Talk:Destinations Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the month for April-October 2013.

Contents

This page is an idea sparked in Talk:Main Page#Map navigation. I made Earth a protected redirect to here, since that will be recreated ad infinitum. We can also link this in the sidebar if people think it useful. --Peter ^Talk 10:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Globe-trotter has already started a discussion about putting this in the left nav at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Changing sidebar 2013 - it could use more feedback. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

One suggestion for this article, and it might require a new name - would it make sense to include text links to the continents (for clarity and accessibility), as well as links to the itinerary and travel topics? If this page is going to become the root of our non-policy navigation structure then it would be good to include non-geographic pages, too. Something like the following, placed under the map:

-- Ryan • (talk) • 19:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those aren't exactly destinations, so we should perhaps rename the page. But it should still be something really obvious, to get new readers who want this information to click the sidebar link. --Peter ^Talk 21:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like "Destinations", else we'd have to use something like "Index", which sounds boring. I also think Other destinations and Island nations should be added, so this becomes a kind of "root" category. Globe-trotter (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could we just use Other destinations, since it has all the Island nations links? --Peter ^Talk 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure, as long as it's possible to reach all destinations starting from this page. Globe-trotter (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I object strongly to having something called "destinations" that includes phrasebooks, itineraries and travel topics. The distinction between those article types is a basic feature of the site design.

I'd call it the "Site Map". Several SEO pages I have looked at suggest every site should have one, and the idea is likely to be familiar to users. I'd make it look something like this, with + indicating expandable sections:

+ Continents

+ Island nations

+ Other destinations

Itineraries

Travel topics

Phrasebooks

+ Indexes

Where Indexes links to all the articles like UNESCO World Heritage Sites or World cities that have lists of links.

Given that we have breadcrumbs already, I think large parts of such a page could be populated automatically. Pashley (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it would be good to have a Wikivoyage:Site Map, though I might also suggest keeping a page called 'Destinations' or 'Earth' or 'Places' where people could navigate through our destination articles geographically. --Nick ^talk 18:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I say below, 'Earth' works better for breadcrumbs since it is shorter and that sometimes matters. I think we should have both a Wikivoyage:Site Map and an Earth article. At some point, we might even expand Earth with overview guide stuff like the tropical/temperate/arctic distinction or a map showing where civilisation existed in 3000 BC for people interested in historical tourism. Pashley (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree - 2 articles is better than one! That's sort of what I meant to say above but I was typing and telephoning at the same time! Is it worth creating one of those articles now? --Nick ^talk 18:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time right now and doing the site map probably needs a bot to crawl the IsPartOf structure. You & I seem to agree, but let's leave it a while, see if anyone else wants to comment or to volunteer for the work. Pashley (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

How's this as a starting point for Earth? --Nick ^talk 22:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't have an opinion about what an "Earth" page should look like (the page you linked to is fine with me), but for accessibility and SEO reasons it's usually good practice to also include a navigation option that is text-based whenever possible - the text menu at the bottom of the current Destinations page was added for that reason. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a play with it and be sure to incorporate a full list! --Nick ^talk 22:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this is a place where we could put an interactive map? There are several floating about in the Pub at present. If we were to rename, perhaps 'Atlas' would work? --Nick (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would love to put an interactive map here, although I don't think it should replace the existing one. It would basically offer an alternative to the hierarchical navigation. --Peter ^Talk 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, but it would be really good to have it as well! Could we somehow 'embed' the webpage here? --Nick (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it's possible to embed it (yet), but we have the interactive map here. We could even just link to it with a Beta warning. --Peter ^Talk 21:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it was previously proposed to add all the top-level continents/other destinations articles under this page, making it become the highest level in the hierarchy, finally unifying all of our destination pages. This would mean that every destination article could be reached through the hierarchy without searching. Currently, it is not possible to get from Dhaka to Churchill without searching. A minor issue would be that it would add some extra length to the breadcrumbs of all articles, although I don't think it is a major concern. We could test it on one continent and see if any article's breadcrumbs become unreadable. JamesA ^>talk 05:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

*bump* JamesA ^>talk 07:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would like this. It breaks the flow a little when trying to switch continents and I've to remember to click on travel destinations. Some places really do have very long breadcrumbs though, I think Walt Disney World districts are examples. -- torty3 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree too. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I support this proposal. As I understand them, our breadcrumb trails are not an academic exercise in geographic classification but rather a practical tool to assist the traveller in browsing for other destinations in the hierarchy and this proposal would fit in nicely with that. I do have misgivings about the name, though. --90.215.245.164 07:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this would be an excellent idea. --Nick ^talk 08:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible to suppress the Destinations item from lower levels of the hierarchy? E.g., only display it for Continent articles? Or is that not something people would want? --Peter ^Talk 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could I perhaps *bump* this proposal? It's been quite a while since it was last discussed, but I think it's a good way of making our breadcrumb trails a little more coherent. --Nick ^talk 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add Earth — not Destinations — as a top level and put {{IsPartOf|Earth}} into continent articles and other things like Islands of the Arctic Ocean that do not fit in continents. I'm not sure it is necessary, but it looks useful. Earth is much shorter than Destinations and more sensible since we do have articles about non-Earth destinations such as Space.

If breadcrumb trails become too long, could we change the code to display just a few? e.g. for a Disneyland article, do we actually need anything above California? Pashley (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would it also be possible to embed Special:Nearby on this page? --Nick ^talk 16:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

---

More than 2 years later, is anyone opposed to adding {{IsPartOf|Destinations}} to the top-level continent pages to unify our breadcrumb hierarchy? There was consensus above, but no one plunged forward. I will do so in a few days if no one else has any comments. James A ▪ talk 02:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would still prefer a site map as suggested above. Pashley (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

First cut at what a site map article might look like is at User:Pashley/Site map. Ideally, though, it would not look much like this; for one thing, it would have links to all destinations in expandable sections under the continents.

I would support adding {{IsPartOf|Earth}} to the top-level continent pages, since that is a real geographic relation. Not "Destinations", though; that strikes me as too arbitrary. Pashley (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

If this change is implemented, I'd prefer "Destinations". Earth — or Welt (World) as our German colleagues put it — sounds sort of silly to me as non-Earth destinations as of now don't even make up one per mille of our articles. BTW, the Space article could perhaps be turned into a travel topic. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind either way; I'd just like to see something implemented. My issue with Earth right now is that it's a redirect to Destinations, and we don't want to be linking to redirects in nearly every one of our guides. James A ▪ talk 00:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Everything in Destinations, though, is on Earth so moving the article there would work.

Maybe an improved/expanded version of User:Pashley/Site map could then replace Destinations article? Pashley (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

For previous discussions on this subject, see Talk:Destinations.

(Just trying out the new tag) After Nick bumped the Destinations page, I thought it should get more eyes on it.

The idea is to add Destinations to the start of each breadcrumb trail: Destinations > Asia > China for example. If the breadcrumbs are too long, it could be possible to reduce their font size.

I'll go further with another suggestion - add the top level regions to the sidebar.

Travel destinations

• Africa
• Asia
• Europe
• North America
• Oceania
• South America
• Other destinations

And possibly add the article map to the end of that as well. I think the term Places rather than Destinations is better as well. Thoughts? -- torty3 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for raising this!

Those suggestions sound good - perhaps 'Places' could be another collapsible navbar category (above Get involved?) where we could keep those top level destinations?

I'd really like to be able to embed this map (or make all our destinations accessible from PoiMap) on that page, but at present the 'MapFrame' template and associated JavaScript don't support it. Do you think there's any way that we could make that work?

If anyone else has any ideas for the page, it would be great to hear them! --Nick ^talk 00:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like this idea a lot. It's my opinion that the name should stay "Destinations", if only for the fact that we call locations destinations 99% of the time around this site (i.e. Other destinations). It would make sense to keep it unified, but I won't go crazy if it's called Places. I don't know how the open source maps work so I can't help you there. Nick1372 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is further discussion at Talk:Destinations. Pashley (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been having a play with an idea for the new Earth page that you can see here. What do you think? The imagemap isn't quite finished yet, but it can be done very easily. --Nick ^talk 17:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would rather think we'd want to incorporate those ideas with embedding of the article map. I think it makes for much more interesting exploring than starting with one of our mediocre continent article does. Texugo (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Believe me - I've tried! The current mapframe doesn't permit it (although could be tweaked by someone knowledgeable) and the other (slight) issue is that it can take an age to load as a result of the number of articles. I'd also have liked to somehow embed Special:Nearby, but that doesn't seem to be possible either. --Nick ^talk 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know. I've tried too. Do we have any feature requests going on this yet? Texugo (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Artmap can be embedded, but I'm a little reluctant to do so because of the time to load plus will need to mess around with screen width, and would prefer a direct link (ideally in the sidebar). Not sure about Nearby. -- torty3 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you tell us how it can be embedded, in case we want to play around with it? Texugo (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi all,

I created a world map showing all of our listings (that have a latitude/longitude): http://cdb.io/1MtPmXC

It can help when you want to:

• Spot erroneous latitudes/longitudes (for instance, a lot lack the minus sign, so they can be found in the middle of the sea)
• Find what article covers a particular place
• Quickly check whether the places you know is already in Wikivoyage or not
• See if there are any listings around when you are in an area between articles
• Find listings that are in the wrong article (there are a lot)
• Decide how to split/merge/rezone articles
• Many other uses I guess, let me know :-)

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am going to have to visit one of those hotel in the middle of the pacific ocean :-) --Traveler100 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That big empty chunk missing from Buffalo is just the kick in the pants I needed to get back to work on Buffalo/East Side. Thanks! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nice tool. Can you restrict it to just the main namespace? The example on Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps is covering up one of my areas of interest. =) Powers ^(talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great tip, thanks! I will be sure to filter them out for the new version. Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Nick! Would it be possible to create such maps for other language versions? --Alexander (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

This time I did it manually, but if the tool is popular I will write a script and try to make it compatible with your Russian data. :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nice mashup! Is this using a snapshot of listing data, and if so how often would it be updated? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I used the CSV file available at http://datahub.io/organization/wikivoyage that I sorted in LibreOffice (to remove POIs with no lat/long) then uploaded to a map generation website, very easy really, not a single line of code, anybody can do it. It is a manual procedure though, so if it gets popular I will write a script to remove time-wasting manual work every time there is a new data dump. Unfortunately we can't do real-time until we put POIs into WikiData (which I expect to happen in at least 3 years). Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I fixed some erroneous latitudes/longitudes, but there are lots more. As well as errors with minus signs, a number have lat and long transposed. Nurg (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing! I fixed a lot as well, in the areas I know. I suggest everyone help check the areas they know: we have more than 50,000 listings with coordinates, so there are probably mistakes a bit everywhere. Also check in the sea, in deserts, and lone points with nothing else nearby. When you don't know the real coordinates but are sure that the current are wrong, just remove them: no coordinates is better than wrong coordinates. Thanks everyone! Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've created a subsection so as not to hijack the discussion about Nick's great work above, but we have a similar clickable map of all destination articles available via http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/artmap.php?lang=en. I've found this to be a useful tool when trying to see what destinations are available in an area that I'm unfamiliar with, and would love to make this map more prominent on the site if others were interested, possibly on the home page or in the left nav, or at least in the Destinations article. Unfortunately I can't figure out how to load it in an iframe, so the only option appears to be to include it as an external link as the Germans have done under the "Übersichtskarte" heading on their home page. Would others find this to be a useful addition on our site? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Having it more accessible from the top page would be nice indeed. How about also showing POIs when there are less than 3 destinations on the page, or with a disabled-by-default checkbox? Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The map of all destination articles was revised slightly. The clustering is now accelerated ≈ 100 times. This becomes quite noticeable on slower PCs and mobiles. - This application is written in Javascript. All data must be downloaded to the local computer. Therefore, I would not enlarge the scope of data (eg POI's). Some mobile devices do not have enough memory for it. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'f I'm understanding Mey2008's concerns, it sounds like it would be best not to promote the http://maps.wikivoyage-ev.org/w/artmap.php?lang=en map too widely at this time due to performance concerns, so consider my original suggestion withdrawn. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do not withdraw your proposition: if tests show that it makes Wikivoyage better, more easily navigable, or more attractive, then we should create a good Labs instance and run Joachim's code on it :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I'm understanding correctly, I think the problem is that the Javascript runs slowly on some clients ("This becomes quite noticeable on slower PCs and mobiles"). Since it's not a server issue the code would need to be refactored before it could be widely used. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

A great solution would be to send only the data that is useful to the current view, if the user zooms on Italy then send more data about the Italy area, if the user zooms further on Policoro then send the data for Policoro. That's how scalable dynamic maps usually work. As you said, it requires some refactoring. But let's not drop the idea just because development is needed :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

How would duplicates be handled (ie. a city or location that appears more than once in wikivoyage articles) in this proposed world map? - Matroc (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Matroc: Only markers are shown on this map for articles with the tl:Geo. For tl.listing or tl:marker no markers are displayed here. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk)

@Wrh2: I have revised the script. It now runs fast and stable on all devices. It is now representable in a mapframe [1]. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk)

@Mey2008: Thank you! One issue I found is that the "align" parameter does not seem to be doing what I would expect using "align=none". It adds style "tnone", but style "tright" is also present, so the map always aligns to the right. I don't see anything in Template:Mapframe that would assign "tright", so I'm guessing that the Javascript may be doing so? See also User:Wrh2/Sandbox. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, never mind, that's being generated from custom JS in my common.js file. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again for your updates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This map of all destinations is great! Does it load all of the data first, or little-by-little? How about making this map available somewhere a bit more accessible, in a bigger frame? Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

All data will be loaded at once (1.3 Mb for en.WV). Needed because of the clustering. - The map frame can be any size (width= height=). The aspect ratio should be about 3:2 (w:h). There is also a full-screen version: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikivoyage/w/artmap.php?lang=en . -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Destinations#Proposed update for a proposal to include this new map on the Destinations page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

The map in the "Browse to a specific destination" section at the bottom of Destinations does not show any markers. Dynamic maps in individual articles work though. I use Firefox 52.0 on Ubuntu. Is it a known bug, or just me? Syced (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I usually click on Explore Nearby Destinations Symbol to get markers and then zoom in. -- Matroc (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Destinations has "mapframe|25|6|zoom=1|layer=D|width=600|align=center". I think that a change a few months ago resulted in the layer parameter being ignored in mapframe. This also impacts some itineraries where the Hiking layer had been selected to show the route. It may have been done to ensure that articles always used the Wikimedia layer as the default base map. AlasdairW (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

As it doesn't look like anybody is fixing mapframe for this, I have added some instructions to Destinations. AlasdairW (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

See User:Wrh2/Sandbox for a proposed update.

I think that the map of all current articles created by Mey2008 is a great option for people who want to browse the site, and the Destinations page seems like the obvious place to introduce it. Adding that map now creates four different ways for new users to browse the site (since different people have different browsing preferences) so I also re-used the existing header to split the article into sections to logically present the different options. In addition I bumped the search box to the top of the article since the existing continent map leads to browsing through region articles that often aren't our best work. Suggestions or objections to this change? The browsable map of all Wikivoyage destination articles will be a useful tool that helps to highlight our geographic coverage, so at a minimum I think we should definitely get that in front of users, even if the other proposed changes aren't adopted. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why not? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The map of destinations is a good idea. Only suggestion is to put the Search at the bottom. Like to see the world map near the top (without scrolling) and there is already a search field top of all pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the search box to the same position that it occupies on the current Destinations page - see User:Wrh2/Sandbox. The only downside of that approach is that the world map is now most likely to be the option a user chooses to browse (since it's first), and that forces the user to browse to a destination by traversing a regional hierarchy that may not represent our best work, given the mediocre quality of many of our mid-level region articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Given the lack of objections I've updated with the proposed changes. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Where is the start point of every voyage and to whom wikivoyage is directed? Is it the earth the start point? is it directed to the earthlings? I noticed that Earth redirects to Destination. I may be wandering too far but Do you think that only inhabitants of the Earth can read this and that only earthlings travel? I propose that Universe redirect there as a start point and that an Earth aticle be created, not only because it supports my outraged posture but as it would be also utilitarian as a general view for every voyage (obviously but not necessary to Earthlings), content such as population, countries, dangerous places and worth visiting should be included, Article should state a what to expect for most of the visitable places in the manner of stating a general norm, answer the question What is to expect on every place on the Earth? how are most places on the earth? --Neurorebel (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nice try, but Wikivoyagers are uncompromising planetists -- they view everything only through their own, narrow, single-world perspective. You'll never convince them to broaden the scope of the project. Maybe you and I should start a "Wikiinterstellar" to make travel information available to the much bigger readership that exists -- the travel guide that anyone in the universe can edit.. Ground Zero (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Haha, geocentricists, the Earth article would be a practical application to this principle and in my opinion very useful for this site; Im not talking about Alpha Centaury (yet).--Neurorebel (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Possibly for the rich and famous; you can at least escape the earth and circle the globe - maybe visit a space station or even circle the moon. A trip to Mars is a possibility in the future as well. I agree that; for now that, the average traveller will probably follow the geocentricism model - after all the sun does revolve around the earth. -- Matroc

Can i add destinations?

Cŕuśh Iŕiśh (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind that I put your post at the bottom and added a section title to make it easier for others to find your post.

The answer is, sure you can, but not on this page. I'll put the standard welcome message for new members on your user talk page, and to address your specific question, have a look at Wikivoyage:How to start a new page for things to consider and instructions on starting a new page if there isn't one on the topic already and it fulfills the test at Wikivoyage:What is an article.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why is the dynamic map at the bottom entirely devoid of anything? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Somebody decided to make mapframe ignore the layer= parameter because of privacy concerns. As a result the map does not show destinations until you follow the "use the lower right menu selection and select "Nearby Articles" after you have zoomed into the country of interest", which I added six months ago. AlasdairW (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

What does the layer parameter have to do with privacy? Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The layer parameter can be used to select other map sources such as Mapnik, which don't live on WMF servers. Thus a non WMF server knows where you have been looking. Personally I don't think this is an issue (compared to the rest of the word using Google maps), but others don't agree. See Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_use_dynamic_maps#Layers and elsewhere. AlasdairW (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't these headings be turned into normal headings? Selfie City (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

They don't fit the normal WV style. Just a thought. Selfie City (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is for the front page, isn't it? Or at least it was. I see this as a special page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where should I go? -- Redrose99's Holiday Account (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Right now? Nowhere, stay at home. In the future, once this virus malarky has all blown over, Bouzigues is lovely.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

To Cyprus or any of that? 171.33.200.154 13:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I've read this discussion between Hobbitschuster and AlasdairW and I've reactivated the "Destinations" article.

Most likely the articles shown not inlcude the new ones because I need to schedule and test a script server side that periodically will refresh the articles list. For it:voy I've been forced to rewrite the script from scratch because it didn't work anymore. If en:voy community is interested I can try to do the same (I'm confident that it will be quicker this time).

Technically speaking, I'm not familiar with Kartographer extension, hence I've restore the "old way" to show a map through Template:Mapframe2 (Killarnee I've override this template you created but never used). For the privacy topic discussed above, I can state that is not anymore an issue, since all the scripts used in the old maps have migrated years ago from an external server into a WMF server. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Andyrom75, thanks. It looks good, I have removed the work around instructions added in 2017. AlasdairW (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

"North America -> United States of America -> California -> San Francisco" seems to boring.

Wouldn’t "Europe -> France -> Île-de-France -> Paris" be better? 2601:C6:C580:6B20:8124:20B9:8243:8408 21:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, I think a greater proportion of Earth's population know that San Franciso is in California, then that Paris is in Île-de-France. Also it is possible to go Europe -> Paris, as Paris is one of the cities listed in Europe. AlasdairW (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

How about this:

Europe -> Central Europe -> Poland -> Poznań 2601:C6:D281:6710:AD8A:8031:A839:4418 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

AlasdairW made a good point about more people knowing that SF is in California, but I would prefer the Paris example solely because the current example is slightly misleading – San Francisco is breadcrumbed to Bay Area, not directly underneath California, unlike Paris which is directly breadcrumbed under Île-de-France. I tried foraging for more articles that are directly breadcrumbed underneath its respective first-level subnational region article, and here are some that I could find:

• Melbourne in Victoria, Australia
• Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada (however, Manitoba is breadcrumbed to Prairies)
• Perth in Western Australia (I don't know how many people know a somewhat-insignificant city from an international perspective of just 2 million, though)
• Berlin, which is directly breadcrumbed to Germany
• Warsaw is directly breadcrumbed to Mazowieckie, but Île-de-France is clearly and unambiguously more well-known than Mazowieckie)
• Johannesburg is directly breadcrumbed under Gauteng

Out of all these options, I would much prefer the Paris example, but if it's really true that most people haven't heard of Île-de-France before (I'd be surprised if there are), then I'd opt for one of the options listed here, but not the misleading SF example. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think it might be helpful to have more than one example: a couple of examples of well-known places, and a couple of smaller star articles. The smaller place examples show where you need to navigate the heirarchy. For example: San Francisco, Melbourne, Farnborough, Ubud and maybe Okayama. Except Melbourne, all these examples are star articles, and cover several continents. AlasdairW (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've switched it up with Berlin for this reason. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The San Francisco example has been around for a long time. Why can’t we change it up? 2601:C6:D281:6710:AC69:E1CE:8B4C:82C7 15:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why, but if you want to change it, say what you want to change it to and why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi, just a small question, how often is map on Destinations page updated? I created a few pages for some locations but I can't see any of them on this map. Krystian55 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It probably relies on the old "Explore nearby destinations" mechanism, which depends on a manually-updated list of destinations - a script has to be run periodically to extract the coordinates from every page. The script may have not been run for some time, perhaps since the new automatic "Show nearby articles" feature replaced the old one. Daggerstab (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way or plan to restore this or similar functionality in the future? Krystian55 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply