Welcome to the pub

The travellers' pub is for general discussion on Wikivoyage, and 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.
  • Anything that is Nigeria-related is now meant to go in the Nigeria café instead. Anything that is Kosovo or Albania related is now meant to go in the Kosovo and Albania café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives, celebrations, and issues with certain articles.

You can review old Pub discussions in the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread

Where to ask for feedback (peer review)?[edit]

As my class' module on Wikivoyage (discussed a few headings above) is wrapping up, I'd like to tell my students to ask for a peer review from the Wikivoyage community. Where is the best place to do this? Request for Comments doesn't seem to have a relevant section, and I don't want to overwhelm the Pub here with few dozen headings. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for asking! Your students could post at Wikivoyage:Arrivals lounge or, better still, start a thread on the talk page of the respective article and then link to that talk page at Wikivoyage:Requests for comment directly under the heading "Articles and travel content" at the end of the first list — currently there is a list of renaming proposals but that section appears to be miscellaneous. The requests posted there should be in reverse chronological order. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukrainian vs. Russian names[edit]

I see many articles being renamed from a transliterated Russian name to a transliterated Ukrainian one. For a fairly typical example see Talk:Terebovlia. There are quite a few things that might be said about this:

  • Policy is to use the commonest English name. What is that in these cases?
  • The Ukrainian-based names are obviously more politically correct. Should we care?
  • Arguably we should just follow whatever WP decides.
  • Arguably this does not matter noticeably as long as there are appropriate redirects.
  • Some changes are clearly nonsensical. For example, at one point someone changed Kiev->Kyiv in a discussion of Kievan Rus at Russian_Empire#The_Rurikids. That was promptly reverted, but to me it seems weird that it was even considered.

There are other questions as well. Anyway, I think we need some discussion aimed at reaching a consensus policy on these.

Personally I'd be inclined to keep all the old names, though my opinion probably should not count for much since I don't know the region. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if we assume that most-common names should be used, it definitely seems like "Russian-style Latinization" is giving way to "Ukrainian-style Latinzation" for cases like "Kiev" to "Kyiv". I'm inclined to use the Ukrainian style for Ukraine-related topics. Either way, we should have plenty of redirects and where it's appropriate for travelers, note that [place] may have two different spellings. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a believer that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the context of the Russian Empire article, the spelling "Kievan Rus" should stay. We use the Ukrainian transliteration in the Ukraine article, and I think that's appropriate, and likewise, if someone ever decides to work on the history section, we should at least state the Belarusian transliteration in the Belarus article. I don't think we should wade into the political dispute about whether the Rus' should be considered part of Russian or Ukrainian history beyond noting that there is a dispute between the two countries as to whose history it should belong to. The dog2 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happened to using the most common English-language name, which has to be "Kievan Rus" and nothing else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this discussion begs another, should we be already thinking of splitting Donetsk and Lugansk and sticking them under Russia? I believe there will come a time when this move will happen, but at this moment it would be premature. I feel the same about choosing the appropriate nomenclature and spellings, just for the record. Ibaman (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is definitely premature as 1.) there's not a lot of just-for-funsies travel to warzones and 2.) there's no reason to think this will be under indefinite Russian occupation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would even dare suggest that updating Gaza Strip is a more urgent task than this discussion. I kinda lack heart to put myself to write that the Omar Mosque and St. Porphyrius Church are no more. Excuses for this non sequitur. Ibaman (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ibaman Semi-off topic, but the :wp:Church of Saint Porphyrius does not suggest the structure was severly damaged ("one building collapsed" without specifying which building and how many buildings the church had). I couldn't find the right Omar Mosque article to check, :wp:Mosque of Omar (Bethlehem) seems to be doing ok. Piotrus (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to use official transliteration, or at least the version Wikipedia uses. MrPaschenko (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general:
"official" is irrelevant. The policy page Wikivoyage:Naming conventions has articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries. This means that official names are often not appropriate for use as article names. Also, there are places with different "official" names according to Russian & Ukrainian governments.
It is English names that matter; for example, we use Moscow and Warsaw not transliterated forms.
As an outsider, I know only a few city names in the region -- Kiev, Odessa & Sevastopol -- and I've known those for decades. To me, those seem clearly the common English names, so they should be kept.
That said, it seems clear that Western media & WP are moving toward Kyiv, Odesa, etc. Arguably we should follow suit. Pashley (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case we should keep Kyiv (not Kiev), Odesa (not Odessa), as these names are more common: https://imgur.com/a/OeWIxoj MrPaschenko (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I will say for the names of historical figures, let's just stick to the local versions of the names depending on articles. For instance we should use "Vladimir the Great" or "St. Vladimir of Kiev" in articles about Russia, and "Volodymyr the Great" or "St. Volodymyr of Kyiv" in articles about Ukraine. We won't be able to please everyone, so that's the best compromise I can think of. The dog2 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree MrPaschenko (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree. We should use the most commonly used English spelling and revert all the changed names to reflect what is commonly understood. It's a matter of communicating clearly and thus putting the traveler first. I see no justification whatsoever for following WP. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, our sister project also has a policy of using common names, so the reason would be not reinventing the wheel. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not at all clear that Kyiv, Odesa, etc. are more common. User:MrPaschenko gives an example above, but it searches only cnn.com. In a general google fight (mention on any site), Kiev gets somewhat more hits than Kyiv and Odessa more than 10 times Odesa.
Also, there is an active campaign to influence this usage, see w:KyivNotKiev. To what extent does that explain the CNN result? To what extent is my immediate reaction on discovering the campaign (F*** that!) valid? Pashley (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's okay for someone to want something to be spelled a certain way. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but somebody having such a wish doesn't mean we should comply or that we should accept it being forced upon us. It's our choice. Also, if you include dead-wood material, you will get different result than from internet searches. The "least astonishment" rule is affected by what people read in their childhood, which in this case isn't what CNN uses today. For Kyiv and Odesa in contemporary context, the Ukrainian spellings are probably expected (my spell checker still complains!), but probably not e.g. for more obscure places known for historic events. –LPfi (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strangely enough, my spell checker that is Grammarly complains if I use a Russian transliteration in quotation marks (no idea if it also does that outside quotation marks since I favour using local spellings – though it probably does). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mine (whatever Firefox uses on a Debian box) does accept both Odessa and Odesa. Why Kyiv is marked as an error is beyond me. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody added the Ukrainian spellings en masse (while not checking that the most common ones were in their list). –LPfi (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MrPaschenko has made several dozen of these page moves & few other contributions. My gut reaction is that he is here to push a political agenda, not Wikivoyage:Here to build a travel guide, so my instinct is to revert the lot.
That instinct is likely wrong.
The only place I see where I'd say the move should clearly be reversed is Odessa.
For a few places like Kyiv and Lviv, the moves are acceptable since media & other web sites use those names. Of course in contexts like "Saint Vladimir of Kiev", "Kievan Rus" or "chicken kiev" a change should not even be considered.
For the various smaller places, it really does not matter as long as redirects exist. Pashley (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My instinct is to let English Wikipedia handle those issues, and just synchronize our names with theirs. I don't think that Wikivoyage has the manpower to deal with this. Piotrus (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree MrPaschenko (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pashley: "My gut reaction is that he is here to push a political agenda, not Wikivoyage:Here to build a travel guide, so my instinct is to revert the lot." – what?!? That's a spurious claim accusation that comes out as a claim made with 1 minute of research, nothing else. The vast majority of MrPaschenko's edits are improving UA articles, likely as a local, and these are changes that I would have done too, were I a local or were very knowledgeable about Ukraine. Please don't make baseless accusations in the future. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin request: Please edit editnotice[edit]

MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Soviet Union is ungrammatical: "an article that travellers may use to visit places that relating to the history of the USSR." the italicized portion should be "related to" or somesuch. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Now done. I also shortened the phrasings. LPfi (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops – sorry for my obliviousness and thanks for picking my error, Koavf. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Ive learned won thing, its that pobody's nerfect. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interface admin edit request[edit]

My team at Wikimedia Deutschland left an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Kartographer.js#Request to remove obsolete nearby code that probably got lost because not many people are actively watching such technical pages. While this is in no way urgent it would enable us to clean up the Kartographer codebase. Thanks in advance. --Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE) (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyrom75:? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE), I've overwritten MediaWiki:Kartographer.js with it:MediaWiki:Kartographer.js that I've previously updated with the support of @Christoph Jauera (WMDE). Please check and confirm that now is fine.
@SHB2000, thanks for the ping. Andyrom75 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Any idea why it's adding 11k bytes of text on Rail travel in Great Britain? I blocked the bot from editing that page. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was wigging out because of a malformed hack that I removed. I have no clue why that was the "solution" it was programmed to do, but it should be safe now. Let me know if it's not. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. After reverting InternetArchiveBot for the third time, I raised this on the bot's talk page on metawiki:User talk:InternetArchiveBot. As Rail travel in Great Britain has a lot of links, I suggest putting a time limit (6 months?) on how long the bot is blocked from that page. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only blocked it for 1 month, which is more than enough time to resolve the issue. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listing editor doesn't work anymore[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Listing editor#Listing editor doesn't work anymore. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like this might be affecting mobile/smartphone editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A photon was checking in to a hotel.  The person at the reception desk asked, "Any luggage?"

"No," replied the photon. "I’m traveling light." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any excess baggage, then? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be nice to have a page on Wikivoyage with travel-related jokes that can be used for small talk to break the ice with fellow passengers on a long train/bus ride or airplane flight. Nicole Sharp (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close move discussion?[edit]

Not sure if this is pub-worthy, but how do move discussions, such as this one, get closed and actioned? I am unable to move it over the redirect, although I have no idea if it's close-worthy at this point anyway. Is it just a matter of finding an admin and asking them? Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, well, I have no idea how this works here. I guess I'll just bother an admin in a week or two. Brycehughes (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems there is no established practice. Normally some admin just happens to notice the request (on the talk page) on Recent changes. –LPfi (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, ha, thanks. It's quite charming actually. Brycehughes (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No commercial freedom of panorama for Spain[edit]

See c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Spanish FOP. Since Wikimedia Commons requires images they host to be commercially usable, at least in terms of copyright, and a couple of Spanish court decisions have found that "there is no commercial usage for reproductions of works situated in public spaces," we and other languages of Wikivoyage are likely to have to upload all images of public artworks still under copyright locally, with a note that no commercial use of the images in question is allowed and anyone who disregards that warning does so at their own risk. This is likely to be a large task. Should we revive the Collaboration of the month page to help coordinate this work? I will post about this on the Interlingual lounge, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No-one is taking this seriously? We're likely to lose a lot of photos if we don't move them here, and this is a big job that will require a concerted effort by a bunch of people. There's absolutely 0 chance I'd try to do it by myself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you solicited anyone at Commons to help? This will require a decent amount of download and upload and a semi-automated tool would help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've suggested simple things like editing the misspelled "Quality images candidates" to "Quality image candidates" and was voted down because it was too much work. I see very little probability of any help from Commons, other than possibly keeping photos up or temporarily restoring them in individual cases to give us time to download them. We're going to have to do this project ourselves, or just give up a bunch of illustrations for our articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not by any means a legal expert, but I doubt the law is retroactive. Pre-existing photos that are already licensed for commercial use should not have to be relicensed. Any new photographs though should not be uploaded to Commons and uploaded directly to Wikivoyage instead under a noncommercial license. Regarding pre-existing photos already licensed for commercial use, I wouldn't worry too much about them unless you can find any information from a Spanish legal expert that the law applies retroactively. Worst case scenario is that Wikivoyage and Wikimedia Commons are hosted in the USA and so are not subject to Spanish law. There is already a lot of other content on Wikimedia Commons and even here on Wikivoyage that is illegal in certain countries but legal in the USA. It is very difficult or impossible to host a website that respects the laws of every country in the world and legally a website should only be subject to the laws in the country where the website is hosted from. If you are uploading photos from Spain then you should follow Spanish law as well as the laws of the country the website is hosted on (USA for Wikivoyage). Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page at Commons says the law isn't retroactive. That doesn't help much though, as it is from 1998. Commons is in no way required to delete the images: it is in the USA and it isn't a commercial project. The question is whether Commons will keep the images hoping that the supreme court will make a positive decision. The policy however is that the copyright law of the relevant country is respected (not all countries, and not even the relevant one for non-copyright things like the LGBT flag), to protect reusers, including commercial reusers. That policy is fundamental to the mission of Commons, which won't be changed because of unreasonable judges in one country. –LPfi (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Not all countries"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons doesn't follow the laws of all countries for all media, just US and local law, and even then the more permissive law is used, in cases like photographing over a border. –LPfi (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a good example: "File:Gay Pride Flag.svg". It is illegal to display an LGBT Pride flag in Russia. Providing safety information for LGBT travelers on Wikivoyage can also be a violation of Russian laws. What Wikimedia Commons has done there is add a template with a legal disclaimer noting that that the flag is illegal to display in Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and the United Arab Emirates. Wikimedia Commons is subject only to USA law, where all flags are constitutionally protected as Freedom of Expression (including Nazi flags and other symbols of hate). Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nicole, I suggest you offer your opinion at the linked Commons thread, but I don't see any reason to assume that laws in Spain cannot be ex post facto, just because the U.S. constitution prohibits such laws in criminal cases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bigger issue here is that the paragraph isn't there because of Spanish legislators, but because of a change to the Berne convention and a corresponding EU directive. If the Spanish court decision is reasonable, then commercial FoP may be illegal in most countries after the change. It was the clause used in the Swedish case, which more or less ended Swedish FoP (regarding internet use). –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why I hope Commons will not just quietly delete the images, and that's why I don't see an immediate hurry to copy over the media. It is a huge project. I assume most images affected don't carry the FoP template, so they are difficult to recognise. Probably all images in articles on Spain have to be checked manually – and then we might want to add images not yet in the articles. –LPfi (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One possibility is to just use the deletion requests. To identify images to delete, Commons has to do the same checks. Of course, media which already has the template are easy to recognise and could be copied already, in case. The biggest problem, I guess, are the thousands of files that will be individually nominated as "no FoP in Spain" without them having the template. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LPfi, you are misled in stating that Commons is not required to delete (=hide) photos that cannot be used commercially because of the laws of the country where the photos were shot. Please read c:COM:Licensing. If Spain lacks commercial freedom of panorama, thousands of images of public artworks in Spain that are under copyright will be hidden, visible only to Commons admins. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are also wrong that "the more permissive law is used." All photos on Commons must be commercially usable (at least in terms of copyright; Commons doesn't enforce trademarks or other non-copyright restrictions that are not laws on the books in the U.S., so gay pride flags are not deleted because of laws in, like, Iran) in both the U.S. and the country where they were shot, if different. Therefore, the less permissive law in regard to copyright rules. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please specify where the linked document says that Commons is legally required to delete (hide) "photos that cannot be used commercially because of the laws of the country where the photos were shot". I am in the belief that that is only a policy decision.
For the latter, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Choice of law. Yes, content must satisfy US laws, but when there are several other jurisdictions involved, the most permissive of these is chosen.
LPfi (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Maybe it's a policy decision, but it's a firm, basic policy decision they won't change. Try arguing with them and see how quickly you get shot down. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think I made that clear in my answer above to Nicole Sharp (at 07:21). But as long as the law is unclear, it is about the Commons:Precautionary principle, which leaves much more room for interpretation. Also, as the amendment to the Spanish law was just enacting the directive, which in turn was enacting a change to the Berne convention, this is much bigger than one country. Commons already has an exception for faithful reproductions of 2D works, and one could do something similar. Commons and its users themselves face no legal risk, as Commons clearly is a cultural entity, not a commercial one. –LPfi (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great Railway journeys...[edit]

Probably a long shot but do we have an overview?

My knowledge of these is somewhat limited outside the UK, but any list would have to include:-

  • Road to the Isles ( Highlands, Scotland)
  • Heart of Wales ( Wales)
  • Indian Pacific (Australia)
  • The Ghan (Australia)

I also seem to recall a mid 1980's BBC series - w:Great_Railway_Journeys, that may give some other suggestions.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Rocky Mountaineer, The Canadian. Ground Zero (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks , Do we have a way of adding "thematic" itinerary categories, as opposed to geographic ones?
    ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We do it in the form of travel topic articles, such as Tourist trains. There can be secondary categories for these, but usually we avoid them. Wikimedia categories on Commons are for maintenance purposes only, and I don't think we need the category at this point. –LPfi (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I assume the Trans-Siberian railway is the classic of the category, although problematic for Westerners today. The train to Lhasa should fit and probably some Indian services, but I haven't heard much about them. Perhaps also some of the remaining African long-haul lines. For Europe, I don't know what you count as great – they mostly don't have the exotic touch (for us, at least). Would Inlandsbanan fit? –LPfi (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would count some of the trans-alpine routes, and the Harz lines.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Coincidentally, I literally just wrote this one. I'd also include the line from Vic Falls to Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. Brycehughes (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    God, the Bulawayo-Vic Falls train is no longer running. That's really sad. (Actually who knows) Anyway the TAZARA's still going strong. Brycehughes (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +TranzAlpine railway, NZ? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have things like Grand old hotels and Legacy department stores; I'd say this might be another fine travel topic of that general type. The major ones, like Trans-Siberian railway, can be itineraries linked from the topic article. Pashley (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we have a dozen or two of rail itineraries over all, I think all "great" ones can be linked from the article. The really great ones should each get their itinerary article. I think they also could have a summary of a paragraph or so (perhaps some similar ones combined to a longer paragraph) in the article, in addition to the link. Hm, that would be the "a few sentences" in the listing, unless we go for including them in running text instead, which I think tends to give more entertaining reading. –LPfi (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One could do an article on the UK alone: The Guardian's 10. Ground Zero (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with some of the Guardian's choices.. but I did add the Cambrian line as a scenic route in Rail travel in the United Kingdom a while back. The approach I used might be a template for other descriptions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Guardian's choices appear to be as much about the destination as the rail journey. We do have West Highland Line which is mentioned in the article, but I don't agree with the Guardian's list of a random 10 of the most scenic 50 rail journeys. AlasdairW (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Rail_travel_in_Great_Britain#Most_scenic_routes for our list of the 7 most scenic rail journeys. AlasdairW (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse filter suggestion[edit]

Hi, currently the message given to users when they hit an abuse filter is MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed. This in my opinion is rather unhelpful, because I can see a new user getting hit and not knowing where to go from there. I suggest adding a link to this page (or somewhere where a user can easily seek help). To contrast, here's the same message on Wikibooks (which admittedly isn't that much better, but that's because we often make use of custom messages). The same applies to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning BTW. Leaderboard (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be worth including the offending string so the message becomes e.g.:
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed "bogus.example.org"
Would that be helpful to block evaders as well as to new users? Pashley (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Offending strings are sometimes best kept secret. Giving advice on how to proceed if the edit was in good faith would really be helpful. Ideally We would give the advice as the edit turns up in the filter, but it seems we are quite bad in monitoring these logs. –LPfi (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we had this discussion before. I don't remember where, and it seems nothing got done. Or was it another message? –LPfi (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought the reason for the disallow message was to ensure sockpuppets wouldn't know why their edits were disallowed. If they know what identifying edits to avoid as would be the case with a transparent filter, they could avoid the filter and go undetected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, exactly. If we tell that "Scunthorpe" was blocked as "indecent words" then that might hint on what we are blocking. It is better that just the admins check for the problem, by themselves or when alerted. (Some filters are indeed transparent, such as the "blanking by new user" one). –LPfi (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vehemently disagree with not writing the offending string – it's a bad user experience for the vast majority of innocent users who usually get caught up in such a filter and isn't how most warning messages are written (except notably Apple's message when your Mac restarts – which reads like "Ooh woo, welp, something went wrong, but we don't care the slightest."). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be in favor of providing some information, but if you think about a couple of long-term abusers, you hardly want to say here's the exact regex we use to detect you, and oh, look, if you double the first letter, you'll be able to post your nationalist spam without triggering this filter. In some cases, the information provided might need to be the name of the filter, as in "If you believe your contribution was valid, please tell an admin that the 'blue-green widget filter' was triggered." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not even that is needed. If you notify us under your user name, we can check the abuse filter link of your user contributions. We get much more detail than any non-admin user can give. They can of course tell us that Scunthorpe is a real place, if that's the issue. I know it is frustrating when one gets error messages without info, but e.g. for login failures, that's usually necessary not to give an attacker hints on what to exploit. What we can do is to point them to the Pub and assure them that we care. –LPfi (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi:, I get that - all I am recommending is that you provide a valid link so that a new user that got caught can seek help (such as this page). Leaderboard (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I answered to Pashley's suggestion. Let's see if somebody has any comment on yours. Pointing to the Pub would be easy, and I think that's the appropriate forum – technical details can be discussed privately among admins, but there is no reason not to raise the issue in public. –LPfi (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should have much softer language, directed at the false positive cases. We can afford apologising that we disallowed vandalism, when the filter hits as expected. "Identified as harmful" suggests that the edit indeed was bad. What about something like "Our filter assumes that this action was harmful, and therefore disallowed it. If you think it isn't, […]"? –LPfi (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I think a native speaker should suggest a suitable wording. At least tonight I cannot come up with anything good.) –LPfi (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, an apology would be good – since it reassures the user we actually care. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interviews: Tell us about your experiences using Wikidata in the Wikimedia sister projects[edit]

Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland is investigating the different ways Wikidata is being used in the Wikimedia projects. If you would like to speak with us about your experiences with integrating Wikidata in Wikimedia wikis, please sign up for an interview in this registration form. Please note that currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.

For more information, visit our project page. Feedback is always welcome here. Thank you.--Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crazy tree symbol[edit]

I've asked this before, but perhaps I'm doing it wrong. How do I get rid of the crazy tree symbol at the bottom of Galkacyo and Cayn? I created the categories but those were swiftly deleted. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further background at User talk:Brycehughes#Categories. We don't expect users to manually create categories, per Wikivoyage:Categories. So I want to know what's causing the problem Brycehughes describes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, users generally shouldn't manually add articles to categories (Template:IsPartOf and related templates should take care of that), but users do need to manually create category pages when adding a new region to the region structure. Correct me if I'm wrong. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The symbol is File:Categorisation-hierarchy-top2down.svg. It is added by Template:IsPartOf when the template detects that the specified category (Category:Khatumo, in the case of Cayn) does not exist.
Therefore, the solution is probably either:
  • create the category (if it's wanted), or
  • don't use that template to point to the non-existent category (i.e., either remove it entirely or point to something else).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{IsPartOf}} or {{PartOfTopic}} should be used on any destination and travel topic articles (respectively). I don't see the case when the template should be removed, unless it for some reason has been added to odd page types. Mostly the tree appears when an article is linked to a non-region article (does creating a region article create the category?). –LPfi (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In both cases the region articles exist. The categories were manually created, and I deleted them. I don't understand why the categories weren't automatically created when the articles were created. The following is stated in Wikivoyage:Categories: "Currently, the only approved uses of categories are for Project purposes, i.e. for helping out with articles that need attention or getting informed about current policies. These categories are set automatically within the templates, not manually by users." If that's inaccurate, the bolded text must be deleted and the rest needs to be corrected. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Anome, Traveler100: who seem to know something about this (see User talk:The Anome#isPartOf from 2013). Such categories are regularly created manually, but I don't know whether that is needed when region articles are created from scratch with all available automation. Note that the quoted text is about "setting" categories, not creating them. Anyway, the page needs to be amended to tell about category creation, as needs Breadcrumb navigation. –LPfi (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(We never add [[Category:Whatever]] to articles.) –LPfi (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That link also says the following: "Do not add articles to these categories manually. If [[Category:Region]] exists, {{isPartOf}} will automatically add the article to it." If that's untrue, it must be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed both categories. Ikan Kekek, the statement you say and what's mentioned on Wikivoyage:Categories is only true if the category already exists in that name. If not, you need to create the category because we don't have a bot that magically creates categories. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I see what I misunderstood. The text says "do not add articles to these categories manually," not "do not add these categories manually." But it's amazing that I've been using and editing this site for at least 17 years and never knew that users should create categories! I've never done so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many categories were created by User:The Anomebot2, but that was last active 10 years ago. I expect that not many categories have required to be created more recently, as they are only required when new regions are created, or travel tropics reorganised. Maintenance templates (eg Dead Link) may also require new categories, but these tend to be created by experienced users. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relevant to this discussion: Category:Regions with no category. I think all pages listed there are in need of work. For each one, either a category should be created manually, the article should be merged to another region article, or it should be converted to a different type of article (e.g. an extraregion or rural area). —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similarly, Category:Articles needing IsPartOf category seems to list articles that have the tree symbol because the right category has not been created. For each of these, either the category should be created or the breadcrumbs should be changed. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing that annoys me about the tree symbol is that is shows up in the mobile pages, where it is 1) entirely unhelpful and 2) very strange looking (I thought it was a bizarre unicode character at first). Brycehughes (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I was going to say that the tree symbol showing up should be screened out by the WMF parsing team, but if it's just an SVG... I can see why it appears. What would be more helpful is if in the case that the article is uncategorised, the {{IsPartOf}} template actually manifested as a visual template (perhaps with a nice message asking for the cat to be created) like {{Hatnote}} in which case it would already be screened out by parsers (I think). Brycehughes (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair – I agree that the page is poorly worded and needs to be copyedited. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SHB2000 Is there an extra step needed to get the category to actually list the articles (as the ones you created above do)? I just created Category:Yobe State and it doesn't list Potiskum. Brycehughes (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually remove the {{IsPartOf}} template and self-revert afterwards. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah ok I just tested that, but instead I used a null edit (just click edit source then publish without doing anything in between) which works too and is a bit less labour intensive. Must be a caching thing. Brycehughes (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the Categories page warns that there are caching issues.
Should the tree symbol (or some equivalent text) show up only for users who activate the error highlighting? The categories need to be created by experienced users anyway, as one should judge whether to create the category or correct the IsPartOf, and know what content to put on the category page.
If Wikivoyage:Categories or Wikivoyage:Breadcrumb navigation explained when and how to create the categories, and more people watched Category:Articles needing IsPartOf category, then having the problem show on individual articles would not be necessary (but still useful for reminding experienced users who work with some region).
LPfi (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it should only be displayed for experienced users per above (error highlighting). I also think we should do away with the tree symbol: it not immediately clear what it means, and it is too discreet for desktop users while at the same time being too noticeable for mobile users (as well as being useless for mobile users and not being screened out by the mobile text parsers). A message would be far more helpful than the symbol. Brycehughes (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman Catholicism in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

I'm taking it here since it involved two articles. I don't think it's unreasonable to make a comparison between Hong Kong or Macau and mainland China, especially since they're next to each other, and are often visited in a single trip. And not to mention, both Hong Kong and Macau are legally part of China (yes, I know there is the Hong Kong independence movement, but as it now stands, Hong Kong is part of China under international law). We obviously can't go into the weeds here on a travel guide, but to cut a long story short, the official Catholic church in mainland China is run separately from the Vatican, though there is now an interim agreement to allow the Vatican to vet clergy appointments in China too, which is actually opposed by many conservative Catholics. On the other hand, the Catholic church in Hong Kong and Macau is the actual Roman Catholic church run by the Vatican, and the Vatican may appoint bishops in Hong Kong and Macau without prior approval of the Chinese government. For some practising Catholics, that distinction might be important if they plan a trip around Asia; they might want to skip mainland China because they can't find a church that is sanctioned by the Vatican, but be fine with visiting Hong Kong and Macau where they can practise their religion freely. The dog2 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • this has very little to do with actual travel. We are a travel guide. You might "don't think it's unreasonable". I think it's encyclopaedic, Catholic travellers surely will learn this from their own priests and bulletin boards, it doesn't matter much whether Wikivoyage features this lenghty and boring description of the situation or not. Ibaman (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, there are legal implications in this instance. If you go to a Catholic church in mainland China that recognises the Pope as its leader, you are breaking the law and could potentially be arrested and jailed for that. On the other hand, Catholic churches that are sanctioned by the Vatican and hence recognise the Pope as their leader are legal in Hong Kong and Macau, so you won't get into trouble for attending mass in one of them. The dog2 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The China article addresses the situation in mainland China. The Macau and Hong Hong articles should address the situation in those territories. The situation of the Catholic church is complex. The way you described it was so simplified that it gave readers the wrong impression.
The China article deals with the situation in mainland China adequately. It does not need to be repeated in articles that do not cover mainland China. Those articles should focus on travel in Macau and Hong Kong. Ground Zero (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really know what this is about, and why, given the situation described above, anything more needs to be said in China – I think the wording covers everything we need to tell. I also don't see how Hong Kong and Macau are involved. We don't tell visitors to Åland (where I assume there is no mosque) to go to Turku or Stockholm for their Friday prayer. –LPfi (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a problem in a short "Unlike in mainland China" being in the Hong Kong article, if this is something that will actually bother most Catholics. Very regular church goers may find this out from their church at home before they leave, but more occasional worshippers (and non-Catholic Christians) may not. Would a traveller see much difference if they went to services either side of the border? AlasdairW (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't know the difference in actual rites. All I know is that in mainland China, the Catholic Church is run separately from the Vatican, and bishops are appointed by the Chinese government. The interim deal in theory allows the Vatican to also have a say on the appointment of bishops, so at least if the deal is followed, bishops appointed by the Chinese government are vetted by the Vatican before their appointment is confirmed. However, many conservative Catholics oppose this deal, since they believed that no government should have any say on the appointment of bishops. On the other hand, the Vatican freely appoints bishops and ordains priests in Hong Kong and Macau, and the Chinese government does not get involved so long as members of the clergy do not violate national security laws. The dog2 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is exactly the problem. The situation in mainland China is complex. As I noted when I undud the edits, your edit was so simplified that it was misleading. Explaining the situation in mainland China takes more detail, which isn't appropriate for the Macau and Hong Kong articles. It smells like soapboxing, not travel writing. Your past history of adding political and historical commentary that is wrong is good reason not to trust your edits. This is another example. Ground Zero (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have sometimes disagreed with some of the dog's edits, which seemed to me too detailed or too political, but in this case I agree with Alasdair:
I don't see a problem in a short "Unlike in mainland China" being in the Hong Kong article
It seems likely to matter to some visitors. Pashley (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These two websites indicate that there are no religious objections.[1][2] One is from 2011, and the other is undated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not qualified to give religious advice to Catholics or have a theological debate on this issue. Some Catholics may be OK with attending mass at a state-sanctioned Catholic church in mainland China, some not. That's up to each individual to decide. All we can do is provide the relevant information. But in short, the situation is different in Hong Kong and Macau than in mainland China, because the Chinese government does not appoint Catholic bishops in Hong Kong and Macau. That is done by the Pope, just as it is in most other countries, so a Catholic who objects to the way bishops are appointed in mainland China will not have to worry about facing this dilemma in Hong Kong and Macau. So for our purposes, what's important in the Hong Kong and Macau articles is that we should inform people that the situation is different from mainland China vis-a-vis the Catholic church. The dog2 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that "up to each individual to decide" is exactly how the Roman Catholic Church doesn't operate. When the COVID vaccines came out, there were a handful of American Catholics claiming that their religion prevented them from getting the vaccines. The Vatican said they were religiously acceptable, and the anti-vaxx folks had to decide that either their objections weren't about being catholic, or to quit claiming that taking a pope-approved vaccine was against catholic doctrine.
It's the same logic here:
  • Someone claims the vaccine is religiously improper, so they just can't
  • Church says there's nothing wrong, so go ahead
  • Someone claims that the churches in China are religiously improper, so they just can't
  • Church says there's nothing wrong, so go ahead
WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I don't know the difference", "I'm not qualified", you said it all, TD2 dude, hard to disagree, sorry for the corrosive irony, but you really should acknowledge the criticism you've been receiving from the community. Ibaman (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Unlike in mainland China, the Roman Catholic church is allowed to operate in Hong Kong" is the original edit, plus some completely tangential stuff about CEOs. Yet, "there is now an interim agreement to allow the Vatican to vet clergy appointments in China too", so the situation is more complicated that The dog2's edit suggests. I have no problem covering this in the China article. I have a problem with The dog2 loading political stuff not related to travel in the place covered by an article, especially given their history of just being wrong. It takes up way to much of other editors' time (see the discussion above). Ground Zero (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and going full encyclopedic, eager to include every nuance and exception, completely disregarding WV:Tone directives for a dry, wordy and boring style, just like on Christianity, I think I have a problem with this, too, well said, GZ. Ibaman (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mention anything about CEOs. Hong Kong's head of government (and Macau's) is called a "chief executive". Don't ask me why. That's just the way it is. Since people are so vehemently opposed to that, I'll drop that, but that was just to highlight that you'll be fine going to mass at a regular Roman Catholic church sanctioned by the Vatican in Hong Kong, since a number of post-handover heads of government in Hong Kong have been Roman Catholics. That's all that was about. And I did not write anything about the vetting of clergy in the articles themselves. All I'm trying to do here is to highlight that the situation in Hong Kong and Macau is different from that in mainland China. The dog2 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected: you did not mention "CEOs", but "chief executives". That term should have been explained for readers not familiar with HK politics. "the Roman Catholic church is allowed to operate in Hong Kong" addresses the point completely adequately without drawing tangential comparisons to the mainland. Ground Zero (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Amsterdam welcomes decline of nuisance tourism after 'stay away' drive[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/amsterdam-welcomes-decline-of-nuisance-tourism-after-stay-away-driveJustin (koavf)TCM 09:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it's might turn into a case of "be careful of what you wished for" in next 5-10 years. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or not? It would probably depend on whether you wanted to rent an apartment (less tourism = lower rent) or whether you owned a tourism-dependent business (less tourism = lower revenue). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming soon: Reference Previews[edit]

A new feature is coming to your wiki soon: Reference Previews are popups for references. Such popups have existed on wikis as local gadgets for many years. Now there is a central solution, available on all wikis, and consistent with the PagePreviews feature.

Reference Previews will be visible to everyone, including readers. If you don’t want to see them, you can opt out. If you are using the gadgets Reference Tooltips or Navigation Popups, you won’t see Reference Previews unless you disable the gadget.

Reference Previews have been a beta feature on many wikis since 2019, and a default feature on some since 2021. Deployment is planned for November 22.

-- For Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team, Johanna Strodt (WMDE), 13:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally reference previews on Wikivoyage! Brycehughes (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, doesn't seem very relevant to this site. The only references we usually have are for travel advisories and sometimes for climate information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't use references in the Wikimedia sense for travel advisories, either. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We use links, so those are references. Ref tags are not used, period, and I'd be happy for the functionality of creating them to be removed from this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it really matters that much, we can just edit the abuse filter for any instance of the ref tag, but 1.) it doesn't seem like that big a deal and 2.) it's possible that someone will use those for notes rather than references, but that shouldn't be done either. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan, it looks like ref tags are presently used in 48 articles. Here's the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took out one that really didn't seem necessary and the entire section is a little ropy anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At a glance, it seems like most of those ref tags may be for climate charts. The rest should be removed immediately, but I am minimizing how many edits I make till after a big concert on Sunday. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is about ref tags, so counting inline links is irrelevant in this case. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the en.wikivoyage community have a lobby for technical wishes team? I'm sure we must have some. (I have some esoteric ones) Brycehughes (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A long-term wish is an option to show the user's current location on dynamic maps. I requested it here but it was turned down because of other work on the dynamic map infrastructure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Brycehughes, we have once or twice pulled together to push for something. There was talk about not having another vote in 2024 (to have the team just keep working on the things that were already voted in; every vote costs that team at least a month of productive time), but it wasn't explained well, and editors insisted that they be allowed to vote annually, even if the results are likely to be very similar. The plan, last I heard, was for there to be a vote around April 2024, regardless of whether that was actually a good idea.
I've been wondering whether the whole thing needs to be re-evaluated. The original idea was for the team to make small, relatively simple fixes that would take about a month or less, and ideally not require any ongoing maintenance. Think "here, we'll fix your complicated template" or "I can do a one-time fix to that bot, since the bot operator stopped editing several years ago". Most of the requests they're getting these days are larger projects or require specialized knowledge. For example: We don't need the Technical Wishes team to spend a couple of weeks doing something about maps. What we really need is a Maps team, with staff and a budget, forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with location, is that it requires to ask permission to the user, which is very disruptive and annoying. I'd definetly like to see that in a map of Special:Nearby, where it already has to ask for that permission. Unfortunately, I've never really gotten around to adding a map to Special:Nearby. TheDJ (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Permission annoyance would be ameliorated with a button, no? (Typically it's a target symbol.) User hits button, permission is asked. Otherwise it's mute, no bother. Brycehughes (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might be one or two for travel advisories; here's the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support having a Wikivoyage technical wishlist page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi everyone. I just wanted to mention that there are (minimum) two teams working with wishlists in the Wikimedia world:
Looking at this conversation, it seems that comments are about the latter. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johanna Strodt (WMDE), have you checked that date? There's no train that week, and no deployments the next day, due to the US holiday. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing. Thanks a lot for the pointer. We did check the date, but it could be that the short-term calendar hasn't been updated yet. Our team is looking into it. Thanks again! -- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi WhatamIdoing and others. I just wanted to let you know that we've moved the deployment one day ahead, to November 21. (It will be a relatively small configuration change, which is why we're not really affected by the train deployment calendar.) -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(For anyone who's curious: The train is the week's collection of bug fixes, new features, and other code that needs to be "put on the server". It's called a train because it follows a set route, from one group of wikis to the next. A config patch is like changing the settings on your operating system: the code's already on the computer, but you want to turn it on or off. There are scheduled times for each. This week, because of the long US holiday weekend, there's no train, and there are a limited number of scheduled windows for changing the settings. If something goes wrong, they'd either have to follow emergency procedures, or live with the problem until next Monday. This is a very low-risk change, but it's still bad practice to schedule for the last available non-emergency window, which should be reserved for fixing unexpected problems. So they've moved their schedule up slightly, and if it causes any problems on Tuesday, then we need to let them know about it ASAP so they can fix/remove it before the last config window closes for the long weekend. I'm not expecting any problems, but that's why they changed the schedule.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't always deploy, but when I do, it's on Friday at 5pm. Brycehughes (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Different places, different needs, different schedules. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some people just like to watch the world burn. But while we're at it, we might as well do a force commit on Friday at 5pm and let someone else untangle that mess. :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: The 24 Best Places to Go in 2024[edit]

https://www.cntraveler.com/story/best-places-to-go-in-2024Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't have an article on this. Before I suggest it to my students next year as high-priority project (en wiki states it is "the 10th largest city in the country", country being South Korea here), I want to double-check with folks here, given we also have entries on Bundang ("a ward in Seongnam") and Pangyo ("a city in Gyeonggi, administratively part of the city of Seongnam"). (Also, one listing in Wonju has the address in Seongnam?). And half of the history of Gwangju (Gyeonggi) seems to be about Seongnam? Seems like a bit of a mess... Piotrus (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it, imho. I can't see the big boys arguing much about this one. Brycehughes (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, does Sylheti phrasebook has a "good article" badge? I'm a bit confused. I don't see any badges in the article or any discussion for a good article on the talk page. Can anybody tell. Sorry for disturbing. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sylheti phrasebook is a guide article, the second highest in our classification of articles, when it is "essentially complete". Articles can be Outline, Usable, Guide or Star. Also see Wikivoyage:Phrasebook status. There are centralised discussions of promoting articles to star, but a discussion isn't required for the other promotions (it sometimes happens for guide). AlasdairW (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we're not Wikipedia to have "good articles". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] The status is seen in the template at the bottom of the article, which says it has "guide" status. Usually anybody who sees that an article fulfils the relevant criteria (see Wikivoyage:Phrasebook status) can change the status (except for star). The status was changed to guide in 2012. The article doesn't follow the standard format and the criteria have changed since 2012, so there should probably be a discussion. –LPfi (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loan words in English[edit]

Should this be covered under Talk or English language varieties? I think we should cover it somewhere because words that are borrowed into English often have a different meaning from in their original languages. For instance, we use "madrasah" in English to refer to Islamic religious schools, but the original Arabic word refers to any kind of school, so a Christian school will also be called a "madrasah" by an Arabic speaker. The dog2 (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • yeah, to me, madrasah, caffè and jamón are overwhelmingly obvious examples, not borderline obvious, but really plain in your face obvious. I'm sure you will take it as a personal attack, as proof that I have a personal grudge against you. But yes, they're as obvious as you can get, and this stuff would better be left to w:False cognate IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obvious to you because you speak multiple languages. Not obvious to people who only speak English. An English speaker visiting Japan might ask for "manga" and by pointed to the Batman or Superman comics, not knowing that the word in Japanese refers to any kind of comics, not specifically Japanese comics. And those are not false cognates, they are true cognates but false friends. And when I found it confusing when I visited Spain before I realised that jamón is just the generic word for ham in Spanish. The dog2 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just to satisfy my curiosity, please tell us what were your thoughts about "jamón" before you realized it means "ham", what was your confusion. You should speak about "prosciutto" as well. Ibaman (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it meant specifically Spanish dry-cured ham like jamón ibérico. And likewise, I thought prosciutto meant specifically Italian dry-cured ham, like prosciutto di San Daniele and prosciutto di Parma. If you say "jamón" or "prosciutto" when speaking English, those are what people will understand them to mean. An English speaker will not use "jamón" or "prosciutto" to refer to the regular ham from the supermarket that you put in your sandwich. The dog2 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that means you're PRESUMING that every "English speaker" is linguistically unaware of these subtleties, and must be thoroughly informed about the existence of false friends and shibboleths. Call me pedantic if you will, but to me, this is all too obvious to need mention in a travel guide. Other opinions will be welcome. I find so unconfortable when it seems we're engaged in a dialog that no one else cares about. Ibaman (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can confirm that only caffè seemx obvious to me; the others don't. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a mistake in the edit on caffè, but what I meant is the word "latte" in Italian just means milk, and is not a type of coffee like in English. If you go to Italy and ask for "latte", you will get a glass of milk. If you want the type of coffee we call "latte" in English, you have to say "caffè latte". The dog2 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed – which is why I agree that your edits should be included. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it is quite rare for such things to matter. e.g. I do not think either jamon or prosciutto needs an explanation of its meaning in the original language, though their English meanings might be mentioned in articles on the relevant cuisine.
Taking Chinese cuisine as an example, terms that are routinely used by English speakers like dim sum and mapo tofu should be mentioned (& checking the article, they are).
Beyond that, it is all judgement calls & there's a slippery slope to avoid. Having been an expat in China, I use jaozi, zi ran nui rou, gambien tudou (spicy french fries, the most popular dish among my circle) and other Chinese expressions, but I'm not sure if those belong in a travel guide. Pashley (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I'm thinking about is more about English speakers getting confused when they travel to those countries and see those terms on labels or restaurant menus. The dog2 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oh well, in the ITALIAN PHRASEBOOK it should be stated in no uncertain terms that LATTE means MILK, and this is the most accurate translation. As of this moment, with more than ten years as a wikiuser, I'm too accustomed to ttcf and WV:Tone, and copyediting accordingly,

pardon me for getting itchy about "footnotes" and "references" that spoil the flavor of a travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We might want to add a warning about this specific kind of false friends in Talk. It is very common to use a loan word for some specific version of something, like in these examples. I don't think we need to point that out were we actually tell the meaning of the word ("coffee: caffè" is quite clear without a nota bene, the word really means coffee). –LPfi (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think English language varieties would be the place to cover these, and some of them aren't really loan words. Jamón is Spanish, not English, as far as I'm concerned. And you probably know that madrassah means Islamic academy in languages like Malay. The place to deal with its meaning in Arabic is in Arabic phrasebooks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know the meaning in Malay. The word for school in general is sekolah, while madrasah is specifically an Islamic religious school. And likewise in Singapore English, we use madrasah to refer only to Islamic religious schools. I just remember my Arab friends found it weird when I used it that way, because in Arabic, "madrasah" is just the generic word for "school", whether secular, Islamic, Christian or whatever. And what I was saying about jamón is that English speakers use it to refer specifically to dry-cured hams from Spain. But in Spanish, it is a generic word for any kind of ham, including the cheap ham from the supermarket that you put in your sandwich. The dog2 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English speakers normally don't use the Spanish word for ham at all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem, as I see it, is not in the phrasebooks, where the words are clearly defined. The problem is with words not in the phrasebooks (or when the traveller didn't look it up), such as ordering a latte presuming one knows what it's called, because one knows how to order it in Italian cafés in other countries. Likewise (or the other way round), if asking for "mail" in Finland, you could very well be directed to a computer instead of the post office. Thus, Talk is the right article for this. –LPfi (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: So let's say you know your friend is going to Spain on holiday. Wouldn't it be a normal thing to ask your friend to "please bring back some jamón for me"? Or couldn't someone say "I want to try the jamón" when they're going to a Spanish restaurant? The dog2 (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. And LPfi, the place to mention that latte means milk, other than the Italian phrasebook, is Italy#Drink. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be better to put this kind of information in specific places. Nobody's going to read Talk on the off chance that it will happen to have information about the difference between ordering a caffè latte and a café au lait in the particular country and language that will be relevant. They're far more likely to read the article about the country, the phrasebook for the language, or (if we have one) an article about the food in that country.
I'd never ask a friend to bring jamón back from Spain; first, it's almost certainly not legal for casual importation.[3] Second, the word just means ham. If I wanted jamón iberico, I'd ask for jamón iberico specifically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, I guess that might be a difference between Singapore and American English then, since we don't get as much exposure to Spanish in Singapore. And unlike in the U.S., it is legal to bring jamón iberico into Singapore from Spain. The dog2 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walking tour copyright?[edit]

Many guidebooks describe walking tours or other itineraries with a couple of waypoints. The text in the book is normally copyrighted, and cannot be copied to Wikivoyage word by word. Provided that the text is rewritten, is there any intellectual property law for a sequence of waypoints, or similar? The Millennium Tour is based on a map published by the Stockholm City Museum, which is a public institution. As the tour had no licensing from the author's estate, and is no longer actively hosted, it seems to be fair game. The Stockholm history tour is a composition of a couple of guidebooks and guided tours. I consider to make a Haunted Stockholm Tour, based on a copyrighted book on the topic, which is in turn based on legends and folklore. There is also a commercial tour on the topic. How close can a travel topic be to a copyrighted work? /Yvwv (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a non-lawyer and speaking for American law, the closest things that come to mind are 1.) the arrangement and selection of quotations can be copyrighted, even if the person assembling those quotations does not own the original copyright on the works being quoted and 2.) sets of plain facts cannot be copyrighted. So if a walking tour is something like the arrangement of quotations, then yes. But if following a linear path that takes you from the shore to inland or from north to south in the most efficient route or that goes from the town's oldest building to its newest one, etc. is just elaborating on a set of facts, then no. As someone who is still not a lawyer by the end of this comment, I'd imagine that tour pathways are generally going to be the latter, but as with most real legal questions, the answer has a lot to do with if someone sues you and how much money he has to afford good lawyers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope expensive lawyers aren't key in Sweden. Finnish law is closer, but neither I am a lawyer, and I haven't researched that aspect of law. If I were inspired by a former tour, I would attribute the original as common-sense courtesy. It is probably best to either just be inspired, not copying, or to ask for permission to revive the tour, although I don't see that the itinerary itself could be copyrighted (as it is about ideas). I assume the situation is similar to copying the plot of a novel without copying the actual writing. –LPfi (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We might also consider business ethics. Professional tour guides normally don't publish their itineraries, so that their knowledge stays useful. Open-source articles on other tours in the same city is however more likely to increase interest for the city, and leave visitors with more money to spare in the city. And in general, Wikimedia projects don't usually limit themselves to avoid rivalry with commercial publishers. /Yvwv (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be worth doing some research in a large library (and maybe secondhand bookshops). Although you have identified one copyrighted book on Stockholm's Ghosts, are some of the waypoints also covered by other books? If 3 different books (by different authors) mention the location then good. Maybe there is even an out of copyright book that covers some of the locations (the 1890 guide to Stockholm?). AlasdairW (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reading Linnell's book, I find it so comprehensive that it will be difficult to find any well-known ghost story in Stockholm that is not mentioned by the book. In any case, much of the quality of folklore is the dramatic storytelling. Linnell does not really deliver that, so over time, the article can hopefully be expanded with ghost legends told in a compelling manner. /Yvwv (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recommend you to read w:Copyright in compilation. I think a sequence of waypoints is similar to "A directory of the best services in a geographic region", an example of copyrightable things listed in the article.--Hnishy63 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice. The book (ISBN 9151827387) in its whole is close to be a complete database. It also suggests a few walking tours, one of them in Gamla stan; the intention of the Haunted Stockholm tour is to make a slightly different itinerary, partially inspired by commercial guided tours. /Yvwv (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another advice; you may contact the publisher and ask for explicit permission by the author. Tell them the following: 1) I recently found compilations are copyrightable. 2) My itinerary is non-commercial. 3) It uses very small part of your work. 4) It may actually increase sales of the book. 5) I should have requested before publishing my itinerary. You have good chances and anyway can clarify the situation.--Hnishy63 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our license requires them to permit commercial use of our text. We are non-commercial, but re-users might not be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are plenty of digital sources for Stockholm's ghost stories. I will use other sources than the main book when available, and also add waypoints not found in the book, to avoid copyvio. Hopefully, the article would be good to feature for Halloween 2025, after the 2-year cooldown since the featuring of the Swedish Empire. /Yvwv (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help from SVG experts[edit]

At the Hebrew Wikivoyage the Wikimedia Foundation has changed the site's skin from "Vector Legacy 2010" to "Vector 2022" which is now the default skin for anyone whom hasn't defined the classic skin as the default. Unfortunately this change hasn't been smooth so far as initially the new skin accidentally displayed two logos on the top of all the site's pages (see example at the top of this page). We tried getting the developers to fix the issue by opening a request at the Phabricator to fix it. Also, for this to be fixed and us to have a logo with only one logo I even created a new minimal logo which could be used in the new skin.

Following our request the developers did change the logo so it would not show a 2 Wikivoyage symbols at the top of each page on the site with the "Vector 2022" skin. Unfortunately, for some reason their change made the text of the logo too small (see example).

In my opinion it is very important, for the sake of aesthetics, to make the text of the logo larger so that it would look more like the example on the right side of this image.

The developers mentioned in the discussion in Phabricator that we must provide SVG files in following dimensions: Wikivoyage-tagline-he.svg with 120px width & 12px height , and Wikivoyage-wordmark-he-2.svg with 120px width & 18px height as per [4].

Any SVG expert whom can help us fix the files Wikivoyage-wordmark-he-2.svg and Wikivoyage-tagline-he.svg according to the sizes the developers specified in the Phabricator? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, only admins on c: can do that at the moment. Even a non-SVG whiz should be able to fix it in any text editor. In lines 7 and 8 of the tagline, change width="120" to width="120px" and height="12" to height="12px". A similar edit to the wordmark will probably do the trick? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sup fam?[edit]

My username is Christian Traveler, and I wanted to introduce myself. I've done plenty of volunteer and missions work, and want to share some of my insights. I'm an Independent Baptist currently living in Suburban Chicago. Christian Traveler (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers! Missions send people to far flung places that aren't well covered on this website. Tell your friends! Brycehughes (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Conversation (AU): Wikipedia’s volunteer editors are fleeing online abuse. Here’s what that could mean for the internet (and you)[edit]

I came across this article on The Conversation (Australia) this morning. I do think abuse is less of a thing here than on Wikipedia, but that can be largely attributed to a lower editor base. Still worth a read, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the closing remark is important: "promoting healthy communication practices is critical […]". I think we have the healthy communication practices, as does sv-wp. As the project grows, this needs to be supported by formal structures, such as the mentor system used on some Wikipedias and consistent sanctions against violators. I hope a community that backs up an editor subject to toxic comments helps quite a bit, and if the attackers are just trolls and newcomers, while the established users back up the victim, they will feel a lot better than if some established editors are among the attackers. –LPfi (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed; this is the beauty of smaller wikis, especially regarding sanctions. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think en.wp does a hell of a lot better than most of the social media platforms insofar as toxicity is inherent to any large-scale keyboard social engagement experience. Yes en.wv doesn't generate much abuse because we're small. But if it ever really developed here, then I think en.wp's approach is something to be emulated, assuming that at that point we'd be much larger. Toxicity is an issue generally on the internet, and the fact that Wikipedia only gets occasional press is in a perverse way something to be admired (it's Alexa #7 and portrays pretty much every controversial issue ever!). Brycehughes (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that size matters. Here, during a typical month, we have about 900 editors who make one edit (or a couple of edits), and about 150 editors who make a moderate-to-large number. You wouldn't expect anyone to be able to name editors in order of volume (if you're curious, the top five recently were DPejano, Grahamsands, LPfi, Lazarus1255, and Rogeliomnl24 – the first and last in that list are new accounts), but it's small enough that you recognize names and can learn a little bit about them as individuals. I think the human-scale community is one of its strengths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There have been occasions of severe hate speech, but they have in most cases been rolled back at sight. /Yvwv (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]