Regarding this, would you mind restoring this? I was trying hard to find a place where students can report their articles for peer review by the WV community. If it exists, it is very well hidden. I didn't want them to spam Traveller's Pub, so I directed them there. If this is the wrong place, please move it to where it should be - or the Pub if no better place exists. TIA, Piotrus (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You see, RFC exists for requesting comment on a particular page. By simply linking a page in namespace 0 (i.e. mainspace), there's nothing to request comment on. Perhaps could you tell your students to start a discussion on the relevant talk page and then link the discussion in RFC. Hope that helps, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could also create a cafe, but what would we call it? "Korea and China cafe"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Although I just ranted about overgeneralised articles 7 minutes ago, perhaps something like "East Asia cafe" (even though it's a bit broad)? This way, if anyone has queries or questions about an article about Japan or Taiwan per se, there is also a place to request that. We do have a fair number of new contributors who edit Japan-related articles and often have questions. Tai123.123, if you're still active on Wikimedia, what would you say of this suggestion? In other words, if such a cafe existed when you were a new user on Wikivoyage, would this have impacted your editing experience? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also apologies if my message seems a bit rushed – I'm currently adding a new proposed freeway on OpenStreetMap while also intermittently checking en.voy and en.wb at the same time. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, I think I'd be more likely just to post on the talk page of one of the admins. Tai123.123 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest Wikivoyage:Peer review or such. The reason we came here was b/c at Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub it says "If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment." and I want my students to get feedback from experienced Wikivoyagers... Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Experienced users doing Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol are paying attention to new edits, anyway, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek Doesn't help if we want to have a standardized peer review activity. As my students are finishing the projects, the final step I have for them is "ask for your article to be reviewed by the experienced Wikivoyage volunteers". Now I am struggling to tell them how, exactly, the can do so :( Piotrus (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would have let them use "requests for comment" in this unusual way, but they could certainly post to the Travellers' pub. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek Can you restore their requests for comments or maybe move them to the Pub? I'd like to ask the rest of the students to sent in their requests for review to the same centralized location in the near future, so there may be ~20 requests in total. Piotrus (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to do anything unilaterally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Piotrus, did you read my very first reply above? RFC is not for simply linking pages with no discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would have let the RFC entries stay, or added a link to an appropriate page and answered there (I would have done it, but didn't have the time to check the articles before the entries were removed). The standard procedure, which SHB maintains, would be to start a discussion on the article talk page and link it from the RFC page. This involves two steps (the talk page entry and the link at RFC), is it too difficult? I think we should be kind to newcomers and accommodate their mistakes, but of course, with all the group following the example of the first ones, it is a bit more disruptive than with single editors.

Would it be OK to reinstate the entries, with an answer including a link to the appropriate talk page? Would that be enough of a model for the rest of the group?

–LPfi (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek @SHB2000 @LPfi I appreciate RfC is not for linking pages with no discussion, but as I noted earlier, this is unclear. In particular, the Pub suggests this is the place to ask for feedback. It has been my experience (with banners as well) that there is a lot of unrwritten or semi-hiden rules and/or pratices that Wikivoyagers developed, and experienced ones like you all know about them. But relatively new editors, like me, not to mention complete newbies as my students, don't know this, and again, if the Pub says "ask for feedback there", this is where we go.

Second, with all due respect, rules should bend to accomodate the needs of travellers and editors. As I said, it's ok if RfC is not the right place to ask for this, but no alternative venue was suggested ("maybe there, maybe not"). From where I stand, this is not very friendly to my students, who are now asking me "what happened to our requests for revews/where can I posted them" and I am not sure what to tell them. Well, yes, I can tell them it's a two-step process, "ask on the talk page first and then ask at RfC", but what I find a bit disheartening is that instead of copying their requests there (to the relevant talk pages) their requests were simply blanked. This is not a very friendly way to handle new editors, most of whom don't even know how to check history of a page and read edit summaries. (And yes, LPfi, I think that would be totally acceptable; this worked for the banner discussion, where a lot of suggestions where met with comments "please propose this change at the talk page first"). Telling them in a visible way how to do it better is fine, what I am slightly upset about is that right now, most students cannot be expected to figure out what happened and they have to rely on me to tell them this (because, again, most newbies don't understand stuff like "go to edit history and see if there is an explanation in an edit summary").

I recommend, for best practices, to write clear instructions on how to request a peer review or such, and that when a newbie makes a mistake, the experienced editors finish the process for them, leaving them an explanation on their talk page, instead of blanking their edits. That will be more helpful in converting some newbies into regulars. Piotrus (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Piotrus, I understand your frustration. I too have had many issues with these unspoken "policies" that are in practice. It can sometimes feel like "this is the way of how we do things and you need to meticulously observe us; if you do, then you are more than welcome, if you don't, then you can back off and make sure your name never comes in Special:RecentChanges" (obviously exaggerated, but this is how I sometimes felt), and this is something I hope to change.

However, in this case, this is not an unspoken rule, but something that is clearly outlined at the top of the pub. If you somehow missed it, it's right above the point RfC point, it says "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.". It's up to the user if they want to link the discussion on RfC or not. Quoting the top of Wikivoyage:Requests for comment, for reference:

This page allows you to ask other Wikivoyagers to contribute to a discussion, including policy/style pages, and article content. You may want some feedback, more opinions, or just some help in reaching a consensus.

• Don't start conversations here. Direct Wikivoyagers' attention to a discussion going on elsewhere.

I am not disputing that RfC isn't a place to request feedback; it indeed is. What RfC is not, is a place to start a discussion – that includes linking a plain link with no discussion. It has been made very clear that the procedure for requesting feedback is to start a discussion on the relevant talk page and then link it in RfC. If that simple process is too hard, then I don't know what is. It's unreasonable to expect me to start five different talk page requests and let each and every individual user know when it was very clear what the processes are.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I understand. I missed that line at first, as I came there from the Pub which says "If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment." I didn't consider that RfC will say in turn "start a discussion on a talk page and report it here, but don't start one directly here", I just followed instruction from the Pub. Piotrus (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

In saying that, the top of the pub is a bit messy and user-unfriendly. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

And, yes, it is my bad, I ddn't notice until now the Pub is saying "draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers", I somehow undestood this as "draw attention to an issue to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers". It maybe worthwile to add information to the Pub that if one wants to draw attention to an issue, they should first start a discussion on the respective article's talk, THEN report the discussion to RfC. Piotrus (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

By all means, WV:PF if you think it should be added. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I will, but for now, I started talk page discussions for all the pages that were reported for RfC. Now that the talk page discussions are properly in existence, would you be so kind and restore the edits by my student? (I noticed one of the removed requests was not by my student, I also started a discussion for it). Piotrus (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Piotrus: Done – see Special:Diff/4560983. Thank you for starting discussions on the relevant talk pages. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The activity is "Please start a request for feedback on your Wikivoyage article’s talk page, then list it at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Requests_for_comment#Article_discussions". To what degree students can follow instructions is, well, interesting as always. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. I didn't want to have to protect the talk page, but it escalated to the point where I had to use the wiki equivalent of force. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I found myself telling multiple students "this is not the right place". I'll have to think about how to word this assignment more clearly, but well, it had a live url. Dealing with ESLs is... always and adventure. (Most of my students use machine translation for everything, from translating my slides and my speech to translating English Wikivoyage pages, their text, and replies... I love technology but I am worried about recent developments here. There are lots and lots of communicaiton issues, some of which you can observe. Sorry for the trouble, Piotrus (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

PS. You can unprotect the page, the class is finished :) Piotrus (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

One of the issues I've found with the vast majority of Wikivoyage's pages is that the vast majority of them were designed for the MediaWiki of 2005 and either look old, are needlessly complicated, or are caused by the general templatophobia (I made that wording up, but I flout that policy per my interpretation of m:IAR) found within Wikivoyage. RfC is no exception to this.

Anyway, thanks for cleaning up the requests, Piotrus. I must admit I do a poor job at dealing with EALDs (both IRL and on wiki), but I think Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Veillg1 only escalated this further. I'll unprotect the talk page in just a moment, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 21:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery 23:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to and was confused into thinking it was still on the vfd page. But would you please edit out your slam against the consensus? That is an inappropriate and inflammatory thing to put into a closing message. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for agreeing with that, but is there a policy stating that I cannot include my personal opinions in an outcome statement? I think we should discuss this somewhere – as far as I'm aware, there isn't a policy or a guideline stating that I cannot. I understand your rationale, though – I think it should still be discussed somewhere (perhaps in the pub?). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

We will discuss it if we have to, but the entire point of closing a vfd discussion is to stop arguing! I can't believe you would have to be told that closing is merely a matter of record-keeping, simply reporting on the decision a consensus took. Why would you insult the consensus instead of just stating what was decided? If you can't close decisions you disagree with without trying to get in a last shot, please stop closing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

It really bugs me that there has to be a policy when common sense should suffice. There shouldn't need to be a policy for everything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you know why there's never been a policy before? Because as far as I can remember, no-one has ever done what you did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Well, that's the exact reason why I waited for 10 extra days, even though the consensus was to keep the article. If you were complaining about my closure, then why didn't you close the article yourself 10 days ago?

Also, I stand by my actions. If there's no policy stating that something isn't allowed (whether it's local, global, or mandated by the ToU), that means you cannot cite common sense as a reason for me not to do something. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree with IK. An admin is expected not only to follow policies, but also to use their best judgement. We cannot (and don't want to) have a rule for everything, and there is always room for interpretation. We have seen the analogue in the US as well as in Finland, where the public has been chocked when a cabinet member, chairman or other official has used their nominal powers to act against the spirit of a decision when formally acting according to it. There was no rule forbidding them, but they were expected not to do that. At a wiki, the closure should be a technical act, not one where you express opinions. If you hadn't stated your opinion clearly enough before, then do that and wait with the closure so that people can answer. –LPfi (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Missed the point. Tell me what policy I didn't follow, and I'll be convinced; until then, this is an attempt to enforce and shove an unspoken rule down my throat. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. I'll add it. Until now you didn't break any rules, but IK and I think that your judgement wasn't sound in adding the closing comment. Closures are things done according to practice and sound judgement as well as rules. –LPfi (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see you often archive things like:

(→‎Amish and Mennonites: archive)

Thanks, that needs doing & is often rather a tedious chore.

However, I'd find it helpful if you'd say "archive as keep" or "archive as delete" instead of just "archive". That makes it easier for an admin who has not followed the discussion to see what happened. Pashley (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Pashley: sure thing. Thinking about it, it does indeed make it easier for anyone, as you don't have to click the link to find out the outcome. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply