Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

Welcome to the pub

Shortcuts:
WV:Pub
WV:TP

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

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)

@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)

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)

+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)

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)

Can we do an edit-a-thon? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

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)

Do you have the link to the contest from a year ago? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

m:NewsVoyage was only for eswikivoyage and eswikinews. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 06:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

+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)

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think our community should develop our own criteria (including how many points awarded for certain tasks). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree with you on both counts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, I would be interested, although famous last words (it might take too much time). Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

One of the judges should be an admin, the other two can be users. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 16:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We need three volunteers

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)

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)

The contest is scheduled to run from January 15 to February 15, 2023. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bridges that connect two cities

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) (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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) (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thank you. I'll be making the Kolkata listing the main one and cutting down the Howrah listing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Wiki is not paper, we have room for that. Piotrus (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

The San Juanico Bridge looked nice to me when I just did an image search. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Of course, redirects are fine and even expected. Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That makes sense to me. Thanks, Andyrom75. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Street address in listings not syncing with wikidata

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

Do you want to help us make it better? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@Koavf, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek: I'm updating them right now! Ernest Macomb (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates, Earnest Macomb! Much appreciated :-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Ernest Macomb (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:87.4.152.92

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

There are now similar edits by the IP 151.36.189.31. Ypsilon (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

In this discussion, it's a highway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Need some opinions on a possible regionalisation

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)

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

You mean it's not just me, you get the cricket's-experience too? :) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: You didn't get the crickets experience on your enquiry below. I responded in within a day, and did some work to get you started on the project you proposed, but I see you haven't done anything with it. Next time I won't bother. Ground Zero (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

People have more than once that, for regions I know fairly well & they don't, I should just go ahead; they'll trust my judgement. e.g Talk:Visayas#Radical_change_proposal That's my reaction here; I don't know Oz & I'm prepared to trust User:SHB2000. Pashley (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I see your point. I guess that's why lawyers were invented. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The decision on Commons is to kee this file, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manama-nightview.jpg AlasdairW (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Grays Harbor County Washington State

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)

@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)

Wikivoyage listings link to Wikidata - but there is no link back

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)

Nearby listing type

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) (talk • contribs) 09:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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) (talk • contribs) 04:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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) (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sound logo

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)

Reminder to provide feedback on the Movement Charter content

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:

• Fill out a survey (optional and anonymous, accessible in different languages)
• Share your thoughts and feedback on the Meta Talk pages:
  • Preamble
  • Values & Principles
  • Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent)
• Share your thoughts and feedback on the MS Forum:
  • Preamble
  • Values & Principles
  • Roles & Responsibilities (statement of intent)  
• Send an email to: movementcharterwikimediaorg if you have other feedback to the MCDC.  

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)

Importing an article from Wikitravel

I noticed that Wikitravel has a very nice article about Cusuco National Park, which Wikivoyage doesn't have at all. According to Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel, I should "discuss before moving content from Wikitravel to Wikivoyage". Would anyone object if I copied this article over to Wikivoyage? What is the correct way to do that? Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine. The licensing is not an issue. The only reason why others wouldn't want that imported is because of inter-wiki conflict, but not some kind of legal issue or something. As for how, the best way is to have it actually imported by exporting the page as XML and uploading it here, but standard users can't do that. You can provide attribution in the edit summary and talk page to ensure that CC licensing requirements are met. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Justin. We don't want articles copied and pasted from anywhere, and least of all Wikitravel, because Google penalizes sites for lack of originality. Nosferattus, I really appreciate your desire to help out. If it's not too much trouble, please get the information from somewhere else and summarize/paraphrase it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Which guideline or policy says that? Since ttcf, it's better to have this content than to not have it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The link at the top of the thread: "Instead of copying text, consider contributing original content written in your own words." In practice, we pretty much do not allow copying from Wikitravel and tend to delete it whenever we see it, but the implications are very clear at the link that we discourage it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean that most (or at least a large percentage) of Wikivoyage articles should be deleted since they were copied from Wikitravel? I have no interest in creating an original Cusuco National Park article as I'm not a Wikivoyage editor, but I was sad there was no article here to link to from the English Wikipedia article (which is where I edit). But it's more worrying that Wikivoyage seems to have no consensus on whether or not importing articles from Wikitravel is a good idea or not. Haven't y'all had about 10 years to sort this out? Nosferattus (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus, at Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel#Can I copy content between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel? it says "copying is generally discouraged" (italics in the original). Did you find this unclear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nosferattus, no, it doesn't mean that. Articles that were part of the fork are one thing - and many of them have been greatly edited. New articles copied from Wikitravel are another. And the fact that you got an out-of-order answer to begin with does not mean that there is no consensus on this issue at Wikivoyage. If you have no interest in writing any articles here, OK, so be it, but in that case, let's not spend time arguing about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:, As I'm sure you know, that page is neither a guideline or a policy. Again, one of our guiding policies is ttcf. Is it better for travellers that we have no content here on this topic or perfectly fine content from Wikitravel? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's better to have no content than an article newly copied and pasted from Wikitravel. I guess we have to debate this further at Wikivoyage talk:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel? You are to my knowledge the only long-term user who disagrees with our standard practice. Leaning on legalisms instead of understanding the situation is unfortunate and does not put you in a good light, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's debate policy at Wikivoyage talk:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel#Revived discussion in 2022. I will also post this to Requests for comment. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't really like your repeated implications that there's something sinister about my editing. I'm just applying ttcf and I fail to see how travellers are helped by having no content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with y'all's dick-waiving contest. I'm outta here! Nosferattus (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sinister; wrongheaded. You're a long-time valuable user, so I'm quite surprised at this being a debate at this late date. Goodbye, Nosferattus. Please come back if you ever want to add original content to this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Please remain civil; demonstrate further incivility and the door will be swiftly shown to you. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the above comments by Ikan Kekek and Justin, my instant answer is no, and no matter what reason you give, the answer will always be no. Many users have done their best to try and differentiate the content between the two sites, therefore improving this site's SEO. Justin, are you seriously saying we should be heading backwards, essentially undoing all the hard work that's been done over the past 10 years? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that, nor did I say that. What I wrote was that since ttcf, us having a good (assuming it's good: I have no idea) article on a place is better than having nothing on a place. Since ttcf is one of our guiding principles, that is the first thing I think of when I try to answer a question about how this site should work. How is the traveller better off for not having this content here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've started an article for Cusuco National Park without using anything from the defunct wiki travel site. Additional contributions would be welcome. Ground Zero (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It really hasn't been fun to re-debate how to deal with edits by a block-evader banned for bigotry, and it's not fun to have to re-debate the relationship of this site and Wikitravel. I'm wondering what the next fundamental thing is that someone is going to claim we have to backslide on on the basis that travelers would somehow benefit from the self-destruction of this site. Look, Justin, I'm sorry about how aggressive my reaction has been and how extreme my remarks sound, but they demanded a strong response, lest our prospective new user got the wrong idea, and I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say I will be an admin and even a regular editor on any site only as long as it's fun. Please think clearly about why we forked and what IB tried to do to us and see if you can reconsider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I started editing Wikitravel four years before you joined and I remember how that all went down and I also remember Internet Brands removing my admin rights there when all I ever did was delete spam. I have no nostalgia for any of that. I just keep on asking (and others keeping on evading) how this puts the traveler first. If the community here wants to change the guidelines or policies to be an actual guideline or policy, so be it. If not, then you can't expect anyone to be upset or confused or bothered when someone wants to enforce rules that don't exist or show fundamental ignorance of the rules that do exist. Being in conversations with admins who literally don't know that ttcf is a policy or who just refuse to even acknowledge its existence and basic importance is frustrating for me, for sure. That said, thanks for apologizing. I want this to be fun, too. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

All of us know that ttcf is a policy, but though it's the overall watchword of everything, it doesn't override several basic policies. Do you remember WFrank, for example? This site has to function in a way that perpetuates it, or it's to no-one's advantage. (Parenthetically, I was on Wikitravel as several IP addresses for several years before I registered. I'm not sure this is my earliest IP.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The WT article really wasn't useful. I looked at it this morning to see if I could pick up anything worth adding. I didn't. We know that anything on that site was written many years ago. For a place like this park, it would be a mistake to believe that what WT that anybody the information is still valid. Copying over out-of-date information does not benefit the traveller, and it is quite clear that Nosferattus was looking for a quick copy-and-paste, and was not interested in verifying any of the information. Further, I think that we can generalize that most or all WT text is now out-of-date and should not be copied. Ground Zero (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm hearing two stories, both of which sound reasonable to me:

• The traveller comes first, and that means we need to have as much good content as possible, even if that means travellers are less likely to end up at this site in the first place. Not caring about SEO issues = putting the traveller first.
• The traveller comes first, and that means we need to get the travellers to this site, instead of to other sites. Caring about SEO issues = putting the traveller first.

Do those sound like (sort of) fair descriptions of your views? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with two additional points: We shouldn't help sites or individuals who tried to destroy or damage us, and we shouldn't get into the kinds of basic disputes that could have the effect of sending some long-time and valuable content providers and admins to the exits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think overall we could classify this as a short- vs long-term perspective. The traveller is best served today by having good content, and in the future by being able to find good content produced by a positive, productive community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The community needs to be healthy, and it can't be if we allow sabotage to occur. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is committing sabotage? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, nobody is committing sabotage at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Allowing people to copy and paste wholesale from Wikitravel or allowing users banned for bigotry to edit is sabotage, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not sabotage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how many and what kind of users would head for the exits if such policies were adopted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There may well be users who leave the site in that case. I'm just saying that nothing proposed in this thread is sabotage. No one proposing to import freely-licensed material (of quality) to fill in gaps in our travel coverage is trying to "deliberately destroy or damage something in order to prevent it from being successful". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, importing content from the other site affects our search engine optimisation rank, so yes, I too would agree that it's an indirect way of damaging something to prevent it from having a higher ranking. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That may well be true, but 1.) it's not obvious that it causes more damage than it helps and 2.) it's not sabotage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

having a higher ranking = more successful, IMO. Agree with Ikan Kekek that this is sabotage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Deliberately destroy or damage something in order to prevent it from being successful". Not sabotage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

But when you copy something from Wikitravel, you know that it will affect the site's SEO. That's not an accident. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone knows or cares about SEO, nor does everyone think that purported SEO impacts are more important than the value added by importing the article. Therefore, not sabotage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What? Why did you post this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your point? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not Ikan to answer this, but I believe Ikan's (and my) point is that copying content from Wikitravel is deliberately harming this site, and therefore sabotage. Period. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nosferattus was not asking, "Hey, can I deliberately harm this site?" If you think that constitutes "sabotage", then you should probably propose that we not discourage that behavior, but prohibit it. Who just generally frowns upon sabotage? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you're arguing about. Over and out, and you can continue making more remarks if you want to, but most of this discussion would not have taken place if you hadn't told this user to go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, copying content is also deliberately harming this site because we're adding out-of-date content as if it were up-to-date; deliberately adding obsolete content is also deliberately harming the site, and therefore sabotage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has derailed. Nobody wants to hurt the site (that I can see anyway). Deliberately doing something in good faith shouldn't be called "sabotage", even when the consequences are bad. We have come to the conclusion that copying stuff from the other site does more harm than good, and even having the discussion makes more harm than any content from there is worth – even from the traveller's perspective, at least in the medium and long run.

They don't have a strong community any more and much of the content is outdated. If a passer-by user copies something, at a minimum it needs to be checked, which might take as much time as doing similar original research oneself. Regulars could update both sites simultaneously, but we want a clear line – we cannot expect our new patrollers to know who is supposed to be trusted on doing that unless we put an effort in educating and discussing that. When finding new similarities between articles, history has to be analysed to find there was no copyright violations. All this for limited value.

–LPfi (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

In an ideal world, people would do a bit of research and think about what they say before they say it. There are numerous fallacies in the previous string and a lot of hurtful comments made towards people who didn't deserve criticism. I know that it's some kind of sacred "truth" here that content must be unique and never, ever duplicate wikitravel, yet that seems to be based on a decades old discussion among a few uninformed users that's somehow become a mantra. Do some research on what Google search engines *REALLY* look for and you'll find that uniqueness is typically not even mentioned at all. The single most important aspect is backlinks (notably from quality, authoritative sites). Working on getting a few good backlinks will do FAR more to improve wikivoyage's search performance than deleting duplicate content. In fact, the duplicate content is far MORE likely to improve wikivoyage's search performance because it addresses content gaps (which do detract from a site's search engine score). From a purely SEO perspective, the user who commented that copying over a topic to fill a gap would be a service to the traveller was spot-on correct....but he unknowingly was also pointing out a problem that will constantly give wikivoyage low search engine scores if unaddressed --- content gaps.

I hope nobody takes this as personally, but I have a few thoughts to help the site boost its search engine performance:

1. Stop the nonsensical ban against copying wikitravel content.

2. Work on identifying content gaps and filling them (the expeditions are a good way to do this, but don't seem to be very active lately)

3. Work on freshness. There are a lot of topics that haven't been updated in years. Are hotels/restaurants still in business? Are rates current? Stale info works against search engine ratings (except for content that is considered "evergreen") Mrkstvns (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope nobody takes this as personally, but I have a few thoughts to help the site boost its search engine performance:
1. Stop the nonsensical ban against copying wikitravel content.

How contradictory! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Copying content from a site that is way out of date is entirely nonsensical. Ground Zero (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Much of the content of travel articles is "evergreen" --- it doesn't really go out of date.

It's also a mistake to think that nothing on wikitravel has been updated in the past 10 years. There are still users who update content there. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You also think somehow that decreasing the originality of this site would improve its search engine performance, when our previous experience (among other things) shows that the reverse is true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose "the previous string" cited above is my post. I am sorry if it hurt feelings, but I don't see how (but I suppose I should be told on my talk page, not here). The main problems I see are two: we don't want legal problems with WT, so copying should be attributed correctly, and as much content over there is outdated, it needs to be checked by our patrollers. Few pass-by editors know how to attribute or even that attribution is required – and we don't want to give WT those backlinks. They declared war and I have heard nothing about them giving us reason to build a friendly relation. My primary concern is how copying affects patroller workload (including workload for those who find copied text a long time after it was copied). Working on filling gaps and keeping things updated is good, but we don't need WT for that. –LPfi (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mrkstvns: With the caveat that search engine optimization (SEO) is more art than science, the statement that "duplicate content is far MORE likely to improve wikivoyage's search performance" is not accurate per my understanding (I work in e-commerce where SEO is a critical consideration, although it is not my primary responsibility). Google and other search engines go to great lengths not to show duplicate results when performing searches, so when they think pages are substantially similar they suppress the one that the algorithm decides is a duplicate, effectively meaning it will never be shown in search results. There are many examples at Wikivoyage of pages that were suppressed until they had been substantially rewritten - see Wikivoyage talk:Search Expedition#How to tell if Google is filtering us as duplicate content for a longer discussion, and https://backlinko.com/hub/seo/duplicate-content for a technical explanation, but having unique content is very important for ensuring that search engines do not suppress pages from search results. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Any Taiwanese Wikivoyagers?

Many of the Taiwan pages are in dire need of updates. Ernest Macomb (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Ernest. Unfortunately, we don't have users categorized by location, but we do by language, so you can see if anyone in Category:User zh has any Taiwanese. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If we wanted to recruit some editors for a project, then I suggest leaving a note for Joycewikiwiki of m:Wikimedia Taiwan on her talk page at Meta-Wiki. Editing Wikivoyage can be a fun project for chapters that organize editing events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a list on Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers by location, but it's seriously out-of-date and filled with users who've only made one or two edits to Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Also babel boxes, used to tell one's languages, are used only by some Wikivoyagers; you can find users who know a language using the categories, but you cannot rule out that there are regulars who just haven't declared their proficiency. –LPfi (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Paperwork

Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals seems to be marked as both a guideline and a policy. I doubt that's correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The guideline addition is pretty recent, so I reverted it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

cc Tai123.123. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wikivoyage guidelines was created only in 2021, and I don't remember any discussion on it, neither can I find any. We don't make the distinction between policies and guidelines that I know. Category:Wikivoyage policies was created in September 2012 (was that in connection with the fork?). –LPfi (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just a terrible 'crat, but I couldn't explain the difference between a policy and a guideline on WV. Perhaps we should revisit the issue, and try to define our terms before deciding if we need guidelines.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

We probably should. I guess there is a difference, but I never think about it. I guess the only thing I can think of is whether Words to avoid is a guideline, because most of those words aren't actually to be avoided all the time. But having checked: no, it is neither a guideline nor a policy, just "general advice." Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have seen no need for separate guidelines and I don't think a discussion on making the distinction is worth the trouble. I cannot remember the status thing creating any problems, other than having to explain how we look at rules on this site, which we would have to do regardless of how much work we put in a page on the matter. Our policies mostly document consensus, which doesn't much depend on what we call it. –LPfi (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If memory serves, the idea of guidelines was imported here from the English Wikipedia along with Wikivoyage:Deny recognition (which is not a guideline or policy at enwiki).

If nobody can explain the difference between guidelines and policies (or if everyone who claims to be able to explain it gives a different answer), then we should probably get rid of the guideline status entirely, and let these pages be good advice (for relevant situations, obviously), rather than having any official status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some of them should be policies, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2023 opens in January

Please help translate to your language

(There is a translatable version of this message on MetaWiki)

Hello

The Community Wishlist Survey (CWS) 2023, which lets contributors propose and vote for tools and improvements, starts next month on Monday, 23 January 2023, at 18:00 UTC and will continue annually.

We are inviting you to share your ideas for technical improvements to our tools and platforms. Long experience in editing or technical skills is not required. If you have ever used our software and thought of an idea to improve it, this is the place to come share those ideas!

The dates for the phases of the Survey will be as follows:

• Phase 1: Submit, discuss, and revise proposals – Monday, Jan 23, 2023 to Sunday, Feb 6, 2023
• Phase 2: WMF/Community Tech reviews and organizes proposals – Monday, Jan 30, 2023 to Friday, Feb 10, 2023
• Phase 3: Vote on proposals – Friday, Feb 10, 2023 to Friday, Feb 24, 2023
• Phase 4: Results posted – Tuesday, Feb 28, 2023

If you want to start writing out your ideas ahead of the Survey, you can start thinking about your proposals and draft them in the CWS sandbox.

We are grateful to all who participated last year. See you in January 2023!

Thank you! Community Tech, STei (WMF) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Movement Charter: End of the community consultation round 1

Hi everyone,

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC), we would like to thank everyone who has participated in our first community wide consultation period on the Movement Charter.

People from across the movement shared their feedback and thoughts on the content of the Movement Charter. If you have not had the chance to share your opinion yet, you are welcome to do so by giving the drafts a read and filling out the anonymous survey, which is accessible in 12+ languages. The survey will close on January 2, 2023. You are invited to continue to share your thoughts with the MCDC via email too: [email protected].

What’s next?

The Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish the final report with a summary of the feedback received in January 2023. It will be shared with the MCDC and the communities via different distribution channels.

After receiving the final report, the MCDC will review the suggestions and communicate the changes by providing an explanation on how and why suggestions were or were not adopted in the next versions of the drafts. There will be additional ways to engage with the Movement Charter content in 2023, including early feedback on a proposed ratification process and new drafts of different chapters in the second quarter of 2023.

We invite you to sign up for the MCDC monthly newsletter, which will be delivered to the Talk page of your choice. Monthly updates are available on Meta to stay updated on the progress of the MCDC.

Interested people can still sign-up to become a Movement Charter Ambassador (MC Ambassador) to support their community. MC Ambassadors Program will restart accepting applications from both individuals and groups ahead of the next round of consultations in the second quarter of 2023.

We thank you for your participation, time, and effort in helping to build the charter for our movement!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)