Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the pub

The Travellers' Pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. To start a new topic, click the "Add topic" tab, so that it gets added at the bottom of the page, and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~)

Before asking a question or making a comment:

  • Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
  • If you are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge.
  • If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
  • If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment.
  • If you are wanting travel advice on a specific matter see the Tourist Office.
  • If you have an issue you need to bring to the attention of an administrator, try Vandalism in progress.
  • If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead.
  • If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
  • Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.
  • Anything that is Nigeria-related is now meant to go in the Nigeria café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives and celebrations as well as issues with certain articles.
  • Anything that is Kosovo or Albania related is now meant to go in the Kosovo and Albania café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives and celebrations as well as issues with certain articles.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question
QA icon clr.svg

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

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

Review request for two new itineraries[edit]


Here it is a new request for review two new itineraries. Both are a paid work of the Spanish government cultural agency IAPH (talk · contribs) made by Urci dream (talk · contribs) and Olea (talk · contribs). Content is a derived and authorized work of IAPH originals. The new itineraries areː

Thanks a lot! Olea (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest shorter titles, just Landscapes of Cultural Interest in Jaén & Landscapes of Cultural Interest in Huelva Pashley (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Wikivoyage 2022, Kosovo and Albania[edit]

Hi everyone!

On May 20-22, 2022, the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group is hosting the Summer of Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon 2022 to improve the content of touristic and travel destinations of Kosovo and Albania. This year, we will focus on South-East Albania, but all improvements are welcome. Should you edit with us, feel free to join us on Jitsi, Saturday and Sunday 20-21 May, at 9:30 - 17:00 (GMT+2) Time Zone. Here are the Albania and Kosovo expedition pages. You can also edit without joining the call. Please register for tracking the contributions on the edit-a-thon Outreach Dashboard. Thank you! --Vyolltsa (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I won't be around for this, but good luck with everything, and thanks to the group for making this a successful recurring event.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @ThunderingTyphoons! Vyolltsa (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vyolltsa: I look forward to it, even though I barely know anything about Albania and Kosovo. Can you double check the Outreach Dashboard link? It appears to be broken. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Good to know this is occurring for another year. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 10:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OhanaUnited Hello! I am sending you the Outreach Dashboard link! Thank you! Vyolltsa (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody help us update Albania and Kosovo expedition pages with the lastest statistics. Thanks! Arianit (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did an update on May 13 – which was last week (but forgot to update the update parameter). I'll do another update once the edit-a-thon is over. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, current stats seem old. We would appreciate an update so we can use the missingle sections table to address them. Arianit (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the bottom table? The bottom table no longer works for some reason. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ok then.
Thank you all for the support. I hope some good work has been done, and cleanup is not too tedious. We had 5-6 completely new people. Arianit (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's over already? Yes, I saw a lot of excellent new content. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arianit: Did another update just now, though I'm not sure what's going on with the numbers on Wikivoyage:Kosovo Expedition. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

WP20Symbols MediaWiki light background.svg


Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 17 May 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 86217494304. Dial by your location.


  • Update on the recent developments
  • Questions and answers, discussion


The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, Italian, Polish; also, only at the first meeting: Farsi, Vietnamese; only at the second meeting: Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to [email protected]

At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: Szymon (aka User:Tar Lócesilion) is one of my teammates at work. I haven't talked to him about this, and he doesn't know I'm posting this.
I've been thinking about this change to "new Vector" (Vector 2022). I think the Wikivoyages should make this change. Some recent (Wikipedia-centric) market research said that readers think the old design (Vector 2010) is looking outdated. Making the switch might require a little work (obviously, we will want to double-check key features like the Page Banners), and any big change can take a couple of weeks for individuals (i.e., those of us reading this page) to get used to. But when I think about this community's values, looking like a modern, up-to-date website that is easily differentiated from competitors is one of the things we care about, and adopting this change would be a straightforward way to achieve our goals and support the group's values.
If you want to see what it looks like right now, click on If you want to see what it looks like without the new floating TOC, click on
I don't know what the team's deployment process is (I can ask Szymon, if you want), but since it's already deployed at many wikis, including the French Wikipedia, I'd guess that any community that says "We checked it out, and we want you to put us on the list for the next round" will be accepted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The left margin menus pushing down content on narrow windows is a show-stopper if it affects many people. Has the skin really been tested thoroughly enough to be put in production to "look like a modern, up-to-date" skin? Wikivoyagers may access the site from odd hardware over sketchy connections, so some thought should be put in how to check the functionality. –LPfi (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've clicked the << to hide the left margin menu (which I think is the default?), so I don't see that. I think the best way to test it is to have editors using it for a couple of weeks. We can file bug reports in phab: if we need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs better testing before it gets implemented here. If I'm not mistaken, on Main Page map, anything east of Nepal or Sri Lanka gets cut off. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it gets cropped when I look at it. It's probably a consequence of their "fixed width" design. That should be fixable, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I just edited out all instances of "infact" from this site. Please don't add more. :-) The expression is "in fact," two words, but it can usually be dispensed with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek Thanks for the edits :-) I must admit that I have a bad habit of writing "in fact" as one word (and I almost did just then), but thanks for the fixes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Not all of the edits in question were by you. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Korean names of Chinese cities with large ethnic Korean communities[edit]

I wonder if we should only list the local Chinese-Korean name, or if we should also list the South Korean name. Usually, the ethnic Koreans in China will use the Sino-Korean readings of the city's Chinese name, while South Koreans will use a transliteration of the Mandarin name, so the two Korean names can actually be quite different from each other. Yanji is a particular example, where the local Chinese-Koreans call the city Yeon-gil, while South Koreans call the city Yen-ji. The dog2 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The local names are the Chinese name and Chinese-Korean name, so those names should be used. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ikan Kekek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Budget flights in country articles[edit]

There is disagreement about whether adding cheap flight destinations to Go next sections of country articles is beneficial for Wikivoyage. I think it is better to discuss this with all the community. Perhaps Flightnavigator and User:SHB2000 would like to sum up the arguments. –LPfi (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For a bit of a starter, this is specifically referring to "Go next" sections – I don't have anything against adding them in "Get in", though this should be in the relevant airport or city article.
I've already made my argument in User talk:Flightnavigator#Your revert, but I'll mention it here:
  • Wikivoyage is a guide for everyone, not just budget travellers – what Flightnavigator has been adding is not appealing to everyone, and in fact discourages some people like me to go there.
  • This gives an impression that "ultra-low-budget flights" are the standard way of getting from one destination to another. Should budget flights be added, then normal flights that are not budget flights should also be added
  • This same information is spammed across articles, and in some cases, it's very unrealistic – do you really think someone would really travel from Iceland to Poland only because of cheap flights? (see Special:PermaLink/4447268#Go next for what I'm talking about)
  • Building upon the previous point, the same information on "ultra-low-cost" repeated in every country article makes Wikivoyage less interesting to read, somewhat like the solar eclipse situation we have
  • In some cases, Flightnavigator seems to have been selective in where the budget flights are rather far away or unrealistic, such in the case of many European destinations.
So that sums it up and why I am strongly opposed to adding budget flights in country go next articles. Wikivoyage is a guide for everyone, and not just budget travellers. Presenting information which makes it look like travelling on a budget flight is the primary way does not serve the traveller, because not everyone wants to go on budget flights – in fact in some parts of the world, many care more about comfort rather than cost. My removal of this information is so Wikivoyage is not budget traveller-centric, and the same thing repeated in every single makes it worse. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to leave travel specifics such as flights to 'Get in'. Mentioning which bordering/neighbouring countries you can visit is usually sufficient for 'Go next' unless you're writing about an island that's only accessible from one or two faraway countries, and even then you don't want to be writing a 'Get in' section in reverse. And I agree with SHB that repeating information with narrow appeal across multiple articles doesn't improve Wikivoyage for most of its users. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are usually not able to choose from where to fly in, while you might choose your next destination based on flight prices, so Go next is more logical. On the other hand, you should look in Get in for transport details anyway, so you'd just need to take a look before deciding. The only thing that would be illogic is where the cheap flights are just one way (out), but that can be said in a few words, and choosing the words right you could even say that while talking about getting in. –LPfi (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree about restricting this to airport and city articles. You tell about flights in Get ins of countries, and it'd be logical to say something about price also there ("most budget flights use A, although there are some cheap flights also to B and C").
Few would fly from Iceland to Poland just because there is a cheap flight to there, but somebody on their way from America via Iceland to Europe for a Eurail holiday could very well choose to use that flight instead of Berlin or Frankfurt, which might have been their first thought. We do mention more far-fetched go-next options in some articles.
LPfi (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rail is usually cheaper than flying in Europe, right? So if we wanted to cater to the ultra-low-budget traveler, I don't think we'd be mentioning flights within Europe at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rail to Iceland requires some preparations that most travellers wouldn't do :-) Also getting from Poland to Finland might be much cheaper by plane than by alternative means. I assume these are not the only examples. –LPfi (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A destination you never thought about can very easily become your next destination if prices are enticing. I've definitely planned trips around cheap transportation to places I previously had no plans to visit. Is Poland really such an off-putting place that people can't imagine anyone willingly choosing to visit? Is this just about Country articles? For cities, for example, I think nearby destinations (on the ground) are preferable in the "Get out" section. For countries, I suppose places accessible by air could make sense, but nearby countries when they exist, still makes the most sense to me. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, do you also think someone will go to the Canary Islands from Morocco just because of cheap flights? (see Special:Diff/4417910). The Canary Islands are a popular travel destination from Morocco, but budget flights are not the prime reason why many visit the Canaries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your link: If flights from Morocco are particularly cheap to the Canary Islands compared to flights from all/most other places that service it (especially if the others are more commonly used or traveled) then it's a noteworthy detail. It reads as if flights for everywhere are cheaper, though, so that makes the Canary Islands seem less worth specifying. If flights from Morocco are universally cheaper, it may be worth mentioning but reframing it without the CI focus. Also, if the Canary Islands are particularly affordable from Morocco, that doesn't mean other things that make it worthwhile cannot be added. Most of the "problem" seems to be that no one has added anything else to the "Get out" sections. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that's another case of something that's only appealing to you. Likewise, would you really travel from Georgia to the UAE because of cheap flights? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have at least one friend who will fly off somewhere at the drop of a hat because she found a super-cheap flight in the middle of a new wave of COVID (she's also had COVID 3 times). I have no problem with mentioning cheap flights, except for one thing: Can we really expect things to be updated when those flights become expensive and somewhere else becomes cheap? Also, my friend won't go anywhere; she has no interest in having a vacation in Dubai, but did go to Lisbon when there were $300 round trip flights from San Francisco through Boston. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the argument that cheap flights don't inspire travel is convincing, but you are right that the "cheap flights" need to be stable or the cheapness in comparison to other flights needs to be mostly stable. It couldn't be based on a travel sale or something temporary. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cheap flights do motivate travellers who are interested in the locations in question. But if, for example, it's easy to get cheap flights to Dubai from a whole slew of places in Europe and the Caucasus, I'm not sure that should be mentioned in every article for a place with its own airport throughout those regions. Instead, maybe it should be mentioned in the Dubai article and in "Go next" for the relevant multi-national regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20 days later, Flightnavigator has not commented since then and nobody has made a convincing argument against the budget traveller-centric content going out-of-date. Any last minute objections before I remove this from all country articles? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the prior discussion there seems to be a consensus for keeping the info on budget flights though. Tai123.123 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think outline information on budget flights should be kept. In country articles probably the most useful thing is to say which airports the budget airlines use. Precise details of destinations and prices is likely to go out of date, but budget flights will often continue to use the same "cheaper" airports. AlasdairW (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But surely not in 'Go next'? These sections have always been brief, with travel specifics going to the relevant 'Get in'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It should be in the "Get in" section. Those who are saying "You can't choose where you go in from" are just not using the "Get in" section to its full potential. If you are in a city, the "Get in" section can give you ideas on where you can go easily and/or cheaply FROM that location much better than the "Get out" section, which is meant for quick and convenient daytrips. I would say that's the best use of the "Get in" section in many cases. It wouldn't make sense to list Tsuyama in Tokyo's "Get out" section, because it's far and not likely to even make the top 100 list of places someone would go from Tokyo. However, if you look at Tsuyama's "Get in" section, you can see that there is actually a direct, comparatively cheap night bus to Tsuyama from Tokyo. You could use that if you are in Tokyo to "Get in" to Tsuyama, but more likely you will use it if you are in Tsuyama to figure out how to get to Tokyo cheaply. Tokyo/Shinagawa's "Get in" section also lists Tsuyama, but again, the most likely use for this is to realize that you can go all the way to Tsuyama cheaply from Tokyo/Shinagawa. No one is going to go to the Shinagawa article hoping to find information specifically about how to visit Shinagawa from Tsuyama. In this case Tsuyama is there, but very few articles have information specific to someone traveling from Tsuyama. The "Get in" section of Tsuyama is the best place to learn how to travel outward FROM Tsuyama. This is true for every destination that isn't of similar status to Paris. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section you're talking about is called "Go next", and it is not at all only for day trips, but at least as much for logical places to literally go next and stay at. So for New York City, that includes Philadelphia, Boston and DC, only one of which (Philly) is really fairly reasonable as a day trip but all of which are logical places to visit for several days or more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "nearby", but in most articles they will be almost the same. I don't think NYC is a very good example of a typical city or city article anyway since it's a megacity that, to be honest, could just as easily list Los Angeles in the Go Next given that it's "the other city" that foreign travelers who want to visit NYC most often mention. The NYC article also lists Montreal and all of New England, so it has room for improvement. But that is all besides the point, which was that you can use the "Get in" section however it benefits you. And that I don't think the Go Next of country articles should generally list extremely far off places in place of neighboring countries, so stable discount or cheap flights should be in "Get in" not "Go next". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal is questionable to list in New York City#Go next, but Boston is not, IMO. I wasn't disputing your points on country articles and don't have any strong opinion on the point you're arguing; I just wanted to deal with the side point on Wikivoyage not having "Get out" sections and "Go next" sections not being at all exclusively about day trips. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alasdair, this is about them going in "go next", not in get in. I'm not going to repeat my arguments again, but in simple words, Flightnavigator spammed a bunch of country articles with "There are cheap flights to xxx", which is way too budget traveller-centric. I don't have a problem with budget flights being listed in "get in", but this should really be in the relevant airport, city or in rare cases, park article – not in a country article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with moving the budget flights from "Go next" to "Get in" and sumarising it in the process. With the possible exception of short distance travel experiences like hiking tracks or steam trains, practical travel details belong in get in, not go next. AlasdairW (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tai123.123, where's the consensus? Nobody gave a convincing argument as to why they should be mentioned in "Go next". I'm aware the section header is misleading, but this is about budget flights being mentioned in "Go next", not "Get in". SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood your statement as you never stated where you were removing info from. I thought you were going to remove all budget flight info, not just the flights in Go Next. There seems to be consensus for removing it from go next. Tai123.123 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does WN have any statistics about its audience? For example, a breakdown by age of the audience.
In this particular example I believe that the older you are the less you care about the price of the flight (up to a limit?) and the more you care about convenience: comfortable seating, meals, good connections, timing, Etc. Also, I think(?), older people are more concerned about COVID and prefer to travel by automobile, when at all possible. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification[edit]

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines[edit]

Hello all,

We'd like to provide an update on the work on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. After the conclusion of the community vote on the guidelines in March, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Board asked that several areas of the guidelines be reviewed for improvements before the Board does its final review. These areas were identified based on community discussions and comments provided during the vote. The CAC also requested review of the controversial Note in 3.1 of the UCoC itself.

Once more, a big thank you to all who voted, especially to all who left constructive feedback and comments! The project team is working with the Board to establish a timeline for this work, and will communicate this next month.

Members of the two prior UCoC Drafting Committees have generously offered their time to help shape improvements to the Guidelines. You can read more about them and their work here, as well as read summaries of their weekly meetings in 2022.

Wikimedians have provided many valuable comments together with the vote and in other conversations. Given the size and diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are even more voices out there who can give ideas on how to improve the enforcement guidelines and add even more valuable ideas to the process. To help the Revisions committee identify improvements, input on several questions for the committee’s review is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to get your ideas to the Committee - it is very important that viewpoints are heard from different communities before the Committee begins drafting revision proposals.

On behalf of the UCoC project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For North American Wikivoyagers: possible WikiConference NA collaboration with OpenStreetMap US[edit]

A couple of weeks ago Peter Meyer from Wikimedia DC, Richard Kinipel from Wikimedia NYC, & myself (from Cascadia Wikimedians) met with Maggie Cawley, Executive Director with OpenStreetMap US. We discussed the possibility of doing WikiConference North America/2022 on the days after FedGeoDay on Thursday, November 3, 2022. Please note this is very preliminary & that WikiConference NA 2022 may occur on different dates altogether.

Wikivoyage & Openstreetmap seem to be a natural fit. Indeed, there are pages on how to cooperate between the two projects at Wikivoyage:Cooperating with OpenStreetMap & openstreetmap:Collaboration with Wikivoyage. Minh Nguyễn (Mxn) is president of OpenStreetMap US & has edited both on English & Vietnamese Wikivoyage as well has extensively editing in other Wikimedia projects.

In Italy, the Wikimedia & OpenStreetMap chapter is the one & same organization: wmit:Coordinatori.

I wanted to let folks here know about the possibility. I will add a link to the next WikiConference NA planning meeting when we know, for any here who might be interested. Peaceray (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Vacation alternatives for the budget-conscious[edit] (koavf)TCM 16:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We present some of the ideas in Budget travel, although not with such examples. We should probably include a few paragraphs on the theme (why is there nothing about local travel and travelling more seldom and staying longer instead?) also in Responsible travel. –LPfi (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The GDP column of Retiring_abroad/Table has one indicator of costs for various countries. Should this be linked from other articles? Generalised in some way to make it more useful for folk other than retirees? Pashley (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retiring abroad, local wealth and the associated cost of living can be a good approximation on your own cost of living there (with some biasing issues dealt with in the article). For the tourist, costs of transport and lodging often dominate, and the correlation between those and local approximate wealth is less clear (this was discussed in the context of the Nordic countries a few years ago). A problem shared with those moving abroad for a long time, is that low prices for services often correlate with a need to care about security, with associated costs (considered in the table through the GPI and SPI indexes). There is valuable information in the table, but I am not sure it is easily used in other articles. –LPfi (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Short but I think this could be expanded with some other generic phenomenon types that have been explained.

Mirages and the Brocken Spectre were 2 major ones I felt may be something readers of this site might ask about.

I like some other Wikiovoyagers take a 'skeptical' view towards the paranormal.

If there's enough material, I'm willing to consider 'Illusions' as a more generic travel topic, outside of the Fringe article...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShakespeareFan00, that's a really interesting page, will work on it when I get the chance. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 10:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chornobyl, Ukraine[edit]

Why are we referring to Chornobyl by its Russian name, Chernobyl? Chornobyl is Ukraine and, as anyone with any access to non-Russia/non-PRC news sources knows, Russia has been waging brutal war on all of Ukraine since 24 Feb 2022 (and on Crimea and Donbass since 2014). Maybe mainstream media were fine with using a Russian name for a Ukrainian oblast at the time of the original 1986 disaster, when the Soviet Union was very much still extant and, by extension, Ukraine was under Soviet occupation, but we're in 2022 now and the world is a very different place. There's a war on.

We wouldn't file London under Londres or Germany under Alemania - their French and Spanish names - so why would we use a third country's naming for Chornobyl? 18:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • because of policy. WV:Naming conventions: "articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries". Chernobyl is still prevalent - the HBO miniseries comes to mind. Ibaman (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. There may come a time when the Ukrainian name is used more in English, but given the pervasiveness of news coverage under the Russian name, I think it'll be some time before it's forgotten in the English-speaking world. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, it's just typical naming conventions. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7 days ago the BBC reported Ukraine war: Chernobyl scarred by Russian troops' damage and looting. Can the IP suggesting the name change please provide some examples of recent news coverage in English language sources which use Chornobyl.
I also see that a request to move the page was rejected on WP. We have a redirect from Chornobyl which is sufficient for the limited English language use of the name. AlasdairW (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And as a side note, I sometimes take a peek at what the Chinese media is saying in their news since I understand Chinese, and news about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not censored in China. They often bring on pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine commentators to debate with each other, and the tone of the Chinese state media coverage of the war is more neutral than pro-Russia. I know of a Ukrainian woman who posts videos on Chinese social media where she clearly adopts a pro-Ukraine position (and she posts videos in Chinese because she studied in China), and she has not been censored. And in the Chinese media, every now and then, they make it a point to remind people of what Russian imperialism did to them during the "Century of Humiliation", so what they are basically saying is that the Russians cannot be trusted, but they need to have this marriage of convenience for now because America is the bigger threat. But there has also been quite a fair bit of criticism of Russia in the Chinese media for being too hasty to go to war. The dog2 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting and sounds like a fairly sensible take for China. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Reuters has changed their spelling, if is representative. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should watch things, but we need to keep in mind the impact of all the media coverage in and since 1986, not just current-day changes. I think at the very least, we will probably need to wait x-number of years before changing the spelling if we ever do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people should be careful of what media stories they believe. There have been claims in the media that the Chinese delegation walked out when Zelensky gave his speech at Davos, and more recently at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. Turns out it was the Vietnamese delegation both times, and people just assumed that it was the Chinese just because they look Asian. The dog2 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chernobyl remains the most widely used spelling, and even so, the difference is only one letter. Some changes have been amplified due to the war, such as Kiev to Kyiv, but Chernobyl is not one of them. I agree with the consensus to keep "Chernobyl" until the change becomes widely accepted, as was concluded in Turkiye. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential new article[edit]

Is it worth creating a new article on Storm chasing? There's lots of information I could use but it may overlap a lot with tornado safety. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start it as a section of "tornado safety" and see how it goes? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek, that's a good idea. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I wrote a separate page as struggled to see where to fit it into the existing page. It's at storm chasing. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"neighbourhood maps"[edit]

I've always wondered on how these should be formatted. They're not usually standard in district articles (and in fact, the only one I could find was Sydney/City East), but I did a small experiment today with Canberra/Civic with the use of a "neighbourhood map" (or whatever they're called). It did leave me with three questions though, merely because we don't have other examples of such maps and I'd like some answers before I implement more of these maps.

  1. Which section should a map like this go in? For Canberra/Civic, I chose "districts", but Sydney/City East has it in an "Orientation" section in Understand
  2. Do the duplicate maps pose an issue?
  3. Do these maps help? I guess it helps to sort of know which neighbourhoods are in a certain district, but then you don't need to know, and it might appear too encyclopedic.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any advice for you or answers to your questions, but I like what you've done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image policy#Minimal use of images and WV:Map: do we really need to display multiple dynamic maps in one article? It seems redundant and tiresome to me. Ibaman (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we integrate the neighbourhoods into the normal map. Probably opacity should be tweaked for them not to dominate. –LPfi (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: Special:PermaLink/4467260 is what it would look like if we merged the maps together. As someone with visual impairments, I find the second map (the one with listings) hard to read with all the colours as all the listings look cluttered, making it hard to identify where the POI is located. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I lessened the opacity of the districts. Is this this still hard to read? It could still be lessened a tad if needed. –LPfi (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes still prefer the map without the mapmasks, and I think the older map is easier to read for people with visual impairments. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I undid the edit. I hope you noticed that I linked the previous version (oops), now fixed. –LPfi (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the neighborhood map needs to be dynamic, but since dynamic is what we've got/until someone wants to make a static map, I've no objection to it being a dynamic map. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might be in the minority, but I actually think a dynamic map is better for all region articles, and not just bottom level region articles, and it brings me to the question; are there any users here who can make a static map? I've tried to make several static maps before, but unfortunately Wikivoyage:How to draw static maps is either unclear or out-of-date, and the only successful one that I've managed to draw was File:Mungo NP static map.svg, and that also looks terrible. Anecdotally speaking, the only time where I've found a static map way more helpful was when I was in Yosemite National Park earlier this year (and T-mobile was not that great in the Sierra Nevada, but I didn't really need the map since it was a second visit to Yosemite). They're often difficult and time consuming to make, and they become hard to modify when change is required. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they have all of those downsides, but I understand that dynamic maps don't print properly, which is also a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can make static maps, although I do not have much experience with this particular kind of map. I've never done it for WV, because it's a lot of work if you want to do it right. I don't really think it's worth the effort: 1) I'd never use a WV map (static nor dynamic) for actual navigation. That's what navigation apps (preferably with offline options) and proper paper maps are for. 2) I've been meaning to update the static map in North Rhine-Westphalia for years now. But it's a raster graphics file, so in order to make clean changes, I'd basically have to re-create the whole map (Wikivoyage:How to draw static maps has some really bad advice in that regard). Even if it was SVG, I'd probably rather make a new one, because there's only so much you can do in a graphics program compared to something like Qqis. 3) The styles for static city/district and especially country/region maps look like it's still 2007. El Grafo (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibaman: I made a static map but it's togglable. Does it still look a bit redundant? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

API Key[edit]

On this map it says API key required when you switch to relief maps. Not sure who to raise this with to see about getting it fixed? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by this old phabricator task, it seems that tool has been depreciated in favour of Kartographer — are you able to use that instead? TheresNoTime (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mapframe in Heaphy_Track#Walk doesn't appear to show the issue with the relief map layer. It appears that is only an issue with the full page map (from the icon at the top right of most pages. I think that mapframe is Kartographer based, but I don't know about the full page map. (It is worth keeping the full page map as it has some features missing from mapframe as is better for printing.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article needs major cleanup, copyedited a bit the best I can. Are there any templates for articles needing cleanup or copyediting? Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such as "style," but the problem is that they seldom produce any corrective action, so my advice to you would be, do what cleanup you can and post remarks to that article's talk page with comments about other work that should be done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek, will do, thanks for the response. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 21:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help archiving a talk page[edit]

Could someone please help me archive Talk:Bulgaria? I've already copied the old comments to a subpage and linked the subpage in the main talk, you only have to delete the old discussions. I can't do that because I'm too new and trying to do that triggers the page blanking filter. I want to start a new discussion about regions, and the old stuff on the talk page has made it unwieldy. Daggerstab (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Daggerstab (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss regions, we should unarchive the previous regions discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Regional County Municipality" and "Agglomeration" article titles[edit]

We need to change all of these article titles that don't merit deletion. What's the best way to do it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Montérégie. Ground Zero (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article on bridges[edit]

I wonder if there are any engineers here who would be able to write an article on famous bridges. Of course, the ones that immediately come to mind are New York City's Brooklyn Bridge, London's Tower Bridge, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but I believe there would be numerous others that could be mentioned in such an article. The dog2 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Improvements update[edit]

Making this the new default

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more. The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features
  • Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
  • Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.
How to enable/disable the improvements
  • It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
  • On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.
Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.
Most of our pages use the pagebanner template to display the table of contents rather than the standard method. Will this be impacted by your proposed changes? AlasdairW (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least in the current version they seem to get along quite well. Page banner still works, but there's an additional TOC in the side bar. You can try for yourself by enabling Vector (2022) in your preferences. El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try it out:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That looks fine.
Looking at an example page, it does appear that slightly less page width is allocated to the article and more to the left column, but I haven't investigated, and the different appearance may be an improvement. AlasdairW (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Join us on Tuesday

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 28 June 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location. The following events will take place on 12 July and 26 July.

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file and copied to Etherpad. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English. At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We can answer questions asked in English and a number of other languages. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted a new topic here and immediately had to edit it. See: Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF),@WhatamIdoing Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This needs work-me to file a Phab ticket. Thanks for letting me know. I'm curious: could you see the <blockquote> tags in the visual editor while you were typing? Did you paste them in, or type them, or use a keyboard shortcut? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply @WhatamIdoing,believe it or not my memory of this incident is already fuzzy in my memory. I know I originally typed in the < blockquote > tag, but I may have copy&mpasted it later (I sometimes do that if I have to go investigate somewhere else before posting a half-baked post).
I also discovered since, that this version of the software implemented on wiki-voyage (it is different on other wmf-wikis I participate on) has two alternative modes of input (undocumented?):
  • Visual
  • Source
I think I was originally put on Visual by default, but now I am on Source by default, and I am also seeing a preview pane which was not there before, I think? It would also be great if I could add an edit summary, which I can using the shall-we-call-it-reply software elsewhere.
I hope I am making sense in this garbled reply? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the "Advanced" option above the copyright/licensing statement. Most people don't use a meaningful/custom edit summary in discussions, but you can add one if you want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is COVID over?[edit]

I was surprised to see this announcement on :

As of 20 June 2022, ECDC is discontinuing the data collection and publication of the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths worldwide. Please refer to the World Health Organization (WHO) data on COVID-19 and the WHO Weekly Epidemiological and Weekly Operational Updates page for the non-EU/EEA countries.

ECDC will continue providing weekly updates for EU/EEA Member States and report on an ad-hoc basis about significant events related to COVID-19 globally.

ECDC has been collecting data on the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths for all countries in the EU/EEA and globally for more than two years. The data collected by ECDC will continue to be available in an archived format.


So it appears that the EU thinks COVID is no longer an issue? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COVID will never be "over", in that it will not stop circulating in our lifetimes, but broadly speaking people's lifestyles will continue to get closer to how they were before the pandemic. Evidently ECDC has decided not to publish this particular set of data anymore, but if I understand correctly, other sources are still publishing substantively the same data for the time being. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not over. Current statistics are available from many sources, none 100% reliable. Worldometers Probably the most worrisome number is that there are still 18.75 million active cases (diagnosed but not yet either dead or recovered) plus some infected but not diagnosed; those can spread the disease. The US still has about 3.3 million active cases, though that number has been falling. Pashley (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether Finland is typical for EU, but here the government more or less gave up on COVID-19 in early spring. They decided that it is spreading too fast to be stopped, that with most of the population triple-vaccinated "few" get a serious disease, and life has to go on. It seems people took them on the word, I think that less than one in ten is using masks. Incidence and death toll have been record high (statistics on cases is unreliable though, as people don't get official tests), but there are only some critical voices. Non-vaccinated have restrictions on passing the border (tests or quarantine required) but vaccinated EU-citizens can come and go as they please, nightclubs etc. are crowded, and big events are taking place like they used to. You can still find masks and tests in any shop, not as in Denmark where that is finished too. –LPfi (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in Finland COVID hasn't been the main news topic for several months (partially also due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine). On 1 July they're dropping also the entry restrictions and health controls for people entering from outside the Schengen and in shops I've as of lately seen discounts on home tests and masks being "phased out from our product selection". The Department of Health and Wellbeing (THL) publishes statistics showing cases and deaths have dropped remarkably since the spring. So at least for the moment it seems to be over, but one can never know what the situation looks like in the autumn. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed cases per 100,000 per 14 days is still in the hundreds, even though you aren't recommended to take an official test unless you get serious symptoms (as in needing hospital care). In some professions the tests are still taken, I assume. Anyway, the incidence – if counting factual cases – seems to be at least as bad as in the late autumn. 30% of actual tests are positive, when the figure used to be ~1% before the vaccines. There are about 10 persons in intensive care, while the number was about 50 at the worst time. Much better now, but far from over. –LPfi (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The health care centre still recommends mask use. –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Data collection has ended, but I don't think the EU considers COVID to no longer be an issue. I think we should leave, in current circumstances, the COVID notice on our main page until the end of the year, pending future updates on its spread. Apart from that notice and international travel information, COVID is barely mentioned on this wiki. I think the current notices in place make sense in our environment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the focus where I am in New South Wales is mostly the flu (for the record, I've caught it twice within the last 31 days, with the last time just 4 days ago, hence why my editing activity has increased). The only news of COVID that I've really been hearing is either about COVID in China, or about our lockdown last year. However, as some countries still have restrictions on entry, I would say keep the COVID banner on the main page until September, and if September is deemed too early, then we can do another review then. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In New South Wales, masking is still compulsory on public transport and the majority of people follow the rule. There is also a 7-day isolation rule if you test positive. I disagree about messaging only being about the flu. Public messaging from the government and media has always been about a dual virus winter here over the past few months (encouraging both vaccinations, etc.). In any case, this wiki is about travel, not just living in one's own city. Travellers started to get affected by Covid-19 from Janaury 2020, not March 2020 when most countries first went into lockdown. International travel will also be the last activity/industry that will fully return to normal so it makes sense to keep the notice for a while longer. Gizza (roam) 14:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, if the purpose is to help people, it can be removed. I don't think the article has been helpful for at least a year if ever. If the purpose is just to have something there, then it could stay or go. I don't think it's necessary to leave it up until every last country has lifted every restriction. Japan hasn't had any meaningful changes in its policies for 2 years in spite of less severe variants and vaccines, but it is already an outlier and becoming increasingly so. The country articles should still have information about entry which is basically the only information people care about. Leaving it until then end of the summer (September) as suggested seems reasonable though. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Most of the world has transitioned to living with the virus. The main exceptions are Japan, China and Taiwan. In the case of China, most of the elderly are unwilling to get vaccinated, and given how Hong Kong's hospitals were overwhelmed (to the point that the mortuaries ran out of space and bodies of COVID victims were piling up in the wards) during their last surge due to the same problem, I don't think China will reopen for the forseeable future. They might want to wait until all these unvaccinated elderly die of other causes before they reopen to foreigners. The dog2 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the pandemic is over is absurd and highly premature. I would strongly suggest for us to wait until at least the end of the year before jumping to conclusions, because it's quite likely that there will be another surge in the fall, and the large number of unvaccinated people around the world are a great source of new strains. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think whether "the pandemic" is over depends a lot on how you define "a pandemic". It's basically a political definition, not a biological one, so reasonable people and organizations can disagree on whether the current state should still be called "a pandemic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is still a pandemic by some definition is less relevant. Are the restrictions stable enough that they are better handled together with other entry requirements, and in Cope, or in the current boxes? Is the disease different enough (as disease and as a social phenomenon) that it warrants its own article instead of being a bullet in Infectuous diseases? I think restrictions still vary fast enough that ease of maintenance is important, and then a template is the better solution, and people still see it as different from the flue and tuberculosis. –LPfi (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "pandemic" is basically a medical one. If you'd like to say that the definition of "high degree of death" is a political one, that's another question. "The estimated number of malaria deaths stood at 627,000 in 2020" per the WHO, yet it's considered endemic to Africa, rather than even epidemic. Why? I think in significant part because those with enough money to stanch the death rate mostly live outside of Africa and prefer to ignore the deaths, plus it doesn't get spread around the world in areas with no types of mosquitoes that are vectors. But saying that the definition of "pandemic" is basically political is odd, because most people hadn't heard the word used at all until 2019-20, or at least not since at least the days when AIDS was out of control in their countries (and again, Africa suffers from less medical care; see the pattern?). Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of pandemic varies between sources. Is it an epidemic "crossing international boundaries, and usually affecting a large number of people"? How do you define "affecting", and what constitutes "a large number" of people? Those are both political choices. Is it instead something that happens "over a wide geographical area and that is of high prevalence, generally affecting a significant proportion of the world’s population"? Who decides what constitutes "high" prevalence, and "a significant proportion"? Basically, people make these decisions. They'll decide that these effects are really "affecting" you but these others aren't (e.g., every new version of the common cold), or that the people affected aren't "large" or "significant" enough, or that (as with the malaria decision) the key point is that it happens all the time at a fairly stable rate within each population, rather than being new. (Some definitions say that pandemics must always be a new disease, or at least one that almost nobody has immunological resistance to; others don't.)
People – not science – pick which definition to apply (different definitions for different conditions), people decide which effects "count" and whether enough people are affected, and then people decide whether to apply this label. There have been hard-and-fast definitions for some similar concepts in the past, but pandemic is a somewhat flexible concept. ("School epidemic" in some places has been defined as a certain percentage of enrolled students being out of school with the same disease/symptoms. An old friend of mine accidentally set off a measles epidemic in her high school in the 1950s. She caught it somewhere, unwittingly brought it to school, and it turned out that almost none of the students in her school had had measles before. The teachers were mostly fine, but a huge number of students were out sick over the next month.)
Here at the English Wikivoyage, though, I think LPfi has good advice. We should consider it from the practical angle rather than the "does the current situation technically match my preferred definition" angle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, the most likely way to have fair definitions of medical concepts is to let public health authorities and not politicians define them. In any case, I think that it's fairly clear that COVID-19 remains a serious disease that's affecting travel in various ways, so we shouldn't be in a rush to deemphasize it and should let the crisis play out. Seeing how there's been a surge each Northern Hemisphere fall, I would suggest waiting till we see what happens in January, 2023 (i.e., after any effects of Christmas/New Years travel and get-togethers are clear) before possibly making any decisions about a fundamental change in coverage here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying hotel?[edit]

Hotel That Never Lands Set To Fly 5,000 Guests Through Sky Not built yet & I can see no significant advantages, but interesting. Pashley (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many centuries before it is technically possible? The engines (which look like existing jet engines) require nuclear fusion which might just be available on the ground at the end of this century. Consider how difficult inflight refuelling is, then multiply by 100 when you try to use a lift to transfer passengers to another plane inflight. Maybe Wikivoyage will have reviews of it in 3022! AlasdairW (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate cuisine articles considered harmful[edit]

Do we really need to separate out a single country's food/drink into separate articles, like Vietnam#Eat vs Vietnamese cuisine? Most readers will not click through on the little Main links, so in practice this seems to lead to an awful lot of duplication, since anything dropped from the main article just gets added back in because it's "missing". The size savings are marginal, eg. Vietnamese cuisine is 20k bytes vs over 150k for Vietnam even with the sad, truncated food section. Jpatokal (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpatokal: I'm not so sure on this one. Some cuisine articles such as American cuisine have an awful lot of encyclopedic content, while others like Thai cuisine or Central European cuisines don't duplicate their parent articles, they simply aren't long enough to warrant a separate article. We do have a lot of other good cuisine articles like Georgian cuisine or Chinese cuisine that ideally all cuisine articles should follow suit. But what about Overseas Chinese cuisine? It obviously doesn't go in China#Eat, and is way too long to go in the 76,733-byte Chinese cuisine article. We did have a discussion about these cuisine articles earlier this year (see Talk:Food and drink#Renewed discussion for 2022), so maybe it's time to revive that discussion again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had only gotten started looking through cuisine articles here and comparing them to their Wikipedia counterparts and any Wikipedia subtopic article, with some help from you and several other people, but it would be good to complete the survey, even if only to start again, because of course some articles have been significantly improved since I started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of getting bogged down in individual articles, I would suggest we go up a level and get agreement on a) when separate cuisine articles are needed/beneficial, and b) how do we draw the line between what goes into the main article and what should go into the cuisine article. Jpatokal (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you haven't looked at the discussion thread linked above, do, because we've already gotten into that discussion in regard to several articles, but at the simplest level, the reason to start a "cuisine" article is if and when there's too much information for it to really fit in a country (or sometimes region) article, just as is the case with "Driving in" articles and so forth. And whenever that happens, a summary should be left in the relevant section of the country article, with a link to the spinoff article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can reorganise these articles by region instead of by ingredients and types of dishes. Then we can describe what to expect of the cuisines of each region, and what dishes to try. The dog2 (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean, in particular by "region," which can mean a group of several countries or an area within a country. If you mean a group of countries, I don't know how logical it would be to conflate Vietnamese, Thai, Indonesian and Burmese cuisines, just because they're all in Southeast Asia, or for that matter, Spanish, French and German cuisines because they're all in Europe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could discuss your suggestion more at the linked thread, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In the case of Vietnamese cuisine, we could discuss the differences between Northern, Central and Southern Vietnamese cuisines, and if someone knows enough, perhaps some of the ethnic minority cuisines as well. And likewise, Thai cuisine can be broadly divided into Lanna, Isaan, Central Thai and Southern Thai cuisines. And in the case of Malaysia, there are also many local specialities, so laksa in Penang is not the same as laksa in Sarawak for instance. Unfortunately, I have never been to Kajang, but I have been told that their satay is a little different from our satay in Singapore. 19:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course. As this is a travel guide, we need all articles to focus on travel, and letting people know what dishes you can expect in x, y and z region and whether there's a particular place or set of places to get the best a and b should be part of the heart of Wikivoyage cuisine articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, so I am suggesting this as a way to make the cuisine articles more directly relevant to travel. So people can then know what to expect as they travel around the country. The dog2 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix a bunch of grey unnecessary markers on the map?[edit]

Map of Travellers' pub

Results as shown on the map, how to fix a bunch of grey unnecessary markers on the map? Can help? thanks. ✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 17:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuriy kosygin We've discussed this quite a number of times before. The issue is this data comes from OpenStreetMap and there's no way to remove the unnecessary grey markers unless you completely comment out the transport lines. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]