Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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]

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]
This discussion arose from Polish but it applies to any language where a place-name takes a different adjectival or genitive form. For instance Italian "Bolognese" is English "Bologna (province)". Sticking to the nominative looks the simplest and most applicable rule, but is anyone aware of a language where this won't work? Grahamsands (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know Polish, but I do know some Italian, and bolognese (not capitalized in Italian) is an adjective, so it would make no more sense to have a destination article called bolognese than a "New Yorker" or "Australian" article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually that example is defunct as the province and city are now co-terminous, but Bolognese with cap is the title given to the page on WV:IT, which we're agreeing is not the style to follow in English, "Bolognese Province" = baloney. I can't think of a language where we should vary the convention, but there are several hundred I don't know. Grahamsands (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's interesting that they're doing this, because I don't recall that kind of nomenclature in the provinces I spent time in in Italy, such as Provincia di Siena and Provincia di Latina. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Italian here. I've been kindly noticed of this discussion. "Bolognese" can be an adjective, as well as a noun that would indicate, generically speaking, Bologna and its surrounding areas. Same way as we say "Senese" for Siena and its surroundings (as well as using "senese" as an adjective). As for the why it.voy decided so, I'd ask @Andyrom75 who is to my knowledge the most experienced 'voyager we have. Sannita (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've bumped here, just because Sannita pinged me. I've quickly looked into the discussion and I'm not sure I got the original point, so I'll limit myself to clarify one aspect on it:voy.
Our policy is to align it:voy article name, to it:w page name when exist and is referred to the same exact toponym witout any kind of difference.
When there the two pages describe a similar territory but not the same exact toponym, we are free to associate a new name.
For example it:Provincia del Verbano-Cusio-Ossola is an article that describe the same exact area of the relevant administrative division. While it:Catanese is an article that describe an area near the city of Catania including part of its province but it's definitely different from it:w:Provincia di Catania or the new it:w:Città metropolitana di Catania. --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense to me. Thanks, Andyrom75. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 6 December 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]

For those interested :A similar (identical?) message was posted at enWQ. I asked a (admittedly obsessive) question which was answered there by the OP. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:46, 3 December 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]
In this discussion, it's a highway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 December 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]
You mean it's not just me, you get the cricket's-experience too? :) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC-BY-NC-ND license as a reason for a local upload[edit]

What do you all think? Is that a valid reason? It's not due to copyrighted architecture or sculptures but simply due to the fact that File:Manama-nightview.jpg, which is a beautiful night skyline used in the Manama article, has a non-commercial Creative Commons license on Flickr. I think that uploading it locally with a warning that it is licensed for non-commercial use only should be valid, but it's not the exception policy envisioned at Wikivoyage:Non-free content. We should make a decision about this with all deliberate speed, although if it is deleted from Commons, we can always download the photo from Flickr. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a great shot, but we should keep the content here as free as possible. Have you asked the copyright owner to relicense? I've had that successfully happen in the past. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not. That sounds like a good idea, but I really don't plan to do it, so maybe I should just remove the thumbnail or wait for it to be deleted and removed by Commons Delinker. I should say, I disagree with the notion that images available online should have to be commercially usable to be on Wiki sites. If Wikis saw themselves as repositories of information like libraries, the idea of free information would be that it's free to use but cannot be resold except when users state that it can be. I know that's a different philosophy, but I don't really feel like lobbying a photographer to allow their photos to be sold by someone else or used in commercials without compensation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this particular case, a good argument for keeping it has been made on Commons, so we should wait.
A problem with allowing this to be uploaded locally under a Non-Commercial(NC) licence is the possible wide meaning of commercial. Some might consider a hotel owner putting a printed copy of a WV article in a hotel room commercial use. AlasdairW (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. I guess that's why lawyers were invented. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I not mistaken that Wikimedia doesn't allow photos that prohibit commercial use? If that's the case, I don't think we can have that photo. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Various Wiki sites other than Commons do allow the fair use of non-free images, including this one. So could you elaborate on the point you're making? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hotel room example or somebody wanting to sell Wikivoyage articles in dead-wood form are reasons to choose either path, not making a few exceptions. I think WMF doesn't allow making Wikivoyage NC. For the image in question, it was uploaded as CC-BY-SA on WMF and as NC on Flickr, by the same person, presumably the author. There should be no problem with that. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess this may be moot for now, but it seems like some Wikivoyagers don't agree with this site's Wikivoyage:Non-free content policy and would like to disallow fair use. If that's what you think, we'd better have a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Non-free content and redecide whether Wikivoyage is primarily meant to guarantee that hotels can't be sued for printing out articles or to serve the traveler, even when that is best done by including fair-use images. I should say, I think that argument holds very little water, because if a hotelier chose to print out full-page images that have warnings on them stating that they are not for commercial use and that if someone chooses to use them commercially in spite of the warning, they do so at their own risk, that's not our problem, whereas if they print out articles that include fair-use photos, I can't see any likelihood of a lawsuit. Note, too, that no-one is suggesting that non-free images would be the rule rather than the exception on Wikivoyage. My notion of Commons including images that are free only for non-commercial purposes would never be proposed for Wikivoyage and is moot, just something I would in theory favor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair use is no problem for commercial entities redistributing our articles (the same fair use applies to them), but NC is in certain circumstances. Do printouts have warnings? I have assumed that Wikivoyage has no NC issues and thus no need for such warnings. –LPfi (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's hard for me to understand how fair use of a file that is totally "copyright, all rights reserved" would be less problematic in the situation you lay out than one that is free to use except commercially. If you're really afraid that hotels could hypothetically be sued and want us to therefore stop allowing any exceptions to freedom of panorama issues and so forth, we should discuss a change in policy. I will be on the opposing side. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, yes, you are right, to the extent that the use of the image itself is "fair". I can imagine using one's own photo of copyrighted architecture to be fair use also in situations where grabbing someone else's photo of that architecture and use it wouldn't be, and a licence to use the photo therefore would be required. However, I am not a lawyer and what I have learnt about US copyright law has been in the context of Wikimedia Commons. My European common sense might not apply. Anyway, I am not trying to change our policy on the matter. –LPfi (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grays Harbor County Washington State[edit]

I was trying to find out what information is available here about Grays Harbor County in Washington (State) and after a search here (which produced a result with a search-token, I think?) I found out that there is no article about it, but it is mentioned in quite a few other articles.

I have never written any articles here, and I would like to try doing so. My problem is that as a volunteer, with only 24 hours a day, I am already stretched to the limit. So if you tell me not to bother until I have a substantial amount of information to share I will probably never get around to it.

If OTOH I can start small and build on it with the help of others, I believe WV will have a nice article about Grays Harbor County in a year or two. So what is the verdict?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ottawahitech: by all means, wv:plunge forward. Grays Harbor County would be a region article, and we already have nine destination articles within the county. It would be great to have an article that provides an overview of the county, but an important thing would be to not duplicate information that is in the destination articles. Wikivoyage:Region article template can guide you on what to add and what not to ad dTo help you get started, I've created a template in draft space (User:Ottawahitech/Grays Harbor County) that you can work on. When you think it's ready for article space, I can help you move it. Let me know if you need more help. Ground Zero (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage listings link to Wikidata - but there is no link back[edit]

I've described the problem at wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Can_we_link_to_Wikivoyage_listings? - I suggest interested editors comment there. Piotrus (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nearby listing type[edit]

I would like to differentiate between the listings within a city (See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep) and listings near a city (Nearby) and neither Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates nor Wikivoyage:Listings are quite helpful. I found several listing types in Module:TypeToColor but couldn't settle on the type to use for nearby listings (view, vicinity and around are possible candidates). Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 09:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just create a sub-subdivision labelled "Further out" and group entries accordingly. Or "east of the river / west" or whatever. It'll be pretty obvious on the map. Grahamsands (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am asking on which listing type to use for "Nearby" listings used by several city articles, as supplied by {{listing}} (view, vicinity, around). Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 04:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually use "around", but come to think of it, "vicinity" could be used just as well. I'm not aware of a guideline specifying this. Vidimian (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not aware too and I'm now using "around" for nearby listings, since "vicinity" may also be used for "Other destinations" in a region. Sbb1413 (he) (talkcontribs) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

The c:Commons:Sound Logo Vote is kind of fun and only takes a few minutes. They are trying to get pick a "sound logo" (what a smart speaker plays to identify the source of some content) for the movement. The ten finalists are all very professionally done and have a range of concepts and feelings. You can listen to all of them, and then you rank them in order from best to worst, by dragging and dropping the buttons into the right order. It's easy and fun. Please consider participating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder to provide feedback on the Movement Charter content[edit]

Hi all,

We are in the middle of the community consultation period on the three draft sections of the Movement Charter: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent). The community consultation period will last until December 18, 2022. The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) encourages everyone who is interested in the governance of the Wikimedia movement to share their thoughts and opinions on the draft content of the Charter.

How do you share your feedback?

Interested people can share their feedback via different channels provided below:

If you want to help include your community in the consultation period, you are encouraged to become a Movement Charter Ambassador. Please find out more about it here.

Thank you for your participation!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]