Welcome to the pub
QA icon clr.svg

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

Wikivoyage 10 planning[edit]

In a few months we have our anniversary, what could we organize to celebrate it?

I was thinking of making a meta page to set up a global campaign for our anniversary, apply for a rapid fund to organize a contest like the one we had five years ago, and maybe other activities that don't require funding.

What do you think? Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 12:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galahad: Great idea! I was also thinking if we can get Wikipedia and other WMF projects to add a banner at the very top for maybe a month. How hard would that be? This way, we also draw more editors and increase Wikivoyage's awareness. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CentralNotice would be a good idea. But we share our birthday with Wikipedia. I don't know what would happen in that sense.
I created a page on Meta-Wiki about our birthday. It is in Spanish but can be translated. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to the month-long banner idea. That brought a lot of Wikipedians here last time, and it's good to remind them that we exist, even if they don't stick around as consistent contributors. I remember it being a bit of work, but it was also a lot of fun.
RAdimer-WMF could help us get a post in m:Diff (blog). This is a multi-lingual blog, so different Wikivoyages could write about things that matter to them, in their own languages. If there was interest, we could probably set up a little series. Maybe someone would write about how Wikivoyage supports the other wikis, someone else reflect on what it was like to edit a travel-oriented site during the pandemic, and another to write about some of the distinctive features (like the listing editor, which is awesome) or distinctive policies and values (like Wikivoyage:Be fair, and our choice to be silent about bad restaurants rather than to "neutrally" say they're bad). I suspect that blog posts on why non-English content matters to the world, or a story about how it made a difference to someone, would be welcome at any time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the above comments. We should create a banner on other wikis and organize an edit-a-thon. This should introduce a number of new editors to our community. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we do an edit-a-thon? OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll request funds for global contest but yes, each community can organize their local events or propose global events. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 01:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best to establish criteria that encourages and rewards good contribution (like linking a relevant picture, not engaging in copyvio). Otherwise projects will hate the contest for the cleanup that follows. Some ideas can be found in 2018 edit-a-thon. Some of the "more fun" ideas include extra points for countries that didn't have a lot of coverage for that community, edits that covered X number of countries, at least one edit from each province/state in that country, and bonus points for having at least 1 edit in each country in a continent. But to do that, we need some automated tracking like using the Outreach dashboard. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the contest held a year ago, a series of parameters were used. Specifically, higher scores were given to those who completed challenges (in the case of eswikivoyage, to finish translating autotrad destinations). In that sense, each community that wanted to participate would define its own challenges and they would be added.
Regarding the rules, yes. Before starting the contest I would present a draft of the rules and we can all collaborate. Also get volunteers to be judges, among other things.
Wikivoyage-logo-v3-es-10years.png
Finally, my team made an adaptation of the logo we used five years ago, you can help locate it.
Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 20:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have the link to the contest from a year ago? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
m:NewsVoyage was only for eswikivoyage and eswikinews. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 06:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to another edit-a-thon. The 2018 one was a great success in terms of getting new contributions to articles on parts of the world that had rarely received attention until then. There was scope for improvement when it came to retaining the new editors (a select few stayed on beyond a month but not many compared to the number that participated in the edit-a-thon). I support Ohana's suggestions to incentivise contributions to variety of countries/continents. We should also consider attracting readers to Wikivoyage and not just editors. Based on a page views analysis in 2018, it looked like many people who landed on the edit-a-thon page never explored any other page here. It would be good for new people to see our main page and best content too. Gizza (roam) 01:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As one of the editors that was brought in and stayed because of the edit-a-thon, I think people landed on the edit-a-thon page and didn't have any directions on where to go next. There is no "suggested list of pages to improve" or "these things can be added/updated" that kickstart their first edit. Veterans just assume that new editors know what to do. But we don't. There could be new users (as in complete wiki newbies) wanting to sign up, but the button to sign up is 4 sections down. Naturally, it attracts those like me who already know their way around. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could probably suggest some of the Wikivoyage:Expeditions.
More generically, I often suggest that people look up their own hometowns or places they have fond memories of (e.g., where their grandparents lived), especially places that aren't major tourist destinations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea. I also like the proposal from the Spanish community about the scoring, with the only exception being the "Challenge 8 destinations" (you must complete one location per inhabited continent before working on another set of locations). I find that this particular challenge disincentivises those who want to focus on a particular region. For virtual awards, we can put barncompasses to good use, especially for editors who focus on continents. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like something that will appeal to some and not others. I could imagine a similar one for one city per Spanish-speaking country. I know people who have a life goal of visiting each of the US's 50 states, and I can imagine people doing the same for visiting every country in South America. It might really appeal to certain contributors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again! I've created a draft about the contest/editaton. Please review, give suggestions and help us! Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 07:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link! I think the 5 points for creating a new article, especially following "7 points for creation of new or existing article that represents some important content gap in the project," is problematic and could help cause a repetition of our problems with participants in an editathon about Nigeria that resulted in lots of "articles" copied and pasted from Wikipedia and "copyright, all rights reserved" sites or with irrelevant information that is either the same throughout the country or about cities hundreds of kilometers away. I don't think giving people points for creating any article, regardless of how plagiarized or irrelevant its content is, is a good idea at all. This also has a similar problem: "1 point for each 2000 bytes added to an existing article or a new article that has a basic structure." So, if I copy and paste irrelevant copyrighted content from any old website, I get a point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek thanks for your feedback. I got your point but unlike the editathon you point out, the editathon of each language version will be under the control of the local jury. This means that they will admit the articles that should get points, as well as modify the scoring criteria. Therefore, it indicates "maintain or adapt". They can make it tighter, lighter. It is up to each language version! Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 15:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few thoughts:
  • "creation of new or existing article" is unclear. You can't create an existing article. I think you want to say "7 points for filling an important content gap in the project (e.g., by creating an article on a large city or important region, or substantially expanding an empty/outline article on such a destination)". This clarifies that outlines about tiny villages don't qualify.
  • "5 points for creating a new article" could set a minimum threshold (e.g., an opening sentence plus two listings; five sentences/elements).
  • "provided that what is illustrated in the image is not already illustrated by content present on Wikimedia Commons" is a little unclear. Does this mean "provided that Commons doesn't have any similar images"? (If so, I suggest giving it more than 2 points.)
For the rest, I think that a general rule like "only appropriate contributions (e.g., not copyright violations) will be counted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general I think that objective "points" should only be used as a qualifying criteria. The award of any prizes should be in the subjective judgement of a jury panel. This might avoid the non-value added edits that we saw in the Nigeria competition. A long running competition which is largely subjective is "Wiki Loves Monuments" - there are objective qualifying criteria like the subject of the photo being a recognised monuments or historic building, but the main judging is a subjective selection of a good photo.
Points for creating a new article should only be awarded if the article is proposed on the competition page 24 hours before it is created and there are no objections - this may prevent the creation of articles about every township with 5 houses. Bytes added should only get points if there are uniquely written for the article concerned - no points for adding the same paragraph about mobile phones or road safety to 20 articles.
Points could be awarded for creating a quality unique pagebanner for an article which doesn't have one. Updating listings in an existing article could also be eligible for points, even where the resulting article is no bigger. If an article has 20 sleep listings and 19 get updated prices and 1 is removed because it has closed, that is a very useful edit, but might not change the size of the article. AlasdairW (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for your suggestions, I added to the scoring criteria. @AlasdairW: As mentioned above, each language version can modify, adapt or maintain the criteria and it is up to the local jury to decide whether to award points or not. It is at the discretion of the global jury whether to give the global awards to the winners of each language version (which perhaps answers both concerns). Then, each language version can add more criteria, relax or tighten the existing ones. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 05:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to AlasdairW's concern that I have, I am not sure whether we should reward points solely due to article creation. As we learned in the last Nigeria Expedition, this incentivises low-quality article creation, resulting in several of us having to clean up their mess even six months after the expedition ended. Even then, it had to result in a change in deletion policy to delete the articles with inaccurate content or articles that contained listings over 150 kilometres away. I don't think any of us are prepared for a repeat of the same next year. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new criteria will be:
  • 7 points for filling an important content gap in the project (e.g., by creating an article on a large city or important region, or substantially expanding an empty/outline article on such a destination),
  • 5 points for creating a new article (the article will be valid if have the required basic templates, basic article structure and an introduction that briefly describes the destination (simply "X is a city in region Y" does not count as a valid introduction),
  • 3 points for editing an existing article,
  • 1 point for each 2000 bytes added to an existing article or a new article that has a basic structure,
  • 1 point for illustrating an article,
  • 3 points if the article is illustrated with original images taken by the participant, provided that Commons doesn't have any similar images.
And once again I will repeat my comment. The local jury can "tighten the rules" if they deem it necessary. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 07:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't agree 5 points should be given for every article that's created. It doesn't prevent the addition of low-quality listings (that can sometimes be a hoax). I won't name this user out in the pub (email me if you want to know who this is), but last year, there was a user who had many of us clean up for four straight months. For starters, this user created 37 articles within one month and they have very detailed understand sections plus many eat and sleep listings. Many others they created have been redirected, but it doesn't show up on the X-tools data base. Looks normal, right? Well, no – nearly every article they created had a Connect section that was copied verbatim from one another. This is in addition to listings as far as 178 kilometres away from the destination, copyvios, listings copied from other articles,
It became more succinct when Ground Zero tried to mentor this user; all they gave was an "apology"* but they still cantankerously went on. Ground Zero and I spent the next two months cleaning up this user's mess and we had to delete 40% of their articles as copyvio. It finally came down to having to nominate every single article they created for deletion, and in the end, all 37 articles were deleted (inc. the 40% that were copyvios). So ultimately, if you look at it summarised, their contributions have been a net-negative to the project as none of the content they created stayed. It did, however, result in other contributors spending night-after-night cleaning up someone's mess for four months because they wanted to game the system.
*Not a sincere apology, FWIW
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I didn't explain myself well, so I'll rephrase. What criteria would the enwikivoyage community like to apply in their local editaton? Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 11:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think our community should develop our own criteria (including how many points awarded for certain tasks). OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just as Galahad has been saying all along. @Galahad, the only only change for the *global* version that I'd suggest is that "editing an existing article" should say "improving an existing article".
For the *global* version, I think "creating an article" is a fine option. There is some value in having articles even if they aren't very good.
For the *English-only* version, I'd suggest that creating an article only counts if the destination has certain characteristics (e.g., a national park, a city with at least 25,000 residents) and the resulting article has certain characteristics (e.g., valid introduction plus at least two listings within the city).
Maybe we should also have an item about adding lat/long information (and a map, if necessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving the criteria to individual communities will mean the Wikivoyages with few to no active contributors will contain a mess of low-quality articles, possibly copyvios too. I've made my point on why this shouldn't be left up to the individual communities.
Slightly off-topic, but to WhatamIdoing, I think your English-only version might be a bit too harsh. We *should* be encouraging good-quality articles, even if it's only about a town of less than a 1000. If someone created an article along the lines of Childs, New York, why should we not reward the contributor some extra points? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you on both counts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyages with few to no active contributors aren't going to sign up, so they won't be affected. The very first requirement for participation says:
"Language versions can be included if before December 15:
  • Have a jury composed of three volunteers..."
If the local community doesn't sign up, then the contest doesn't happen there.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. So we can have a jury that metes out our own judgments on what valuable contributions are and are not? If so, how are we going to pick the jury? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The entire structure of the editathon is organized by you; we are in charge of awarding prizes based on the winners of each editathon. This way there are experienced people from the project on the jury. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 21:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan, I don't know how we're going to pick the jury. There's no process prescribed externally, so it's whatever we want. Are you interested in being one of them? I'm thinking that it could be efficient ask the folks who normally watch RecentChanges anyway, since they'll have seen everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would be interested, although famous last words (it might take too much time). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally I would, but I'll be in Tasmania for a fair portion of the contest and will be uncontactable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the judges should be an admin, the other two can be users. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 16:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need three volunteers[edit]

Ikan's said that he's willing to be one of them. SHB's unfortuantely going to be offline most of that time. We need two more folks. Who else would like to help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the period of the Editathon again? Depending on when it ends, I might need extra time. Grading papers has priority for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The contest is scheduled to run from January 15 to February 15, 2023. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I might be on vacation though still able to logon at times at the beginning and start getting busier toward the end, but I'll do what I can. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be possible give a extension in the scoring phase. If the contest ends Feb 15, we can award on Feb 20 or Mar 1, as example.
@WhatamIdoing do you want nominate yourself to be one of the volunteers too? Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 10:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rather not, because it might seem like a conflict with work, but if we can't find two other people, then I can ask for permission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops – I misread the dates. Do I have to be contactable at all times? I'll be back from around Jan 23 and can help after that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't think so. Being there in the later part and the week afterwards is probably more important than the first days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx for the clarification; if no-one else is willing to volunteer, I'm up for it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: How to be an ethical traveler[edit]

https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-be-an-ethical-traveller-and-benefit-the-places-you-visitJustin (koavf)TCM 07:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author suggests choosing:
  • less popular destinations (at all scales: "avoid Venice" and "avoid the tourist district in your town")
  • less popular times (winter in Europe; the day when the cruise ship isn't in port)
  • individual locally owned businesses instead of all-inclusive resorts/cruises or huge chains/multinational businesses
  • an ecolodge or business certified by a reputable environmental group
  • buses and trains over airplanes and single-occupancy cars
  • one long trip over many short trips
Responsible travel and Sustainable travel could probably be expanded with some of these ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Most of those tips are mentioned somewhere in the articles, but one should check that they are given clearly enough (in both articles where relevant). Does the last bullet refer to time (two weeks in one place instead of five weekend trips to equally distant destinations)? Unless you are flying, there is no problem in jumping off halfway and continuing later (which might partly fulfil the first point).
One should probably check also that the tips are told in Travel basics and the like – it's a responsibility of us all, not only those especially environmentally conscious.
LPfi (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Phrasebooks are dying out[edit]

https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/10/27/phrasebooks-are-dying-out

I'm not sure how actionable this is in the short term, but in the long term, as a digital style guide, we definitely need to think about how we integrate the sort of features that 21st-century travelers will want and rely on. E.g. I don't have a smartphone, but I know that many do and when traveling, they will use on-the-fly translation apps to communicate. Additionally, we've integrated some dynamic maps (and they're great), but having more responsive maps with features like being able to search a map locally and plan out routes is the sort of thing that a fully robust and useful travel guide will need. I realize I'm getting far afield when it comes to the topic of phrasebooks, but it's got me blue-skying about what the best free culture travel guide would be, and that's a responsive, dynamic Web experience that easily allows others to both get and post information seamlessly in real time across multiple languages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't get how phrasebooks are supposedly dying out from the portion of the article before the paywall. Could you summarize the claim? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heads up that you can just hit Esc as it loads to read the whole thing. "Now the internet and machine translation are rendering them obsolete. Figures from Nielsen Book Research, a market-research firm, show that sales in Britain have fallen by 40% in three years. The phrasebook is dying." —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's not a problem because we aren't selling anything. I haven't bought a physical phrasebook since 1994, but I do use teach-yourself audio and video. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but consumers aren't buying them because they don't see value in them, compared to the Internet and machine translation. And as I mentioned in my initial post, real-time artificial intelligence-based translation is what travelers most want and use, so if we want to be the best travel guide, that is a service we will need to provide. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's very important is to provide good audio for as many phrasebooks as possible. That remains very useful. In terms of your larger hopes for this site, we need volunteers to program all of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We definitely need more Portuguese phrasebook-like phrasebooks. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as we have phrasebooks and to the extent that we have them, I agree that they should be quality. I also think that we have finite resources, so communally, we should prioritize what has the greatest impact on actually helping someone travel. That could be phrasebooks, but it could also be something else. The nature of a volunteer-run resource that has no central management is that users will work on whatever they feel like, but that isn't contrary to prioritizing some things over others. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multiple things can be true. And since ttcf, we need to meet travelers' needs as much as possible rather than focus on features that aren't meeting their needs. As a professional grant writer, I'd be happy to collaborate on a grant for Wikivoyage development if you are so inclined. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On of my long-term daydreams is setting up an audio booth at in-person Wikimania, and having native speakers record the phrasebooks. It would require quite a lot of work (probably one person to handle recording and two to process/upload, plus someone to schedule folks in advance – you wouldn't want to rent that much equipment and then have it sitting idle), but I would expect grant money to be available to cover all of the expenses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more problem with that is that you'd need to find a sound-proofed room. I expect there to be quite some noise in most places at a Wikimania, and you want to be somewhere where people pass by. Or was the scheduling about asking people to schedule a recording session in advance, away from the noise? –LPfi (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you'd have to arrange a location. Perhaps a hotel room at the far end of a corridor, and a sign to put in the hallway asking people to be quiet during recording hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the responsive, dynamic experience Justin mentions, that requires programming, which isn't the strength of this community. There are some interesting things being developed elsewhere in the WMF ecosystem and I suppose we should try to be in contact with people developing those. I suppose they currently focus on integrating Wikipedia and Wikidata with position aware apps, but travellers are those that would benefit the most.

On the other hand I am frustrated by sites trying to offer such an experience: my bus app loads routes and map as soon as I change any parameter, having me wait for the updates, instead of letting me push "search" when ready. Many web sites ask for my position before allowing my viewing anything – although I am doing research on a place where I am planning to go.

With a good connection and charging locations handy, it is nice to have the instant everything experience, but while travelling those are not given. And even at home – the radio pollution from mobile broadband and the power use from charging batteries are becoming significant problems. We should avoid becoming dependant on them.

Can you ask our map to show your position? What needs to be done with the map view to allow search on place names? Should you harvest OSM (and Wikivoyage) for nearby names? I saw a simple app allowing you to point at an island in the archipelago and displaying the names of the candidates as overlay on the camera view (here with our thousands of islands, there usually are several in the general direction), perhaps also showing the Wikipedia article. A more advanced one let you point with the camera at a building in Stockholm or New York and have it display the Wikipedia article. What else would be useful?

LPfi (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

m:WikiConference North America/2022 might be the place to talk about this. Mapping USA/OpenStreetMap has joined them. It starts this Thursday evening, and it appears that you can still get free tickets. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Educational assignments on Wikivoyage[edit]

As you know, I am occasionally running them (see discussion(s) above for my most recent, 4th, I think, program). I do wonder if some other instructors have done so as well? Do we have a page with best practices and such for educational assignments on Wikivoyage? I wrote elements of the old and I could draft something for the Wikivoyage community, based on my experiences. To do this well I'd welcome any information about past assignments, and the community good and bad experiences with them in the past. Piotrus (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't ever remember seeing so many discussions among students. I think it's wonderful that they're looking at each other's work and commenting on it! The bad experiences have been more with editathons that gave points for starting articles, regardless of whether they were completely copied and pasted or had inaccurate information in them or not than with school assignments, though I remember one high school assignment in France that resulted in some articles that were deleted for lack of interest for travelers. I think all of the assignments to students in Korea have been very constructive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think instructors are using Wikivoyage for educational purpose. Wikipedia itself is already a big unknown for many educators and they are just starting to learn how to utilize it. It is extremely rare for instructors to use other WMF projects as teaching tools. As for the Korean students, it was mostly positive. The only thing that caught my eyes was a few students uploading copyrighted images onto Commons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apartment buildings as attractions[edit]

While editing on Kolkata and other cities in West Bengal, I am wondering whether beautiful apartment buildings (modern or not) should be considered "See" listings, if not rental listings. We have The 42 listing in Central Kolkata, which is the tallest building in the city. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 17:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, under 'Notable buildings' h3 or similar, if they're important for their history, architecture etc. i.e. something that a (real or hypothetical) tour guide might say a few words about. Twsabin (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] Architecture can be interesting sights, also new architecture, so including some such listings is OK, a priori. Examples include several listings in Rotterdam/Centrum#See (including in "Landmarks" and "Other sites") and Paris/14th arrondissement#See. However, one should find a balance. Are these buildings something more than a few visitors would like to find and look at? Is it enough to list the neighbourhood, or mention it in general terms? If there are many sites worth visiting, one could consider a travel topic article like Functionalist architecture in Finland or an itinerary à la Historic churches of Buffalo's East Side. –LPfi (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was talking about beautiful apartment buildings, which are generally focused towards long-term residents. There are such apartment complexes I've seen in both Kolkata and Howrah and am eager to add them. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We wouldn't have them as Sleep listings (I don't see any way around that), but See, if they are worth going to take a look at. –LPfi (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, yes. If the destination (and article) has a huge amount of attractions already, just include the most notable of such buildings. A few years ago a whole lot of buildings were added to articles about small towns in Hungary making those articles overwhelming for readers. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We had another (short) discussion recently: Wikivoyage talk:Listings#Entries for individual historic buildings and sites (and about churches, seems that one didn't get archived there). –LPfi (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As stated above, it doesn't matter what the buildings are used for, if the point is that they are striking sights to see. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sbb1413 As a very occasional visitor to wikvoyage, I am sure such a topic will bring me here more often. In a previous wiki-life I had started an article about [[w:Trump Towers]] in Pune (I think?) at enwp, which of course immediately went on the chopping block. I don't remember if that building was an apartment building or not. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some Hungarian town articles such as Sopron have an excess of entries for individual historic buildings off limits for the public. I drafted Wikivoyage:Listings#Historic buildings, sites and natural formations to suggest which kind of buildings should be listed. As a general principle, a cluster of interesting buildings can be listed as an entry; an individual building would be listed if it is of particular interest for travellers. /Yvwv (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for an old discussion about covid[edit]

I remember (very vaguely) a discussion on wiki-voyage about some sources considering covid not an issue any more, or something to this effect, but I can't find it, which is as it turns out a good thing, for me at least..

I came looking for it here first. Could not find it so decided to look in the archives. So where are the archives? At first I was slightly annoyed that the archives were not easy to locate at the top of the page as is the custom at the English Wikipedia (enwp). However since I am not in a terrible hurry as I often am, I started reading the top box and then quickly went to the box underneath it, starting with the words: "Experienced users: Please sweep the pub".

Very interesting and a different approach than any I have seen on other wmf-wikis. ( wold like to continue, but I am afraid will lose what I have already written so I won't) Ottawahitech (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a valid point. The top of this page is cluttered and unwelcoming to new visitors to the pub. I propose:
  1. add a link to the archive in the first box
  2. move the second box (for experienced editors) to the top of the Talk page. It doesn't apply to new visitors, and experienced editors do not need to read this every time they visit the pub.
Ground Zero (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, I like this place. This was a very rapid response, AND I got notified even though I was not pinged (I used the [Subscribe] button )! Ottawahitech (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What should we do about the majority of content that is swept to other talk pages rather than archived? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:Swept could get a matching Template:Sweptto (Swept could get a redirect Sweptfrom, or be moved to Sweptfrom), which would replace the section content here, under the original header (which would then be kept and archived) to help people find something like this by searching or browsing the archives; if the header alone is nonhelpful, the editor who moves the talk section could append to the header a few words in parentheses to make it clear what it was about (If the header was "Question", the editor could change it to something like "Question (COVID measures relaxation)"). Twsabin (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be convenient for the occasional person who wants to look up an old conversation without going to the effort of looking at the Pub history, but it would add a lot of work for the few of us who sweep. Adding to the sweepers' tasks would likely result in less sweeping, which would not be good for the Pub. I'm opposed to that. I think the few who want to look up an old discussion can just go into the history. It will all be there. Ground Zero (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the section headings are unlikely to be helpful in many cases. Generally, though, the solution is: Look where the discussion ought to be. If it was a question about Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it, then look on Wikivoyage talk:Where you can stick it.
Searching generally has one clear advantage: If – as in this case – you are looking for something that has been discussed multiple times, then a search will lead you to multiple discussions, such as Talk:Main Page#Is it time to drop the COVID-19 banner? and Talk:Stay healthy#Is COVID over? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed change to the boxes at the top of the page[edit]

I didn't get much response to my proposal, so I will break it out into a separate section: Because the top of this page is cluttered and unwelcoming to new visitors to the pub, I propose to:

  1. add a link to the archive in the first box
  2. move the second box (for experienced editors) to the top of the Talk page.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto. –LPfi (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to attend “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” Sessions[edit]

Hello all,

During the 2022 Wikimedia Summit, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) presented the first outline of the Movement Charter, giving a glimpse on the direction of its future work, and the Charter itself. The MCDC then integrated the initial feedback collected during the Summit. Before proceeding with writing the Charter for the whole Movement, the MCDC wants to interact with community members and gather feedback on the drafts of the three sections: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (intentions statement). The Movement Charter drafts will be available on the Meta page here on November 14, 2022. Community wide consultation period on MC will take place from November 20 to December 18, 2022. Learn more about it here.

With the goal of ensuring that people are well informed to fully participate in the conversations and are empowered to contribute their perspective on the Movement Charter, three “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter" sessions have been scheduled in different time zones. Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to attend these conversations. The aim is to learn about Movement Charter - its goal, purpose, why it matters, and how it impacts your community. MCDC members will attend these sessions to answer your questions and hear community feedback.

The “Ask Me Anything” sessions accommodate communities from different time zones. Only the presentation of the session is recorded and shared afterwards, no recording of conversations. Below is the list of planned events:

  • Asia/Pacific: November 4, 2022 at 09:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Chinese and Japanese.
  • Europe/MENA/Sub Saharan Africa: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Arabic, French and Russian.
  • North and South America/ Western Europe: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Spanish and Portuguese.

On the Meta page you will find more details; Zoom links will be shared 48 hours ahead of the call.

Call for Movement Charter Ambassadors

Individuals or groups from all communities who wish to help include and start conversations in their communities on the Movement Charter are encouraged to become Movement Charter Ambassadors (MC Ambassadors). MC Ambassadors will carry out their own activities and get financial support for enabling conversations in their own languages. Regional facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance team are available to support applicants with MC Ambassadors grantmaking. If you are interested please sign up here. Should you have specific questions, please reach out to the MSG team via email: [email protected] or on the MS forum.

We thank you for your time and participation.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suburbs of a huge city[edit]

Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy says, "Wikivoyage's definition of a "city" is flexible: they may be literal incorporated cities, but they can also be larger metropolitan areas with suburbs and satellite cities, like Los Angeles or Paris, [...] Whether particular suburbs, satellite cities, and villages deserve their own Wikivoyage entries is a matter of judgement – usually depending on the amount of information about those places." However, I have a question for suburbs of a huge city. Should the suburbs with sufficient content be separate cities or districts of the huge city? Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 07:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a universal opinion (i.e. one that works for all cities), but it would be good to have some clarification of Special:Diff/4557065. I think exurbs that are a fair distance away from its CBD and don't fall into any other district (e.g. Sydney/Brooklyn) can have their own articles, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] Mostly attractions in suburbs are visited during a visit to the main city, and they are thought of as parts of it by most travellers. Would people travel to the suburb, sleep there, eat there and visit its attractions without travelling to the main city other than possibly en route to and from the suburb? In the latter case having an independent article might make more sense.
Large metropolitan areas, where distances are so long that sleeping in one part of it and visiting attractions in another isn't practical, may be better treated as regions, with only the central part a "huge city". Whether individual suburbs and satellite cities have identities of their own and enough to list ("information" above) also should be weighted in.
LPfi (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(And, of course, how the partitioning works with the hierarchy of the enclosing region. Would the suburb warrant a listing among the cities on the region page, side by side with the metropolis? Are similar suburbs treated as districts? Would breaking out several of them break the structure?) –LPfi (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have seen several suburbs that can be visited without visiting the core city, especially if the suburbs are separated by a waterbody and/or are more than 20 km (12 mi) from the city centre. Such suburbs can be treated as separate cities IMO. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 09:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Whatever best serves the travellers; we are not bound by any formal criteria. Where most or some travellers would perceive the suburb as a separate city but we choose to have it as a district, we can use a redirect (and mention them in the city one-liner on the region page). If we treat it as a separate city, we can still mention it (or all of them collectively) in the Districts section, in Understand or in Go next. –LPfi (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thank you for clarification. I was curious on whether we should include all the suburbs of a city despite some of them are perceived to be separate cities. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 12:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of that really depends on how well they are integrated into the city. In New York City, we think of the suburbs as all very distinct from the city, whereas in some other cities like Washington, D.C., parts of neighboring states are very commonly called Washington, and then there's the case of L.A. that was mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first applies. One important factor is the mode of transportation. In old towns and other urban districts, it make sense to include places which are within reach on foot. Our limits for a city could possibly include places within reach of a metro, tram or other public transport network. For local residents, the limit for work commuting might create the identity of a city. But in the end, we should decide case-by-case where to draw borders. /Yvwv (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning template for Ukrainian locations?[edit]

Should we have some standardized warning template for Ukranine locations? I noticed a warningbox used in Kherson, but there are no warnings at all at some other cities near the frontline, or other ones that have been subject to shelling, with civilian deaths. Granted, on one level "everyone should know this is dangerous", but still, it looks a bit strange as we have some big warnings for some other places (recently the pub discusses a giantic warning about forced labour abductions in parts of each Asia) but we say nothing about the danger of travelling to Ukraine? Ideally such warning ("this is an active warzone, civilian deaths have been reported accross the entire country") should be appended to all locations in Ukraine using a bot. Piotrus (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've discussed this on Talk:Ukraine. The bottom line is, the same can be said for all cities in a war zone; it will also require a lot of maintenance. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. We had the discussion on USA (civil unrest), and last I checked, we had many warning boxes on Iraq that were not updated since the IS territories were retaken under government control. I hope we don't have warning boxes for all locations in Syria.
I think we can expect travellers to read warning boxes at the head of country articles. Major changes for big cities where the situations has been stable would warrant one, I think. I now updated the one for Kherson, with the little info I have.
LPfi (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with LPfi. The number of out-of-date warnings boxes on our articles shows that we don't have enough regular contributors to keep them up to date or remove them when the danger has passed. We should not exacerbate this problem by adding region- and city-level warning boxes. A country-level warning for Ukraine is sufficient. Ground Zero (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bridges that connect two cities[edit]

I think the question might be nonsense, but if certain iconic bridges connect two separate cities, where should we list them? In the case of San Francisco, the Golden Gate connects the city to a rural area, and is thus listed in San Francisco only. However, in the case of Kolkata, there are four bridges that connects the city to Howrah, which is another important urban centre. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 05:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sbb1413: I think this depends on location, but I'd say add it in whichever district or destination travellers go to visit the bridge. Consider Sydney/The Rocks#Sydney Harbour Bridge, for example. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it wouldn't be wrong at all to list such a bridge in two articles, or at least to link from one article to the main listing in the other. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It would sometimes make sense to have a listing in City A that describes the view of the bridge from City A and a listing in City B that describes the view from City B. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is where we can put some facts about such bridges. In the case of the Howrah Bridge, I've put the facts in both Howrah and Kolkata/North, but I don't think such dual listing can be manageable in the long term. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 06:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that for (nearly) every thing we tell about, at least listings (and especially things that have a whole section, such as this), there should be one canonical place, linked from other places where it is relevant. Otherwise updates will sometimes not be done in all places. In cases like this, it would mean a See listing in both cities, but one having the name linked to the listing in the other city. The former should have only the general description (a one-liner, more or less) and details relevant only for that side (such as "directions"). In most cases entry fees, contact details etc. will be the same on both sides and should generally not be repeated. –LPfi (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I'll be making the Kolkata listing the main one and cutting down the Howrah listing. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 09:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. Wiki is not paper, we have room for that. Piotrus (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes the bridges can be described in a high-level article; see Metro_Cebu#Cities for one example. In a huge city, consider putting bridge info in the top-level article rather than duplicating it in districts.
I think sometimes bridges may be mentioned too often. e.g. the San Juanico Bridge is listed at Leyte_Island#See, Samar_Island#See and Tacloban#Do and is mentioned in several other articles. I've crossed it & do not consider it at all interesting, but to Filipinos it seems to be. Pashley (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about Filipinos, but otherwise I think bridges are an important attraction for some people, interested in engineering or architecture. Some bridges are iconic, like the Tower Bridge of Golden Gate, perhaps for being known as such; if you never heard about them, you might not appreciate the sight as much as other people. The San Juanico Bridge is listed in city articles with 2 and 6 See listings, and 4 Do listings, respectively: I think it does no harm in them. When the articles become better developed, the listing might be reconsidered (is it really worth a 2×12 km day trip from Tacloban, as suggested now? at least some more background would be needed in that case). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The San Juanico Bridge looked nice to me when I just did an image search. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is best resolved using transclusion (Special:Diff/4560865), particualrly in this case by heading: {{#lsth:Kolkata/North|Howrah Bridge}} -- please refer to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion#Transcluding_sections_by_headings . It is better than having a listing for the same thing in two places (while having one more detailed than the other), because it's still two listings that need to be maintained. I agree with LPfi completely, and the right technical solution for this is selective transclusion. Twsabin (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to discuss that option if we want to use it. It is not at all obvious to pass-by editors what "{{#lsth:}}" is about. This is black magic – there isn't even a template:(#)lsth – and contrary in spirit to the reasons why we keep Mediawiki templates to a minimum. It may be handy, but either we should make that the standard for these situations, well documented and well known to established editors, or we shouldn't use it at all. Hacks for individual articles cause more trouble than they are worth. –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two additional problems in this case – which may be general: the listing may contain information that is specific for one side, such as directions, and the listing may not be in the form of a bullet. If somebody adds a sentence on how to reach the bridge from the centre, this will be very confusing in the other article. Likewise, if somebody wants to add directions for the Howrah side, it is not at all obvious how to do that, even if you know your way around templates. Usually, when there is more than one paragraph of content for a listing, it is moved to a subsection. The formatting will then become different from what is needed in a list of bullets. These issues need to be thoroughly understood before the method is taken into use. –LPfi (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Labeled section transclusion is really difficult. The English Wikipedia used it for some of the Covid content, and it basically resulted in some editors giving up on editing that content, plus others accidentally triggering disputes at article "B" when they made changes that were sensible from the perspective of article "A". I would not recommend this to any community unless you have several editors eager to maintain all the articles it touches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can an admin move Polish voivodeship from half-Polish names to English?[edit]

I didn't realize we have this problem at first, since I was looking at Silesian Voivodeship, which is correctly under an English names, but most other Polish voivodeships are under half-Polish names. I moved one or two, but most require an admin to delete a redirect. I've explained this at Talk:Łódzkie but rather than starting 10 or so identical move discussions I'll just make the request here - can an admin move all of them to the same name as on English Wikipedia? You can find the list of the voivdeships at Poland#Regions. And just to be clear, all the Polish names used right now are incorrect as they are just "half names". Polish name for Łódź Voivodeship is not "Łódzkie" but "województwo łódzkie" ("łódzkie" is just an adjestive, i.e. "of Łódź Voivodeship/related to ŁV"), so right now we have the worst naming system possible. I hope the suggestion to use estabilished English names as stable on English Wikipedia won't be controversial? Piotrus (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To take it here was a good move. We should probably link this discussion from Talk:Poland. We usually use English names when those are established, but it is not obvious that the English names are those we should use. Wikipedia does not always make decisions that are the right for us. I am neutral on the subject matter; I have never read about Polish voivodeships in English. –LPfi (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Łódź Voivodeship-style names are pretty estabilished and official. There is nothing else I can think of outside using Polish terminology which belongs on Polish Wikivoyage, not here (IMHO)."
Piotrus (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they are moved, I think it should be a regular move with a redirect. Why confuse the reader who comes across an external link to Łódzkie. The articles are over 10 years old, so we should have a very good reason for not having a redirect. AlasdairW (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think anybody is suggesting the article shouldn't be found by both names. It's the redirect that is going to be replaced by the article that needs to be deleted, and an admin is needed as there is history. Anyway, I think we should get this straight before moving anything. –LPfi (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, redirects are fine and even expected. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would normally advocate for using English for article names where possible, but I was interested in which terms the official tourism website for the country used - for the actual headings they use Polish adjectival names (e.g. Mazowieckie Voivodship, Slaskie Voivodship), but in prose they also use the English names (e.g. Mazovia, Silesia). They also only seem to use "the region of Lodz" for the place WV calls Łódzkie. So I don't know what's best.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons! "Mazowieckie Voivodship" would be better than just "Mazowieckie", as it clarifies the term. "Mazovia" or "Silesia" are historical regions, not administrative voivodeships (that said, it may be a better long term solution, since voivodeship can be reformed, it happens every now and then). Anyway, note that the Silesia =/= Silesian Voivodeship. As for the official tourism website, setting aside the fact that it is subject to change over time, it is also inconsistent. https://www.poland.travel/en/regions has a text that talks about regions (ex. Malopolska - we don't have an article for that region yet, see where Małopolska redirects to on en wiki), a map with only Polish adjectives (just like we do, ex. Malopolskie, note the jarring lack of diacritics), that displays a description with "Malopolskie Voivodeship", and elsewhere on the website has a larger page about "Malopolska Province", located under the url for Malopolskie Voivodeship https://www.poland.travel/en/regions/malopolskie-voivodship-more-than-pastries-with-cream. (Note with my historian hat on: referring to Polish administrative regions as provinces is rare and very imprecise). Can you say inconsistency galore? I think we should keep things simple and use the terms adopted by English Wikipedia, where we had lenghty discussions that reached the current consensus (discussions took place ~15 years ago or so, and the consensus hasn't been challenged since). PS. The current names have to be changed, as "Mazowieckie" is just unclear - are we talking about the voivodeship or the region? Piotrus (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Street address in listings not syncing with wikidata[edit]

I love the wikidata sync feature in listings, bit it doesn't sync all stuff it should. For exampe, address from our listings, which is de facto street address, should sync to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P6375 but it doesn't. Can this be, well, addressed somehow? PS. Since P6375 seems to include city name which we don't, maybe https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q24574749 would be better. Piotrus (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would probably be better, but I suppose it may be missing from many "items" that have P6375. Choosing between two or allowing the user to choose probably requires involved coding. One might also want to add a warning that the user should edit the entry, one more piece of code to add. P6375 also includes post code and "building number", whatever that means (here we have lot numbers). –LPfi (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the US, a single lot (=legally separate parcel of land) can have multiple buildings. This is not unusual for large office complexes. The six buildings on the circle in File:AppleCampusInfiniteLoop.png are probably on a single lot, and they were routinely referred to by building number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Finland it is the lot that gets the number (and an additional lower-case letter if later split up). An upper-case letter is used in the address for the stairwell (=front door), occasionally instead for the house if front doors are private. This is a common problem on Wikidata: descriptions of an item or property are ignoring global variations. –LPfi (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but even if there are local differences, the concept of "address" is universal. P6375 is defined as "full street address where subject is located. Include building number, city/locality, post code, but not country". Q24574749 is "house number and street name of a location". Surely we can find something to sync?
Piotrus (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the tool has ever done this for street addresses, but it would be very useful if it did. @RolandUnger, Andyrom75:, any thoughts on this? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The local sync tool cannot sync the address. And I think that it is impossible to create such a faultless tool because of the high complexity of Wikidata data. For instance, the tool has to proof if the address given in Wikivoyage is correct, to proof if a value in Wikidata already exists, to guess the language of the address given (there are not only English spelled addresses) and to compare different values in Wikidata and Wikivoyage and to weight different values by importance and/or correctness. I cannot imagine that anybody can program such a tool. That's why there is no tool at the German Wikivoyage for the transfer of data from Wikivoyage to Wikidata but we import all data which are available at Wikidata to Wikivoyage.
There are many cases in Wikidata of careless data transfer into Wikidata, and Wikivoyage should prevent carelessness. In many cases manual editing is and will be necessary. I can imagine to have a Wikidata dialog within Wikivoyage window to edit or copy data. But such a tool should be the task of the Wikidata team. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we get addresses imported here from Wikidata? Most attractions don't seem to have a street address, but, when they exist, it would be handy for me if the address appeared here. A one-way import could save me time, has no risk of putting the wrong thing in Wikidata, and adds almost no work if I decide that I don't like what was imported. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be possible in most cases. Q24574749 is an item and is identified as "part of" postal address, so I assume we should use P6375. Choosing between different alternatives (languages etc.) is probably hard, but in the cases with several addresses, we could either pick the first one or treat the addresses as non-importable. The qualifiers should probably still be checked not to accept obsolete addresses. Are there other pitfalls? The user should perhaps be encouraged to edit the address, but as long as established users know to such clean-up it might not be that important. –LPfi (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Export to Wikidata could be handled with a link to the item, so that experienced users could go there and just add the right property, paste the address and edit as appropriate. –LPfi (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RolandUnger While you are right about careless transfers to Wikidata (I just found out a batch of book reviews using book names, leading to confusion if the article is about a book or a review of said book...), I don't think there's much danger here. The transfer is not automatic, the tool displays a confirmation window, so I don't see a problem. There are many correct street addresses on Wikivoyage that should be moved to Wikidata. And they are often present in Wikipedia infoboxes. I often find myself copying an address from Wikipedia infobox to Wikivoyage manually. This should be something that should be handled automatically (by a bot) or semi-automatically through reviewed syncing, IMHO. Piotrus (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could be an advanced option (to discourage those who don't know Wikidata), but I think it should allow editing the Wikidata version before saving it, as the city should be added (easily pasted). The property should include postal code, which may not be known by the editor, and language, but I assume a partial address including street and number is better than nothing. –LPfi (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for reviews of student work[edit]

Just a heads up that quite a few of my students' projects are now listed at Wikivoyage:Requests_for_comment, with links to talk page discussions properly started. Some of them haven't received a review yet, and it would be very motivational for my students if the reviews would appear in few days (I'll try to review them with students next Monday). Thank you to everyone who has already left a review, and thanks in advance to anyone else who will do so. Piotrus (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note that there are still some student requests for feedback that didn't get any attention. It would be motivational for them if they would hear something back :) Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that we now have at least one comment posted everywhere except Talk:Dongducheon and Talk:Rivierenland. (If I missed any, please add the links here, too.) Most of them would benefit from a second comment. Please remember to say the good things as well as something that could be improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I gave feedback on Rivierenland about three weeks ago, though on the talk page to the user page on which it is being developed: User talk:RonanHoogmoed/Rivierenland. Wauteurz (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, although maybe some more comments at Talk:Zhangjiajie would be useful too, if anyone has time. Thank you everyone for commenting, I think we will review the comments in class this Friday. Piotrus (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A 300km gap in the road[edit]

Just noticed something odd in the route box at the bottom of Bonne-Espérance#Go_next, Blanc-Sablon#Go_next, Forteau#Go_next and Petit-Mécatina#Go_next - the route looks like this:

Routes through Travellers' pub
New York StateElginMontréal  W Qc138.svg E  Kegaska→(discontinued between Kegaska and Bonne-Espérance)→Bonne-EspéranceBlanc-SablonBlanc-SablonLabrador


Does it make sense to claim that QC138, the road through Vieux-Fort, goes to Malone (New York)? If there's a 300km+ gap with no road of any kind, for all intents and purposes the "chemin du roy" from Massena->Mtl->ville de Québec->Kegasha and the road from Vieux-Fort to Blanc-Sablon are really two different, disconnected highways... even if they do have the same number (QC138). If the road ends for 350km, you are not driving to Malone. 204.237.90.118 01:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe these routeboxes were added by @Veillg1:, who is currently the subject of a userban nomination. Agree that a 300-km gap is way too far, in addition to the routebox being overly long. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename help[edit]

I explained this at Talk:Seogwipo-Si last week, but nobody commented, and an admin is needed for the move. Since Wikivoyage doesn't use (or hides very well) categories, I don't know how to check if any other Korean locations need similar moving (the others I checked are ok, i.e. not using the "-si" suffix, which means "city"). Piotrus (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is renamed now. To view the categories you need to enable "Show hidden categories" (Appearance/Advanced options). Going straight to Category:South Korea and clicking your way through the hierarchy works regardless. Sejong City is found under that name, no "-Si"s that I could see in either Korea. –LPfi (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi Thanks. Sejong City seems correct, this seems to be the case of "New York City". As well as Jeju City, I think. I didn't notice any other errors, so we are all good here, I think. Piotrus (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh-oh, I spoke too soon (also ping @Ikan Kekek). So we discovered that Seogwipo and Seogwipo-Si were at some point separate (they have been merged now, good). I think I figured out a possible reason for this, and this is related to another problem: I think we likely need to merge Jeju City and Jeju-Si. The latter is an orphan (not connected to Wikipedia), that claims it is about "the northern district of Jeju island", but -Si means city in Korean (and so Jeju-Si redirects to Jeju City on en wiki and other projects). As far as I can tell from :wikipedia:Jeju_Province#Administrative_divisions the island has two cities, which cover half of the island each (see this map File:Jeju Municipal.svg). Jeju#Regions is a bit confusing, it talks about two cities/districts, a national park (which I think spans both city regions) and three tiny small islands (each treated as a separate region?) but which administratively are part of one or the other city district. Would appreciate thoughts from more experienced Wikivoyagers on what to clean up here, which includes both moving stuff and how to fix the region listing for the island.
After we deal with the merge, I'd appreciate thoughts on what should be moved from Jeju into its regional subarticles, so I can direct my students (I have a group working on this topic) correctly. PS. Remember the #Strange yellow layer?? I think it was showing the southern city/region. Not sure if it could be finished by adding the northern one, or should we use the map I linked, or...? Piotrus (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't really care about administrative divisions, so handling the two cities (the districts, except the national park), the national park and the islands in separate articles is OK, and the way we usually handle things. We should probably check that we don't use wordings that suggest that we actually cover a specific administrative entity in any of those articles.
The problem here, Wikivoyage-wise, is that the island isn't properly regionalised. The listings should be moved from Jeju to the city, park and rural area articles (these are a new type, which some city articles could be transformed into, but there's no hurry in that) – and every part of the island should be covered by some non-region article. The countryside on the main island outside the two cities should either be handled in the city articles, making the two subregion articles (north and south) redundant, or new articles should be created for the countryside, perhaps two or three in each half of the island.
Dividing the island requires some local knowledge or detailed study. Ideally an article would cover an area where you would stay and visit different attractions. If you need to travel to the city to transfer, or you'd stay in the city and visit attractions all over, then having separate articles for the countryside makes less sense.
LPfi (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Join the Movement Charter Regional Conversation Hours[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languagesPlease help translate to your language

Hi all,

As most of you are aware, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) is currently collecting community feedback about three draft sections of the Movement Charter: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (intentions statement).

How can you participate and share your feedback?

The MCDC is looking forward to receiving all types of feedback in different languages from the community members across the Movement and Affiliates. You can participate in the following ways:

  • Attend the community conversation hours with MCDC members. Details about the regional community conversation hours are published here
  • Fill out a survey (optional and anonymous)
  • Share your thoughts and feedback on the Meta talk page
  • Share your thoughts and feedback on the MS Forum:
  • Send an email to: movementcharterwikimediaorg if you have other feedback to the MCDC.

Community consultation hour for the Sub-Saharan Africa region will take place this Friday, November 25, on Zoom. It will be translated into French language. The conversations will not be recorded, except for the section where participants are invited to share what they discussed in the breakout rooms. We will take notes and produce a summary report afterwards.

If you want to learn more about the Movement Charter, its goals, why it matters and how it impacts your community, please watch the recording of the “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” sessions which took place earlier in November 2022.

Thank you for your participation.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been looking at the Taiwan articles and many of them are so out of date it's laughable.[edit]

Title. For example, literally every restaurant listed in Hsinchu is closed, and there hasn't been a auditorium near the East Gate for years. Same could be said about many of the hotel listings in general, of which many are either defunct, or in poor quality when newer, better alternatives are present. Ernest Macomb (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want to help us make it better? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ernest Macomb: it is unfortunate: unless we have someone who lives in Taiwan update a place, the information becomes stale, especially for restaurant listings. When I'm planning a trip somewhere, I update information as I do my research. I hope you will help out by removing listings for places that have closed, even if it means leaving the article without restaurant listings. Ground Zero (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ernest Macomb, this is the travel guide everyone can edit. It's fairly pointless to complain about the state of an article when you have the knowledge to improve it. So I hope you plunge forward. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:87.4.152.92[edit]

I welcome them to Wikivoyage if they're a new user, but I note that because they are adding articles about places in the Lake Como area, some of which were previously deleted, and using non-en.wikipedia formats, their work bears watching, to see if they will engage in useful dialogue with us but also because their output so far is reminiscent of User:Luchy04. I'm posting this here, rather than at Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits, so as to be careful not to prejudge whether this new IP user may be acting in good faith and producing more helpful than problematic edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw this last night but was too tired to do anything, but I suspect that their recent articles are probably unaccredited copyvios from it.voy at best. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • sorry to have my hands full as of this monent, unable to help this cleanup, but I can testify that these destinations - Lierna, Lake Como and its villages etc etc - regularly receive this type of massive spamming edits. It's always like this, too copyvio-smelling to try and save any useful bits. Ibaman (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This IP is now blocked for 3 days except on their talk page for putting out-of-town listings in, as Luchy04 routinely did, more than for any other reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are now similar edits by the IP 151.36.189.31. Ypsilon (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikimania was in that area a few years ago, because of the unusual structure (like renting a room from a local resident, rather than everyone staying in a big hotel), I wouldn't be surprised if the folks in that area know more about the wikis than average. I wonder if someone is trying to promote the area this way (or to start a little PR business, even?).
If it's the same handful of places being listed, we could put the URLs on the spam blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were a lot of rifugios and beaches listed, without URLs. The out-of-town listings seemed more like carelessness than touting. Go figure. –LPfi (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I blocked User:151.36.189.31 and User:87.4.152.92 for 1 month for block evasion. User:151.36.189.31 posted the exact same text in 5 articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding another major destination for routes between Cape May and Newark/New York[edit]

It takes more than 2 hours to drive between Cape May and New York or Newark. According to routebox guidelines, a major destination should be added between 2 other major destinations if it takes more than 2 hours to drive from one of these destinations to the other. Which place(s) should be set as major? This applies to the Garden State Parkway and US Route 9. JsfasdF252 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the Garden State, possibilities are Perth Amboy and Toms River. I'd like to say Atlantic City, but that requires exiting onto Route 30 or the Atlantic City Expressway. Can intersections be used in routeboxes? For Route 9, again, Perth Amboy and Toms River would work. I'm not sure whether any of the other places it traverses are important enough to mention, but you'd know better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woodbridge is a better choice for a major than Perth Amboy, since it is far larger in population and the Garden State Parkway actually passes through the township and intersects with the NJ Turnpike/I 95 there. However, according to OpenStreetMap-based directions, it would still take over 2 hours to drive from there to Cape May. Toms River seems to be the best choice, since it ideally takes less than 2 hours to travel from there to Cape May, Newark or New York, and vice versa. Lakewood Township may also be considered, since it has a population of over 100,000, more than that of Toms River, but since these places share a boundary, both can't be used at once. JsfasdF252 (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an answer, but to anyone who's casually reading this and doesn't know what the Garden State is, it's New Jersey. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need some opinions on a possible regionalisation[edit]

Apologies for the excessive brigading (if you perceive it that way), but I'm looking for some opinions before regionalising Outback New South Wales. I started the discussion on Nov 17 (11 days ago, as of writing this), have listed it on Wikivoyage:Requests for comment, but haven't received any comments. In particular, the reason I'm raising this in the pub is because I don't feel too comfortable regionalising a region article with no comment. Any other opinions? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking Talk:Outback New South Wales#Subregions? for reference. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]