User talk:Ground Zero Voyage Tips and guide

• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2016-2017
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2018
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2019
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2020
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2021
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2022
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2023
• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2024

	The Wikivoyage Barncompass
	You've been helping a lot on Wikivoyage, so thanks. RockTransport (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Contents

you commented out a restaurant listing and wrote that is does not provide any useful information at all.

It shows the traveller e.g. where to get a good price for eating out. for example in a bar also serving food or in a cafeteria. Pizzerias serve pizza.

Is a stated address that important in a small village? Just put the name of the restaurant in Google Maps and you see where it is.

Restaurant hours get outdated. I already got disappointed when trusting restaurant hours on Wikivoyage. 80.187.74.109 19:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage doesn't just list names. What good does that do? Do you expect the reader will choose one name and start wandering around aimlessly looking for the restaurant with that name? Writing, as you now have, what kind if food a restaurant serves helps the reader to choose. Writing that Restaurants A, B and C exist does not.

Wikivoyage includes restaurant hours, which can change. Restaurant names can change. Restaurants can close. This used a problem that every travel guide faces. Wikivoyage's advantage is that it can be updated, unlike printed travel guides. Ground Zero (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Wikivoyage doesn't just list names. What good does that do?"

Readers interested in a cafeteria may go to the cafeteria. Readers interested in pizza may go to a pizzeria. It's not correct, that a list showing only names does not provide any useful information. It's better than having no information at all about restaurants in a town.

"Do you expect the reader will choose one name and start wandering around aimlessly looking for the restaurant with that name?"

Aimlessly? The name put into Google Maps shows where the restaurant is including directions from where is reader currently. No address needed at all for that. In a village there are almost never two restaurants with the same name.

"Wikivoyage includes restaurant hours, which can change."

Restaurant hours should be better checked in Google Maps. Way more likely to be up-to-date. Otherwise likely to stand in front of a closed door. Restaurant hours can also change seasonally, which Wikivoyage doesn't cover. 80.187.74.109 22:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikivoyage, and thank you for your contibutions. Wikivoyage and its predecessor site have been around for 20 years. During that time, our community has developed policies that reflect the collective view of contributors about how an online collaborative travel guide will be most useful to readers.

You should not expect that as a new contributor you can come in and unilaterally start changing how we do things here. We ask that you respect Wikivoyage policies. If you ignore our policies, you can expect that your edits will be removed, as they would be in any collaborative project.

I encourage you instead to work with us, and starting learning about Wikivoyage policies that have developed collaboratively over more than two decades. The best way to get started is to sign up for an account so that other editors can communicate with you directly on your talk page, and so that you can have a list of articles that you can watch for changes. Ground Zero (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are aware that it is the entire reason we have lastedit fields, right? Otherwise I do echo what GZ said. --shb (t | c | m) 23:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the point in not telling the coordinates. They are easier to look up in Google Maps by the person who knows the restaurant. The traveller reading the guide doesn't know whether the place showing up in their own search is an unrelated namesake.

If the reader wants to go to a cafeteria, its name tells that it is a cafeteria and they are to use Google Maps to find that cafeteria, why wouldn't they just search for cafeterias in Google Maps? Same with pizzerias and whatever. They should not need to use external tools.

–LPfi (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is a post soviet culture to write phone numbers like I wrote them because you never know whether it is landline or cellular. So code in brackets. Locals white numbers like that and read it like that better. Coopypasted (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is helpful information, but as you can see from this version of the article, if you use dashes (or parentheses) in phine numbers, it produces a yellow tag that says "FORMAT", indicating a formatting error. Also, the phone number field allows the reader to dial a number directly from the article. This function will not work with dashes. Thank you for expanding the article. Ground Zero (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Coopypasted: Hyphens are allowed, and it seems figure dashes are allowed too – but not m- or n-dashes. Parentheses are used for comments (with some special characters, such as commas, disallowed) and thus don't work for numbers – and even if one realises that the parenthesised digits are the area code, it isn't clear whether they need to be modified before dialling, such as by leaving out a prefix. (The numbers in the article were formatted like "+7 (7252) 77‒55‒79".)

The info on how phone numbers are written locally should be in the country article's Connect section, accompanied by advice on how to actually dial them. Numbers with the FORMAT warning can probably not be dialled by clicking them on a smart phone, but need to be typed in by hand in the right format – better use that directly diallable format in the listings.

–LPfi (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Somehow soviet format with brackets are completely okay for android based smartphones with international firmware. I just copypaste number and dialer skips (), - or anything else except numbers and +.Coopypasted (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Diallers can be more or less smart, and interpret the standard more or less rigorously. How does your dialler treat "+358 (0) 9 123 456" (which is a common way to write numbers in Finland) or "+358 9 1243-456 (10:00–15:00)" (which I could write in Wikivoyage)?

Anyway, we cannot assume that our readers have smart diallers, so we should write the phone numbers in a way that any compliant dialler understands (read: that our template – and any human reader – can transform into a standard-compliant diallable number).

Formats that the template mark as format errors (visibly if you have enabled that in your preferences), are those that the template knows it cannot write in a standard-compliant diallable form. We should avoid at least those.

–LPfi (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ground Zero, I come from Mangshi, China, and am semi-active in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, not familiar with the WikiVoyage community. I noticed User:Jihaiyun created some voyage articles related to my hometown west Yunnan. I'm really happy to see the content improve on my hometown. However, I felt a little weird. There are many errors I can see... Include wrong image[1][2], incorrect Chinese, completely non-exist information[3], fake website url[4]... Do we need to do something about this? My suggestion is to rewrite everything, but I am quite busy and don't have time to write an article of this length. What do you think? 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just curious, I saw your discussion about AI and professor [5]. What is the story? These articles indeed looks like AI work. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Piotrus: was this one of your students by any chance? //shb (t | c | m) 00:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am afraid that was one of mine. Unfortunately, as Wikivoyage does not require references, I am not always able to spot AI hallucinations that student sometimes insert. I try to check the URLs but seems like I missed these. Can you delete anything that seems suspicious? If that student ever takes another course of mine I'll saddle her with extra work and triple check her output, but I am afraid we can't count on her coming back otherwise. Piotrus (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

In that case, we probably have to delete the article, or would you like to start a new draft and come back to it when you are less busy? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can try, but no promise.--瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why would you delete it, instead of just reverting to the pre-student version? Piotrus (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't realize the article had existed before the fraudulent information was added to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We are talking about multiple articles here. The student created Mangshi, but not Ruili or Western Yunnan. STW932 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can try on Mangshi, Ruili, and Western Yunnan. The student seems also have contribution on Jinhua which I'm not familiar with, sorry can't fix it. 瑞丽江的河水 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• facepalm* I apologize. I will be much more careful next semester, requiring more proof the listings added are not AI hallucinations. For Jinhua I did spotchecks and all URLs at least seem broken/fake. I recommend that article, which the student created, is nominated for deletion. I am not sure if anything there is salvageable. Piotrus (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  PS. I did a bit more check. Some stuff may be salvageable. The slightly good news is that a bunch of stuff, name-wise, is translated from zh wikivoyage. For example, see listings 1-14 are copied from zh wiki (GPS spotcheck in them is ok, but I am unsure about content, as zh wiki does not have it for some entries). Listings 20-28 also seem ok (also copied from zh wikivoyage). I could not verify the rest. But even the entries that are roughly correct may be padded with errors; for example I also spot checked Wikidata/pedia linkages here and they are fake. For example, Jinhua Shuanglong Cave is a real local attraction, it has the correct accompanying picture from Commons, but the Wikidata link is fake (it should go to : w:Shuanglong Cave ). Piotrus (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I checked her creation Tongchuan . It has no URLs for any listings, I cannot verify if anything is true or fake in detail. At least the main attraction (Yuhua Palace) is mentioned in zh Wikivoyage and is is linked to Wikidata. Yaowang Mountain, Chenlu Ancient Town and possibly Yaoyao Kiln Museum (called Site on zh wikivoyage) at least have correct names But most other listings have no Wikidata links :( Piotrus (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for cleaning up the entry on Kiel. Two suggestions, if I may:

• It's probably best not to interrupt others' editing. The "edit listing" tool is not too smart about the page source changing underneath it... no need to break things.
• In edit summaries (I know, I'm guilty of not using them at all...), it's better to describe what you're doing ("move library listings to Connect", "remove history of COVID-19 restrictions") than to state facts ("Libraries go in Connect", "The history of covid restrictions doesn't belong") since that sounds standoffish and may put well-meaning editors such as myself (new to Wikivoyage, though familiar with Wikipedia) off. I'm sure that's not what you intended - but that's just why I'm making this suggestion. :)

Thanks again for improving the entry and all the best, 2003:D5:AF32:ED00:A482:1983:47BE:45FB 20:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:2003:D5:AF32:ED00:A482:1983:47BE:45FB

1. Sorry about the cross-editting. I didn't see that you were still editing the article. Once I realized that, I stopped.
2. I think it is better to state what the policy is, rather than to state the action, which could appear to be a personal preference, rather than a community decision.
3. Fair comment about my cranky response on the Covid rules. We do get a lot of people just passing through, and it is easy to forget to try to cultivate new contributors.

If you're coming from Wikipedia, you may find this page useful: Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians. Thank you for your contributions to the Kiel article. Ground Zero (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing the photos in Nenmara article and kept the important one. I have a question about the photos should we add photos of bus stations, railway stations and other transport facilities in the relevant section? Or use the usual thumb code? It is possible to use the multiple image template and the advantage is that the photos stay at the relevant sections insted of going down. Is there any policy related to this? Ranjithsiji (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course Ground Zero can answer on his own behalf, but just to save you time: Yes. Please read Wikivoyage:Image policy. After you have had a chance to look through that, any long-time user will be more than happy to answer any questions you have about it.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone, just wanted to share a quick note about the recent removal of some cafés and restaurants from the Eat section (like Not Just Coffee, etc.).

I actually live in Puerto Galera and work with tourists on a daily basis. These are exactly the kinds of questions I get all the time — “Where can I get good coffee?”, “Is there anything other than fried rice and beer?”, “Any place with decent pastries or vegetarian options?”

The listings I added aren’t random — they reflect real, on-the-ground demand from visitors. These places are well-established and offer much-needed variety in food, especially for travelers who stay longer than a weekend.

If any of the entries didn’t meet formatting or listing guidelines, I’m more than happy to clean them up — I just think they add real value for people planning their trip.

Thanks for keeping the page organized — happy to collaborate on making it even more helpful! SoulCatcherS (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SoulCatcherS: The listings were mixed up between Puerto Galera, Sabang and White Beach. Each card or restaurant should be listing only in one article: the article for the place covered by that article. For example, I found cafés in White Beach included in the Puerto Galera article, and vice versa. (I understand that administratively White Beach and Sabang are part of PG, but to make navigation easier for readers, they have been split out into separate .) Ground Zero (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ground Zero, thank you for the clarification!

That makes sense in terms of editorial structure — and yes, I'm happy to help redistribute the listings accordingly between Puerto Galera, White Beach, and Sabang.

That said, just a quick note from someone who lives here and interacts with visitors every day: most travelers really don't distinguish between PG, White Beach, and Sabang in a practical sense. For them, it’s all part of the same experience — they just want to know where to eat, dive, or stay without jumping between multiple pages.

Still, totally get the intention behind keeping things well-organized. I'll start adjusting the listings based on actual location. Let me know if there's a preferred way to handle businesses that may technically sit in between areas or serve multiple zones.

Appreciate your work on the cleanup — happy to help however I can! SoulCatcherS (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SoulCatcherS: I am glad to hear it. It can be difficult to draw lines to separate areas between articles where visitors don't necessarily see those lines. The maps should help. The alternative would be to combine all three articles into one, but that would probably make it more difficult for readers to find the information they are looking for. Where a listing is in between two settlements, we just have to use our best judgement about which article to put it in. Ground Zero (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree — merging the articles would probably make things messier, not simpler. Even though the lines between Sabang, White Beach, and Puerto Galera Town aren’t always clear to travelers, their character is quite different, and visitors tend to treat them as distinct zones.

For example, many people staying in White Beach are happy to explore Sabang or Aninuan for food or diving — but there are also plenty of visitors who stay put in one area their whole trip. Also, Sabang has more of a nightlife scene (often not very family-oriented), while White Beach is generally more relaxed and family-friendly. And for someone staying in White Beach, heading to Aninuan can already feel like “outside” the main zone.

So I’ll keep sorting listings accordingly and use location + vibe as a guide when deciding what goes where. If in doubt, I’ll ping here.

Thanks again for explaining! SoulCatcherS (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SoulCatcherS: Does the current split between the three articles make sense? Should Aninuan have its own article? If you think so, you can propose a split on the White Beach article's talk page. The local breakdown isn't fixed: if it makes sense to change it, we should do that. I can assist. I don't know the area. It is great to have your local knowledge to guide us in improving Wikivoyage's coverage of the area, Ground Zero (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the offer, Ground Zero — appreciate the openness!

From my perspective on the ground: Aninuan doesn’t really justify a separate article. It’s more like an extension or quiet suburb of White Beach. There aren’t enough distinct attractions or services there to make it stand alone. Most visitors staying in Aninuan go to White Beach for food, shops, or tours anyway.

I think the current breakdown — Sabang, White Beach, and Puerto Galera Town — works well. These three zones cover the area’s different vibes and types of travelers pretty effectively. Anything beyond that would probably overcomplicate things for readers, at least for the next few years.

If anything changes significantly down the line, happy to revisit! SoulCatcherS (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thanks for the input. It's good to have you here. Ground Zero (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, last February you edited the Malta article and made this diff, changing (among other things) “All of them, as well as intensive trading across the region, left both material and cultural heritage on the islands” to “The voloisers and intensive trading across the region left material and cultural heritage on the islands”.

What is “The voloisers” supposed to mean? A google search for the word brings up only four hits – all of them clearly from this one sentence here on Wikivoyage.

Could you please re-word it to use a more common and understandable word if you still know what you had in mind when you wrote that sentence?

Thank you! -- Pne (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

That looks like a typo. I've corrected it now. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have come across a broken routebox. Can you recommend anyone who might be familiar with both the roads of Ohio and editing routebox code? Details can be found here. —The preceding comment was added by 89.241.66.102 (talk • contribs) 08:19, April 18, 2025 (UTC)

I edited the routebox and commented on the linked talk page. Looked like a trivial error, but there may of course be more to it. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with Ohio or formatting route boxes. Thanks to User:LPfi for answering this. Ground Zero (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply