Welcome to the Pub Shortcut: WV: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. Pull up a chair and join in the conversation! Click here to ask a new question

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 Project: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.

I like to follow Alexa ranks. From mid-2018 to October 2018, Wikivoyage's Alexa rank climbed quite quickly, but steadily. However, the rank suddenly stopped climbing around this time, when it flattened out. Over the next couple months, it has started to fall, and though it seems to be fairly flat now, it's still not exactly in the position to start climbing greatly again. I wonder why this has occurred.

Back in early 2018, there was some kind of project where editors were encouraged to expand articles. Then more recently there was a project on Russian Wikivoyage. These were considered to be why the Alexa rank climbed in the past. Are any similar events coming up in the near future, or later this year?

Just curious. In the end of the day, we still get excellent numbers of readers, and we're working hard to make the travel guide better and better. But it would be interesting to know if these techniques could be used in future to get more readers. Just some thoughts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anecdotally, I've noticed it seems quieter on here recently, especially during the daytime (UTC). Talking about edits, of course, rather than readers, but I imagine a certain percentage of readers will also edit too. (On that theme, anyone know if there are any studies on what the average percentage of a wiki's readership make at least one edit? And how many of those become regular contributors?) Wikimedia ought to have a small external advertising budget, imo, because as effective as initiatives like the Editathon are, they're only targetted internally, i.e. other WMF wikis. Failing that, maybe we (as in Wikivoyage) should try to be noisier on social media. We have Facebook, YouTube (Twitter?), but does anyone follow us on them?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The usual figure given is 10%. We have another problem, in that our search rankings are usually low, especially compared to Wikipedia. Most people don't come to Wikivoyage to look for travel information, but look it up and then find themselves here. I was going to propose a COTM for this - there are several high-profile pages, that, when searched for, return results from Lonely Planet, TripAdvisor, Wikitravel, etc., on the first page, but not us. Probably the worst example I've found is Croatia. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, in the case of SEO, it's probably because the Croatia article has a lot of similar (or even duplicate) content to Wikitravel, or the content of the article does not use many catchphrases that would be picked up by a search engine.

I think it's true that it has been quieter lately. I was looking at the recent changes at 5:00 UTC (today, UTC) and I found that I could easily scroll through the changes. One example was that, apart from an account being created, no edits were made in the hour from 3:00-4:00. Imagine if a vandal had been on the site then, how much damage he could have caused.

I agree about social media. We have a social media nominations page, but it is rarely used. We ought to use it more, if possible. We could mention articles that have been significantly improved lately, etc. DOTMs are published on social media as I understand it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Previous years, both Wikivoyage and The Other Site have had low activity during October-February. Not strange, since English-speakers usually make their big holiday journeys during northern summer. We can expect more traffic during the coming months. /Yvwv (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm presently the only active administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook account who is more than marginally active on Wikivoyage itself. Currently every new DotM, OtBP and FTT gets posted on Facebook. I definitely feel like our account should be more active than that, but as I've said before, I feel like it's too big of a job for one person, especially someone as overextended as I am. But every time in the past that I've called out to the Wikivoyage community for anyone interested in helping manage our FB presence, whoever takes on the challenge seems like clockwork to fall inactive before very long. I still would love the help, but I hope that if I get any responses here from folks who'd like to be inducted as administrators to our FB page, it's from someone who plans to stick around awhile. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I started Uni in October. Question solved. ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you compare our Alexa rank to 12 months ago, it is much higher. It has jumped from about 21,500 to 16,500. And that's the important measure since throughout the year there are seasonal chances as Yvwv mentioned above. But of course, there is always room for improvement. I have sometimes promoted Wikivoyage articles on online travel forums where I thought it was relevant to the question or conversation. All of the anecdotal feedback I've received is that of the people who read Wikivoyage, most of them like us. Very few people are not fans. It is just that barely anyone is aware that we exist. Our target audience is quite large (anyone interested in travel with an internet connection and is English-speaking including non-native) but of this large population how many have heard of us. All of the major alternatives to WV whether similar in scope (e.g. the other site, Lonely Planet, Frommers, Rough Guides) or having somewhat different but overlapping goals like TripAdvisor, BBC Travel and Nat Geo Travel, have millions of followers on social media. We have thousands. Our goal should be just getting our name out there so that travellers get to know about this site. SEO is the big reason why many of our articles are almost ghosts but there have to be other ways to create awareness in addition to differentiating ourselves from the other site. Gizza ^(roam) 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Name recognition is very important. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Has it ever been considered for WV to have some sort of blog? Didn't WT used have that back at one time? If we started it, we'd want it to be a group effort, of course, and if so, I'd be happy to help. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It might be worth trying to partner with some existing Wikipedia-focused events. For example, maybe someone who is writing about a famous artist would also like to update the entry here about a museum where the art can be seen. If anyone's in New York City, London, or Berlin, then there are a lot of potential events there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage is not very popular, after all, everyone only knows Wikipedia, not us... To make more people interested in our Wikivoyage, I think we need to work with other travel sites(eg [https://www.backpackers.com.tw/guide/ Backpackers).--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I now have the tools (GIMP) and the know-how to do banners for DOTM, OTBP, and FTT. Hopefully this can take some of the burden off AndreCarrotflower in doing the banners, which can be quite a lot of work. Ypsilon has also been a help recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Suddenly, in mid-March, Wikivoyage has zoomed up to its previous heights a few months before and is now between 15,000 and 16,000. This is interesting, and perhaps someone has a theory for why this has happened. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just in case this was not yet mentioned before. Because we always compare ourself to Wikitravel; WT has gradually declined over the last couple of months/years: https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikitravel.org It is almost at par with WV now. So, I reckon we are doing pretty well. Cheers Ceever (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are people who buy old travel guides at garage sales, so I guess it is not surprising that people are still reading Wikitravel. It is also interesting that of Wikivoyage's readers, 14% are from the US, and 35% are from the next four countries combined (Germany, Italy, China, Iran), meaning that a lot of our readers are not people whose first language is English. (You need a subscription to Alexa to find out about the remaining 51% of readers.) Ground Zero (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Keep in mind, they are probably not reading our articles. They are probably going to de:, it: (the original WV sites and those with the biggest content advantage over WT), zh:, and fa:. I'm surprised ru: isn't near the top, with the all the work they do with monuments.

Based on this, I think it would be good for WV for the WMF to focus on creating more WV language editions, especially ones that WT already has, as, the later they are created, the harder it is to overcome that content gap, especially its effect on search engine rankings. There's little most of us can do about that, though. But, it is notable that 8.5% of WT's traffic comes from Japan, and ja: is still in incubator. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

WV's Alexa rank just surpassed WT's (see Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage and Wikitravel). WT is still bigger in the United States (which makes up much of the Anglosphere). /Yvwv (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've done a little work in Spanish-language Wikivoyage, but generally my knowledge of the language isn't nearly good enough that I can contribute significantly or freely there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I edited Chinese Wikivoyage a little bit and their coverage is abysmal. Even capital cities like Helsinki, Riga and Kiev are purely skeletons. (If I could type Chinese easily on computer rather than use dictation software on Android keyboard, I would have contributed more.) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am late... In our Chinese Wikivoyage, we have a lot more articles and editors than Chinese Wikitravel, but our Chinese Wikivoyage are still improving in the interface and funtion. Anyway,I think that Japanese and Korean really need to be incubated as soon as possible. After all, the long delay will be very unfavorable for the development of Wikivoyage in Korea and Japan.--Yuriy kosygin (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

IIRC, when the fork happened, the Japanese Wikitravel community was the only one that voted to stick with Internet Brands rather than migrating to the WMF. At last check, they're still an active community and still happy to stay put where they are. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Yuriy kosygin: No need to apologize, I was only pointing out the current state of Chinese WV articles and hopefully someone who's reading this discussion and can type in Chinese easily to contribute. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• A BIG congratulations to everyone here. We have finally pulled ahead of WT in the Alexa rankings :-) Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alexa rank is nice and all, but most users probably come from google. Lately it seems that the above page often "wins" there if I enter "destination wiki guide". Our guides are usually much more comprehensive, so it'd be good find a reason why this happens... Could some of WV policies actually be cause of the relatively mediocre SEO results? -- andree.sk(talk) 13:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hum that website is down below the 100,000s in popularity. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

...Wikivoyage is actually doing pretty well by comparison to our for-profit competition. Alexa puts us slightly ahead of Wikitravel and Fodor's; far ahead of Rough Guides, Frommer's, Travellerspoint, Backpackers.com, and Moon Travel Guides; and behind only Lonely Planet and TripAdvisor. I think this puts any talk of synergy with other sites squarely out of bounds, seeing as the only sites it would make sense for us to collaborate with (the latter two) are ones that are run very much on a commercial basis and thus any such collaboration would violate the WMF's nonprofit ethos.

Cc: Yuriy kosygin and andree.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alexa's list of Travel Guide and Directories sites puts us in 7th position behind TripAdvisor, Timeout, Lonely Planet, Tripsavvy, Travelzoo and Ixigo. I hadn't heard of some of these sites but looking deeper, they seem to be very popular in a handful of countries. And Travelzoo doesn't seem to be a travel guide. There is also a list of Travel Publications websites which are travel magazines and cover similar territory and there a couple of websites with higher rankings at the moment. Also many news and documentary sites have popular travel guide sections like CNN Travel, BBC Travel and National Geographic Travel but unfortunately Alexa doesn't capture the rankings of the travel sections (though circumstantial evidence like social media followers suggests they are much more popular than WV).

I think Wikivoyage is close to peak popularity in many continental European countries (5774th in Germany, 2458th in Italy) and Iran (5273th) but still has significant opportunities for growth in native English-speaking countries and Asia. The US rank for WV is lower than WT and in Australia for example, Wikivoyage is not among the top 15 travel guide sites [1]. The main source of online travel knowledge in Australia is "Traveller" which has a rank in the 600s but it's not used in any other country. It is an offshoot of the Sydney Morning Herald but has a separate domain name so you can see how popular it is. The German and Italian Wikivoyages forked out earlier which is why they have become well established. But there is no reason why Wikivoyage can't become just as well known across the entire world. Gizza ^(roam) 22:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think it's important not to compare apples with oranges. The sites you mentioned are travel-related, but they're not travel guides per se and thus we're not really competing with them. Wikivoyage is not a hack listicle site like Timeout, we're not an Expedia-esque booking engine like Travelzoo or Ixigo, we don't host travel essays or magazine-style articles as National Geographic does, and we're not analogous to the travel features on a television network like CNN or the BBC. (Frankly, though I know I was the one who brought TripAdvisor up, we're not even really comparable to them; I see them as being more akin to Yelp or Google Reviews than a site like ours.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of apples and oranges, I'd say that Tripadvisor isn't a travel guide but since it is used like a travel guide by many people, it's worth using for comparison. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

We present our information in a different format to many of the above but the information itself overlaps to a significant degree. From the traveller's perspective, it's the same information from different sources. Much of Nat Geo's online content on treks are very similar to our itinerary articles. In the case of Traveller in Australia, it not only has listicles and travel news articles but in-depth guides on particular destinations. The BBC has a section on travel tips which contains articles very similar to some of our travel topics such as budget travel. Many of the websites have a travel forum which has the same purpose as the tourist office here. I'd say most of the sites compared to us are apples and pears as opposed to oranges. It's similar to Wikipedia where its competitors (and therefore websites affected by its rise) were not just encyclopedias like Britannica but other general reference websites that presented similar information in a different way.

In any case, my point was more about being cautiously optimistic in the long run. Wikivoyage is capable of becoming just as famous and used in every country as it is in e.g. Italy, where it is a top 2,500 site. Regardless of whether the other sites mentioned are true alternatives to us, that is what we should be aiming for. Gizza ^(roam) 04:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The patrollers group has the ability to mark edits as patrolled, and to use rollback. However, there are only 4 users with that right, per Special:ListUsers/patroller (and one of them, ARR8, is an administrator so they already have those abilities). Is there a desire to use this group more? If so, maybe admins should be allowed to grant and remove this permission (as opposed to only bureaucrats, as things currently stand)? Wikivoyage talk:Recent changes patrol contains a few times where that was proposed but nothing came of it. --Rschen7754 01:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will note that admins can add/remove the template editor group, which is probably more consequential. --Rschen7754 01:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd support admins having the privilege, but I'm an admin and not a bureaucrat, so I am biased. Also, consider that if someone has the trust to patrol, they generally have trust to be administrators too — therefore, users usually go straight to admin. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd support giving admins this power. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I question the need for this group at all. In addition to the point SelfieCity made about trust, the act of patrolling edits as such is not something the community here generally bothers with. In other words, edit volume on Wikivoyage is low enough that most problematic contributions eventually get seen and followed up on by admins anyway, without any need for the intermediate step of patrollers toggling the red exclamation point on and off. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting I'm wasting my time by marking anything as patrolled? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Strongly disagree with that sentiment, and support the initiative to expand the number of patrollers. I only look at unpatrolled mainspace edits, and mark them as patrolled when I have checked them. I know I am not the only one doing this. I find it immensely helpful. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan Kekek and anyone who believes that we should mark edits as patrolled. It does no harm and helps us, whether marked by an admin or patroller. We've been doing it for years, and I don't think we should consider it a waste of time now. As for patrollers, I'm not so sure I think we should have them, but I think that point is worth discussing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying that patrolling edits is a waste of time. What I am saying is that the volume of edits here by relation to the size and activity level of our admin community is such that we don't need a separate class of users who aren't admins, yet who have the power to mark edits as patrolled. In other words, SelfieCity was correct that if you're already keeping up with Recent Changes, reverting vandalism and touting, and counseling new users on mos issues, you're probably ready to be nominated for admin anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's at least partially what I think. I think your statement "the act of patrolling edits as such is not something the community here generally bothers with" was seen my those who commented below as meaning, "I don't support it." I think there are valid arguments on both sides. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

On this wiki, the patrollers group also has the rollback tool, so the group could be useful in that regard. --Rschen7754 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's true; however, currently on WV only admins and existing patrollers regularly do anti-vandal work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is there consensus on this matter? I'm no longer very active here so I don't want to make that call. --Rschen7754 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rschen, I don't see anyone strongly objecting to the idea of letting admins grant and remove this right, which seems to be considered relatively unimportant. I don't know whether any admin will bother with it (and I suspect that the standard message will be "Here's the right, and now let's get you over to the admin page..."), but nobody seems to think that it needs to be restricted to buros. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Submitted at phab:T222008. --Rschen7754 05:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

And this was done. --Rschen7754 01:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

So the article on Rugby football mentions the w:Marseillaise and gives a translation of the controversial line about "impure blood". Since its introduction, it has been edited twice with claims to improve the translation. Wikipedia translates the salient lines as "Let an impure blood // Water our furrows!" What should we write? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The line is both controversial and open to multiple interpretations. But the general poetic idea is that the impure blood will fertilise the soil of France, allowing a better future. With this in mind "furrow" (the grooves left by a plough) would be a more appropriate translation, however that has nothing to do with rugby. You could just expand the translation to read "field", or else find something else entirely for the caption. Incidentally, the caption is incorrect: the All Blacks' haka follows both national anthems, regardless of which side sings first.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've tweaked the caption accordingly. The point (made later in the text) was to underline the ceremonial nature of the haka. If it really was trying to scare the opposition, they should have right of reply or be free to diss it. But it's just a ceremony and no worse than the content of some national anthems. Grahamsands (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://www.humblebundle.com/software/learn-a-new-language-software Proceeds can go to the WMF if you choose them as your charity of choice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very cool and thanks for pointing it out. I'm debating whether to buy the $1 for 3-month subscription or $25 for one-year access to learn French. Either way, I'm picking WMF as the charity. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wondering if there has been some traveling routes suggested that focus on Southern Rock and maybe even music events, e.g. as festivals or similar. I would expect such route to be in Southern United States. --Ppso (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

WV:Plunge forward. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, if you're not sure how to plunge forward, you could simply add a suggestion that someone with more knowledge on this topic start it, by adding it to Requested articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

From User talk:Ppso I gather that the user is not intending to write about the topic, but rather find out information about it, and therefore I think the Tourist office is probably the best place for research and discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to all for the swift response. My issue here seems solved and the Tourist office contacted. --Ppso (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Given https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-47824896 (and the TripAdvisor actions), Should Wikivoyage review whether it's fair to the traveller to include the affected hotels and venues? I appreciate that generally Wikivoyage has not taken any political position on certain issues. The updated legal code in Brunei is already noted in that countries article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage cannot take part in boycotts, because there would be no end to them and it would destroy a collectively-authored travel guide. We have guides to countries engaging in genocidal behavior. Moreover, Brunei is far from the only country that persecutes LGBT people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

We could of course add a note to those hotel listings, saying they are under boycott for this reason, and leave to the traveller to draw any conclusions. I think many readers would be sad if they stayed there and only afterwords heard they were owned by the sultan. I hope we make this kind of things clear in the relevant country articles (Saudi Arabia, Israel, ...), and if major hotel chains are under boycott for good reasons we should mention it in Hotels or some other suitable article. --LPfi (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with Ikan Kekek's comment. We can mention the boycotts if we want, but I'm not sure it would set a good precedent. While I agree that the new laws are terrible, there are lots of boycotts all the time, and lots of countries that persecute homosexuality. The attention on Brunei will die down like these things (unfortunately) always do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I support mentioning the boycott. It's information for travellers, which is what a travel guide is about. Taking out the hotel information would be high-handed of us. It's not our place to make that decision for travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am just wondering where to draw the line on boycotts. What boycotts should be mentioned? Is Wikivoyage a travel guide in English or is it a travel guide defending socalled western values in English? Can someone add values that does not coincide with the mainstream values represented by Wikivoyage? I am just wondering out loud. Philaweb (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest that this discussion is something like the flip side of the discussion at Talk:Xinjiang#Fake news, where it was posited that a systematic campaign of repression against Muslims in Xinjiang is "not exactly travel relevant", which doesn't make sense to me when you consider the fact that a Muslim traveler such as this one can be very much affected by the Chinese government's reported forceful denial of the rights of Uighurs to fast during Ramadan, making them eat pork, etc. My feeling is that the hotel chains in question should be neutrally described as owned by the Sultan of Brunei, period. Anyone who wants to know more will have to look it up. And no, I don't think this site should be about "defending so-called Western values". It's a travel guide. Human rights are universal values, and their denial can affect travelers, either directly or in the atmosphere within or at points of entry in a country, but actually advocating boycotts is a step way too far. We can do that in our own time off-site, if we like. Or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree with mentioning nothing more than ownership for the reasons given. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Ikan Kekek. Just want to add: None mentioned, none forgotten – when it comes to boycotts. If we mention one, we should mention them all, for fairness sake. And we do not want to open up for that particular can of worms. Philaweb (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I like the suggestion of focusing on the traveler's experience. A temporary labor strike at a hotel is almost always going to be worth mentioning, because it could be noisy/dirty/unpleasant, even though that creates a lot of extra work for us (someone needs to check back every few days to find out whether it's been resolved yet). A request from people who live in a different country to not stay at a hotel because they're trying to punish the owner for his bad behavior? It's harder to see how that affects the traveler directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does Brunei own any hotels outside of their own country (pardon me for my lack of research on this topic)? I'm just thinking if there was (and there probably has been somewhere along the way) a boycott of Trump hotels, for example, there would be great challenges in trying to identify all the businesses in such a large network. Speaking of boycotts, there are also boycotts of w:Dick's Sporting Goods (they've added comparatively severe — severe compared to how things were at the company and severe considering half or more of the U.S. holds very strongly to the 2nd Amendment — restrictions on gun sales, causing the boycott) and there have been near-boycotts at Target, also (over their bathrooms/gender issues). In the case of Target and Dick's, finding every mention we have for these stores and including that there is a boycott or that there are concerns would be a COTM-level task. If the boycott turns into headlines in the U.S. news, for any of these issues, it may be worth posting, but otherwise, we're talking about one boycott in many. And remember, while Brunei's new laws may sound shocking in the current age, throughout history and especially in countries following Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, laws against these kinds of practices were common — perhaps they weren't dealt with in the same way that Brunei's dealing with them, but still, laws closely restricting social behavior to religious standards have not been abnormal in the past, especially in states with strong religious ties. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the boycott affects many hotels outside Brunei, see Celebrities Boycott Sultan of Brunei’s Hotels as Anti-Gay Law Goes Into Effect. I'd say mentioning that in listings for the hotels is worthwhile.

On the other hand, I agree with Ikan that "Wikivoyage cannot take part in boycotts", if only because it would be almost impossible to choose which ones. I can make a pretty good case for boycotting Israel, for example, but many would disagree & some would argue for a boycott on various anti-Israel countries. We definitely do not need to have those arguments here. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hell, a good case could be made for boycotting the U.S.! Nope, we definitely need not to go there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think that we need to cover the impact on the traveller. I have seen photos of people protesting outside one of these hotels in California, but I doubt that this is regular enough to be worth mentioning. However if the boycott lasts months it may mean that the hotels have to drop their prices. The hotels may also have difficulty attracting bands to play in the bar or less likely in getting supplies or workers. AlasdairW (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good points, but I think we should wait and see whether any of these things come to pass before mentioning them in listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I uploaded to Commons a static map today for Pleasanton, but what do you guys think about whether it should replace the existing dynamic map or not? (It's coming up as OTBP.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would say no, not until you add all the points of interest that are on the dynamic map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thought it was already resolved that dynamic maps are preferred for bottom-level destinations, and that while we would leave preexisting static maps in place for as long as they remain reasonably up to date, a static map should never replace a dynamic one in a BLD. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think it can if it's better and there's a user who clearly has every intention of updating it when necessary, but this is not a case in which the static map is at this point superior to the dynamic map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Keep in mind that I don't have to post it on Wikivoyage at all, which I don't mind doing if that's our conclusion, or I can place the static map somewhere lower in the article, like "get around" and show it just as a road map. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The map is seems to be useless for tourism in that city, IMO. Even hardly useful for navigation... If there were at least some landmarks included (in addition to the water area), perhaps it could be an overview map. But looking at the number of POIs, it's hardly possible to create a one good static map (unless it's really big). -- andree.sk(talk) 12:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

For relatively small islands that are neither cities nor regions. We would need outlineisland, usableisland, etc. Many of these island articles have in the past been region articles but have then been changed to "cities". Neither quite fits the description. Therefore, a new "island" category may make things easier. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but people will be confused about why larger islands like Madagascar, Greenland, Sumatra or even Long Island don't use it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think we should focus on function, rather than nomenclature. The city template works well where the article covers the whole island; the region template works where there are two or more cities on the island. No island template would work well in both circumstances.

We do use the city template for towns, villages, hamlets, counties and regional municipalities, and we use the region template for districts, counties, regional municipalities, provinces, states, rayons and oblasts. Ground Zero (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

My intention is for the island template to be used for articles about the whole island, not for regions. It could also be called "small island". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anticosti is not a small island, yet because of it's very low population, it has only one article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can't find where the previous discussions have been swept or archived to but many editors have mentioned that the region/city hierarchy doesn't always work for sparsely populated rural regions and islands. In theory, as per above, the bottom-level article should always be a "city" (or a district) but there were many examples provided where this wasn't the case. Gizza ^(roam) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here is Wikivoyage:Destination guides to rural areas, but I also cannot find the discussion on island template, which we have had before. Problem with sweeping to different places. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a very complicated question, like Green Island itself is a township, should it put a city template or an island template? and it is necessary to find out the islands of these hanging city template, I think this is a very complicated problem.--✈ IGOR ／ ✉ TALK?! ^{．WIKIVOYAGER !} 16:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

In natural and human geography, continental islands are not inherently different from mainland. In some cases (Södertörn) it is not clear whether a geographic region is an island or not; and in other cases (Sylt) it is periodically part of the mainland. Small islands without the minimum number of venues can usually be described as part of an archipelago (Stockholm archipelago, Smålandsfarvandet) or a mainland region. /Yvwv (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The word city as used by this template should not be take too literally. It is basically the bottom of the destination's breadcrumb hierarchy. Can be a small settlement, and island, a rural area and also a city. There was a discussion some years ago about a different word but I do not think any consensus was achieved for a rename. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If people really have difficulty with the idea that a destination could use the city format without actually technically/legally "a city", then I think we have two reasonable approaches:

1. Tell people that if they're confused, the whole list is at Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates#What are all the possible section names that can be in a destination article, and their correct order?, and they should use whichever items seem relevant.
2. Rename "City" to "Bottom-level destination". If you just can't stand the idea of copying a list of section headings out of the "Small city article template", then maybe you'd be happier copying it from the "Small bottom-level destination article template". Either way, the point is to get the correct list of section headings, no matter what page (if any) you copy them from.

w:en:Continents#Number might be interesting reading. Since we live in a world in which people cannot even agree how many continents exist, I think that an effort to "correctly" label all the island articles is beyond hopeless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The attractions map that I saw at Backpackers(Taiwanese travel forum site), It is the location of the person and the surrounding listing. When the traveler clicks on the placemark(listing), the listing of the placemark will be listed Information; I think this will be a good feature.

I think Wikivoyage can emulate this, the purpose is to make it easier for travelers to find nearby attractions.--✈ IGOR ／ ✉ TALK?! ^{．WIKIVOYAGER !} 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried Special:Nearby? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have use it. Backpackers have show to map and listing.--✈ IGOR ／ ✉ TALK?! ^{．WIKIVOYAGER !} 16:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Recently some issues have come up over various travel topics and their relevance to this wiki. It's to do with a broad sweep of travel topics that were mostly created around 2015 that have been expanded but, apparently, are not considered anymore to be very travel relevant.

A lot of them are historical, but not all of them. See Wildlife photography, Ancient Egypt, Music, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, etc. They have grown at various amounts, depending on whether editors tried to turn them into quality articles, just salvage them from being stubs, or left them alone completely.

I'd rather see most of these be kept and allowed, but I think the most important thing is that we make an ultimate decision on whether or not we keep these; otherwise, there's a lot of work going into these articles that gets wasted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The four articles you've listed are very different from each other; I don't think we need a one-size-fits-all decision for what to do with them. Better to evaluate each on its own merits. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

But they're all travel topics, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. If the question here is, "Should Wikivoyage continue to have travel topic articles?", my answer is a firm "yes". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(ec) I don't recall discussion about any of these. The discussion was about one individual article, created today, not in 2015, over at Talk:Ancient Israel.

Although I see there was also some discussion about Ancient Egypt, over at User talk:Mx. Granger.

Either way, it's not relevant here. None of these topics have anything in common. What I see here is a disingenous attempt to drown out legitimate complaints about bad, travel-irrelevant articles by associating them with actually-good articles, rather than arguing an article's merits to find the best solution for the site. No one suggested a global travel topic policy, and no one mentioned those articles.

This was not done in good faith and it's leaving a bad taste in my mouth, frankly. I hope I'm badly mistaken. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are. Further explanation coming shortly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't support merging Ancient Egypt with Egypt. The borders don't correspond, like many historical regions, civilisations and empires. I imagine it's the same with Israel. Gizza ^(roam) 03:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is the same with Israel. Some Jewish tribes had land on the East Bank (at least, that is the tradition - I don't know how much history or archeology is behind it), and there certainly are important Jewish sites in the West Bank, for instance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since I created the mentioned articles (except Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) I feel obliged to reply. Wikivoyage is (and The Other Site was) overall an experimental project without precedent. It is difficult to know which projects will be useful. Some travel topics (such as historical travel and music) might be useful as portals for more elaborate travel topics. /Yvwv (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, many of the travel topics in categories such as historical travel and fiction tourism are well-developed; some have been featured. The four examples above are not representative. /Yvwv (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear fellow editors,

From now on, I have decided that I am only going to do administrative work on this project, and perhaps some work on articles, like city articles, where I know that my work will not be deleted. After all, I’m an administrator, and the primary job of an administrator is a different kind of work than regular contributing.

The way I feel is that I cannot, and will not, contribute to a project or wiki where my contributions are deleted, or removed in some other way. Since I see Wikivoyage as a way of presenting my work, and showing it to the public, I see deletion of that same material as a complete waste of time, and effort, on my part. Honestly, I’m tired of seeing my hard work get removed completely, on one or two people’s basis that it’s not “travel relevant,” and somehow these people see efforts to improve a wiki, or to have clear discussion about what we should or shouldn’t do, as “not good faith” and “leaving a bad taste in my mouth.”

It has been said that such controversial articles can be merged, but I know that’s not practical. What will happen is that most content will simply be removed in the merge process, again resulting in work being deleted. The result is absolutely no value of the individuals who write the articles, and no value of the articles themselves. It’s not human. Unilateral decisions like one contributor writing, “the work [of creating this article] shouldn’t continue” completely go against the foundational principles of wiki sites in general.

If a wiki doesn’t value its contributors, it should not expect to grow.

This is not meant as an attempt to attack Wikivoyage, but just a decision I’ve made because of a very limited number of contributors (to be exact, most of the time one) who create an appearance of good faith but actually don’t seem to have the interests of the website’s growth in mind. In particular, this user and I can’t contribute together if we don’t believe each other’s intentions are made in good faith.

I thank many of the website’s contributors who’ve helped me become a better contributor and human being. They’ve defended me often and helped me get to where I am. Unfortunately, I’ve done the same kinds of things to others, like welcoming users, making admin nominations (well, only one, really), etc. and the fruits of these labours have not been productive; in fact, they’ve worked against my interests and, in my opinion, those of this Project.

I believe there are some among us who, though they act like they are the same as the rest of us, may be wolves in sheep’s clothing. They do not have the same motivations and loyalties as the rest of us do, but are determined to enforce their views, which may or may not be in our best interests, upon the rest of us. Just because someone appears to be civilized, does not mean that they are with us. Do not let those past individuals, who wrote offensive messages in all caps, become a stereotype for all problem users. There could be more sophisticated, yet still troublesome, individuals in our midst.

In all, I hope for the best in Wikivoyage. I hope that Wikivoyage doesn’t get undermined by those who don’t have its best interests in mind. Therefore, I’m going to try to take a different role, so I don’t have to combat those whose methods and motives are too complex for me, and so I’m not in a role where I cannot be sure that my work is preserved. I see it as very important, personally, that the material I post on Wikivoyage remains on Wikivoyage, not necessarily as I originally wrote it, but that it stays up there. If that’s not possible, then I can’t contribute here.

Thanks for understanding.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: I plan to still work on page banners, talk page discussions, and some COTMs—just those larger-scale contributions I plan to stop making. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Contribute wherever you are comfortable. I've seen some good stuff from you & nothing awful, though I have not followed closely. I want to encourage you.

But "I cannot, and will not, contribute to a project or wiki where my contributions are deleted, or ..." does not work. I've sometimes deleted or rewritten other people's text; that is how wikis work. I've been on the receiving end as well:

I've had a whole article that was mostly my writing deleted, despite my defense of it. See Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2013#Marriage_in_China

Recently I've had what I think was useful text taken out of an article for reasons I consider nonsense; see Talk:Philippines#Prostitution. I plan to continue that discussion ar Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy, just have not got around to it yet.

It is difficult, but you have to learn to live with such things. Pashley (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

SelfieCity, it's really not acceptable for you to impugn the motives of other excellent users, just because they disagree with you. I forget where I read this, but somewhere, there is or used to be a note saying something like "Do not edit this site unless you consent to having your work be deleted, completely rephrased, moved or disfigured in any number of ways". We're all volunteers, so participate however you feel like, but I hope you will be able to achieve a little distance and put some of this indignance behind you. No-one's contributions are inherently inviolable or immune from deletion or disfiguring edits on a Wiki, and being an admin in no way privileges your edits over anyone else's. You just have been trusted with certain tools other users have not or not yet been entrusted with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity: I'm sorry to lose your contributions to articles. I understand that disputes with particular editors can be frustrating -- I have an ongoing dispute with a long-time editor who reverts my edits without providing a reason and without being willing to discuss the edits. But that is part of life in a collaborative project, and I encourage you to look at this as an opportunity to develop your skills in dealing with difficult people. I have to echo Ikan Kekek's and Pashley's comments: your contributions, their contributions and my contributions will be edited. And sometimes they will be deleted. That is how a wiki differs from a blog. No blog is ever going to provide information as comprehensive and up-to-date as Wikivoyage. That's why I use it and contribute to it. I hope that you will reconsider. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the kind words, guys. As I touched upon a little in my letter, I'll do some work on city articles where, while the content may be edited, it is unlikely to be outright deleted. So, for example, city and park articles in California will still get some of my edits. But I'm no longer going to work on those long-scale projects, especially on travel topics. Maybe that makes my stance a little clearer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your contributions have been valuable. It is sad to see users quit over conflicts. I hope that these kinds of disagreements can get resolved in the future. /Yvwv (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although this is an awkward moment to introduce this, I strongly recommend that anyone who cares about our wikis read meatball:GoodBye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am familiar with that document, but it's important that I clarify that I'm not leaving: I'm simply changing my role. I have also deleted User:SelfieCity/Projects and other content of mine to make it clear that I really do plan to go ahead with what I'm saying. Those who are sorry to me go, it is entirely their decision to say that. Thanks, though, for mentioning the document; I agree that it's very related to what's going on, and I think contributors should be familiar with it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a general shout for anyone who knows about scuba-diving, or who doesn't know much but is interested in the topic, to weigh in on the relevant pages. A few of us are trying to overhaul the top-level page Scuba diving, and see its "Talk" page for rationale. It's going to need a lot more of us, whether on that page, on "Scuba diving in XXX" where such pages exist, on individual city pages for diving destinations, and listings for specific sites and operators. Outsiders, rookies, casual but experienced divers and true experts will all have something they can bring to this. Grahamsands (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just checking, have you got Peter Southwood involved? He's our resident diving expert.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am there, Fully support this request. We need fresh perspectives. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just started an experimental travel topic for saving time. Please contribute with hints and opinions. /Yvwv (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Yvwv: Thanks for seeking consensus on this. In my opinion, some of the advice so far is good (like the hint that novice travelers often do not plan itineraries very well) but some is fairly wv:obvious (like "flying is the fastest way to travel long distances" or "fast food is the fastest way to get fed"). I think the article would be improved with more of the former, of course, but also less of the latter. I recognize that some of the obvious advice is helpful for wikilinks or having something to put in a section, though, but I'm not sure it would help a reader very much. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Article is now named time management. /Yvwv (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Never understand the reason for keep creating trave topics that have not valuable content. This is all wv:obvious stuff. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There might be a deeper meaning to some of those trave topics, since we all are different and some people need things to be explicit. Anyway, the article could be an optimizer or checklist for inexperienced travelers to see if they missed something. I know people that get pretty stressed before they travel, even though they are very experienced travelers, and some of them need to have a checklist to minimize their anxiety. Philaweb (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

For the record, we have a travel basics article which I started as an article for Captain Obvious stuff to help readers who have little travel experience. -- ϒψιλον (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Captain Obvious policy is, ironically, not very obvious. Implicitly it says that articles in the geographic hierarchy (countries, cities etc) should not contain advice which is not dependent on location. Travel topics develop over time, and are by nature experimental, as Wikivoyage hasn't really had any precedent for what an open-source digital guidebook should be like. The time management article has already a lot of information which is far from trivial. /Yvwv (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It seems that in the last few months and years, without ever consciously taking that decision, we've moved towards using more and more templates, with the EUR template just the latest example. While they all individually have pretty clear upsides, I worry that they may in the long run reduce the accessibility of editing WV, particularly on mobile. If we want to live with that downside, we should at the very least consciously decide to do so, not just die the death of the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling water. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Hobbitschuster: Thanks for bringing this up; I was waiting for someone to do so as I plunged forward and began converting prices to use currency templates.

The way I see it, I agree on the upsides of inline templates, and I've given the downsides some thought. I don't think usability for editing would be impacted; new content can be added the old way, without templates, and then somebody else can put the templates in afterwards. I certainly wouldn't support a change in policy requiring the templates to be used by editors, but I would support language encouraging their use for experienced editors.

I've taken some measures to prevent some of the other downsides - for example, having one template used by many pages makes it a vandalism target, so I went ahead and semi-protected {{PHP}}, with which I replaced the majority of mentions of the Philippine peso. I've also changed the currency templates to support ranges with a dash, so that it would be easier to add them without looking it up, like {{convert}} requires you to do.

I would very much like to hear any argument against the use of these inline templates. I think many of the downsides may be addressed with some edits to the templates, and I think these sorts of templates overall can really enhance the usability of the site for readers. This is also a good way to deploy accessible code for screenreaders across the site, such as was discussed recently here for words in foreign languages. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Having worked on a number of different wikis, it is my opinion that:

• The fewer templates used on a wiki, the better. You can use the same template a million times, but let's not have a million templates used once each.
• The simpler the template, the better. It should be easy to figure out how to use it. For example, {{eur|1}} is going to be better than {{currency|1|€|1.13|$|0.86|£}}.
• For wikis that are still growing content, templates should be used to save us work. So, for example, if this template means that we don't have to go back and update the currency conversion rates in hundreds of articles every few months, then this is good. If, on the other hand, the main effect was to save me the trouble of figuring out how to type a € from a US keyboard – well, we might have a template, but I might also suggest that this template should be automagically subst:d back out of the articles, to leave only the € character.

If I were going to suggest an enhancement that would both provide more information to readers and be easy for editors, it's that it might be possible to use this conversion approach automagically within the listings, when the listing content for |price= contains only numbers/ranges. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am sympathetic to the concern about templates discouraging new editors from contributing, and we need more editors. But I have also created a bunch of templates that have saved me a lot of time and effort in updating currency exchange rates in country and subnational jurisdiction articles. Beyond saving time in updating euro exchange rates in one template instead of in the 34 articles in which it is used, Template:Exchange rate euros also ensures that readers see one set of euro exchange rates in Wikivoyage, rather than different rates that have been updated at different times. Template:Exchange rate EC, Template:Exchange rate CFA, Template:Exchange rate US, Template:Exchange rate GBP, and Template:Exchange rate NZD do the same for these other currencies that are used in many countries and jurisdictions (the East Carribean $, the CFA franc, the US$, the UK £, and the New Zealand $). I believe that these templates are justified. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

templates seem marvellous for saving the time of editors, but I personally have no idea how to use them. Not all travellers are technically savvy and the tutorials for wikimarkup read like a maths textbook.

If wikivoyage becomes harder to edit I suspect fewer people will contribute. Templates cause me considerable headaches because I edit on mobile and it's easy to mess them up. —The preceding comment was added by Billbarrelrider (talk • contribs)

These are some of the reasons this site had been opposed to template creep in the first place. Does it not give any of the supporters any pause? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone is saying that we should have unlimited templates, and I don't think you're saying we should have no templates. So it really comes down to determining which templates are useful enough to have, and which should be deleted, i.e., on a case-by-case basis. What do you propose? Ground Zero (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the important point to restate is that new users or those who find them difficult to enter can simple add readable text and other will come along later and edit the format. Templates, whether the standard See and Sleep listings, or more general ones like {{km}} help with keeping a constant format across all articles, as well as a method to facilitate easier mass updates and improvements. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I think that it is important that the templates are compact and readable. As a new user you should not have to be able to use them, but you should not be scared either. On Wikipedia the huge fact boxes in the beginning of articles are a real problem. This is one reason why I try to keep an empty line between {{pagebanner}} and the article text – it makes it easy to see where the article text starts in wikitext mode (the same with images, but images in lists have to be treated differently not to break up the list, I have started using HTML comments to be able to insert line breaks there. A {{km|2}} or {{EUR|5}} is easy to understand, so hardly an issue for new editors, but already the {{infobox}} can be confusing. I think these are useful enough to be kept and used, but introducing new ones or using the existing ones should be done with due thought. --LPfi (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:Babel templates seems to represent about a third of the templates present on this wiki. They're not widely used, and they are unnecessary. Instead of typing

{{user en}} {{user es-1}} 

you can use the Babel extension: {{#babel:en|es-1}} to get the same result. The Babel extension supports more languages. It has the additional advantage of working on all the wikis, so you can use it on your global user page (which is your user page at Meta) or copy it to any other wiki.

I think it might be worth switching to the Babel tool and deleting all of these. Obviously, that would require a little bit of work, but it's not difficult, and it wouldn't have to be done immediately. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Would say {{Babel}} should be used. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suppose the extension ({{#babel:en|es-1}}) has made the other ones obsolete and is now the recommended solution, mostly for performance reasons. No hurry to exchange them though. The babel boxes (however implemented) are useful when they contain languages other than the project default – and new users do not have to learn about them to contribute. --LPfi (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Specifically, I'm cleaning up and adding content to Huaraz, Caraz and Huascarán National Park. What I'm running into is certain listings (like Laguna Parón, Laguna 69... etc) are located in the park, but it's common to visit them via tours from Huaraz or Caraz.

More generally, what's the best way to organize listings that could be included in multiple articles while minimizing duplication (descriptions, pricing) while still having visibility. My thought is to have more general information in the Park article (this is what it is / why you should care / specific things you should know once you are there) and then the specific details for getting there in the city articles (this is how much a tour costs out of this town). However, this is bad for people who only have an offline city article because it may be missing details that they care about. It's also a bit of a challenge to write the city listing descriptions with the proper level of description and without copy-pasting the content between city articles.

Are there any articles that have examples of how to address this?

Muddyhikers (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's a very good question, and unfortunately for you, it's a situation where policy doesn't speak unequivocally. I've long been of the opinion that our policy against duplicating listings across multiple articles should be loosened in certain cases (see Talk:Buffalo#Delaware Park / Buffalo Zoo and Talk:Clarence (New York)#Amherst for two cases where I've run across this problem in my own work). The best answer I can give you is, in the spirit of "the traveller comes first", to do whatever makes the most sense and have a rationale at the ready if anyone questions why you're doing what you're doing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@AndreCarrotflower: I think the reason duplicate listings are not recommended is because people would use duplicate listings to advertise their business. In the case above, as I see it and according to the information provided in the above two comments, it's OK to add information to multiple articles at once because there's no touting involved. I'd say, place phone number, address, etc. in all the articles. Place information about getting in primarily in the city articles. Include a very short summary of the destination itself in each of the city articles, just saying basically what it is (perhaps accompanied by a picture); in the park article, include plenty, if possible, of specific information about the POI. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the policy should be that duplicating listings is generally not done, but allowable where it's the approach that makes the most sense for the traveller. Certainly duplicate listings can be a form of touting, but we already have a "don't tout" policy that could be used to justify reverting such edits. Nor do I think loosening this policy would open the floodgates to a deluge of duplicate listings; touts generally aren't the type of folks who concern themselves too much with policy in the first place.

I also think that we should loosen the policy against listing the same establishment in multiple sections for cases in which it makes sense from the traveller's perspective to do so. Take a case like the recently-closed Vera in Buffalo's Elmwood Village, which was notable both for really creative craft cocktails made with locally-distilled spirits and as the first place in Buffalo to really jump on the artisanal pizza bandwagon. There's no reason why someone who's looking for a good pizza should have to go to the "Drink" section to find that listing, nor is there any reason why someone who wants a craft cocktail should have to go to the "Eat" section to find the listing. So I listed the place in both categories under the principle that ttcf supersedes all other policies. And that's just one case out of a couple dozen that you could point to in the Buffalo district articles alone. If "ttcf supersedes all other policies" is invokable that frequently, that's a good sign that the policy ttcf is repeatedly superseding maybe ought to be rethought.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

One of my biggest concerns with the multiple listings is they begin to diverge over time (prices/details updated in one place and not the other). On one hand, duplication is a good thing for the traveler because it makes things easier to find, but it's also a very bad thing if the two listings have conflicting info as it's difficult/impossible to know what the authoritative source is. Ideas on how to reconcile this with ttcf?

Muddyhikers (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that duplicate listings are okay when that's what's best for the traveler. The issue of keeping the content up-to-date in both places is a real one, though. In some cases I try to centralize the information in one article and add pointers from all the other articles where it's relevant. For example, Bandar Seri Begawan#By boat has fairly detailed information about ferries, and other articles such as Brunei and Labuan have a basic summary and a link to the article with more information. A disadvantage to this strategy is that a reader who prints out a few articles might neglect to print the one that has the information, but I try to be careful in choosing where to centralize the information to make that problem less likely. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Duplication leads to a quick bit rot indeed - some guy started reorganization of a major city, left it halfway done - and it was quite a mess half a year later. I wouldn't say you cannot duplicate listings - but just put detailed info in one, and make the others a short "teaser" + link to the main one (e.g. Laguna Churup). The good question is, whether the visitors of WV usually download the offline page, or rather use some app, like OsmAnd or Maps.me - where you have the whole guide offline. -- andree.sk(talk) 05:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this precisely why we added the lastedit= feature to the listing template? In the case of discrepancies between two duplicate listings, it should be a simple matter to determine which information is more recent. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's a nice idea in theory, but in practice people often update listings piecemeal, rather than bringing all the information up to date at once, and sometimes don't click the button to mark them up to date even when they should. Moreover, some kinds of information like transport options aren't usually presented in listings. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just had a thought of perhaps creating an article on this. The U.S. is most certainly the world's main centre of pop culture, and I bet many tourists will want to visit the U.S. to make pilgrimages to sites connected to their favourite singers. And of course, we could cover all the different music styles that have influenced American popular music. For instance, country music is an obvious influence, but there's also genres such as jazz, blues and soul, and most recently, even influences from Latin America and the Caribbean. So there is a wealth of stuff we could cover. Of course, the main stumbling block is that I'm no expert on this, so help from someone who is well-versed in the history of American pop music would be most appreciated if this article goes ahead. The dog2 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is an article with potentially thousands of POI listings. Best to split it up by genre or maybe even by individual artist. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

There are already genre-based articles on Jazz and Rock and roll and I'm also inclined to continuing that pattern. Nurg (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

But rock 'n' roll is part of popular music. I agree with Andre here. Define the genre more narrowly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I guess the step forward would be to create more articles about different genres of American popular music then. Some that I guess we could cover would be "blues", "R&B", "country music" and "hip hop", if someone has enough expertise to expand on them. The dog2 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, something like that. R&B is a very problematic category, though, because of its history. Originally, the category was simply the new, post-WWII name for "race records" - in other words, music performed by black musicians and intended for black audiences. This started to break down in the 50s, but I don't think it was until the late 60s that R&B was actually stylistically different from rock 'n' roll, and it took quite a while for it be become widely accepted for white artists to be R&B performers as such. Rock 'n' roll was to my knowledge originally just a new name given to R&B records by Alan Freed, a DJ in Cleveland, in order to better sell it to his young white audiences ("rock 'n' roll" previously just meant to have sex, but the white folks who weren't hip to black slang didn't know that; many of the white young people probably did, making it even more titillating and appealing for them). But the first R&B style was the jump blues of people like Louis Jordan, which is really a kind of sung boogie-woogie with a group and not just a piano soloist behind it. And at least until pretty recently, even styles like hip hop were subsumed under R&B in the Grammys, if I remember correctly. So I would counsel treading very carefully with that particular diffuse, race-based category. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

While what you said is true, since the late 1970s there have also been cases of white artistes like Teena Marie crossing over onto the R&B charts and achieving massive popularity with black audiences, and you have many black artistes like Whitney Houston, Diana Ross, Lionel Ritchie and Michael Jackson who achieved massive popularity with white audiences, and made millions of dollars in the process. So I would say that while the racial origins of different musical genres can be mentioned, we should also be careful not to overstate the role of race in the different genres. Sure, I'm aware of the exploitation of black artistes by the white-dominated recording industry in the 1950s and 1960s, but these days a talented black or Latino singer can make millions of dollars, just as a talented white singer can, and there is so much crossover between genres that they are no longer strictly segregated by race. The dog2 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm of course quite aware of all of this, but the term R&B has quite a murky history, and also, there are huge differences style between jump blues, 1950s R&B, Motown, and 70s/80s soul/R&B, for example - all of which and more are subsumed under the term R&B. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've had Blues on my watchlist for a while, so that I'll become aware if someone creates it. Nurg (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The {{wikivoyagelang}} of the main page does not need to show in the mobile version, Because there have a button for Read in another language in mobile version, You can use