Wikivoyage talk:Tourist office/Archive 2014–2020

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

...this one, which have nothing to do with travel but are not obviously touting or vandalism? We've gotten several of those lately, and we'll probably deal with stuff like that more and more as traffic grows. Is it okay to just revert them without comment? The guidelines for the Tourist Office's scope are spelled out pretty unambiguously on the top of the page, so I'm not sure how much good would be done by reminding misguided users over and over again of what does and does not belong here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we leave a sort of generic, automatic response, saying that this is not the best place for that question and pointing them towards the WP Reference Desk? The example you've given could, I suppose be considered 'travel' (in its broadest sense), so maybe we need to narrow our remit on the Reference Desk as well? --Nick ^talk 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Such persons have probably already been to w:WP:RD, and were directed here because they clicked on the "Travel" category on that page. Powers ^(talk) 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Questions about vehicles (as engineering) might be best directed to w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science and geopolitical questions to w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities if they're outside our scope, but I'm not sure from looking at w:WP:RD if there is any obvious place to direct other questions (such as general geography) if they're not travel or tourism related. Sending people back to w:WP:RD makes no sense if they came here from there, but a topic-specific subdesk is valid if one exists for a specific question. K7L (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would direct human geography to the humanities desk, and physical geography to the science desk. Generally if it has to do with natural processes, it's good for the science desk, and if it has to do with culture or society (other than what falls into the "Language" or "Entertainment" desks), it is good for the humanities desk. If you truly can't figure out where a question belongs, feel free to ask on the talk page or direct the question to the Miscellaneous desk. It is not always clear that the question belongs to one desk specifically (was the car question looking for science-related reasons that the car didn't work, or social reasons?); in that case, just direct the OP to one of the desks that you think makes sense. Cheers, Falconus^{p t c} 06:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've added links to Science and Humanity desks to Wikivoyage:Tourist Office/Header. K7L (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's currently a discussion going on at the WP Reference Desk about whether it's right to directly move questions here if they relate specifically to travel - might it be worth us saying hello? --Nick ^talk 11:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your response there looks good. On a side note, despite my initial skepticism I think the tourist office has worked out as a good source for bringing in additional readers. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

By way of continuing the discussions above: it seems that a large proportion of users still think the Tourist Office is an appropriate place to ask random trivia questions and other matters that are, at best, only tangentially related to travel (e.g. this current one and this one from last month).

We've kicked the idea around in the discussions above, but we really need to get into the habit of bouncing out-of-scope questions back to the Wikipedia Reference Desk or some other place that is better equipped to handle matters that are not germane to the purposes of Wikivoyage. I know we all want to be helpful, but if we answer out-of-scope questions here and/or let them stay up on the page and visible for significant lengths of time, it will confuse new users as to the true purpose of the Tourist Office and encourage them to clutter up the page with still more irrelevancies.

Also, to further head off problems like this, we need to find a better way to proactively communicate to users (and perhaps to the Wikipedia Reference Desk or other such pages that refer their users here) the parameters of the Tourist Office's scope, particularly vis-à-vis Wikivoyage's scope.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

A huge red warning box? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem with bouncing them back to w:Wikipedia:Reference desk is that page directs Travel (Tourism, vacations, and travel) enquiries here. If a specific reference desk makes sense (for instance, "what keeps the aeroplane aloft" → Science and Technology), say so, but even then there is the risk that bouncing out-and-out trivia to other reference desks can create a loop where Wikipedia sends the question back to us. K7L (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Be that as it may, I think it's a little early to throw our hands up. We can try to educate the regulars at the WP Reference Desk about what is and is not a good question to refer to the Tourist Office. Failing that, at the very least we should quickly archive out-of-scope questions so that they're not visible to impressionable newbies who don't realize that's not what's supposed to be covered here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd be surprised if WP editors are routinely sending people here. And I think we can avoid loop concerns if we specify the appropriate WP reference desk when we direct queriers there. Powers ^(talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The page header on w:Wikipedia:Reference Desk sends "Travel" here, listing individual WP reference desks for everything else. De facto, that's directing general geography and transport enquiries here which might better fit the "science" (physical geography, transportation and infrastructure) or "humanities" (sociology and politics) desks. K7L (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

As long as there's someone here who can acceptably answer these types of questions, I think it's no huge problem for them to be sent here, and it might be more complicated to resolve the problem any other way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

K7L, I'm aware of that, but Andre was talking about educating regulars so that they don't send people here unnecessarily; I assume that's referring to people posting on their reference desks, not the general directive you mention. Powers ^(talk) 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Apologies if this message should go on a different page. This isn't exactly a user ban issue, and Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress is a ghost town, so I figured this was the most appropriate well-trafficked page for it.

There's an extremely stubborn anonymous vandal who, over the past few weeks, has continually posted and reposted a spammy off-topic message in the Tourist Office regarding some video produced by CNN. Ryan and myself have been doing a pretty good job reverting the vandalism when it happens, but the user's persistence makes me wonder whether an Abuse Filter might get the job done more efficiently. As you can see from this diff, there's a lot of very specific words and phrases in the boilerplate text that keeps getting reposted (i.e. "CNN Deltalina") that we could almost certainly blacklist without catching too many false positives. Can I get some support for this?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I support it. But if Wikivoyage:Vandalism in progress is a ghost town, that's a problem. Enough people, especially admins, should be checking recent changes to see posts on pages like that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

BUMP. Just reverted another instance. Can some more users comment on this, please? I'd really like to get this issue taken care of. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Support. Or should we politely answer the person's questions as well as we can and give him/her the e-mail address to CNN's complaints department? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

We can do both, if you like ;) A filter seems very appropriate. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisting "CNN Deltalina" for some time sounds reasonable, I would say. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd say we should blacklist a number of different word combinations just to be safe - while largely made up of boilerplate text, the message has changed slightly from iteration to iteration (i.e. this one, which ends in "And by the way this video is related to travel" as a response to the edit summary of an earlier reversion of the vandalism explaining that the Tourist Office is for travel-related content only). I have no knowledge of how to construct an Abuse Filter, but it looks like we have a solid enough consensus to put one into action at this point. Would someone who knows what they're doing like to volunteer? (Andrewssi2?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@AndreCarrotflower: I've edited abuse filters on other MediaWiki wikis (e.g. WikiIndex) and I have some familiarity with regex. If no one else steps up and you think I'd be okay with the tools, I'll do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks like no one else is going to bite, Justin. Does anyone object to having him set up a filter: Ikan, Ryan, Ypsi, Julias or Nicolas1981? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't comment earlier because it seems to me that this user rarely turns up and is easily handled with the rollback button, but I have no opposition to using the spam blacklist or a similar tool so long as we don't accidentally block any good edits with whatever approach is implemented. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I already said upthread that I was OK with a filter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea. Good luck Justin and let me know if you want any help. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since this seems to have stalled, I just went ahead created the filter (number 20) and tested.

Presently it is very simple, only disallowing edits to the Tourist Office page that contain 'CNN Deltalina'. I agree with AndreCarrotflower that a combination should be tested for, however I'm nervous to blacklist 'CNN' and 'Delta' since both are legitimate terms for travel.

Please provide suggestions for other terms to detect, or otherwise just let me know when the vandal is back :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

AbuseFilter I didn't realize that my userrights had actually been changed until just now. I'm happy to help as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well the abuse filter is now created and running, so not really anything to do technically now. Further work required is to refine the key word detection, and discuss what those key words should be. (i.e. catch this user's edits, but not 'legitimate' users) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

A belated thanks for setting the filter in motion, Andrewssi2. In looking back at the relevant edits, it looks like the user changes the wording a little bit from instance to instance, which might make it hard to identify specific phrases to blacklist (was this intentional?)

(rest of this message redacted due to ongoing vandalism issue)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I tried linking to Wikivoyage:Tourist office and got a redlink. Standard practice on this site is for only the first word of a title to be capitalized unless it's the name of a place like New York or New London in which both words are always capitalized. Though some of us suggested for "Travellers' Pub" to be treated as a name and have both words capitalized, we were overruled. No doubt, if we were talking about a town in which there was one tourism office, I'd consider that a name and capitalize it as Tourism Office or Office of Tourism (Ufficio di Turismo, etc.). However, I think in this case, maybe for the sake of consistency we should call this corner of the site the "Tourist office" with "Tourist Office" being a redirect. The consensus on this question obviously won't make or break the site, but what do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I support keeping it as is, because it is just more aesthetically pleasing to me. Also I like capitalizing nouns. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan Kekek, it should match the same capitalization scheme we've used for not only article pages and "Travellers' pub", but for dozens of other pages in the Wikivoyage: namespace as well. Barring consensus on some justification for an exception, I support changing it immediately as a mere correction. Texugo (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any further thoughts from anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can't disagree that they should match. Powers ^(talk) 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to move it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the page has been moved, any inbound links to it (such as the ones from WP) need to be updated. K7L (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are loads of pages that link. It would be a nightmare to change them all manually. Can this process be automated somehow? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

They all still redirect to the right place. If that's somehow not good enough, we can pretty easily use AWB to fix all the links. Texugo (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was against the move from Tourist Office to Tourist office, and one of the consequences seems to be, that a bunch of users edit the redirect page. Also it says very clearly welcome to the Tourist Office at the head of this page and it is also spelled with a capital letter in the sidebar... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

If editing the redirect page becomes a persistent problem, it can easily be protected, but I somehow doubt that will be a big problem. Changing the way it appears in the sidebar is a simple issue I have just fixed, and that should drastically reduce the number of people being taken to the redirect page in the first place. Texugo (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

We also have to fix the incoming link at WP, which I believe brings many people here... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I guess i don't understand. What incoming link at WP? Texugo (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

When they refer to us in their reference desk... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. Texugo (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I just tried to ask a new question at the Tourist office by clicking "Ready? Ask a new question". After I typed my question and clicked "Save", my question did not appear at the Tourist office but on a page that had "#redirect [[Wikivoyage:Tourist office]]" and my question after that. I had to edit the Tourist office page directly to get my question to appear there. What's going on here? JIP (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

This issue should now be fixed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The whole thing is a result of the move from Tourist Office to Tourist office. I think before we do a similar move (the whole transport(ation) issue was somewhat similar) we should consider these kind of things... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Eh, most page moves are uncomplicated so we assumed this one would be too. With that kind of thing, it's pretty unlikely for anyone to think of it ahead of time even if we sat and said "what do we need to do to make way for this move?" But anyway, I don't think any real harm was done. Texugo (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ryan, Pashley: are we really sure this is a troll? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Special:Diff/2892594/2892596 and Special:Diff/2892591/2892592 seemed blatantly obvious to me. Combine that with the fact that the user has a checkered edit history on Wikipedia and was making increasingly questionable edits here (Current safety in Paris? reasonable question. Syria? less so. A tourist traveling to a disputed Russian territory wondering if it's OK to ask people about their murdered children? not realistic.) As always please just revert me if you feel otherwise, but I don't usually do anything about trolling unless I feel 99% certain that the user really is a troll. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

When that user asked whether it was safe to travel to Syria, s/he'd have to have paid no attention to any news in years for that to be a serious question, and when s/he then said s/he might visit the school where the terrorists massacred people in Beslan, it was completely obvious s/he was a troll. You seriously question that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suspected the user might be a troll but couldn't rule out the possibility that he wasn't. The question about Syria was "is it safe to travel to any part of the country?", and I don't think it's unreasonable to think an especially intrepid traveller might wonder whether the portions of Syria still under the control of Assad's government might be comparatively safer than the IS-controlled region. As for Beslan, I had no familiarity with the terrorist attack there until the user posed the question here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The user did, and I did, too: It was a huge massacre: w:Beslan school siege. At least 385 dead - worse than the horror in Paris a few days ago. And it was very safe to conclude s/he was a troll even before things got even worse: I hadn't seen the last remark: "Would it be disrespectful to talk about September 2004 in beslan or at the remains of the school?" I mean, really, come on! If this isn't an obvious troll, who would be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't think it was obvious either. I can certainly imagine much more blatant trolling than this. Powers ^(talk) 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A bit unsure about this edit - a user asked a question about trains that might be better suited to Wikipedia's "science and technology" reference desk and one of our users (instead of directing the user there) merely reverted the post with "Mumbai CST to Pune Junction (Maharashtra): archived as not travel-related - questions about why trains are routed along particular tracks are way outside WV's wheelhouse".

This looks problematic for one reason: Wikipedia's reference desk is displaying a note saying to send "travel-related questions" here. Some of those questions might be geography (sociology, so WP "humanities" desk) or transportation (infrastructure or physical geography are "science and tech", again another WP desk). A valid question for some other reference desk should be directed there, not simply reverted, if it was posted here in good faith. w:WP:BITE? —The preceding comment was added by K7L (talk • contribs)

I agree with you. I'd suggest reinstating the comment and responding by saying that in this travel guide, we simply report on transportation as it exists, for the benefit of informing travellers, and don't criticize it with a view toward suggesting how a rail line could be improved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I concur. The link here from WP's RD is great but I'm certain it does lead to some confusion. Powers ^(talk) 18:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've reinstated the post and replied to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

On the mobile version of this site (https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tourist_office) the button "Ready? Ask a new question!" links to https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Tourist_office&preload=Wikivoyage%3ATourist_Office%2FSkeleton+question&editintro=Wikivoyage%3ATourist_Office%2FInstructions&preloadtitle=&section=new&create=Ready%3F+Ask+a+new+question%21#/editor/0 which doesn't have the usual preloaded Tourist office stuff, but just shows the code for the header bit (<noinclude>{{Wikivoyage:Tourist office/Header}}</noinclude> __TOC__ {{Auto archiving |archiveheader = {{talk archive}}...) Is there a way to fix this, as people without knowledge of Wikivoyage may just leave as they may be confused by this. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  12:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What I said above. And a lot of questions never get answered. What should be done about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The assumption I have about this page is that if someone wants a simple answer to a question like the ones raised here, they can always Google it. Since they're asking here instead, then, it would stand to reason that they're looking for more in-depth information from someone who has personal knowledge of the subject. When I'm in a position to provide that kind of insight, I usually do so, but it doesn't happen very often: the range of things with which I have that level of familiarity is only a thin sliver of the Tourist Office pie.

To answer your question, then, I think we at Wikivoyage need to come to terms with the fact that our editing community is small currently and will almost certainly remain so for the foreseeable future, and that there are certain things we just don't have the manpower to maintain. The Tourist Office is likely one of those things; the Collaboration of the "Month" which hasn't been touched since 2014 is another. (I could go on: DotM is in good shape for the time being, but sad to say, all it would take to put that feature in this category would be one or two more users going AWOL). When the situation is like this, the thing to do IMO is concentrate our efforts on the basics of what we offer readers: our content. Expand articles, differentiate the prose from what's on the other site, revert vandalism, detout. And if that means some of the ancillary bells and whistles need to be put out to pasture, so be it. A site like the English Wikipedia is in more of a position to be all things to all people, but we're not at that level, probably never will be, and should stop pretending to be. (And that's not a slight against Wikivoyage: there's something to be said for a site like ours keeping a more circumscribed wheelhouse.)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also sites such as travel.stackoverflow.com are a better format than a Wiki talk page (and have a larger community to answer such questions).

Possibly what we need is a better version of Wikivoyage:Requested articles, where people have questions that can't be answered by the articles we have and give us inspiration to create / update them in order to meet the gap. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

How would a better version of Wikivoyage:Requested articles differ from the current version? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The current version is just a wish list of article names, some with a short explanation. What I would like is 'I came to Wikivoyage looking for a guide for seeing Tigers in India, and couldn't find it' or 'I'm really interested in aircraft carriers, how can I plan a trip to see some?'. Sorry, for the lack of imagination, but I hope you get what I mean. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The million dollar question, I think, is what would keep this retooled version of Wikivoyage:Requested articles from becoming just as neglected as the Tourist Office currently is? It all boils down to the number of hands we have on deck. If we can't do this kind of thing, we can't do it, and maybe it's best to just accept it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I might be entirely wrong, but I assume every time regular editors come to Wikivoyage, the first thing they do is taking a look at Recent changes. Therefore edits to pages like the Tourist office, the pub, the requests for comment page and other pages where people ask important questions should by default be highlighted on Recent changes, for instance in red or in bold text like pages on one's personal watchlist. I've no idea if this is technically possible, though. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Andre on this. We should focus on what we're doing well, and this isn't it. I don't think it's a matter of contributors not being aware of the questions, I think it's a matter of our contributor base being too small to have people who can provide good answers to the questions that are asked. Let's stop offering a service we're not able to provide effectively at this stage. Ground Zero (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

This page is currently linked from w:Wikipedia:Reference desk as "Travel"; maybe we should unlink that but leave the rest as-is? K7L (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that this page generally does work when regular contributors post questions, but is less good at answering questions from IPs & new contributors. I think that we should keep the page,as an alternative to the pub for asking about travel, but make it less prominent, and unlink from WP. AlasdairW (talk)

I would disagree. No-one answered my recent question and I've seen other regulars' questions go unanswered, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

The first button doesn't seem to do anything after you click on it. I already tried fixing it but it has no effects. Anyone want to give it a stab? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@OhanaUnited: Done. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Good job. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since people watching this page probably aren't watching the header template source, I added a sentence to the header. I hope it doesn't sound too unfriendly, but there's a lot of rubbish that gets posted here as well as questions of substance.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I doubt this will stem the tide of rubbish, sadly, but if it functions as formal justification for summarily reverting said rubbish rather than feeling compelled to indulge it for the sake of assuming good faith or not biting newbies, then I'm all for the new clause. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply