Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

Welcome to the Pub Shortcuts: WV:Pub WV:TP The Travellers' Pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. To start a new topic, click the "Add topic" tab, so that it gets added at the bottom of the page, and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) Before asking a question or making a comment: Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages. If you are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge. If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article. If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment. If you are wanting travel advice on a specific matter see the Tourist Office. If you have an issue you need to bring to the attention of an administrator, try Vandalism in progress. If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead. If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution. Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta. Pull up a chair and join in the conversation! Click here to ask a new question

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order. A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page. A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page. A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question. A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place. Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Project:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.

Community Notification: Nigeria Expedition

Dear all,

I wish to inform you of the proposed Nigeria Expedition; a project to promote travel information and tourism in Nigeria by improving existing and create new articles about cities, villages, geographical areas/regions, churches, monasteries, buildings, schools on the English Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. See the details of the project by using the link to the grant: [1] If you would love to join and participate, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Timmylegend (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Timmylegend: Thanks for keeping us updated. On the grant application, do you know what kind of "community endorsements" they're looking for? Because if it's the support of the host community (i.e. English Wikivoyage), I'm sure several of us will be happy to voice support over there.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The endorsements process is for anyone (Wikivoyage or otherwise). Make a list to sign your name in that section if you think this is a good idea. It's helpful but not required to say something about whether you might participate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have expressed my support at the link. I encourage anyone else who considers this a worthy project to do so. One suggestion, Timmylegend: You might also consider adding photos relevant to the articles that will be created and improved as one of the goals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for the endorsements, comments, suggestions and support. I will do well to notify the community when the project commences. Timmylegend (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Timmylegend, I'm concerned that there isn't much voting on your proposal. Have you done much to publicize it on Wikipedia? If you add the uploading of new photos relevant to the Wikipedia and Wikivoyage articles to the goals of the project, you might be able to publicize it on Commons and get support from there, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek, Thank you for the suggestions. I would work on them. Timmylegend (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!, WhatamIdoing. Thank you for the endorsement, support, and feedback so far. Due to some technicalities, the organizing team would like to request a short meeting where questions can be asked and the learning curve shortened. Kind regards. Timmylegend (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tell me more about what you have in mind — agenda, how long a meeting, what platform, how long? Though I feel like for me, it would be more convenient to direct people to the following pages and relevant links within them — Wikivoyage:Welcome, newcomers, Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians, Wikivoyage:How to edit a page and Wikivoyage:How to start a new page — and then take any questions anyone has on my user talk page. That also has the virtue of not being tied to people's schedules. If you recall, I was unable to participate the last time you had an event because of time differences between New York and Nigeria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Chatrium PR people now

Watch out for touts adding promotional listings for Chatrium hotels, and especially "Eat" listings for their uninteresting-sounding buffet restaurants, which are very unlikely to have numerous patrons who aren't staying at the hotels in question. Wikivoyage:Don't tout essentially prohibits hotels from also listing themselves in "Eat", "Drink" or any other non-"Sleep" section, unless they include restaurants or bars (or spas, whatever) that are independently famous and patronized largely (say, more than 50%) by people not staying at the hotel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ikan Kekek, am I allowed to list a hotel for eat in Innamincka, that is the only restaurant available in the town along with a servo; which isn't really one. SHB2000 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In small places one has to use common sense, and do what is best for the traveller. I'd just point to the hotel in prose: "The only places serving food are the hotel restaurant in X, and a servo: [listing the servo]".

In any real city, listing the restaurant in Eat is clutter and distracting from more interesting eateries, as the reader can assume there is a restaurant in any hotel, and check those listings if they want to go there.

–LPfi (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, although only a town of 44 people with enwiki now saying it's 15, it certainly is a place I really want to go. SHB2000 (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So yes indeed, in an article about a tiny town, it's indeed reasonable to mention that the hotel is the only place with a restaurant, a bar, etc. The full listing can be in the "Sleep" section or the section for the most prominent aspect of the establishment, but it should be mentioned in every relevant section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to assume there's a restaurant in any hotel. Of the hotels closest to me, it looks like half of them have restaurants and half don't. I don't think it's worth a double listing, but I think that the quick mention that Ikan Kekek suggests would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for being sloppy. It is reasonable to assume they might have one. So if listed restaurants are far from where you are going to stay, you could check the listings for nearby hotels. They do not need to appear in Eat for that. For small places the situation is different. –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked their website, they do have one and tripadvisor also tells me they have one. SHB2000 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Right now there are 6 external links to the same commercial website (the hotel) in the Innamincka article. I think that is far too much. I think a single listing in the Sleep section, mentioning all services offered, would be a better solution. --FredTC (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Innamincka is a tiny town, I think it's important to mention the hotel in every relevant section, and it might merit full listings in more than one section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Monterrey districts

As it stands now, none of the articles on districts for the Mexican city of Monterrey are particularly overflowing with content. If I understand the municipal boundaries correctly, only Monterrey/Centro and Monterrey/Outer Monterrey are technically "actually Monterrey", but then we don't have to slavishly follow administrative boundaries. So, what do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wonky Yugoslavia

I'm trying to create a dynamic map (User:Nricardo/Sandbox3) to replace the not-quite-right static map at Western Balkans, but the mapshapes for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia aren't filling properly. If I change type from geoshape to geoline, the outlines do populate (but without fill color), which is weird. I checked that the Wikidata and OpenStreeMap IDs are populated in the respective databases. Something must be off somewhere along the line, and I don't think WV is the problem. French WV is showing the same behavior (fr:Yougoslavie), though they use the older html tag syntax. Any ideas, folks? Thank you. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For B&H, the respective map query returns empty data, as compared to e.g. working Serbia. So there's either bug in OSM data (incomplete boundary in the relation), or some bug in the wikimedia map importer. Both are possible... I summon @RolandUnger:, since he has probably more ideas to figure out what's happening. :-) -- andree.sk(talk) 19:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator ^(?)
Task T218097

The shape contour of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not closed, that's why it cannot be the border line of an area. It is working with geoline, {{mapshape|wikidata=Q225|type=geoline|fill={{StdColor|T1}}|title=[[Bosnia and Herzegovina]]}}. It is commonly known that there are many cases in OSM where contour lines are not closed. Normally these lines should automatically be closed by the mapserver software. Unfortunately it seems to be a never ending story. --RolandUnger (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@RolandUnger: I see that Bosnia and Herzegovina is fixed now. I believe that was your doing, so thank you! Any ideas on Croatia? --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Questionable additions at Budget travel / Minimum budget travel

Just look at their revision histories. I have thus far reverted, but would like to step away from this and would like an additional set of eyeballs. To me those additions seem very clearly not in line with our way of writing travel content, but I could not very well put it into words or policies... Certainly the linking to aggregators is at the very least a grey area and probably more in the realm of "frowned upon"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look great to me either. I can see the user's intent, but it's a bit sweeping and the grammar/writing really leaves stuff to be desired. Good revert, would've made it if I were the one on Recent Changes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Flightnavigator has now made quite a strong accusation in an edit summary: "If you want to start a discussion, you can do so on the Talk page. I have the right to add helpful content for the travellers. And I will so as long as you call my content "stuff". Are you working for the tourism industry in a high price country?" Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. It can be frustrating for new users to see their edits reverted. I notice no one has actually taken time out to explain to him our policy against using aggregators. A message on his user talk page might help him understand why he's being reverted. Hopefully he'll be gracious about it, and let's wait to see if he is before we start getting confrontational. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Andre, here. SHB2000 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I worked for an airport pre-pandemic and plan to do so again, but I can't see how that's in any way relevant. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Technical question

I would like to try to "fish out" a list of all the tourist attraction articles in the English Wikipedia for a certain country in order to use that list in the Hebrew Wikivoyage.

Some years ago I figured out how to do this but since then I forgot, so I was hoping some of the experts here could maybe help me figure it out again.

So, for example, I would like to be able to take a category like Category:Tourist attractions in Spain and create a list that contains all the articles in that category and in ALL the sub categories (at least 5 levels down that category tree).

Is there any easy way to accomplish this? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ויקיג'אנקי: I believe that this will give you what you seek. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nricardo: thanks! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the Nearby Attraction tool. This finds all the English Wikipedia articles (max 49) within 10km of the nominal centre of an English Wikivoyage article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@AlasdairW: Oh wow! that one is amazing. I saw there's also a climate template generator in there for the climate template used in Engvoy... we at Hebvoy use the Wikipedia climate template... is there a similar generator capable of creating new climate templates for Wikipedia articles? (Which we could then transfer to Hebvoy too) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have only used the Nearby Attractions and Nearby Destinations tabs. See Wikivoyage talk:Listings#New_editing_tools_for_generating_article_content for a discussion on these tools. AlasdairW (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please help me improve this 100-most-prominent-tourist-sites-in-the-US list

So I are slowly and gradually implementing a new feature in Hebvoy in which the "Other destinations" section in 83 most toured countries articles would be expanded from 5 to 9 most prominent sites to around 60 until 100 most prominent sites that might also include some of the most prominent tourist sites located within cities.

I first noticed the need of such expanded lists as because the articles of the most prominent traveled large countries, which only present very few sites, made it very confusing for our readers to figure out from a quick glance where are the areas of those countries which are most worth focusing on (for them) when they would be driving around in those countries looking to see the "highlights" in a relatively short amount of time available to them.

The process by which I use to create these big lists is as such - first I extract a big list of all the tourist destination articles in a certain country at the English Wikipedia (from categories like Category:Tourist attractions in Spain), afterwards I sort all those articles by pageviews during a rough approximation of the tourist season (March until the end of September, in a pre-covid year), then I go over the one hundred top results and make sure to pick the most sought after articles/sites that actually make sense, and the final stage of the process is a peer review process in which more Wikivoyagers help improve the list as much as possible (which I am hoping to achieve with the help of you guys in this thread, as there aren't many people active on Hebvoy these days).

This is the list.

If possible please help me improve this list by mentioning below which sites you recommend adding and which sites you recommend removing. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope it's ok that I bring this up here :) ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure it's OK, but (a) it's a thankless task - even trying to agree on a top-10 list of "must sees" in New York City means plunging into controversy, and (b) these are only certain kinds of sites, as I don't see a single museum mentioned, and I have no doubt that the Metropolitan Museum, the National Gallery and the various Smithsonian museums in D.C. get huge numbers of visitors every year (and probably also MoMA and several others). I see Faneuil Hall. What about the Boston Museum of Art, or simply the Freedom Trail? I feel like you'd do better having separate lists of parks, amusement parks, zoos, national monuments, mountains and mountain ranges (I see the Appalachians, which literally extend from Georgia into Canada, so that's hardly a place), city squares - and then how about museums, great buildings....How much you want to do is up to you, but I doubt how useful this kind of somewhat random, undifferentiated list is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. This list is currently not finalized. I’m hoping more people would help improve it. Eventually it’s all down to the consensus regarding what should be in and what shouldn’t. Which specific sites would you remove from it? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you've missed my point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that unless only 5-10 destinations are picked as the prominent “other destinations”, it’s pointless to make a bigger list. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You really didn't understand; do you see that my point about the difficulty in agreeing on a top-10 list of "must sees" in New York City was mentioned in order to make clear how well-nigh impossible it is to create an agreed-upon list of top attractions in the entire country? Instead, I'm suggesting you make separate lists for separate categories of attractions. Furthermore, a lot of what you're listing should simply be covered in a United States National Parks article and one on United States National Monuments. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No, that is not what he is saying. You might want to read it again, with thought, but I get the impression you won't get it anyway. Your list will be more or less random (or rather: arbitrarily biased), and more people participating will not solve that problem, and IK feels awkward about that. You don't see the problem and won't see it, so you will get a list that is good enough for you, only a few more people recommend adding or removing a few entries. But you might at least heed the advice of categorising the attractions to see whether you are content with the distribution among them, and have the chance to treat some categories in a different way. –LPfi (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at the map, it's obvious the list is heavily biased toward national parks and monuments. I, too, noticed the complete absence of any museums -- the conspicuous lack of any markers within 50 miles of Washington, D.C., is arguably sufficient grounds to justify scrapping the entire list and trying again using a different methodology. Asking what specific sites we'd remove and which ones we'd add to a list of 100 sites within a country as large and as diverse as the United States is definitely not the right question: I doubt any of us has been to more than half of these sites. Powers ^(talk) 21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to do a different list where an equal amount of items would be given to various sub categories of items (museums, national parks, etc.) - I would definitely consider doing that. In general though, I think I have been misunderstood with what I am trying to accomplish here. I am trying to create a useful list for the traveler by combining the use of technology to create a rough initial list, and then relying on a peer review process to further improve the list. From my experience so far, the end product is usually far superior than what any individual would have managed to create by themselves. The first list we created in this way was the list made for the Israel article at Hebvoy (which is probably the ultimate list any Israeli would love using as a "bucket list" of sites they want to see in their own country before they "kick the bucket"). As an Israeli, whom know many of the sites on the list but never seen such a comprehensive list, I was very impressed with the final list we made in that instance. I will also add that, based on my vast experience from creating content for the Hebrew Wikipedia, in many instances I noticed that other Wikipedians heavily object to creating content which isn't based on pure empiric data, so for people like that, a list of the most prominent people/sites/films/etc., that is purely based on the consensus between a large group of people is problematic and non-encyclopedic (nevertheless, content like that is needed even there in the instances of decade articles for example like 1990s and 2010s (just an example). I believe the same issue is happening here - most of you probably prefer that there would be a better more empiric method or a method that makes more sense to pick the items on the list rather than the process I suggested which heavily relying on the perception of people, because content that is mostly based on the perception of a group of people can't end up being good enough. I believe that unlike Wikipedia, in Wikivoyage eventually it should be more encouraged to present information that a group of editors have come to an agreement upon that it includes the most notable sites within a certain city/region/country for Wikivoyage to eventually be super useful for the readers. But either way, I must say I appreciate all your feedback regardless, and would have to consult about your points with the few other active Hebvoy users to see how this idea could be further improved. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about your English-language reading comprehension ability, sorry. When you start with a straw man like "a different list where an equal amount of items would be given to various sub categories of items" that no-one is suggesting, I'm very disinclined to read further. Are you really having as much trouble reading the plain text of the responses in this thread as you seem to be, or are you just making a very unfortunate habit of adding totally unwarranted assumptions to the plain meanings of the words we are typing for you? Because if that's the way you're going to keep reading responses to you, everyone is utterly wasting their time and I'm outtahere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You wrote "I feel like you'd do better having separate lists of parks, amusement parks, zoos, national monuments, mountains and mountain ranges (I see the Appalachians, which literally extend from Georgia into Canada, so that's hardly a place), city squares - and then how about museums, great buildings....How much you want to do is up to you, but I doubt how useful this kind of somewhat random, undifferentiated list is.". ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

What's your point in quoting my words back to me? I know what I wrote! Where do you see "equal amount (sic)" or "equal number"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ikan, you're being a little too aggressive. Dial it back. "Equal" may not have been the right word for ויקיג'אנקי to use, but it's a relatively minor point; "equal" or "comparable" or "similar" could all go in the sentence and the purpose of the sentence would remain the same.

@ויקיג'אנקי:, I don't think it's that we'd prefer a more objective list; much the opposite in fact. At Wikivoyage we often have to rely on subjective ideas, backed by consensus, to curate our travel guides. The problem with the U.S. list as it stands right now is that it's not even a good starting point. It's too far from a comprehensive list to be useful; we'd be better off just trying to compose a list from scratch. Powers ^(talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you think I'm being "too aggressive", but in no way had anyone suggested that every category of attraction needs to have anywhere near an equal number of entries, and that's not a "relatively minor point" because it's part of the larger point that ויקיג'אנקי has misunderstood or mischaracterized all the responses in this thread, making it seemingly pointless to continue responding. But have the last word in the thread if you like, and I hope you enjoy your day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that the 100 best destinations for an English speaker is likely to be different from those for a Hebrew speaker. Museums are often of little interest to me in countries where I am not good at reading in the language. Similarly residents of a country may be more interested in some destinations than other English speakers (e.g. US travellers may be more interested in museums of European art than visitors from Europe). It may be better asking this question on Hebvoy, or in other language WVs. AlasdairW (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

New MediaWiki logo

MediaWiki has a new logo (see mailing list, MediaWiki.org and T268230). Can someone please update Template:WikivoyageSister to use File:MediaWiki-2020-icon.svg instead of File:MediaWiki-logo.svg. Thanks --Nintendofan885 (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We should perhaps not rush it. The linked MediaWiki website still has the sunflower. –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It displays the new logo for me --Nintendofan885 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the new logo. Ground Zero (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the new logo too. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Same here. I have gone ahead and changed it in {{WikivoyageSister}}. -- Wauteurz (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems they haven't lessened caching times in anticipation of the change. I still get the sunflower at their main page. –LPfi (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon at the lower right corner of every page also has to be changed. Why did they change their logo, anyway? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The "MediaWiki.org" (project page) link above explains the reasoning. The old logo is a bitmap image (in contrast to vector graphics), with "too realistic" fine details, making it hard to adopt to smaller sizes and special applications. There may also be some "not following modern trends" reasons, but if so, they are not spelled out explicitly. –LPfi (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It happened for the same reason that everything else happened: A volunteer wanted it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically, the old MW logo looks outdated and unscalable in 2020s (SVG version exists but it is ugly IMO).--Vulphere 10:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Global rights

Does Wikivoyage have, or want, any kind of global rights policy (which of the other English projects, Wikipedia, Simple (which for some reason I can't link), Wikibooks, and Wikinews have)? I'm curious in particular about global rollback, considering that hasn't (AFAICT) been unbundled on this project. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why I'd want such rights. Maybe some other bureaucrat or admin might. Anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

To make it clear, this would be a policy as to what people with global rights already (e.g. grollbackers, stewards, etc) are and aren't allowed to use on Wikivoyage, such as whether global rollbackers are allowed to use rollback here (they're restricted on some projects). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Are you sure stewards don't have the right to roll back a series of edits here? We've had some excellent help from stewards who've gotten rid of vandalism and blocked vandals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it would be an opt-out policy, as small projects need the global people handling things until they decide they can stand on their own. I have seen few problematic actions from global rights users, so I don't think we need a policy – which would need maintenance when the systems change. I suppose the defaults are good enough, and otherwise we can return to the subject when we notice problems. –LPfi (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the help stewards have given us. It's been very important at times when there weren't admins around to take care of things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that we want any sort of restrictive policy. The only policy that I can imagine us wanting would say "Help wanted" and "Thank you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet (and others): An interlanguage link has three parts, and sometimes you need all three. The parts are project, language, and page. If you don't include the project, it assumes that you mean the same project that you're already at (Wikivoyage). If you don't include the language, it assumes that you mean your language (English, for most of us). If you don't include the page, it takes you to the main page. Therefore:

• [[w:en:WP:GRP]] means Wikipedia – English – page named "WP:GRP"
• [[w:simple:Wikipedia:Global rights policy]] means Wikipedia – Simple English – page named "Wikipedia:Global rights policy"
• [[b:en:WB:GRP]] means Wikibooks – English – page named "WP:GRP"

The language code is always the bit from the URL (e.g., "ja" for Japanese, not "jp" or "Japan" or "Japanese").

If you are at another project, then the project code for Wikivoyage is voy: That means that (elsewhere), you link to [[voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub]] to get to this page.

In case anyone is wondering, it is "legal" to prefix all blue links (except relative links to /subpages, which won't work) with a : (as in [[:w:en:WP:GRP]]). This is usually unnecessary but will prevent you from accidentally making interlanguage links, adding the page you're editing to a category, or adding images to the page you're editing (assuming your link is to a file). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, help wanted and thank you indeed! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultations

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applications

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translators

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk)

20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Global bot policy changes

Hello!

According to the list, your wiki project is currently opted in to the global bot policy. As such, I want to let you know about some changes that were made after the global RfC was closed.

• Global bots are now subject to a 2 week discussion, and it'll be publicized via a MassMessage list, available at Bot policy/New global bot discussion on Meta. Please subscribe yourself or your wiki if you are interested in new global bots proposals.
• For a bot to be considered for approval, it must demonstrate it is welcomed in multiple projects, and a good way to do that is to have the bot flag on at least 5 wikis for a single task.
• The bot operator should make sure to adhere to the wiki's preference as related to the use of the bot flag (i.e., if a wiki doesn't want a bot to use the flag as it edits, that should be followed).

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,
—Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 18:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what our policy on global bots should be. Some like the Community Tech bot that gives the message "A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion" are really useful, but are there any we'd want to block? Has anyone been keeping track of all the global bots? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It'd be easier if the Meta userpages for the global bots described their function, but many don't. (Do we have any local bots here?) I've had experiences with problematic bots on other projects; I can't think of any prior experiences with global bots, problematic or otherwise. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There are local bots here, but I'm not sure which ones been run lately, other than the graffiti wall reversion bot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember any problems over here, so I suppose there haven't been any major ones. Watching the bot discussions would do no harm, although I trust the global bot users to be sensible and considerate. –LPfi (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with LPfi. If anyone notices any issues or has any concerns about a global bot, they can always start a discussion here at the pub. Off the top of my head I can't think of any problems I've noticed related to global bots, here or on the other wikis I frequent, so it seems to me the folks at Meta make sensible decisions about whether to approve them. When I notice global bots at work, they usually seem to be doing uncontroversial crosswiki maintenance (for example, keeping interwiki links and image filenames up to date). In an emergency, a malfunctioning or problematic bot can be blocked by any admin. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there haven't been problems so far. It's just that the word "changes" focused my mind a little. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense. Rereading my comment, I might have come across too strong. No harm in raising the question. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think you came across too strong at all, no worries! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Once the interlanguage links moved to Wikidata, the global bot policy became less than useful, to the point that some editors have run bots without authorization or disclosure, because (a) the work really needed to be done, and (b) it didn't involve repairing Special:DoubleRedirects, which was the only remaining approved task according to the global bot policy. As an example, the WMF's Parsing team identified some wikitext errors few years ago (remember Special:LintErrors?), and much of that could be fixed by bot. Some smaller wikis didn't have enough volunteers to do it, and the global bot policy didn't approve it. Everyone wanted the errors fixed, so some bot ops did it "unofficially". There were no complaints.

I agree with LPfi: I trust the global bot folks to be sensible. Also, if they do accidentally screw up, any admin can block the bot locally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm curious - is User:CommonsDelinker considered a global bot? If the only remaining approved task was double redirects, how has it been allowed to operate? —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Would I count it that way? Yes. The policy has been so broken in practice that nobody's been enforcing the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Global filters

Please see my talk page for a brief bit of context

User:Billinghurst has suggested that Wikivoyage should have one or two m:Abuse filter helpers who could keep an eye on the global abuse filters (particularly the ones marked as private) as they pertain to Wikivoyage. Would any sysop / bureaucrat who is confident using our internal abuse filters like to put themselves forward for this? As I understand it, it's just a monitoring role, making sure that global filters are not having detrimental effect locally.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a quality control role and some eyes out for your community. There are a lot of global hits for all the wikis, so someone with broader vision focusing on your logs is valuable. It can also be seen as a proving ground for those who are good at the role and have a global view. AF are currently going through a rewrite and improvements, and when they go live those eyes will be useful. Billinghurst (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help with this. I'm not an abuse filter expert by any means, but I have modified them now and then and have enough programming experience to be able to understand how they work. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have at least two, if we can. Anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned on TT's talk that this is interesting timing, because I've actually been thinking about whether I could help out with abuse filters on Voy recently (partially because I recently had a run-in with some fast-paced vandalism that could've been better dealt with if either I could rollback or we had more filters). While I'd be happy to help out, I don't have the mop, and that being mentioned here gives me pause. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

With all respect to your edits so far, you'd need a longer track record (specifically on WV) for the mop, but there's no reason that I can see for you not to have rollback rights instated right away if it would help.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, certainly no rush to adminship -- I'm still not sure if I'd even want it. Much thanks for the...smaller mop? :P, though! (Dustpan and broom?) I would wonder if it'd be useful for anyone to apply for local edit filter helper rights on projects that we share some private-filter issues with, too -- I know there are some shared edit filter helpers between enwiki and enwikibooks, for instance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noting here that as a sysop on both meta and enwikivoyage I've in the past used global filters for some LTAs that are active here and on other wikis, and try to review the logs when I have time --DannyS712 (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

New Banners Help

I am not good with image manipulations. I request someone can create banners for Mehsana (Rajmahal palace), Vadnagar (Kirti Torana) and Siddhpur (Bohra Havelis). I have indicated most relevant places in brackets for each of the city. The See section have them listed. Regards,-Nizil Shah (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made and uploaded three banners from pictures on Commons. I couldn't always find the exact ones you wanted, but I did get them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't edit pages with the VisualEditor anymore

Why can I no longer edit pages without editing source? It is really annoying because:

A) I can no longer easily edit templates without editing their source

B) The 'lastedit' section of templates doesn't change automatically, so I have to go back and change it manually.

The last time I was able to do this was on the 7th of April. Why won't it let me edit pages with the VisualEditor anymore? 82.3.185.12 11:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I can change it from source to visual editing on my tablet. I will see if I can do that on my laptop (where I do most of my edits) when I go back on it later. 82.3.185.12 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Had a similar problem earlier today except that my computer would freeze every time I’d try and click a wiki voyage link. No problems on en wikipedia (even twinkle and redwarn were loading. Something wrong with wikivoyage today SHB2000 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@82.3.185.12, SHB2000: What browsers are you using? —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Was using Chrome now I’m using safari on mobile SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, Mx. Granger, ThunderingTyphoons!: Never mind, I figured it out. It is because I cleared my history and cookies a few days ago, and it forgot I preferred visual editing over source editing. 82.3.185.12 12:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, Mx. Granger, ThunderingTyphoons!: Yes, I'm on my laptop now and it is letting me make visual edits. 82.3.185.12 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's still a problem for me, although I prefer source editing except when it comes to tables (which I'm okay with). SHB2000 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Logged-in editors might want to check Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, specifically the "Editing mode" option. That lets you define your favorite starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I just realised that I only noticed on talk pages and this pub, which don't need the visual editor and don't have the visual version. SHB2000 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like a visual experience on talk pages, you might look at "Discussion tools" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. I like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Last Edit Date

Why did the 'Last Edit Date' section inside templates change? It used to say "subst:#time:Y-m-d", but now it just has the date. Why do I have to change it every time now? 82.3.185.12 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For me it still seems to say {{subst:#time:Y-m-d}}.

Have you tried using the listing editor instead of the visual editor for modifying listings? You can get to the listing editor by clicking the grey "edit" button at the end of the listing. I find it easier to use than the visual editor, and it gives you a box to check for whether or not to mark the listing as up-to-date. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger, 82.3.185.12: On the most recent tech updates section (see on my talk page) it says it could be confused with Y-Y then Y-M. SHB2000 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That note is about the mw:citoid service, which makes Wikipedia-style little blue clicky numbers (like this: ^[1]). That change shouldn't affect anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: It does for me, but whenever I update a template, it replaces subst:#time:Y-m-d with 2021-04-11 or whatever the date is. 82.3.185.12 16:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. It seems that in the visual editor, the lastedit date is only updated automatically for logged-in users, not for users editing anonymously. I can see three solutions:

a) accept that if you want to mark the listing as up to date, you'll need to do so manually,

b) use the listing editor instead of the visual editor, or

c) create an account instead of editing anonymously.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 19:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: It used to do it automatically for me, it’s just doesn’t now. I’ll probably do option A or B, depending on how I feel. Thanks for your help. 82.3.185.12 20:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: unfortunately 82.3.185.12 can't as whenever he does that, it triggers the filter "block evasion" SHB2000 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, Mx. Granger: no it doesn’t, it triggered that filter because I typed the name of a blocked user on my talk page. 82.3.185.12 07:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. That's ArticCynda right? SHB2000 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Yes. You left a message on my talk page saying you were checking all IP addresses to check if they were him. I tried to type his name in my reply to you, and that’s what triggered the filter. 82.3.185.12 07:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sometimes very sloppy at times and have goldfish memory other times. SHB2000 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. 82.3.185.12 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Option B seems to be working fine for me. Thank you for all your help. 82.3.185.12 16:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

GFDL-only local uploads

I'm curious about if we should have a local upload policy for files uploaded under the GNU Free Documentation License alone. It's a copyleft license and many images across projects are uploaded with it, but Commons has phased out GFDL and no longer permits the uploading of new files licensed under it (old ones are grandfathered). I've been making banners lately, and I've made a pretty good one for Sale (Victoria), but noticed after creating that the Commons file it was derived from was GFDL-licensed -- meaning I can't upload it there. Most of the projects I know of with local uploads permit GFDL uploads and treat them as other free images are treated, so I'd support us having that policy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support – Considering that we don't have to go cross-wiki to do this, I'd support it. SHB2000 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about and expanding on this proposal, I think a significant objection people might raise would be using this as a loophole to preferentially upload free files to Wikivoyage rather than Commons by granting them a free license Commons doesn't use. Personally I don't think "preferring local uploads" is a huge issue -- people have reasons for what they do -- and GFDL files can be used cross-wiki by uploading them to other projects that accept them. However, it is something there are reasons to oppose, and Wikivoyage generally has a culture of only having local uploads when absolutely necessary.

I'd be inclined to say there's no reason to put a hard limit on "if something isn't in this category you must upload it to Commons" rather than "we prefer anything that doesn't have to be GFDL go to Commons", but similarly I have absolutely no qualms with a hard rule as to when and where we could make local GFDL uploads. I'm happy to have a position that says we can have GFDL uploads that are either Wikivoyage-related derivative works of a pre-existing GFDL file (so the Sale banner, for instance) or cross-project imports of GFDL files relevant to Wikivoyage (as an example, there's a couple hundred or so GFDL files on the English Wikipedia of towns and locales around the Western United States that would be pretty excellent to have here and that I plan to import several of if we decide to implement GFDL local uploads) if people want those restrictions/clarifications.

Also, more broadly, I've been thinking about our local image licensing templates -- which are currently rarely used, but will be moreso should this get consensus. Right now, they all have very small text (80% of normal size). This strikes me as an accessibility issue, as they're tough to read even with normal vision and could be unreadable with poor vision. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

By my reading of commons:Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License, you can upload the banner on Commons, as the photo was (I presume) licensed before 2018. If that's correct, I think there is no need for a special local upload policy for GFDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that permits new derivative works of pre-2018 uploads, and it definitely doesn't permit transferring other local files that I'd want to use on Wikivoyage licensed after that time. Having poked around a bit, it seems we have a couple GFDL local uploads already, so it might be worth formalizing. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello! GFDL is not a very good license for photos, video and audio. That is why WMF decided that wiki projects should not use GFDL as the only license. They did not forbid it completely but left it for the wikis to decide.

commons:Commons:Licensing#GNU_Free_Documentation_License mention "licensed on or after 15 October 2018" so if a file is uploaded to Commons or any other wiki and licensed GFDL before that date then it is still possible to upload a crop of the file to Commons. It is also possible to move a file from xx.wiki to Commons if the file was uploaded before that date.

So I do not think there is any reason to allow local uploads of files licensed GFDL. --MGA73 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I just stumbled across this page, which is worth reading too: Wikivoyage:Why Wikivoyage isn't GFDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Line numbering coming soon to all wikis

Example

From April 15, you can enable line numbering in some wikitext editors - for now in the template namespace, coming to more namespaces soon. This will make it easier to detect line breaks and to refer to a particular line in discussions. These numbers will be shown if you enable the syntax highlighting feature (CodeMirror extension), which is supported in the 2010 and 2017 wikitext editors.

More information can be found on this project page. Everyone is invited to test the feature, and to give feedback on this talk page.

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Finally! SHB2000 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, please tell me more. I would have expected editors to either not notice (because we're not using CodeMirror) or to be irritated (because the line number clutter up the interface). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It ain't live yet. I'll decide then whether to be irritated or not.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

When I did my first edit 12 mo. ago, I was surprised that it didn't have one, considering C, python, BF and javascript, all do SHB2000 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, they don't. It's just your editor adding them. The only programming language with line numbers that I know is BASIC. But the reasons your editor adds them might be good reasons for the wiki editor to add them too. –LPfi (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's the 15th, where's the line numbering??? SHB2000 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Line Numbering#Status and roadmap says, "only for the template namespace" "Deployment on more namespaces is planned for the near future" Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see this thread

Your presence and participation is requested in this linked thread, especially if you're an admin, long-term user or user with many edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this user sometimes will send you private attack emails, there's no way of knowing unless someone steps up or he is community banned. (with an edit filter blocking his IP range). SHB2000 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Large city transport as distinct articles....?

I note this article:

Using_Sydney's_public_transport

I previously wrote a fairly extensive distinct article on London's Tube network, before being advised to merge it back into London.

I thought transport stuff went in the Get Around section of the city/region article as opposed to it's own article?

Is it time to revisit this guideline? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

See also Bay Area Public Transit Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not something we want to encourage, but once a Get Around section reaches a certain length threshold, it might make sense to break it off like this, leaving a brief summary in the destination article. We should determine if doing this is desirable and come up with a consensus on what the threshold would be. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In most places where public transport sections grow large enough to warrant an article of its own, public transport is essential for visiting the place, so the net result is that travellers have to read two articles instead of one, with some duplication and risk of updates in only one of the two places. I suppose that was the reason to merge back the London subarticle. This is different from a travel topic such as, say, Roman heritage in Rome: while most people will visit some of the relevant attractions, not all visitors to Rome are interested in the in-depth descriptions. –LPfi (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For large cities, we have already decided that we don't want to have all of the information in one article. It is easier for readers if we organize the information in several articles so they can find the information in articles that are relevant to them. We break large cities into districts, and put airport information into separate articles, with the key points summarized in the main article. Allowing separate public transport articles with the key points summarized in the main article is a logical extension of this approach.

In some large city articles, we make the reader scroll through screen after screen of detailed information on how to get around before they get to the See and Do listings, which are what help the reader decide if they want to go. Not everyone takes public transit, even in London, Paris and New York. Many visitors use taxis and ride-hailing services exclusively. Ground Zero (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sydney is already too long and my new article is meant to cover connecting areas, and basically have the key points but a lot longer and would eventually be in depth enough for the reader to not search it up. Additionally, the lack of a map with bus, train, ferry, light rail and coach makes it harder for the traveller. SHB2000 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

P.s I don't think having 4 large chunky tables is ideal in Sydney —The preceding comment was added by SHB2000 (talk • contribs)

Those tables are the kind of thing we tend not to use on Wikivoyage. They can be hard to keep up to date – I typically link to the official schedule or map instead. Information about how to get to specific attractions should be mentioned in the relevant listings. If we remove the tables and edit for conciseness, most of the rest of the information in the article would fit fine in Sydney#Get around, I think. But if others feel this is useful as a separate article, I don't feel strongly about it.

A map or two would definitely be a good idea and can be included in Sydney#Get around. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are two problems with that:

1. There is no map with all the up to date info

2. It's hard to find a large map that has both ferry and something else.

I'll be sure to update it regularly as I'm a person who frequently takes Public Transport, additionally, I'm well aware of the new services in the upcoming 4 years. SHB2000 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

Contributions by User:Air fans appear in Recent Changes with a ! even though they are an autoconfirmed user. Air fans is a reliable contributor whose contributions do not need to be patrolled. Does anyone know how to fix this? Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is the difference between auroconfirmed users and autopatrollers. AlasdairW (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the difference, but I guess I can fix the problem by making them an autopatroller. Ground Zero (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users vs. Wikivoyage:Autopatrollers Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I made Air fans an autopatroller earlier this afternoon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Ground Zero (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Restaurants in hotels

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I recall a guideline stating that if a hotel with a Sleep listing has a restaurant, the restaurant does not get its own separate Eat listing. I cannot find this guideline, so I might be wrong. I would appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the rule. The exception is if the restaurant is well-known in its own right, such as if over half the customers typically are not hotel guests. See the first entry at Wikivoyage:Don't tout#Identifying touting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I guess it's okay if I revert this reversion? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

How well-known is that restaurant and are most of the customers generally not hotel patrons? Also, that's not a full listing but a pointer. "Gets great reviews" without specifying a professional reviewer or reviewing organization, however, is touting and should be removed no matter what. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I know nothing about the place. I'm fixing London listings that lack coordinates. I'll remove this one. Thanks for your help. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

A word of caution: User:ThunderingTyphoons! may know something about the place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've often summarized opinions from a range of user-review sites as "gets good reviews" or the like. Is that unacceptable now? Powers ^(talk) 02:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See Wikivoyage:Words to avoid: "approved by TripAdvisor, Or Yelp. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. Or any other random website which relies on user-supplied content instead of sending its staff out to inspect restaurants and hotels under established criteria." If you can't specify which random website something "gets good reviews" on, how is it OK to be even vaguer about it? If we're going to allow such language, we should change our policies and allow the mention of reviews on all those sites and others, but I don't think I'd support such a change in style and guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that if I were looking at a listing, that it would be more helpful to me to read "Good service" or "Good food" or "Good location" than "Good reviews". So maybe, if possible, mention a theme that appears in those good reviews? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Nricardo: Either ask User:ThunderingTyphoons! or User:82.3.185.12 (our most active and reliable IP user) SHB2000 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nricardo, SHB2000: I believe you mean this policy. 82.3.185.12 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I pinged you because you know better about london regarding Nelson's comment at 0014h. SHB2000 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: I see. In that case, I agree with Ikan Kekek. 82.3.185.12 13:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing that it's OK to mention that customers have mentioned x, y or z about a restaurant or bar. That's substantive and different from according unwarranted deference to ratings on sites like Yelp that are by non-experts and have been manipulated for profit in the past. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but how do we get that information without going to places like Yelp or TripAdvisor? (Also, an aside: is comment threading not allowed anymore?) Powers ^(talk) 22:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers, local wikis and blogs, you or people you know, food discussion boards, etc., etc. If we're relying completely on Yelp and Tripadvisor, we should end our policy on not linking to them and substitute links to their sections for each destination for our content. I don't understand your question about comment threading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

By 'comment threading', I meant using indentation to indicate which previous comment a new comment is in reply to. There is such a preference here for continuous indentation that I had a previous comment reindented. As for reviews, I don't know why local wikis and blogs or "food discussion boards" (?) are better sources for general sentiment than Yelp or TripAdvisor. Powers ^(talk) 01:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we resume this discussion at Wikivoyage talk:External links? Yelp and Tripadvisor are there to make a buck, and Yelp in particular is known to have put its thumbs on ratings. But my larger point is if all our content is really from other sites, what's the darn point of this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I will tell you that the great majority of the restaurants and bars I have added listings for are establishments I have personally patronized and therefore am confident I can describe fairly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That is the ideal way, but we don't have enough editors to cover the world through own experiences, and I've understood it is acceptable to do armchair research. Even when using TripAdvisor & co, one can make an own assessment on what to believe (and combine impressions from several sites). Reviews that don't tell what was good and pure stars are little worth, but many people praising the food in their own words are an indication of something (I would tone down the praise, but might mention a point or two that seemed agreed on). Independent forums may be better, but not all off the beaten path eateries are discussed in gourmet fora. (About moving the discussion: let's do that afterwards.) –LPfi (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Angler (the original London restaurant in question) has one Michelin star, so is most definitely worthy of its own listing under 'Eat'. I agree the wording that "it gets great reviews" was ambiguous and should be changed, but it's clear that whoever wrote it meant "great reviews (from food critics and other influential people in the dining industry)" not simply a good Tripadvisor score. So unless there are other objections, I'll restore the listing with the needed improvements.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I fairly often use a variety of travel websites for armchair research. I don't use the stars/rating numbers. I tend to use them to look for very specific things: Is it noisy? Do they take credit cards? Is there a public restroom? Is this a good place for kids? Is parking a problem? If a particular detail gets mentioned frequently (e.g., a popular dish at a restaurant), then I might mention that, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A restaurant that has a Michelin star has been given an imprimatur by the most famous professional restaurant-rating organization in the world. Its Michelin star should be mentioned, not the vague phrase "it gets great reviews". And it absolutely should have a listing. No way should a Michelin-starred restaurant be subsumed into a "Sleep" listing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a break

Just dropping a note to say that I'm alive and well :-) but will be taking a break from WV for a while. I've been idly wasting my time here re-reading and nitpicking the same few dozen pages without contributing much new content. It's become a bad habit, much like endlessly scrolling social media sites, and I need to take some time off from that. Plus, I started a new job a few weeks ago, so I don't have as much free time as I used to, not to mention I can't edit any Wikimedia sites from my company network. I'll check back in occasionally, but I won't be a regular fixture for a while.

I've enjoyed being a part of this small community, and I hope to come back someday when I can set better limits for myself and am motivated to rediscover the joy of travel and travel-related research.

Until then, bons voyages,

--Bigpeteb (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Take care, also note to other users that I'll be away next week (25 April/Anzac Day til 1 May) as I'll be away SHB2000 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All the best, Bigpeteb, and thanks for everything. I dare say the Atlanta Airport star nomination will still be under review when you return ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

With probably a third star nomination up there (Stratford (Victoria)) SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Enjoy your holiday! 82.3.185.12 10:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a holiday, it's for some other stuff but still looking forward to this. Although thanks for the message, take care and see you in 2 weeks (or earlier or later) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage discussion for m:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations

Formerly Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion, where comments can also be left

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikivoyage users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikivoyage. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Xeno. This is a small wiki, and that probably makes it harder for harassers to hide among a crowd, as it's still pretty possible for users to patrol all recent changes every day (at most, some will patrol some edits and others will patrol others, but the number of new edits isn't crushing). We don't tolerate harassment. People who threaten violence or lawsuits against other Wikivoyagers are blocked indefinitely (or if IP addresses, for a month or more, as IP addresses are not blocked permanently). People who are not acting threatening but are for example making life miserable for valuable content-providers by edit warring and writing nasty edit summaries are engaged in discussion and blocked when necessary, as we want to support users who are making good edits. Most of the harassment on this site is from vandals and trolls, most of them cross-wiki, and that's a problem that WMF should continue to work hard on because it really makes things less fun around here. Of course there are also misunderstandings and people who think any reversions or further edits to their work constitute harassment per se. If you engage in any moderation, you know that kind of thing goes with the territory, and we try to smooth over hard feelings, but there are limitations to the faceless communications we engage in here and if push comes to shove on matters of site policy, guidelines and basic style, the existing consensus and procedures by which a new consensus might be formed generally have to be enforced against edit warriors and people who make huge unilateral changes to site organization and the like, because as some of us are old enough to remember, most Usenet newsgroups proved the theory that if anyone can post any kind of thing they want any time with no moderation, a venue ends up as a cesspool of spam, flaming, trolling and vandalism.

Is this the kind of answer you were looking for? Any other questions we could address? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is quite useful! I'm glad to hear of the positive interactions on this project. From the perspective of a smaller wiki, what more could be done to help make dealing with cross-wiki abuse easier to address when it lands here? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a technical matter better not discussed openly. And don't get me wrong, there are certainly conflicts here, and there are times when people have frayed nerves or otherwise misunderstand people's intentions, and as we're all human, it shouldn't be surprising that many people who have lots of interactions with other users have probably been guilty of misjudgment, overreaction, a bit of intemperance or unintentional offense, yours truly certainly not excepted, but we try to advise each other when we think things may have gone overboard, etc.

Part of the history of this site is that we used to let edit warriors run rampant for years, and that chased away several very valuable members including long-time admins. We therefore thrashed out a policy of Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks to deal with problem users who unilaterally buck consensus to edit war or otherwise hassle people in a way that makes the site unpleasant. I think most of us long-timers consider such policies part of the growing pains of the site. When then-Wikitravel was a tiny backwater, it could afford to have an indulgent policy toward vandals and disruptive gadflies. Wikivoyage still welcomes original thinking when not introduced through edit warring and insulting remarks, though we could probably be better in that regard (there is somewhat of a status quo bias on all wikis, I suppose, by the nature of consensus, and there is somewhat of one here), but we learned the hard way that discussion is great but that users have to be willing to tolerate consensuses that are contrary to our preferences and pick their spots for when to start or resume arguments for changes in site organization, guidelines or style, which should be or at least eventually go on the appropriate pages. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Another way of looking at his question (he's w:en:User:Xeno in his real-wiki life, by the way):

What could we do to make some of the struggling wikis be more like this one? We have wikis that try to exclude editors because they live in the "wrong" location or have the "wrong" religious affiliation or the "wrong" political view. We men who get called "girls" as part of a campaign to drive them away. We have women who get rape threats because they dared to disagree. Some of these communities are a mess. What advice could we give them, to help them through their problems and their growing pains? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Which wikis are trying to exclude people and being abusive toward them on those bases? That's shocking! My immediate reaction is that I wouldn't give advice to such wikis but would instead recommend for them to get an ultimatum from the WMF that they have x-amount of time to shape up, and otherwise, they'll be taken over from outside and those engaging in such abuses will be banned - or if that's too much work for stewards, expel such wikis from the Wikimedia Movement, as the WMF shouldn't associate itself with that kind of behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Appalling behaviour. These communities should be ashamed of themselves and definitely get expelled from the WMF movement. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not "the WMF movement". It's the Wikimedia movement, and the WMF is only one part of it. (The one with the most money, but not the one with the most control.) But: don't you think that before you expel whole communities that you should write down the rules? And take into account some other factors, like whether the community supports that behavior, or if it's something they've tried to stop? For example, I know a woman who gets rape threats. (These were not made-up examples.) She's an admin at the English Wikipedia. Would you expel the entire English Wikipedia, just because they haven't been able to stop one criminal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't, and I agree with your points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I got the impression that you talked about small wikis dominated by users with that kind of behaviour. For ones with a larger editor base, where most do not support the harassment, closing them down is obviously a suboptimal solution, with grave problems (the self-government of communities is important). I suppose IK gives some valuable advice above, from the history of WV.

I have my background on sv-wp, with, I think, some 100 active regulars. Like here, I think most people there really try to cooperate for the good of the project and the community. We have some problems with groups and individuals with an agenda, especially some connected to the Swedish populist party, who manage to balance their edits enough not to be blocked, but often reverted, with endless discussions. Then we have some good-faith editors incapable of following the social norms (easily provoked, and easily taking to ad hominem arguments). I optimistically think we are doing a good job, having enough of us taking the fights so that those who would be vulnerable don't have to. Handling these users is a delicate balance, and some of them regularly get blocked. I am afraid hard rules imposed by the WMF might make it easier to intentionally provoke these users to get them banned (even those who otherwise don't bother anybody), and more difficult to apply one's best judgement as admin.

One choice that might have been important is to have admins have to pass a vote yearly. You normally get 30–40 support and 0–2 oppose every year, but there is much less drama when somebody loses trust than if you would have to start a process to remove the status. There are just fewer support votes and more oppose votes, and everybody knows why (there would be a discussion also, but one much less heated than on en-wp; you need 3/4 to pass, so 20 support and 8 oppose means failing).

–LPfi (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A yearly vote on continuing or ending admin status (and I guess bureaucrats, stewards, etc.?) is an interesting idea and I could see how it could be useful on large wikis. I feel like it might just take up unnecessary time here and won't produce any desysopping except of inactive admins (with perhaps a somewhat more stringent standard of activity than we currently apply), but if you feel like it could be useful here, let's take up the idea at Wikivoyage talk:User rights nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any need for it here – I don't know what drama around our admins wood look like. On sv-wp it was introduced after drama around a few admins (I think – it was before my time). At least one regular has been turned down with the new system on his nth re-election for not being enough keen-eared, and he has stayed around writing articles and doing unprivileged administrative tasks. I'd recommend the system for any middle size wiki, and once in a while I miss it e.g. on Commons, where I think some admins have become presumptuous. On sv-wp I don't think it takes up much time. Casting a vote takes less time than tidying a listing, and unless there are unusually many oppose votes you don't have to weight in on every election (30–40 votes by 100 regulars shows not everybody does, I suppose there are more people who lurk, and will cast a vote if there are irregularities). I think the odd discussion helps vent any critic there may be, and the voting and comments confirm your status as actively trusted by the community – these aspects grow more important with the size of the wiki. –LPfi (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an annual re-election is needed here, but I don't object in principle, and I do suggest that if we want one, then it would be better to create such a process now than to wait until there is a problem. I heard of a California city that created a protest-related rule a while ago (something like "you can protest anyone you want, but you can't keep their neighbors awake all night"), and their reason for doing it at that time was because there weren't any protests happening then, so the rule couldn't be "about" a particular person/cause/protest. I think that was smart of them, and, if we are to have any such rule, then I think we should follow their example.

LPfi, I'm not sure that the WMF Board is creating "hard rules". It's not my project (or my team's, or even my department's), but my impression is that this is more or less like when they imposed the BLP rules years ago. They named some basic principles (they're in favor of helping newcomers and against vandalism – aren't we all?), but they're not making detailed rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

LPfi, how much bigger is sv.wp than en.voy? WhatamIdoing, the bias on Wikivoyage has been not to make changes that are considered to be solutions in search of a problem. Of course that's not proactive, but people here generally aren't willing to spend the time to discuss and debate things that aren't (yet) needed and prefer to spend the time working on the travel guide. And the problem I'd immediately see would be to determine at which point yearly (re)votes on admins and bureaucrats would be triggered. Would we have to use some kind of arbitrary metric of website size? I don't object to the idea in principle, either, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Yes, making up the rules before they are needed avoids a lot of drama – if you can foresee the need. And not creating hard rules sounds good, if there is a community that can handle the issues flexibly.

Swedish Wikipedia has, according to WMF statistics: 620 active editors, 100 very active editors and 120,000 edits a month (→ 4,000 a day, 150 an hour). English Wikivoyage has about 150 active editors, 35 very active editors and 20,000 edits a month. So sv-wp is three to six times bigger. On sv-wp the elections are four times a year (for 4·15 admins or so). Here once a year could suffice, but not having to vote on others when one's own term is at play is good. It could be a problem if most voters are admins themselves, as on sv-wp, which is big enough that sporadic users could get the impression of a cabal – sv-wp gets such accusations from time to time, and even if they are mostly from trolls, it is good to be able to show clear papers. Here i don't think trustworthiness is an issue, but it can still feel awkward in some situations.

My hesitation on recommending the system for us here is because I don't trust the dynamics to be the same. I think the 0–2 oppose votes are important: they show it is OK not to support everyone. There are regularly some conflicts that make those votes understandable (harsh tone and perceived bias during edit wars etc.). We have some conflicts also on Wikivoyage, but they are of a different nature.

–LPfi (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be good to have a certain amount of oppose votes, as a sort of normal background noise. Otherwise people might feel singled out.

Another number to consider: The Swedish Wikipedia has 62 admins right now, and the English Wikivoyage has 48. I suspect that the annual re-election process means that the Swedish Wikivoyage has fewer admins than it would otherwise, as less active editors would not choose to stand for re-election. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

← Hey all, I've been following along and wanted to thank everyone for the great comments so far. I noticed a question, and can refer to an essay that was linked in the EnWp version of this consultation: m:User:Rschen7754/Help, my wiki went rogue! which can provide some context.

Let me know if you have any more thoughts about this, or answers to the other key questions being asked to participants of all Wikimedia projects.

I'm intrigued by the mention below of "sweeping"! Is that something that originated here? Where will this thread be swept off to, I wonder!

Thinking more about advice this community can offer, being more closely-knit:

In what ways should reporting pathways provide for mediation, reform, or guidance about acceptable behaviours? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Threads are swept to talk pages where they're particularly relevant after they've been inactive for some time in the pub. This thread won't be swept anywhere until it's inactive for several weeks. I don't know where it would be swept.

That essay by Rschen7754 is very interesting. On this site, I can think of only one user who was desysopped on en.voy for reasons other than 2 or more years of inactivity or their own request, and that user continued to be an extremely constructive content-provider, was resysopped a couple of years later, and served in an exemplary fashion without any further incident until he got too busy in real life to continue. Desysopping is discussed at Wikivoyage talk:User rights nominations when it's applied to a list of inactive admins. If someone wanted to nominate an admin, bureaucrat, etc. for desysopping, they would do so at Wikivoyage:User rights nominations, but that's not specifically mentioned there, and if it were, I think it would attract a lot of trolls and vanishingly few good-faith nominations for desysopping. Do you have an opinion about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A quick thought about reporting harassment: Users here who are experiencing harassment should report it to any admin, but at this point, it's most likely to be coming from a banned user who constantly creates new sockpuppets and sends crazy rants by email. If they believe an admin is harassing them, especially if they get no resolution from discussing it with the admin in question, they should report that to any other admin (but in our experience, it's way more likely that there's been a misunderstanding or the user objects to the application of site policies such as don't tout or to any editing of their work). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Add auto archiving to the pub?

May we please add auto archiving to the pub. Probably once a discussion is inactive for 45-60 days? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also got the code for it. Edit the page to see it. {{Auto archiving |archive = Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2021 |algo = old(60d) |minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |archiveheader = {{talk archive}} }} SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd oppose automatic archiving. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't work practically, because it mostly isn't archived, but rather swept to various talk pages around the site.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I seee. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This was suggested some years back & there was a fairly strong consensus that it was not a good idea. I disagreed with that consensus then because auto-archiving works just fine on other wikis I'm on & once set up it requires less maintenance work than our current system.

There is a problem. As TT points out, many threads are swept & therefore presumably should not be archived. Just accept that? Perhaps set the archiving parameters so anything that needs to be swept will be before archiving kicks in? (90 days?) Have two copies, one swept & one archived, so we have a complete archive? Put a link to the swept copy in the archive whenever you sweep something? Put a link to the swept copy in the pub & let the archiving software move it to the archive? Would that need software changes?

If we can agree on a solution to that problem, then I'd still say auto-archiving is a fine idea. Pashley (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't here when the discussion happened. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is that sweeping to talk pages is a tedious, thankless task. It produces a better result, because discussion in the pub that is swept to a talk page can inform later discussion on the article or project's talk page. If the discussion is swept to an archive, it pretty much disappears.

Because it is a tedious, thankless task, it doesn't get done enough.

People have proposed "double sweeping" in the past, i.e., to talk pages and to the pub archive, but none of them have ever stepped forward to do the archiving to the pub archive, so it doesn't get done.

Just "setting the archiving parameters" to make archiving more work means it will be done even less, if at all. Ground Zero (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sweeping was easier than I thought SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Make working with templates easier: Does English Wikivoyage want to have early access to several improvements?

Hello! Our team, Wikimedia Germany’s Technical Wishes project, is developing a series of improvements to make working with templates easier. Maybe you’ve already heard of some of the projects that have recently been deployed: [2] [3] [4]. We plan to release more improvements to make working with templates easier over the course of this year:

• It will become easier to find templates and to insert them into a page.
• Removing a template from a page (with Visual Editor) will become easier.
• Several problems with the existing interface for editing templates in the VisualEditor will be tackled.
• Template creators and maintainers will be offered more guidance when they are managing TemplateData with the template documentation editor.

Now we’re looking for a few wikis who want to be the first to benefit from these changes, and ideally that includes a few of Wikipedia's sister projects. If your wiki community is interested, all the improvements listed above would be deployed to your wiki in a series of releases, likely between May and July 2021. Of course, each deployment would be announced beforehand.

If English Wikivoyage is interested to have early access to these improvements, give me a ping here, or let me know on my talk page. It would be great to have English Wikivoyage on board! -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd think Wikivoyage could be a good testbed for some of these changes, as our use of templates is both broad and shallow -- only a few, widely-used templates. Powers ^(talk) 17:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johanna Strodt (WMDE), has your team spent much time editing Wikivoyage? I'm sure we could put together a little video-based editing party if the team wanted to explore how we do things here.

We're a little strange about templates here. We use them a lot, but we only use about six or eight of them in articles. The things that would be most useful to us here are probably phab:T96710 (drop-down menu of our most commonly used templates VisualEditor, to match what we've got in the 2010 wikitext editor) and phab:T275457 (we use complex but extremely predictable formatting, which the visual editor screws up). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for your remarks and for the offer! I'm sorry for replying so late, there's a lot going on right now. As for the most useful changes for this wiki, we have already decided which projects we'll be working on in our focus area Templates. And we hope those will be helpful for Wikivoyage as well. I have forwarded your wishes anyway, it's good to have them in mind in case we come across potential opportunities for improvement. -- Best, 95.91.213.7 10:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe log in and sign that comment?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Spinoff article on foreign colonial possessions and concessions in China

I wonder if this article is worth creating, since there were many countries, among them the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, Austria-Hungary, Belgium and Portugal, that established colonies in China, and each of those countries would have left its own cultural footprint behind. As such, I think this is a potentially viable travel topic where we can cover destinations in China where you can go and see the legacy of colonial rule, and of course some really pretty colonial buildings as well. If the community thinks this will be a good article to start, one thing we could discuss is how we should name the article. "Colonialism in China" or "Foreign colonies and concessions in China" are some of the names I can think of. "China's Century of Humiliation" is another potential name for it, though I am concerned that this name might be too politically loaded. The dog2 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That last name doesn't appeal to me.

I wonder whether one article about colonialism in general would be more interesting, or separate articles about each colonizer. I'm thinking that "My country in China" might be more interesting to a traveler than an article covering an assortment of countries. (Or maybe we want all of the above?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

An article like this could actually be useful for someone who wants to travel around China to explore the legacy of colonialism, as it can point you to places to go to explore that legacy. So for instance you could go to Weihai to see British colonial buildings, Dalian and Harbin for Russian colonial buildings, Qingdao for German colonial buildings, Zhanjiang for French colonial buildings and so on. But that said, I'm also open to an article about colonialism in general on a global scale. We do cover some aspects of colonialism in the Age of Discovery article. The main issue is that such an article would be very long, since almost every country outside Europe (with a few exceptions like Thailand and Japan) had been a colony at some point in the 15th to 20th centuries. The dog2 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If the article is likely to be very long, WhatamIdoing's idea is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: One of WhatamIdoing's suggestions was to create an article about colonialism in general on a global scale. I'm concerned that an article like that will be too long, which is why I would prefer to have an article about colonialism in China specifically, rather than one about colonialism in general, as it would be much more manageable. And given the number of colonial powers that were in China, there is potentially enough content to justify an article about that. If we want separate articles about each colonial power in China, then there might not be enough content for some of the smaller colonial powers like say, Belgium. The dog2 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I see. Sure, start the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea for a travel topic, and I think Foreign colonies and concessions in China is by far the best of the three titles suggested above. Please make sure to keep the article focused on travel. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested fix to an issue with two of the Central Thailand articles

Although it appears as two different articles on this map, all of that info is only in the Chao Phraya Basin article

I noticed that the article Chao Phraya Basin is actually both about that region and the Bangkok metro region. This is very confusing. I suggest resolving this by changing the article name of Chao Phraya Basin to Chao Phraya Basin and the Bangkok metro region + color both on those region in one color in this map.

What do you think should be done about this issue? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Right now Bangkok Metropolitan Area is a redirect to Central Thailand, but the same name is in the list of regions of that same Central Thailand article. Another solution could be "make Bangkok Metropolitan Area a real article that contains part of the info from the present Chao Phraya Basin article". But whatever is chosen, something has to change. --FredTC (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

To me, "Chao Phraya Basin and the Bangkok metro region" seems ghastly. Just fix the redirect so Bangkok Metropolitan Area points to Chao Phraya Basin.

We have Metro New York, Metro Cebu & several others, plus Metropolitan Rome & Metropolitan Naples. Use a title along those lines? Pashley (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(Parenthetically, Metro New York is a mess, as it's breadcrumbed to [[New York {state]] but includes suburban New Jersey and Connecticut up to the New Haven area, and my arguments to resolve the problem by making the article an extra-region and turning the New York State part of the metro area into Downstate New York, as with my proposal to turn Middle East into an extra-region article and separate out West Asia as the region that's breadcrumbed to Asia, have frustratingly fallen upon deaf ears every time, so it's not a good example of anything except for irregularity in this site's breadcrumb navigation structure.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Values

From April 29, it will be possible to suggest values for parameters in templates. Suggested values can be added to TemplateData and will then be shown as a drop-down list in VisualEditor. This allows template users to quickly select an appropriate value. This way, it prevents potential errors and reduces the effort needed to fill the template with values. It will still be possible to fill in values other than the suggested ones.

More information, including the supported parameter types and how to create suggested values: [1] [2]. Everyone is invited to test the feature, and to give feedback on this talk page.

Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: This might make it easier to just add a “Variation” parameter on the Barncompass template (as discussed on my talk page). 82.3.185.12 14:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, probably when I come back on the 1st. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Although as you mentioned on my talk page, it might just be easier to keep them as separate templates. 82.3.185.12 05:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And how am I meant to do it without affecting the "Barncompass" template. I could create a new one called Template:BC but, is it worth the change? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: Probably not. 82.3.185.12 06:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the pings?

Pings seem to not be working as well recently; here are a few examples: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 82.3.185.12 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@82.3.185.12: What leads you to believe that? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I got an alert that I can't ping you, because you're anonymous. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nricardo: I know people can’t ping me. 82.3.185.12 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

But seriously, why not create an account. You could be instantly an autopatrolled user as I don't usually want to patrol them, as I'm 300% sure that it's good faith (unless the IP address goes to someone else). And you could edit autoconfirmed pages. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: I do not want to use an account as I have been editing under an IP for 5 months. 82.3.185.12 06:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I made that mistake when editing under an IP for 9 months (on enwiki, not here). Totally regret it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

For that reason, I don’t want to use an account and lose five months worth of edits. 82.3.185.12 06:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I see, our situations were different. I usually get a new IP every 5 days (where I got one 500km away from where I am), but you've had this for like ages. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @SHB2000: I see. My IP only changes when I reset my router. 82.3.185.12 06:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

On sv-wp we have a user who registered "User:Former x.x.x.x" (with x:s from his IP). That's a bit extreme. You could link to your IP talk page and IP contributions. I think it'd be worthwhile. If you don't have control over your IP, you'd lose it anyway sooner or later. –LPfi (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we have that here? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: It's just a user who chose such a user name. Instead of the IP user "User:192.0.2.123" there is a logged in user "User:Former_192.0.2.123." –LPfi (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Is 82.132.216.203 you? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 07:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If you create an account, on your userpage you can say what your IP address was so you can claim credit for all of the work you did in the last 5 months. That would be better than continuing anonymously, making it harder to everyone to communicate with you. Gizza ^(roam) 23:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Indonesian phrasebook#Pagebanner

Hi travellers, you're all invited for this discussion. Suggestion and ideas welcomed. Many thanks. Bennylin (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

U.S. phone number format

From today, April 24, 2021, 82 additional U.S. area codes will begin using 10-digit dialing (full details from NANPA). Per Wikivoyage:Phone numbers, numbers in these area codes need a hyphen between the area code and the exchange. The format is +1 YYY-XXX-XXXX. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Allowing global sysops on this wiki

Hi, I propose allowing Global Sysops to work on this wiki. It is currently not enabled because the community has more than 10 admins/3 active sysops, but I strongly recommend that the community opt-in because they often help in combating spam and vandalism (eg GRP). As an en.wikibooks admin, I can attest to the work they do and have no issues with them at all. Thanks in advance, and please ping me if you need further input, since I don't watch this page.

P.S: Global sysops won't interfere with normal Wikivoyage matters (for instance they do not have access to Special:UserRights) - their role is codified in the policy page and is more or less handling spam or vandalism. This wiki can enact a global rights policy if needed. They'll only help you. Leaderboard (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a compelling argument. Was there ever a discussion in this community about prohibiting Global Sysops here? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I support this. Thanks for bringing it up, Leaderboard. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I also think this is a good idea, particularly regarding vandals that are active on several projects simultaneously; just makes it easier to shut them down. Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that there's one specific global sysop who, if they had any administrative powers at Wikivoyage, I would likely leave the project. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, why should we not allow global sysops clamping down vandalism here if they come across it? --Ypsilon (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There's at least one global sysop, who I do not plan to name to protect their privacy, who from experience elsewhere I hold absolutely no trust in and do not think should be holding any mop-role. I am uncomfortable acting on projects where they hold such roles, and in particular find the relative opacity of global sysops (who tend to just dip in and out of a project rather than being consistently contactable on them) to outweigh the role's intentionally limited scope in terms of trust and communication, as it makes it difficult to discuss disputed or inappropriate actions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: If you have a genuine reason that a particular GS should not be operating here, your wiki can come up with a global rights policy that would require GS to stop acting if asked to by an admin (this is the case in en.wikibooks). Secondly, you can consider filing a Meta Request for Comments or contacting a steward - GS are held to a high standard and I'm aware of GS having their rights revoked for relatively minor misuse. This also applies to contact - at the very least you should be able to contact a GS at meta (and they are also required to have a user page). Leaderboard (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect a request to remove the relevant user's mop likely to pass, and I do expect one to be a clusterstorm I don't want to start. I'm not a local sysop, and I'm too drama-avoidant to ask one. I square those circles by just not participating on GS projects. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: The difference would be that currently, stewards have the right to rollback edits and block accounts on this wiki, but the proposal is to allow another class of users who are not stewards but global sysops to rollback vandalism and spam, though they won't have the power to block any user. That seems OK to me. I would not want to lose Vaticidalprophet's participation, though. Is it that you don't believe one of the global sysops will restrict themselves to rolling back only vandalism and spam? I don't think it works for you to be opaque about who this individual is, do nothing about it, and just threaten to leave this project if we accept more help with spam and vandalism. I urge you to address what's concerning you by starting a thread on the most appropriate Wikivoyage talk page, which I suppose would be Wikivoyage talk:User rights nominations. You need to name the individual in question and provide some information about what they've done that's objectionable if you'd like admins on this site to assist you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You could also report any GS actions you see objectionable and let us discuss whether we agree. Then you don't have to take action at Meta yourself. Better yet, tell now what kind of objectionable things you think they might do. –LPfi (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"Better yet, tell now what kind of objectionable things you think they might do" -- I'm concerned about a history of overly harsh/uncivil edit summaries and responses, and particularly of deploying those responses to edits that were closer to wording disputes or malformed but good-faith technical requests than to actual spamdalism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

That kind of behavior can be a significant problem, but semi-accusing someone in public can be a problem, too. Would you be willing to e-mail more information to an admin? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I emailed more info to an admin and got, paraphrased, "I can't do anything in email, talk publicly", which was when I made that comment. I have to confess to being a little frustrated by the appearance of ping-ponging, even though I know it's only an appearance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my correcting the record. I said I can't do anything by myself. A single admin does not constitute a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what do you think a single admin can do, other than pledge to watch the edits of the global sysop in question? We try to keep things as transparent as possible on this site, except when dealing with matters of security that need to be kept private and hiding edits that violate privacy, contain threats or libel or certain kinds of vandalism. We don't discuss this kind of thing in private, but if it's considered harassment, I guess there should be a way to do that. Fellow admins, should we discuss this by email? What would you like to do? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I should say, I retain a strong preference for airing this publicly and dealing with it openly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Airing an issue publicly is always the best approach, but the decision on this rests with Vaticidalprophet. The question is whether you believe, based on what VP has told you, that the issue with the specific sysop is sufficient to prevent us from giving global sysops the power to rollback vandalism and spam. I trust your judgment on this. If you want other opinions, though, then asking VP to permit you to send the email to other admins, or to post it here, would be the next step. Ground Zero (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not sure. Vaticidalprophet, how would you like to proceed? I'd be willing to copy your emails and send them to some other admins for more opinions if you like (I don't think my hands would appreciate copying them and sending them to every one), but the easiest way to get the opinions of the community is definitely to air this publicly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that any single admin can be a second set of eyes, to look over the information and decide whether some further discussion or action might be appropriate. That might involve contacting other people (e.g., stewards or another global sysop), sharing a public opinion about whether the facts seems concerning to you individually, engaging the GS process about whether this person should continue to participate in that way, or other actions that seem appropriate based upon an independent evaluation of the facts.

We have had a problem with people (at other wikis) who get in trouble and then use selective quotations and links to incomplete discussions to discredit anyone who accuses them of bad behavior. Because of this, I think that "public trials" based on a single editor's concerns should be avoided when reasonably feasible. It is often helpful to get a second person's opinion before posting names publicly, and we need to remember that posts on public pages are on the internet forever. I appreciate Vaticidalprophet's restraint in this matter. I hope that we will in the future make it easier for editors to seek advice from the people they trust. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: A correction to a couple of your notes:

• "stewards have the right to rollback edits and block accounts on this wiki" - they technically can block accounts, but are not supposed to unless in the case of a serious emergency (such as a compromised account going rogue). If this proposal passes, stewards will be able to block users for the same reasons that global sysops can.
• "allow another class of users who are not stewards but global sysops to rollback vandalism and spam, though they won't have the power to block any user." - that is not quite correct. You've actually mentioned global rollback, users of which are allowed to rollback, but not block, on every WMF wiki including this (unlike GS, there is no opt-out option). The key thing global sysops can do is actually blocking, deleting and other sysop-level actions. What they cannot do is, for instance, change user rights or interfere in normal Wikivoyage matters. Leaderboard (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I hope people see this threading (we usually just put the last reply last). Thanks for the clarifications. I consider blocking an account a change in user rights and I'll bet many other readers do, too. I gather you're talking about changing the status of an account to, say, autopatroller or admin. I would never expect someone from outside Wikivoyage to do that kind of thing. In terms of stewards, they have come here and very helpfully blocked cross-wiki vandals, so it makes a lot of sense that I consider them to have the right to block accounts on this wiki. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Ikan Kekek: Actually, they do no blocking here. The help you refer to involves blocking/locking globally, and that is done at Meta. Stewards will not generally block an account on Wikivoyage locally unless there is an exceptionally strong reason to, if global sysops cannot do the same thing. Leaderboard (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Just for the record, yes, I am happy for you to copy those emails, and I apologise for inaccuracies in my summary of your response; I was trying to be as nonspecific as possible and accidentally erred into wrong specifics. I'm not quite in a position to write at length today and am unsure when I will be, but I am absolutely fine with (and noted at the time) transparency about the email's contents in the context of admin-to-admin communication, including if it closes with the outcome of "we don't think this means we shouldn't have GS at all". I continue to be unsure about the virtue of saying in public what I said in confidence for reasons noted both in the emails and by WAID. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I can send some emails to a few admins and other admins could choose to share those with other admins. I'd normally want the opinion of trusted non-admins, too, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Without knowing specifics: I suppose a GS would interfere mostly with users that get caught by filters for globally banned users and vandalism. The issue would be harsh language against false-positive new editors, including borderline test edits. I don't know whether harsh language from a GS is much worse than the same from a regular or regular-posing troll – the newbie would not see the difference. When it comes to more seasoned editors, I suppose the issues can be sorted out afterwards, and the problem GS could be asked to keep away even if there would not be reason enough to go to Meta. There might of course be problems that haven't some to my mind. –LPfi (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: In my experience, the issue you have described is not likely to occur, as they don't usually warn users for the first test edit or so. Leaderboard (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for sending a copy of the email. I'm not particularly concerned about this. The diffs in the email have harshly worded edit summaries, yes, but they strike me as not particularly relevant to the GS discussion, because they are ordinary edits on en.wikipedia, not admin actions with the GS user right. Any user is already free to come to Wikivoyage and revert unhelpful edits, they don't need GS permissions for that. Let's give the GS thing a shot, and if problems arise we can reconsider. The Wikibooks-style policy, where local admins can ask global sysops to stop using their user rights here, seems like a good idea. And I agree with Ikan Kekek that it would be better to have an open discussion instead of sending diffs around through email. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Granger. If such careless edit summaries became a problem on Wikivoyage, I wouldn't hesitate to ask their author to be more considerate. Most reasonable people are willing to change once they're made aware that their behaviour is upsetting people. In the very unlikely scenario that an unreasonable GS refused to edit more respectfully, through some misguided superiority complex or whatever, then I'm sure we could take action one way or another. There's no realistic scenario whereby a GS is harming Wikivoyage, and the WV community is powerless to intervene. The threat of losing a good contributor notwithstanding, I think the definite benefits of allowing global sysops far outweigh the possible costs.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand Vaticidalprophet's desire to preserve the friendlier atmosphere that we have in Wikivoyage. I had to learn about that when I came here from Wikipedia. But I also agree with Granger's and ThunderingTyphoons' comments above. We should not assume that this sysop will start editing in Wikivoyage. We should not assume that they will use careless edit summaries if do come here. We should not assume that this behaviour will turn into abuse of sysop privileges. And we should not assume that the sysop will fail to change their behaviour if we ask them to. Ground Zero (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, everyone. I hope no admins feel slighted that I didn't send you the copies of emails. I selected only 4 admins to send them to, with the understanding that they could send them to more admins if they so choose. The reason I did this was simply to save my hands: had I tried to send them to all admins or even all active admins, I would have risked a degree of injury. Inevitably, there was a degree of randomness in who I sent them to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

What kind of contributor are you if you're not willing to risk a permanent repetitive strain injury for the benefit of Wikivoyage? Where's your commitment to the project? ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hah! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as we're allowed to reverse this decision in 6 or 12 months' time (if problems arise along the lines of what Vaticidalprophet said or some other reason and there is consensus to revert back) then this is definitely worth a try. We have to see how it plays out in practice rather than discuss hypotheticals and predictions. Gizza ^(roam) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm seeing consensus to enable global sysops. Could a suitably qualified user close this successfully, so that I can make a request to the stewards to remove Wikivoyage from the opt-out wikiset? If local policy requires that this proposal hold for a set period of time, let me know. Leaderboard (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus. No closing is done or needed, and there's no preexisting policy on what to do with this kind of proposal except the rule of consensus. My opinion is that you don't need to wait any longer to act, but in an abundance of caution, you could wait another 24 hours or at least another 12 hours or so to see if anyone else objects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I started an outline on Dracula

Y'all are invited to add listings and to see whether I did some grievous injury to facts or the English language in the prose I wrote... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

--Ypsilon (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Really good writing! I made some marginal copy edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

📍 Travel destinations - a little suggestion

Over at the Hebrew Wikivoyage I've recently added a little pin point emoji (looks like this - 📍 ) next to the "Travel destinations" link in the side menu. I also added the talking bubble emoji (this one - 💬) next the "Travelers' pub" link on the side menu. I decided not to add any more emojis to the side menu as that would probably be too much.

Just thought you might be interested in considering doing the same to help direct more users to those sections of the Wikivoyage. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Te map of Destinations is broken (again), so let's not direct any more users there at the moment. AlasdairW (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that all maps relying on https://wikivoyage.toolforge.org/w/poimap2.php (such as those accessible from the the upper right icon on most destination articles) are broken. I noticed a few days ago that controls (like +/- icons for zoom in/out) are missing. Maps using {{mapframe}} seem to be okay. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That's weird. It works for us at the Hebrew Wikivoyage. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That appears to use {{mapframe}}. Maybe we need to change ours over here? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Andyrom75, Atsirlin, Torty3: There is an error on line 6241 of the https://wikivoyage.toolforge.org/w/data/en-articles.js file that is causing poimap2 to fail. I'm assuming maybe a bad article name is corrupting the file, but since it is generated on Toolforge I'm not sure how we would fix it or even how to investigate further. https://admin.toolforge.org/tool/wikivoyage shows that you are all admins on Toolforge, is this something you can look at? -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is what ויקיג'אנקי's emojis look like on the Main Page of Hebrew Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hebvoy not appearing in the list

Does anyone know why Hebrew Wikivoyage does not appear in the list of other language Wikivoyages? Are there other Wikivoyages that are not linked? Did I read about Turkish Wikivoyage recently? Ground Zero (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is the list of Wikivoyages, with the date created. The versions in boldface are linked: Ground Zero (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

№
1	2006-12-10	Deutsch	de
2	2007-12-10	italiano	it
3	2012-09-23	English	en
4	2012-09-29	Nederlands	nl
5	2012-10-03	français	fr
6	2012-10-06	svenska	sv
7	2012-10-18	русский	ru
8	2013-01-07	español	es
9		português	pt
10	2013-02-06	polski	pl
11		română	ro
12	2013-03-21	עברית	he
13		українська	uk
14	2013-05-17	Ελληνικά	el
15	2013-08-11	Tiếng Việt	vi
16	2014-01-15	中文	zh
17	2014-10-02	فارسی	fa
18	2016-11-30	suomi	fi
19	2017-09-25	हिन्दी	hi
20	2018-06-07	বাংলা	bn
21		پښتو	ps
22	2020-08-27	日本語	ja
23	2020-12-15	Esperanto	eo
24	2021-01-19	Türkçe	tr

Do you have Languages - "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you." selected in Preferences - Appearance? This may be selected by default. I recall discussing this when it was introduced, and decided it was a bad idea as the compact list did not necessarily include the language of the destination. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@AlasdairW: Ah, that would be it. I don't know why Wikivoyage would decide that Bengali is relevant to me, but Hebrew isn't. The problem goes away when I change that setting. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)