that claim). K7L (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2012 (CEST)

The host has decided to mass-replace Wikitravel with Wikivoyage everywhere, except for the exact phrase "WikiTravel" which was kept the same. Yes, this leads to a lot of confusion, especially on Talk pages. --Globe-trotter (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2012 (CEST)

Admin needed

Swept in from the pub

Hi! I'm helping with the cleanup after the migration and have noticed a couple of things that I'd like fixing but require admin rights. Therefore, please can a local admin:

• Copy w:MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here to MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here which will give File:1 5 1 4.svg for example a nicer message than just "This file is from Wikimedia Commons and may be used by other projects. The description on its file description page there is shown below."
• Update MediaWiki:Uploadtext to remove the wts: link to Copyleft (replace with Wikivoyage:)
• Possibly tweak MediaWiki:Welcomecreation to remove the (WT-en) prefix from the username.
• Adjust MediaWiki:Newarticletext to replace the http:// specific links with protocol relative ones. So instead of [http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&preload=Template:Smallcity '''City'''] , put [//en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?action=edit&title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&preload=Template:Smallcity '''City''']
• Add a link to the MediaWiki:Sitenotice giving a link to a page where people can report bugs (ideally bugs should go in Bugzilla for Wikimedia Foundation staff to be able to find them easily and work on them).

If I find anything else that requires an admin, I'll be sure to let you know! :-) Thehelpfulone 16:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, User:Thehelpfulone is ... very helpful, and I'd recommend just making him an admin here so he can go and fix things. :-) --Eloquence (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I have modified the welcome message and the upload message. Regarding the Newarticletext, I tried to change it, but I don't quite understand the difference. Could you explain?

Concerning the image description, I am a bit cautious because this requires a new template, and the WV community has been very conservative regarding this issue. But I definitely support your suggestion and will be glad to implement it, provided that no strong objection is raised. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You're most welcome. Regarding Newarticletext, if you were to create a new article, such a one on AnyPlace, [5] you will see a message there with links to "City", "City District" etc. These links are hard coded to use the http:// protocol. However, if a user is logged in to the secure version of Wikivoyage (via https://) clicking on these links would take them to the http:// version, which would not be secure and they would also not be logged in to their account on the http:// version which would mean they might save their edits as an IP instead of their user account. By replacing the [http://en.wikivoyage.org with [//en.wikivoyage.org you make the links "protocol relative". This means that if the user is editing on the https:// version of the site, the link will be https://, and if they are editing on the http:// version of the site, that link will be http://.

Ah okay, I wasn't aware that the WV community preferred not to have too many templates, as I noticed that Wikivoyage:Template index had quite a few on them, although I can certainly see why you wouldn't want excessive templates like we probably have on the English Wikipedia! Thehelpfulone 17:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I have updated the links in the Newarticle Mediawiki. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. If we didn't create a template but just copied and pasted teh code, would this be an acceptable alternative? I've noticed that's how userboxes appear to be created on user pages, for example. Thehelpfulone 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not the point. I think that the original problem was the sustainability of templates. This should be better now, when we have technical support from the developers of MediaWiki and lots of new people with good expertise in the software. Since your question is not urgent, would you please start a discussion in the Pub? I hope that people will support a change in the templates policy, because we really want to make this wiki look nicer and more distinguishable from Wikitravel. --Atsirlin (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, another request for admins: Please help updating file links posted at User:Stefan2/file links to update. The files appear on pages which are fully protected, so the file names can only be updated by an administrator. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking care of the non-en ones, as all non-en wikivoyages have under 10 admins and so will remain in the gs set. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if people like THO and Stefan2 could be appointed as temporary admins for the purposes of helping with the migration, the local bureaucrats can easily do so on their own authority. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have contacted one of the local 'crats asking him to consider making you two temporary admins to help with the migration work. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated myself some stuff in the Mediawiki namespace, plenty of which had never been changed since the move from wikitravel it seems. A log is available here, lemme know if there are any issues or objections. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Mixed up images

Swept in from the pub

In Ipoh, the picture of Kek Lok Tong temple (old WV) has become a picture of a rally car (new WV). Comparing the old and new versions' histories doesn't suggest any edits that would bring about such a change.Travelpleb (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:IMG 0221.JPG means one thing on the old site[6] and another thing on Commons. Things like this may happen during the image migration. A lot of images are red, and some images will be wrong. Image links are updated as fast as possible. Just don't delete any of the image links even if the correct image isn't shown. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What would be the best way to fix this? Upload the image to Commons under a new name and then relink it from the article?Travelpleb (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All images have to be uploaded to Commons or locally to this project. This is being handled here. If you decide to copy some files to Commons yourself, remember to include an original upload log. I've seen some people copying files to Commons without doing that, and it takes ages to clean things up afterwards. Also, for this one, see Commons:Template:No license since. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two ways I'm uploading to commons. If it is a flickr image, I'm just using the flickr import to get it on commons, and then using nowCommons on WTS. If it is my own image, I'm deleting it from WTS and uploading it as my image to commons. Neither of these instances should need a Original Upload template, right? --Inas (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the image was uploaded to Wts before it was uploaded to Commons, please always add an original upload log. Otherwise, people may think that your image is a copyvio if it turns out that it appeared on some other website somewhere on the Internet before it was uploaded to Commons. I'm telling my bot to reject lots of file name updates because people have forgot to add an original upload log when moving their own images to Commons, and in lots of other cases, I'm adding an original upload log manually. In the Flickr case, I don't see why an original upload log is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is using an original upload log on Commons' upload wizard easy? I can't see how it's done.Travelpleb (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Commons upload wizard can't be used for that. You can generate one using this tool (but only for wts.wikivoyage-old.org, not for the other projects). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. How do I fix this?[7]Travelpleb (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That file has many problems. For example, there is no evidence that the uploader has permitted the image to be used under the licence you specified. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. So what happens now? Delete it? I'm a bit out of my depth on this.Travelpleb (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Original upload log added. Somewhere, someone wrote that files on Wikivoyage are licensed as Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 automatically if no licence is selected. However, this needs to be verified. Also, you selected a different licence when you uploaded the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I changed the license to Cc-by-sa-3.0.Travelpleb (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you changed it to Cc-by-3.0 instead. Also, we still need to verify if images without licence automatically are avalable as Cc-by-sa-3.0 or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Image:Woodstock.jpg appears to be Woodstock (New Brunswick) on en-old and Woodstock, Illinois on commons: K7L (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This one can't be copied to Commons. See Commons:Template:No source since. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well in this particular case, http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Woodstock.jpg is a copyvio from here, so we'll not transfer it (and Woodstock (New Brunswick) should be fixed). But I don't see what Commons:Template:No source since has to do with anything. For most images in our repositories, we are the source. We assume both own work and a valid license at upload (just as we do for text contributions). LtPowers (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Woodstock NB were another instance of the "user:visit lorain county" pattern of a CVB editing a page to post fluff for every business in the area, handing out the same stock photos they send to every media outlet. I haven't checked the history, but the common patterns of using an entire subsection for each "see" attraction (when a paragraph will do) and bloating every listing with promotional language seemed to affect the whole page and not just one or two venues. I'd removed some of the fluff but if this is a batch of handout photos they may all need to go. K7L (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevent images

Swept in from the pub

While checking many articles, I have found that some pictures are not what they are meant to describe. For instance "mex.jpg" was not a pyramid as the desccription said but the face of some guy. "Plaza de Armas.jpg" in the Cusco article was showing the Plaza de Armas of another city. Wikitravel actually shows the true pictures. I believe the problem is that filenames that already exist on Commons are not overwritten.

Could we have a list of all filenames that are in such conflict? We need to check each one, otherwise the errors will be very hadrd to spot. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that example you fixed; not something we want viewers seeing! I also find a mix-up with the Taj Mahal picture on India. This was discussed above at Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Mixed_up_images. You bring up a good idea of listing conflicted filenames. That should definitely be possible. JamesA ^>talk 12:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note that my bot updates these files if they have been properly tagged with NowCommons on Wts. If a file has one name on Wts and a different name on Commons, then the file name will be updated eventually. Before the file name update, you will either see a red link or a different image, but this is a temporary problem. I am hoping to finish with all currently tagged files soon. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Which policies need new discussion?

Swept in from the pub

Which policies do we need to review now that we have moved, there are new editors and will likely soon be many more? Do old WT, old WV and WMF policies conflict anywhere?

There is discussion above of date & time formats, much of it repeating older discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Time_and_date_formats.

Another that has provoked much discussion & controversy is Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy. My proposed rewrite is at User_talk:Pashley/STP. I suppose Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy might also need review.

Does Wikivoyage:Itineraries need review? I remember much debate around questions of overlap, but cannot find it now. A personal peeve of mine is article titles like Istanbul to New Delhi over land which I think should obviously have the single word "overland". Can we fix those? Old discussion at Talk:Istanbul_to_New_Delhi_over_land#Article_title and probably elsewhere too. Pashley (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything which discusses our relationship with Wikipedia might be worth re-checking: Welcome, Links to Wikipedia and Links from Wikipedia. Advice to n00bs in general needs a re-check as joining WMF means that we are getting more Wikipedians stopping by to take a look around. The Database dump looks like it will soon (finally!) exist officially, a factor in How to re-use Wikivoyage guides. WikiSherpa is another to watch, as the app's author did state an intention to use WV data. I've looked through these pages, but I've been here less than a month so my perspective risks to be more wikipedian than wikivoyageur.

For itineraries, it's a little unclear how large an itinerary should be (in terms of geography covered) and how much detail is appropriate. Trans-Canada Highway tries to cover almost an entire huge country and does so badly - a list of towns with no indication of what is in any of them; Route 66 covers a large region with a limited amount of detail, Windsor-Quebec corridor is more detailed (a half-paragraph or so per city) but covers only about twelve hours worth of highway. At some point, these "trip across all of Canada" sized articles can be unmanageable - the rail one only is reasonable because by train one doesn't stop in every little town. WP splits highway articles into individual provinces and states, but w:U.S. Route 66 in Kansas seems a bit overkill in this respect. K7L (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the creator of WikiSherpa did state his intention to exclusively use Wikivoyage data rather than that of WT. I'll try and get a quote. JamesA ^>talk 03:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He did say this in his TechCrunch piece [8] although the page will need to be updated once the switch actually takes place. K7L (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be tired. I misread your post as "the app's author did not state an intention to use WV data". I need more sleep! About the policy page, I think we could try and look at making WikiSherpa more official. ie, allowing the developer to rename the app as just "Wikivoyage". It would give the project more exposure and help in building a brand. It would also remove any confusion from varying names. Wikipedia has begun the process of creating apps, with the recent release of their Windows 8 app. Considering our audience, it's a path we should seriously consider. JamesA ^>talk 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has had mobile apps for some time, I don't know why you're referring to their Windows 8 app as their first one. Also, I doubt the WMF would let a third party developer develop an app that might cause confusion in their branding. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware there were Android and iOS apps (most likely because I don't use those OSes). And letting a third-party develop an app is a much better alternative then waiting months upon months for an official app, especially considering the third-party app is of high quality and has many features already. JamesA ^>talk 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole idea of the WikiSherpa app is that it pulls data from multiple sources (WT/WV, Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap). It's not a project like "Wikipedia for schools" that just selects a few thousand articles from one wiki and dumps them onto a CD/DVD. As such, naming it for just one upstream data provider makes no sense. If the "*.epub" electronic book format (Nook, Kobo) is just a .zip'ped webpage with some XML, odds are it wouldn't take much to create WV or a subset of WV in that format. (Schools Wikipedia was already done at least once, although it ends up as fifteen rather large volumes to download.) That's not what Wikisherpa is intended to do. K7L (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note that Wikivoyage talk:Sister project links had some discussion but is at a stalemate now. JamesA ^>talk 03:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

See also #Geocoding bot and #Script policy below. Pashley (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Redlinked maps

Swept in from the pub

I noticed that some of the maps I created at WT are redlinked, eg Guangdong, why is that? --ClausHansen (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, you may have to make an edit, or at least purge the cache. Then the map becomes visible. Second, about 300 maps were not transferred because of the license problems or name conflicts with the existing files on Commons. These maps are here. Your help with fixing these maps will be appreciated. However, do not transfer any files manually! We have a special bot and special procedure for that. Just add license or rename the files on wts.wikivoyage-old.org. --Alexander (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How does renaming the file on wts.wikivoyage-old.org help? It allows the file to transfer, but wouldn't we then have to fix all of the uses manually? LtPowers (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But do you know a better way of doing it? --Alexander (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to keep the file under the old name on Wts. User:MGA73bot can copy it to Commons under a different name. After that, my bot will find the file and ask if I want to update all file links. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add license info (!) to one those maps that's held up. I fixed it now -- will User:MGA73bot regularly scan the Maps - MTC category to look for updates or should we create a list of updated files? -Shaundd (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I will try to check the whole category today. Then I simply ask MGA73 to upload the remaining maps. --Alexander (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Image transfer: new stage

Swept in from the pub

Many files are yet to be transferred, but we already have a new task: check and get rid of those images that have been transferred. Now there is a list of more than 11000 files grouped into lists of 500 files each. The list contains a summary of the file info on WTS and Commons, as well as the link to the file deletion page. The procedure is simple:

• Check that the files on WTS and Commons are same images
• Check that the Commons image has been reviewed and categorized
• Check that older versions of the file have been transferred
• Delete!

--Alexander (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

...that is, if you are a WTS admin! This, that and the other (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this should not be a problem. Just ask Peter. --Alexander (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asked for some clarification, so here is one:

• On Commons, images for review have a yellow box saying something like "This file was moved to Wikimedia Commons from wts.oldwikivoyage using a bot script. All source information is still present. It requires review..." You can follow the link and complete the review yourself, or leave this image to others.
• Every image should have at least one "normal" (i.e., not a hidden) category
• We need older versions when there is more than one uploader, or significant changes to the image have been made
• If you are not a WTS admin, you can ask one of our bureaucrats for admin rights. Otherwise, post the links to the checked files on my talk page, and I will remove them.

--Alexander (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Site notice

Swept in from the pub

Is anyone using the link in site notice to View this page on the old site in an important way in his cleanup work? If yes, please say so here. If not, I suggest an Admin remove it from MediaWiki:Sitenotice so that folks don't needlessly wander off to the old site, which they will while it is in the site notice, and get confused about where they are--it is visually so similar to en.Wikivoyage.org and some folks don't read their browser's location bar much and could needlessly be led into a navigation nightmare by that link. --Rogerhc (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to believe that it will just confuse users. It looks bad to have a lot of redlinked images, but users who don't understand the reason for those will be even more confused by looking at some -old.org site. The essential images (maps) are almost all migrated, fortunately. --Peter ^Talk 07:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It would confuse users if we left it up after we officially launch, but for the time being I've been making extensive use of it. LtPowers (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am using it too for various things, mostly to confirm if an image has been transcluded incorrectly from Commons because of identical filenames. For beta it's okay, but I assume the wording of the Sitenotice would change to something more welcoming when we officially launch. JamesA ^>talk 05:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures from WT

Swept in from the pub

I've noticed that some pictures that I had on the WT site have not been moved, usually because they were uploaded directly to WT.

Should I upload them to wikimedia commons and re-link them to the appropriate pages?

SBryan (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Files will be copied to Commons by a bot eventually. Do not try to copy the files manually. Users who have tried to do so have usually done this incorrectly (without an original upload log) which may lead to other problems in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SBryan! Moving the pics is indeed the major task right now, here is how to do it efficiently: Wikivoyage:Cleanup#Image_cleanup Cheers :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be patient, thanks. SBryan (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Delay in transfering files to Commons?

Swept in from the pub

Hello all, I was a little out of the running due I organized the prize giving ceremony for Wiki loves Monuments and a meeting, but since roughly three weeks it seems there has been less progress in transferring the files of wts and shared to Commons. Still thousands of non-existing files on pages are mentioned in Category:Pages with broken file links as in the categories on our sisterproejcts. Images should be marked to be moved, then moved by bot and then another bot changes the name on the articles to the new name. (Later the file pages on Commons need a small change.) Where is the delay? Romaine (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

File transfer from WTS is taking place one uploader at a time. File transfer from en.wv-old hasn't really got underway yet. The delay is partly because MGA73 is doing most of the grunt work, and he is only one person. Also because there are so few people working on the transfer task. This, that and the other (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This file was tagged {{move}} on November 4. Why is it still awaiting tagging at Files uploaded by Infrogmation (listed here, which is the first link in step 1 of Wikivoyage:Cleanup)? Was it missed by the move bot? How frequently does the move bot process the tagged images? I like the Current Statistics; they let me see the big picture and evaluate how my efforts may help, or not help, the project. However, I remain confused about what is or isn't happening regarding moving images when I see images such as the aforementioned that perhaps could have been moved a month ago and in any case do not seem to require further human attention, yet remain in the "please tag these images" queue. I am disinclined to energetically participate in a laborious process I don't understand for fear of futilely spinning my wheels in the mud. Perhaps if the process were clearly, simply and accurately explained more people would understand it sufficiently to feel prepared to participate? --Rogerhc (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is talk of doing a mass upload to Commons which I would support. The main delay at the moment is caused by the conservative approach taken with regard to copyright and licensing, two things which are taken very seriously on Commons. Even if files are tagged with the move template they are not being moved until all the other files from that uploader have been checked (this is because the standards for licensing and source info on the old WT Shared were very sloppy). There are some tasks (such as copying KeepLocal files to the individual projects) that haven't even started yet. I am getting frustrated and am beginning to write some scripts of my own to hopefully help expedite the various processes needing to take place. This, that and the other (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little spot-check and it looks as though work really needs to begin at wv.en-old. Head over there and make a start. This, that and the other (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to tag files at English Wikivoyage-old, note that the "Move" template wasn't created before the Template namespace became read-only. For that reason, you have to use {{Wikivoyage:Move}} instead of WTS-style {{Move}}. The other migration templates have the same names as on WTS. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Old File: pages

Swept from the pub:

There is a lot of old rubbish in the File: namespace. Could an admin please delete all the pages in the File: namespace which don't actually have a file associated with them? The data is still available on wv-old if we need it, and the pages are no use here. This, that and the other (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of pages in the filespace, so that would need to be automated. First, though, is there any advantage to keeping them for a little while, as they show what pages link to that image? --Peter ^Talk 07:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That happens even when there is no page there. See, for example, yellow-black.svg. This, that and the other (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have an admin script that should be able to mass delete the pages, but is there a criterion we can use to actually find all the pages in the File: namespace that are to be deleted? Thehelpfulone 11:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the idea is to check for file information pages with no local file. For example, using Pywikipedia, you could maybe do something like this:

for i in site.allpages(u'!', 6):

if len(i.getFileVersionHistory()) == 0: #This happens if there is a file information page without a file.

delete the page

elif page.fileIsOnCommons():

delete the page

Other languages might have different rules. For example, Dutch Wikivoyage seems to have decided that there shouldn't be any local files at all, so maybe it's enough to simply delete everything in the file namespace on Dutch Wikivoyage. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(from User talk:Thehelpfulone - copying this across to keep discussion in one place) Hello! Any chance you could run your file mass deletion script here, to expunge the old file description pages? Depending on your coding framework, you could run an API query like this and delete all files where imagerepository attribute == "". Thanks, This, that and the other (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I saw the discussion on the pub - I'll reply there to keep the discussion in one place. Thehelpfulone 20:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to this, I was trying to get a toolserver database query to find all the pages and was asking one of the people that I know that has a bit of toolserver experience. I'll double check with them to see if they managed to get anything otherwise this API query could work quite well too. Thehelpfulone 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Using the image repository attribute that you explained, I've generated a list of files from A -> O of ones that had this parameter == "", which means that they should all be deletable. The list is in my user space, at User:Thehelpfulone/Files to delete, could someone have a brief look at a few of the images (maybe a random check of some of them) to confirm that they're all deletable? Once this is done, if my account could be flagged as a bot, or User:Thehelpfulbot flagged as an admin, I'll then run the script to delete these file pages, and then run the API query again to get the remaining pages to delete. Thehelpfulone 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give your bot ad hoc admin rights, but that's the sort of thing we'd better get community approval for first. --Peter ^Talk 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I checked every 100th file in that list (meaning file #100, #200 et cetera up to #3900), and those should all be deleted. Many of the files are listed as being in use on various pages. Don't change any pages outside the file namespace - just delete the files and let articles keep claiming that the files are in use there. The files exist on en.wikivoyage-old.org and many of them will be copied from there to Commons. If some red links remain after the migration process has ended, then those will have to be sorted out later. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I've replied in more detail on that script policy page about the script I plan to be using. Thanks for doing that check Stefan - yes I don't plan to delete any of the pages outside the File: namespace at this time. With regards to the Dutch Wikivoyage comment from earlier, is there someone working on these images, if not I'd be happy to help out with that too. Thehelpfulone 21:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that file information pages need to be deleted on 5 different language versions: English, French, Dutch, Russian and Swedish. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This task has been completed for the English language version now, see here for related discussion. For the French version I count about 430 from the first API query that have the imagerepository="", 2 for Dutch, none for Russian and 43 for the Swedish version. I can do this for all of these wikis if everyone would be okay with that? Stefan also for your comment re the Dutch Wikivoyage not wanting any local images at all - they currently have 286 local images (+ the two broken ones), could you point me to a page where I could offer to delete these? Thanks! Thehelpfulone 15:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Red link images

Swept in from the pub

In a number of articles there are red links to images that do not exist in this WikiVoyage or Commons. I assume these references come from WikiTravel copy. Are there plans to bring these over to this project or should they be replaced by other images? --Traveler100 (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Some images are already there, but you may need to purge the pages before the images are shown. Many images are copied from image repositories every day, removing lots of red links. See Project:Cleanup for some details and http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Pub_%28temporary_refuge%29 for discussions related to it. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We are pretty close to a massive red-link photo hunt, to replace red-linked images with ones from Commons. But we're not quite ready yet. 1 Jan is the latest we will start. --Peter ^Talk 19:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean earliest we will start yes? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you start as soon as possible by replacing images which are listed in the "to be ignored" category: http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_ignored

Files in that category are normally copyright violations or images with insufficient information which can't be copied to Commons. Many of them are in use and in many cases there are probably images on Commons which can be used instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you still have images on en.wikivoyage-old or wts.wikivoyage-old that is not yet copied to Commons?

Swept in from the pub

Hello everyone!

Most images from Shared and WTS have been processed but images are still being transfered to Commons but it will take a long time if we want to move all the files that could be moved. There are still many files on en.wikivoyage-old that have not been checked/moved yet. Therefore your files may still just be lying there and waiting to be moved.

It would be a good help if you could check by:

• http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_by_user
• http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_by_user
• (any other language you have edited on)

and find your own category and check the files in there.

All files need a license and a source. Source could be a short text like "I took this photo"/"Photo was taken by <username>" or link to Flickr or wikitravel or another web site. A text like "Copied from Wikipedia" or "Originally on wikitravel" is not enough. So please add full link.

If you can't find the source or no license is mentioned on the source then the file will most likely not be accepted on Commons. In these cases it is almost always better just to upload a replacement or find another file on Commons and mark the old one with "{{Ignore|Some reason to ignore}}".

If you have checked your category and all files are now ok or marked with "{{Ignore}}" or "{{KeepLocal}}" then you could post a link here with a link to your category and a "All checked" and I will have a look at them. If you checked the files before and not all files were copied then please check source and license again and make a new post. Example:

• http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_uploaded_by_Aar0n all checked --MGA73 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have any questions just ask or check by http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Pub_%28temporary_refuge%29 --MGA73 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have 2 photos that have been marked "{{KeepLocal}}" [Jacques Plante's Goalie Mask] [Bear proof Dumpster instructions] These are both my works and can be CC 3 licensed. If necessary I can upload newer versions of the files.  S.Bryan  19:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The reason someone tagged the files with KeepLocal is that it is a photo of a work (probably) made by someone else. It is what we on Commons call a derivative work. Therefore the files can not be copied to Commons unless the creator (of the mask / the sign) sends a permission to use the photos under a free license.

The files can stay on (or be copied to) en-wikivoyage if they live up to the requirements for fair use. I do not know if wikivoyage have a fair use policy yet. --MGA73 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We do: Wikivoyage:Non-free content. --Peter ^Talk 20:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a link on Template:KeepLocal‎. --MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, What happens next? Is there something I need to do? -- S.Bryan  22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved your post to the bottom. You placed it in my post which could be a bit confusing :-)

No, the files have been transferred to en.wikivoyage so you do not need to do more at the moment. However, if this was Wikipedia I think the files would not live up to the criterias for non-free content because the photos do not seem to be very important to understand the topic. So perhaps there will be a discussion of some of the files in Category:Files to be kept locally if they can be kept or not and which templates and information should be added to keep the files. I think perhaps that it would be better to discuss non-free files somewhere else but I'm not sure where the best place is. --MGA73 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I've understood, files have been copied to this project very quickly so that the migration process goes as fast as possible. I assume that there will be a discussion about many of the files at WV:Votes for deletion later, as some probably fail the EDP. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@MGA73, I have found some files that were not marked to move, and a few which were incorrectly marked which I have changed to move. Will the bot get them automatically or should I list them? Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is [this file http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Sharpedges_667197825_9e578daf82_o.jpg] really not allowed? --Globe-trotter (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is in New Zealand and taken from a public road then you are free to use the photograph[9]. Unfortunately under USA law you cannot use it if regarded as a piece of art, even in a public place. Previously would not have been an issue but as the Commons server is in the USA the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes this a little difficult now. Traveler100 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I see now the photo is probably copyrighted by itself, and flickr-washed. So we'll need a new photo for Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious.There are so many of these obvious signs, but all are copyrighted.--Globe-trotter (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't take photos of text, signs or most 2D works in the British Commonwealth. You need permission from the person who made the sign. See Commons:COM:FOP#New Zealand. Also, I'm not sure if it is safe to trust licence claims on this Flickr stream. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone notice there is a very tiny text at the top of the sign, left side for joe-ks.com which claims to be "Largest Source of Internet Humour!" when you go to the site? It really is a very funny sign. - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It looks like a picture found on the Internet. --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the URL when I originally reviewed it. Based on that it looks like a straightforward copyvio. But even if it had been freely licensed by the photographer, we would also need permission from the sign's creator, because in NZ freedom of panarama does not cover 2D signs as Stefan2 explained above. --Avenue (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Peter. Most files tagged with "move" are now moved both on en and wts. A few days ago I moved a lot of files with a "move" to http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_moved_to_Commons_without_a_license. So at the moment there is only:

• 40 in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_moved_to_Commons and
• 62 in http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_moved_to_Commons

If there is other files than these please drop a note. --MGA73 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo hunt!

Swept in from the pub

On a note related to MGA73's post, it's time we get working on a massive photo hunt, and I've updated the sitenotice accordingly.

There are tons of red-linked images at this point, most of which will not get transferred to Commons, and we need to hunt them down and replace them. If you come across red-linked images that you want to rescue, that will require a bit of sleuthing, as goes on at wts-old. --Peter ^Talk 07:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea :-) But I suggest to start replacing the files marked with an "ignore". Other files may still be moved. --MGA73 (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

They may get moved, but we launch from Beta in a week, and need to reduce the number of red-links. It's a shame that photos might get buried in disuse, but we need to move forward. --Peter ^Talk 08:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I just suggested to start with the one with an ignore ;-). Also I asked my bot to update Category:Pages with broken file links so I hope that numbers will drop from 3,521 to something much lover. However I noticed that my bot can't touch pages like User:(WT-en) 2old because it is locked. Could you try to click edit and save without changing anything? If it works it will dissapear from the category. --MGA73 (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That did work. --Peter ^Talk 08:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. I could imagine that Stefan can't replace usage there and my bot can't poke these pages as long as they are protected or we or our bots do not have sysop rights. It is not a top priority so I guess we could find a solution later. --MGA73 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will start my bot and replace images which have been moved to Commons under a different name recently, so that those images won't be lost.

Note that subdomains for es: and pt: were created recently, and a user is currently importing lots of pages to the projects. Will those projects be ready for release at the same time as the other projects? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also: Although you will need to replace all images at some point, I would suggest that you start with the images in http://wts.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_ignored and http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Category:Files_to_be_ignored in case some other images will be copied to Commons in the meanwhile. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also: How are you "touching" the pages? action=purge seems to work fine on protected pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My bot uses touch.py --MGA73 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're joining in the photo hunt, please also consider looking through my contributions :) I have had to remove a lot of images from articles that were copyright violations or otherwise unacceptable. There are hundreds of edits there, all with summary "file deleted on WTS"!

Also please look out for "incorrect" images! Articles like Feasterville or West Bridgewater or Hualien County are just embarrassing! This, that and the other (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Status update

I think we just finished the image cleanup on de:. The shared: images are transfered and all red links are removed, as far as we can see. How is work going here? Is there something I can help with here on en:? -- DerFussi (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Remove/replace red interwiki links to wts" and I guess, this can be done using replace text extension. --Saqib (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the red links on the dive site articles and found that some had simply never been tagged to move, and others had been incorrectly labelled. I have now corrected/added move tags. Will the images now be automatically moved, and roughly when should I look for them on commons? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

MGA73 indicated that if you post a request at Pub#Do you still have images on en.wikivoyage-old or wts.wikivoyage-old that is not yet copied to Commons? that he'll/she'll re-run the bot to migrate any images that you've updated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you tagged a file for moving although it doesn't say who the photographer is: [10]

The photographer is the person who uploaded the file in this case. I know him well. I can ask him to add his username as source and author, but he is not a regular contributor, and I don't know how this should be done as he is not registered on Wikivoyage. Are there any suggestions? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Without any information on who the photographer is, the file can't be moved. Also files like [11] and [12] need to have the permission checked by OTRS. If you have permission to use them, just send the permission to OTRS (see Commons:COM:OTRS) once the files have been moved. Also, for [13], it says that the permission is "to put them up", but on the file information page, it says that the image is available under cc-by-sa-3.0. "Put them up" and "cc-by-sa-3.0" seem to be different licences. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of the permission for all the aerial photos from Director General of Surveys and Mapping that I uploaded and can dig it up and send it to commons. Please copy the images over, and I will send them the document

I have sent a request to Steve Benjamin to clarify permission for the Atlantis photos. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the two South African images a bit: "Imagecredit" replaced by "subst:User:MGA73/Imagecredit" and "subst:OP" added in the permission field. I hope that this will result in an "OTRS pending" tag on Commons when/if the files have been copied over. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For your information, it seems that some or all of the images have been moved to Commons now, so consider sending the e-mails to OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I will do that. Thanks, 41.145.149.222 05:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot to replace images?

Swept from the pub:

I can not see a solution to replace images of flags, there are articles with more than 50 images in the Portuguese version, and I saw that you have changed here, it was handy that you did? or used bot?? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 09:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, get in touch with Stefan. He has the bot to do this kind of replacements. --Alexander (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a bot which can update file names if a file is available on Commons under a different name. The bot does things like this. The old site has a file called File:2006 08300085.JPG and the file was copied to Commons under the name File:Darcha in the Lahaul region.jpg, so the bot updated the file name in the article in which it was used. Flags are usually listed as available on Commons under a different name, and this was used by my bot to replace low-quality flags on English Wikivoyage (and other language editions) with high-quality flags from Commons.

I can do the same thing on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions if you wish. Apart from adding missing flags, the bot would also add a lot of missing photos, since photos also may be on Commons under a different name. However, I do not currently have a bot flag on Spanish or Portuguese Wikivoyage, so if I run my bot there, there will be lots of entries in Special:RecentChanges on those projects. I don't know if I should create a bot nomination on those projects or what I should do. Also: The bot flag can only be set by a bureaucrat, but there are no bureaucrats on the projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why there are no bureaucrats is discussed at meta:Wikivoyage/Lounge#Legacy admin rights, and it would be good for people here to weigh in there. I'm happy to help on :es, where I was a bureaucrat pre-migration, but if we require new admin nominations for old version imports, I'll probably just leave it be. --Peter ^Talk 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that discussion. I think that everyone who had a sysop or bureaucrat flag on Wikitravel before Internet Brands began with arbitrary permission changes should get a sysop or bureaucrat flag on Wikivoyage. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your attention, what can be done is ask the flag via Stewart, as I just did to another bot (m:Steward_requests/Bot_status#Sumone.27s_bot), and there are no problems with gringos bots running in the Portuguese version. :). And you could also ask an authorization for a global bot, I think it may be more beneficial.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 08:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Global bot status may, I believe, only be used for interwiki bots, but I'm not planning to run an interwiki bot. According to m:Steward requests/Bot status, I have to wait for at least a week before a bot flag can be set. Request made at pt:Wikivoyage:Bar dos viajantes#Bot. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

wts: links

swept from the pub:

Hi. I've now gone through the remaining now-broken and redundant wts: links, in a way that I believe preserves all the remaining useful information that might be in them.

Firstly, I used a bot to remove those which were either in an article which now has a Commons link, or where the wts: link is exactly the same as the article title (give or take a Category: prefix), in which case they didn't add any extra information that could be used to find Commons material. These two steps removed all but ~170 of the previous ~1400 wts: tags.

I then converted the remaining ~170 wts: tags to instances of the {{wts}} template, stopping them from generating spurious text in the article (as broken wts: links are no longer hidden), and adding them to a hidden category Category:Pages with old wts links. If people would like to go through those and fix them by converting them to Commons links wherever possible, I can take care of most of the rest of the work in finding Commons links for all other articles using my bot.

I have made a start on working on hand-converting the entries linked in Category:Pages with old wts links, just to get things going. -- The Anome (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Great work! I've been doing some of these. --Globe-trotter (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There are only 79 to go, now... -- The Anome (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is done? --Peter ^Talk 03:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are still a few soft redirects to wts, these are in Category:Pages to be imported from wts. –sumone10154^(talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

Based on comments on MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Launch I completely overhauled the content of the cleanup article to reflect the fact that we've mostly moved on from tagging old images and are now fixing red-links and performing other tasks. In hope of using this for launch I've also included a number of other helpful cleanup tasks, with the thought that any surge of contributors we get from launch might be directed towards participating in some of the easier cleanup jobs needed around here. Please add/update/edit as needed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rupees (₹)

The '₹' character doesn't show up for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. (On Firefox, I get a box with the numbers '20B9' inside.) Should we really be using a character that hasn't been widely disseminated yet? LtPowers (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun on this. I am able to see the character on Chrome and Firefox, but not on IE. — Ravikiran (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete

Is this page still relevant enough to be worth keeping around? --Peter ^Talk 19:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well there is still plenty of cleaning-up to do but then we could just link better and expand the text of Wikivoyage:Cleanup status stats. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could have some sort of highly visible page that linked to tasks that need doing (like red-link image removal). This page has served that purpose well, but perhaps it should be renamed to make that purpose clearer? -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete links

Swept in from the pub

Near the top of Special:WantedPages, with 12 to 21 links each, are a dozen or so files whose names start with "Shared:" or "wts:", links to WT's shared space which of course does not exist here. I am inclined to create most of them as redirects to the corresponding pages in Wikivoyage: space or on Commons, mainly to make the Wanted pages list more usable.

Is this even possible, or will the mediawiki parser see the colon and refuse to treat a page as a normal redirect? Is it a good idea? Are there alternatives such as redirecting them all to a single page "You have followed an obsolete link ..." Pashley (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd think it would be easier to just go through and either change the link to the updated location (Wts:Votes for deletion >> WV:Votes for deletion), or delink them if no current analog exists. This could be done pretty quickly with AWB. Texugo (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but I'm not an AWB user. Would anyone care to volunteer? Pashley (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pashley: I could help but I'm not always sure where they should point. E.g. the policy on language expeditions: should it go here or somewhere on Meta or possibly to Incubator? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Help needed: Fix many simple errors

Swept in from the pub

Alex and me maintain this list of URL and email misspellings that you can easily fix.

It is updated automatically every 2 weeks, so bookmark it and come back whenever you have a minute to kill. Feedback welcome! (bug tracker, source code) Thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Syced - had previously fixed lat and long issues in your list as well as a couple URL's and emails. Most issues you had listed with emails were multiple email addresses (am not sure what the procedure for handling multiple emails is - keep just 1?) -- anyhow your link above no longer is accessible -- Matroc (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

URL fixed, thanks! Currently about 30% of the email errors seem to be multiple addresses indeed. Better fix the other 70%, or concentrate on URLs and lattudes/longitudes :-) Thanks for your help always! Syced (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

New functionality for finding bad syntax on pages - Error highlighter

Swept in from the pub

User:WOSlinker has built functionality into our listing templates to highlight potentially invalid phone numbers or bad email addresses, but that capability doesn't seem to be widely used. To make it easier to see listings that might need fixes I've created an "ErrorHighlighter" gadget that can be enabled from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. After enabling the gadget, if a listing on a page contains a bad phone number or multiple email addresses then it will display with a red warning message next to the invalid value. My expectation is that we will be able to expand this functionality to other types of warnings as time goes on, potentially flagging broken URLs and other problems.

@DaGizza, WOSlinker, Nurg: If you enable this new gadget you can then remove the .phoneinfo style from your userspace common.css. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A common cause of Category:Listing with phone format issue exceptions seems to be low-premium numbers which charge for "information", like:

• Cost Lee Kahl Picture House, 1 Dodgy Lane, SW1 LL, ☏ +44 872 WE-SOAKU (93-76258) (£6.66/minute plus random carrier-specific access charge). Because it's simply not enough to just overcharge you for cinema and overcharge you again for greasy popcorn, here's a low-premium number where you have to pay to call us to hear a recorded message drone on about what's showing today. Ha ha, suckers! (No bloody freephone here, we only disclose the cost because Ofcom said we must). 

K7L (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

WOSlinker or someone with experience in writing MediaWiki modules might be able to tweak the module scripts to weed out false positives - I'd take a look but my plate is fairly full at the moment. On a related note, the project currently occupying my daylight hours would be much, much more entertaining if all bug reports were written up like the one above. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the listing that's actually getting flagged in the main United Kingdom article is:

• Traveline, ☏ +44 871 2002-233. Calls cost £0.12 / min. from within the UK. Traveline provides online travel planner services for all public transportation across Great Britain except planes. They also have separate planners dedicated to specific regions. Alternatively you can download their free apps for iPhone and iPad and Android. (updated Feb 2016)

Perhaps it conditionally accepts the extraneous text (but only if its parenthesised, not otherwise)? K7L (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Some text is allowed for example (mobile). In this case change with the text (high price). As the price will change but the fact that it is an extra charge on top of normal phone rate will not. BTW this is a good enhancement. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In the above example the extra text should be in parentheses, but even with that change it looks to me like there is a bug in Module:LinkPhone in which (text that includes a number) is being treated as part of the phone number rather than text to be ignored. It works fine when the text in parentheses doesn't include a numeric value. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It was deliberate to not work if the bit in parentheses included digits as I wasn't sure if it would work with all combinations, but it seems to be fine, so I've updated the module, and it now allows digits inside the parentheses section at the end of the number without flagging it as an error. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)