Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub Voyage Tips and guide

Welcome to the pub

Shortcuts:
WV:Pub
WV:TP

Contents

The travellers' pub is for general discussion on Wikivoyage, and the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. To start a new topic, click the "Add topic" tab, so that it gets added at the bottom of the page, and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~)

Before asking a question or making a comment:

• Have a look at our Help, FAQ and Policies pages.
• If you are a new user and you have any questions about using the website, try the Arrivals lounge.
• If you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, use the article's talk page to keep the discussion associated with that article.
• If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment.
• If you are wanting travel advice on a specific matter see the tourist office.
• If you have an issue you need to bring to the attention of an administrator, try Ongoing vandalism.
• If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead.
• If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
• Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.
• Anything that is Nigeria-related is now meant to go in the Nigeria café instead. Anything that is Kosovo or Albania related is now meant to go in the Kosovo and Albania café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives, celebrations, and issues with certain articles.

You can review old Pub discussions in the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread

I tried to ask a question in the Wikivoyage:Tourist office, and I replied to it with another question, but I can't see any of it except in edit mode and don't understand why. I used the form on that page to ask the first question. What I want to know is which side of the train to sit on for Amtrak trips between Montreal and Plattsburgh, NY and between Plattsburgh and Saratoga Springs, even if the answers come too late for me to use them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

When you click "Ready? Ask a new question!", should the form on the next page require the "Subject:" field to not be empty? Or at least have a placeholder subject text?

I also see someone else's question about Cancun that got ignored, because it's tacked on the end of the previous section. Gerode (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess the problem is that I didn't see the subject field in my mobile phone interface. Is there a way to improve that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you can set a default subject value with the InputBox 'default=' parameter. Maybe give it something like "Question from ~~~"? I'm not sure how to change the "Subject:" label styling.

Should the Tourist Office behave more like a Talk page, with an Add Topic button leading to a visual editor? Gerode (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd support that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like adding a "NEWSECTIONLINK" line is the magic to enable the visual editor on a page. There's also a usedt=true parameter to InputBox to make it use the visual editor by default.

It seems to work in this sandbox I set up: User:Gerode/Tourist_office_sandbox Gerode (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and applied these two changes. Let me know if I broke anything, or if there's anything else odd about the Tourist office. Gerode (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the preloaded "Asked by ~~" blurb was made redundant by these changes and is no longer working correctly, so I removed the preload. Gerode (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone! 👋

My name is Alvin Ategyeka from Uganda, and I’ve just launched a new project called AfriVoyage. It’s a WikiVoyage-focused initiative to document African travel destinations using local perspectives. Our pilot is starting in Uganda, with the goal of improving content and training youth contributors.

You can follow the project on Meta-Wiki here: meta:AfriVoyage

I would love your thoughts, guidance, and support.

Thanks in advance! unsigned comment by User:Alvinategyeka

Welcome, Alvin. Wikivoyage really needs more African content, especially if provided by people with local knowledge. Your project will be supported from regular contributors like me. Please let us know how we can help. Ground Zero (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alvinategyeka, I think you will be a more successful leader if you improve some articles yourself, before you invite anyone else to join you. We'd be happy to help you.

For example, one mistake that we see people making is copying Wikipedia articles here. A Wikipedia article will sound something like "Semuliki National Park is a national park in Bwamba County, a remote part of the Bundibugyo District in the Western Region of Uganda that was established in October 1993". This is the wrong approach here. A Wikivoyage article should have a lively tone. The beginning of a good Wikivoyage article might sound something like this:

• Semuliki National Park in Western Uganda is the only place you can visit a true lowland tropical forest in all of East Africa. This beautiful national park is a birdwatcher's delight, and more than 400 species of butterflies can be found inside the park's borders.

If you feel at the English Wikipedia that you have to suppress your natural style to be as dull as possible, then you'll like Wikivoyage because it allows your enthusiasm to shine in between the facts. We need the facts ("best restaurant" isn't nearly as helpful as saying how it's the best, like "good menu for vegetarians" or "artisan-quality bushera"), but we don't want a boring style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much and thanks for the guidance. Alvinategyeka (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank You very much. I have 6 years experience contributing to Wikimedia projects but I feel I need a new challenge and the only project that I had not explored yet always wanted to contribute to is Wiki Voyage. Am a tourism lover and i have travelled extensively in Uganda and East Africa. I hope this project will encourage more African Communities to contribute to Wiki Voyage. I will appreciate all guidance rendered. Thank You. Alvinategyeka (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, hoping to connect with you for more guidance. Alvinategyeka (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, and thank you for taking on this opportunity and challenge! In addition to the great advice you've been given above, I think you'll find Welcome, Wikipedians very useful. For anyone who participates in this project, some additional pages that I'd consider to provide the most important guidelines and explanatory pages on this site include Wikivoyage:What is an article, Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first, Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates, Wikivoyage:Copyleft, Wikivoyage:Don't tout, and Wikivoyage:Breadcrumb navigation.

It is absolutely not a prerequisite for anyone to read any of these before contributing here! However, you, as organizer, should read these pages, because you will then be able to distill the most important characteristics of the site for others who are enthusiastic about contributing but not yet familiar with the site, and another important thing is that once you've read or at least skipped through these pages, you can ask us questions.

I love the fact that you contacted us before the official launch of the project. In the past, projects that were begun on a large scale without any notice to us presented huge issues relating to the policies laid out in the pages I linked for you.

Thanks again, and we very much look forward to working with you and your colleagues! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the resources and guidance. I have been reading and researching about Wiki Voyage and what you have added will guide me more. I will contact you for further guidance in order to move the project forward. Alvinategyeka (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. i look forward to working with you and seeking guidance to move the project forward. Alvinategyeka (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/ai-travel-apps —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether we can design an AI tool that can fetch info from Wikivoyage and make a summary for you. That can replace the burden of manual summary writing by Wikivoyagers. Of course, Wikivoyage articles should be curated by humans, with AI summarizing them. I want to suggest this to Wikipedians as well, but I have been blocked there since 2021, and I mostly work on the Bengali Wikipedia. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's been a while since I've posted anything major on the pub, but one of the things I'm quite pleased with the way we do things here is the fact that we are very open and accommodating to users who can't speak or speak English with a large length of difficulty. We don't have any policies forcing the use of English in discussions and if someone has shown a genuine interest in the project, it isn't unorthodox for someone to go out of their way and respond in another language they know on this site.

It comes back to when @Andyrom75: told me on itwikivoyage (around when itwikivoyage hit 10k articles, iirc) that it's possible to contribute to Wikivoyage without really knowing the language – and it's true. Most of my activity on itwikivoyage has since been doing minor fixes, adding listings with no description (since you don't need to know the language to add listings, opening hours, urls, address and such), removing closed businesses/out of date info, fixing dead links and the like. Since many of our articles also follow a similar structured format, it's very easy to contribute to the site so long as you're aware of your limitations.

Some ideas I had in mind to perhaps make this wiki even more inviting to those who might not have the English skills necessary to contribute text but still want to help:

• A community written guide on this, similar to Wikivoyage:Welcome, business owners, Wikivoyage:Welcome, locals or Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians
• Finish User:SHB2000/admins table, move to the Wikivoyage namespace, add the table to Wikivoyage:Administrators, and add any advanced perms from other WMF projects.
  • Perhaps also make a similar table for non-admins who are reasonably active on this site.

More thoughts and ideas would be appreciated – even better if we can facilitate this on other language Wikivoyages.

//shb (t | c | m) 10:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Contribute in another language version of Wikvoyage it's just a matter of willingness and time. For a certain amount of time. For few years I've supported sv:voy without knowing any word in Swedish :-D Nowadays unfortunately I don't have enough time, so I can only concentrate it on it:voy :-(

PS your support on it:voy @SHB2000 is always extremely appreciated! :-) Andyrom75 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I occasionally do the same kind of thing at the Haitian Creole Wikipedia. I can't write in the language, but I can check a maintenance category and fix the wikitext errors there.

Based on my experience, I'd say that there are two main opportunities for contribution:

• 'technical' contributions, such as fixing wikitext or broken URLs
• language-agnostic contributions, such as adding phone numbers, websites, and lat/long coordinates to listings; adding images that require no caption or only a simple/obvious one (e.g., "Disneyland" or "Town Name Church"); removing listings for closed restaurants, etc.

@Piotrus might have some ideas about which tasks are easiest for his English-language learners to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah this very much explains it in a nutshell. :) //shb (t | c | m) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing Indeed, some of my ESL students have effectively only a beginner level of English at best. These days, machine translation is getting good enough to understand a lot, and contribute text that's "mostly ok". It will only get better as AI tools and student use of them improve. Anyway, you can see my activities for students at User:Hanyangprofessor2 Piotrus (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have added images that I have taken to many different language variants of Wikipedia. I use Google translate for the text and and hope that a native user if that language will make any corrections. Martinvl (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I recently added a listing about Japan in ja.voy despite not knowing Japanese. The listing editor really makes it simple to improve an article. Last week I presented a Wikidata talk about Listing Editor and mentioned that it's a really good gateway to get more contributors. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Listing Editor really does! Particularly because they're very standardised across most language Wikivoyages, so the only "bad" listing editor is a malfunctioning/broken listing editor. //shb (t | c | m) 02:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Created a draft at Wikivoyage:Contributing with little to no knowledge of English – now that I have more time on my hands this week, I will try developing the page based on what has been mentioned in this discussion. //shb (t | c | m) 08:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am documenting the Stockholm Archipelago Trail and have uploaded more than 3,000 pictures / Wikimap from the trail to Wikimedia Commons. For example, the section Nåttarö will be documented on Wikivoyage here: Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail#SAT_Nåttarö and is on Wikicommons WIkimap

1) What is the policy regarding linking to a trail on Wikicommons? I believe such links add significant value by helping readers better understand the trail conditions. Additionally, I see 360-degree images as a step forward in enhancing navigation and exploration, making it easier for users to visualize the terrain.

Additionally,

2) I have used Mapillary for one section. Is there a specific policy on linking Mapillary content? For instance, Stockholm Archipelago Trail’s Landsort section is partially represented on Mapillary pKey=1060410682654434

Would appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks! Salgo60 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The use of a limited number of thumbnails from Commons is normal. See Wikivoyage:Image policy. Otherwise, links are normally through Wikidata: please read Wikivoyage:Sister project links. For guidelines on third-party links outside Wikimedia, see Wikivoyage:External links, but the answer to your 2nd question is that such links are normally not allowed except to primary sources (for example, the website of a listed restaurant, hotel, museum, etc.) and are subject to deletion. However, Wikivoyage policies and guidelines are always open to discussion, so start a thread at the most relevant guideline article's talk page if you'd like to argue for a change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

thanks but dont the community see the added value? especially when documenting a walking trail it can be good to better understand how steep steep is....- Salgo60 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you don't like my suggestion of starting a discussion thread on the appropriate policy page's talk page, where you can document the indispensability of Mapillary as your argument for a policy change, you can argue for an exception to policy on Talk:Stockholm Archipelago Trail, but you can't get either a policy change or an exception by arguing in the Pub. But if you're asking for my opinion on why there has been no specific consideration of Mapillary, I'd speculate it's because most of us have never heard of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've heard of Mapillary – I appreciate they're open source and licensed under CC-BY SA, but they're indirectly a competitor to Commons – if you can upload a photo to Mapillary, you can upload it to Commons. //shb (t | c | m) 07:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that you traverse a route on Mapillary its connected 360 pictures I am not an expert but click on forward on this its from me walking SAT_Landsort

• they support 360 pictures much better than Wikicommons
• OsmAnd and Open Street Map use them

Salgo60 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

One issue is that of privacy. I might trust the WMF, but I don't want to research the privacy policy and trustworthiness of a third party. Checking the website of a hotel where I intend to sleep is one thing, a Wikivoyage page being dependent on a third party is very different. –LPfi (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For Wikimedia Commons (that's their name), you can link a category or gallery via Wikidata. On a gallery page you can show all the most relevant images, with explanatory text and a layout of your liking. The rest of the images would be easily found in the category. Is that what you are looking for in your first question? –LPfi (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to remove information related to crossing the border into Azerbaijan from the Baku page (it's been closed since 2020 and the only way in is via air), but trying to delete a lot of content on a new account flagged me as a vandal.

If someone has permissions to view the changes, and would be willing to check on those changes, thank you very much :) MagnumDahng (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MagnumDahng: Can you try removing the outdated content once again? I've temporarily disabled the filters; let me know once you've removed everything that you intended to. Sorry for the extra inconvenience. //shb (t | c | m) 10:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It worked.

No worries. I understand why it's there :) MagnumDahng (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, I've re-enabled the filters; thanks again for the updates! :) //shb (t | c | m) 10:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage is a travel guide and not intended to be a collection of biographies. Still, travel topics and itineraries might mention important individuals, such as explorers, artists, monarchs, and politicians. Wikivoyage:What is an article? discourages from creating an article for a living celebrity, as these are more difficult to finish than articles for Christopher Columbus, Frank Lloyd Wright or Astrid Lindgren. Articles such as Presidents of the United States and Monarchy of the United Kingdom describe living individuals who have not concluded their careers, and they are certainly controversial. When writing Jewish Stockholm tour, Stockholm environmentalist tour and Nordic monarchies, a couple of famous living people came to mind, but I found it advisable to mention them as briefly as possible. Which general principles should we follow? /Yvwv (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like foundation:BLP encourages us to have a formal policy, even if there isn't much to say. Project:Don't be evil, maybe?

We already have Wikivoyage:Photographs of identifiable people and Wikivoyage:Image policy#People in photos, which discourage photos of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd support a policy for the same reason. //shb (t | c | m) 11:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think this is largely not that relevant to a travel guide, but it is actually common to have "Maps of the Stars" or tours of celebrity homes in the Los Angeles region, which to me is completely crazy and behavior that should not be encouraged. Considering Whatamidoing's point about the WMF encouraging this kind of documentation, I think having a guideline/policy is wise. Good thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I would absolutely oppose any article for a tour that takes people to the homes of celebrities who would rather be private in their own homes. If this kind of tour existed in New York, New Yorkers would be up in arms about it and pressing the City Council to pass a law about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The page and section about photos say very little, mostly discouraging photos of yourself, which isn't what this is about. says a lot more and should probably be followed also regarding locally uploaded pictures. None of those three says anything about text about people (other than that captions shouldn't be defamatory).

I think we probably shouldn't write a policy unless there are real issues. We have no reason to write about most people, and it seems common sense, like what Yvwv showed above, works reasonably well. Writing a policy opens up for loopholes and wikilawyering.

–LPfi (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if our "BLP policy" could be a section in our existing Wikivoyage:Be fair policy. Basically, a few principles about avoiding mentioning individuals, and especially avoiding saying anything contentious or unfairly invading their privacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That sounds reasonable. In the past I have opposed a suggestion to create an itinerary based on the travels of a living individual.

A more common situation is where a listing mentions something about the people that work in the hotel or restaurant. "Friendly owners" or "poor service from the waiters" is ok, but referring to staff by name needs more care. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's surely OK when the name of the Chef de Cuisine or Pastry Chef are printed on menus or are well-known chefs the restaurant promotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can an artist's personal life be separated from their work? At least, death is useful to conclude a life story. As Georg Riedel past away one year ago, he deserves to be described in the Jewish Stockholm tour. Aleksander Wolodarski is another person appropriate to mention, but as he is well and alive (and to some degree a divisive character in Swedish architecture) the description of him in the same article is very brief. The Harry Potter tourism barely mentions the author, and that might be good as it is. /Yvwv (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be fine to note the name of a celebrity chef ("Thomas Keller's restaurant, The French Laundry"), or even a relatively public non-celebrity ("The restaurant owner, Mary Smith, is also the long-time mayor of this small town" or "Olly Owner is happy to pack a picnic upon request").

However, as an extension of Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews, we don't really want "Chris Celebrity is pretentious and their restaurant is overpriced" or "Wendy Waitress is unfriendly and slow". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should avoid "Wendy Waitress is unfriendly", but "Some staff are unfriendly" is ok. It is important to report negative aspects of a place if either it is balanced by "excellent cooking and wonderful bread" or it is the only place in town. It becomes more difficult with one person businesses. AlasdairW (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage should not be interested in people: that is the province of Wikipedia. Wikivoyage is however interested in places associated with people and to this end should be cautious about their privacy. If however the individual concerned invites members of the public to their homes or businesses (for example Donald Trump has a website for Mar-a-Lago) then it is no longer Wikivoyage's role to protect his privacy: if he publicises his home, then it is incumbent on him to look after his own privacy. In contrast, Joe Biden does not appear to advertise his home, so neither should Wikivoyage (even if a search on the internet will reveal Joe Biden's properties).Martinvl (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does something like this feel about right?

----

As a general rule, Wikivoyage is interested in places, not people. Occasionally, providing a fair description will involve mentioning a specific person. In such cases, these principles apply to protect living people:

• Avoid contentious matter about living people to the maximum extent possible, to show respect for human dignity and personal privacy. Publishing personal information that is tangential to the needs of the article, trivial, ephemeral, or constitutes a negative review is unfair. For example, if a restaurant owner promotes dubious beliefs to customers, then omit the listing completely rather than writing about the owner's beliefs.
• Avoid whole articles focused on living people, such as an itinerary to see the private homes of celebrities. It is fair to have an itinerary focused on Taylor Swift's concert tours; it is not fair to have an article focused on her homes.
• Individual listings that name a living public figure are acceptable so long as the content is not contentious. However, you should avoid naming living people when a general description is adequate. For example, write "The owner is happy to talk about local history" instead of "Harry Historian, the owner, is happy to talk about local history", even though you would name the celebrity chef Thomas Keller as the owner of the restaurant The French Laundry.

----

What should be changed, added, omitted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for offering a rough draft! The one part that sticks out to me as problematic is the part about "dubious beliefs," which gives an opening to intolerant atheists to complain about a bismillah or cross in a restaurant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about political beliefs, and specifically about an anti-masking restaurant I read about during the pandemic, but you're right: That needs to be re-worded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Still a good start, I'd say. //shb (t | c | m) 12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that businesses should be removed because of beliefs of the owner or personnel; that the owner touts antivacc or flat-earth theories might be entertaining rather than a reason to avoid them. One might tell that they might raise controversial topics. For dangerous practices, such as not using masks when needed, that would be treated like them using contaminated water or whatever. Yes, sometimes that warrants removing the listing in line with no bad reviews, but that has little to do with privacy.

For a Finnish business, it was suggested that the listings be removed because of bigotry, in effect a boycott by Wikivoyage. I am not sure about to what extent to do that, but I assume we might tell something about the owner in that case, if we leave the choice whether to use their services to our readers. I would oppose individual editors removing listings because of views that don't conform with their own, but they may of course choose not to add them.

–LPfi (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think there might be a spectrum of issues, but some types of (e.g.,) bigotry are not compatible with Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. Inclusion constitutes a recommendation, at least when there are other alternatives. If we list a restaurant, it should be because travellers are welcome. If the restaurant's listing would need to have a disclaimer along the lines of "BTW, only white people are allowed to eat here" or "People whom the owner thinks look Jewish/Muslim/Black/gay/trans will be refused service", then that restaurant shouldn't be included in Wikivoyage at all. Listed restaurants should normally be open to all of the general public.

On the other end of the spectrum, if the owner cheerfully accepts all customers, but he privately belongs to a racist organization, then that's not really relevant to the travellers' experience, so we needn't mention that. Travellers who want to patronize only businesses owned by people who share the same politics/religion/race/sexual orientation should look elsewhere for that information.

Somewhere in the middle is factual information that travellers may interpret in opposite ways. For example, if a given deli in New York City is kosher, it'd be worth noting that in the description. Most travellers won't care. Some travellers will prefer it (either for religious reasons or because kosher meat is considered more ethical than conventional meat). Some travellers will reject it. But knowing that it might appeal (or not) to different travellers is not the same as different travellers not being allowed to eat at the deli. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see no problem in describing a restaurant in terms of the religious beliefs that it portrays provided that it is done in a neutral manner - for example , "The XYZ resaurant is a kosher/halal/vegetarian establishment". The reader can then make up their ow mind about patronising the establishment - after all Wikivoyage has many articles about various places of worship. Martinvl (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the general point is that we want "XYZ is a kosher/halal/vegetarian restaurant" but not "The owner of XYZ is a Jew/Muslim/vegetarian person". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree here. //shb (t | c | m) 06:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Suggested rewrite of the first point (Changes in bold):

"Avoid contentious matter about living people to the maximum extent possible, to show respect for human dignity and personal privacy. Publishing personal information that is tangential to the needs of the article, trivial, ephemeral, or constitutes a negative review is unfair. For example, if a restaurant owner promotes particular beliefs to customers, then omit the listing completely rather than writing about the owner's beliefs. If however the establishment itself caters for certain beliefs and/or ethics, it is reasonable, or maybe even desireable, to add those beliefs/ethics to the description in a neutral manner - such as including the words "kosher/halal/vegetarian" to the establishment's description." Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I suggest that the second point be extended as follows (additions in bold):

Avoid whole articles focused on living people, such as an itinerary to see the private homes of celebrities. It is fair to have an itinerary focused on Taylor Swift's concert tours; it is not fair to have an article focused on her homes. However, if the celebrity concerend advertises their home to the general public (for example Mar-a-Lago, home of Donald Trump or Blenheim Palace, home of the Duke of Marlborough) , then it is perfectly in order to mention the home in an article and ideally to include a web address the description or article.

Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think all this discussion of beliefs and politics is bad and not something about which we want policies. Also, bad reviews are by no means inherently unfair, and I'm mystified by how anyone could think that's the case; it's just that Wikivoyage chooses with some exceptions to simply refrain from listing businesses, rather than stating that they are bad. I also don't see why we would need to add a policy that establishments that discriminate against people based for example on their ethnicity, appearance or national origin, such as a historic restaurant in Düsseldorf that refused admission to East Asians early in the pandemic, be delisted, because we already do that based on preexisting policies. Right now, I think that based on the drafts circulated in this thread, we risk approving a new policy that is worse than none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It might be best to try the smallest possible addition. After all, it's usually easier to get a policy expanded later if we really need it, than to get it shortened later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here's a shorter version:

----

As a general rule, Wikivoyage is interested in places, not people. Occasionally, providing a fair description will involve mentioning a specific person. In such cases, these principles apply to protect living people:

• Avoid contentious matter about living people to the maximum extent possible, to show respect for human dignity and personal privacy. Individual listings that name a living public figure are acceptable so long as the content is not contentious.
• Avoid whole articles focused on living people, such as an itinerary to see the private homes of celebrities.

----

We could also soften "the maximum extent possible". It's always "possible" to avoid mentioning anyone's name, but it's not always "reasonable" to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about the article on U.S. presidents? We don't avoid contentious facts about living current and former presidents; we just agree on what should be in the blurbs about them based on the existing Wikivoyage:Be fair guidelines. I still fail to see how adding at least your first proposed guideline will improve anything. Also, are we creating a solution for a nonexistent problem? Can you cite a previous example of an article that had unnecessarily contentious facts about living people that we were not able to deal with by using existing guidelines? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Presidents of the United States is not a "whole article focused on living people"; it is a whole article focused on mostly long-dead people with just five living US Presidents being mentioned (and mostly in a "public museum" way, not a "current private home" way). This would therefore be acceptable as a case of "Individual listings that name a living public figure" that "show respect for human dignity and personal privacy".

The existing problem to be solved is: The Board of Directors for the WIkimedia Foundation said that every project needs to have an official, written BLP policy. They said this about 16 years ago, so we're running a bit behind schedule, but we should have something. Their resolution encourages "special attention to the principles of neutrality", so I think putting a few sentences inside our version of the "NPOV" policy would be appropriate. We could even create a WV:BLP shortcut to it, so the Wikipedia folks can find it easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My problem is not with your second proposed provision, which is fine, but your first, and that's what my last reply addressed. If it stated that when living people have to be mentioned, we must be fair and come to a consensus about anything contentious, I'd be happy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you think of any contentious or derogatory information a travel guide – especially one that does not cite external sources – needs to include? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I already gave you an example! And what about when we fairly describe countries as dictatorships? We've sometimes had users object and try to whitewash articles, and in such cases, we are armed with Wikivoyage:Be fair, not some ridiculous claim that anything "contentious" is bad and must be avoided, which would have played into their hands. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a site that tries to be neutral. We expressly don't have an NPOV policy, but instead a policy that requires fairness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we can fairly describe a country as being a dictatorship. Do we need to describe an individual living person as a dictator, when doing so would be contentious (e.g., produce disputes and disagreements on wiki)? I just checked every article containing the words "a dictator" and "the dictator"; none of them refer to living people.

If your prior example was "What about the article on U.S. presidents?", I've already answered that question. I don't see anything privacy-invading in Presidents of the United States, and I don't see anything contentious about any living person in there, either. The contents are not universally approved by the campaign team, but nobody actually disputes or "contends" over the facts (e.g., that Clinton was involved in a sex scandal, or that Trump is technically a convicted felon). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't had the misfortune of speaking with a Trumper lately, consider yourself lucky. There are tens of millions of hard-core Trumpers in the U.S. who don't accept basic scientific facts and advance all kinds of conspiracy nonsense as truth. I dealt with a cabbie in New Rochelle yesterday who gratuitously started talking about politics. He claimed Biden already had cancer 4 years ago, and "they" covered it up, that claims of fossil fuels causing global warming are "bullshit" and that if the Democrats had been elected last year, we'd all be driving electric cars already, among other things. So I very much contest your confident assertion that statements of fact about Trump, Biden, Obama, etc. are not "contentious". We need to remove that word from consideration as something Wikivoyage cannot be. Do you remember years ago when there was someone who spent a couple of weeks or more trying to whitewash descriptions of Cuba by claiming that it was really a democracy, their elections are really free and fair, and the Communists have never been dictators or oppressed anyone there? Or the ones that claimed that China is a democracy and it was the U.S. (pre-Trump) that was really oppressive (the latter of which of course has never been completely false, but that was entirely beside the point in a travel guide as well as being pure whataboutism that disproves nothing). We've had all kinds of politically motivated contentions against facts. That's why our standard is Wikivoyage:Be fair, not "Wikivoyage/Avoid saying anything anyone could argue with", which is what "contentious" means or would mean in the hands of anyone who wants to use a travel guide to grind an axe, rather than to improve a resource for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan. I was brought up in South Africa during the Apartheid era. Had Wikivoyage been around at that time, would we have deleted everything about South Africa on grounds that almost every establishment was required by law to practice racial discrimination? I do not think that would not have been appropriate. However I think that it would have been appropriate to include a section on how to navigate the country's racial policies. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since yesterday (and possibly earlier), the images in listings can be viewed in the dynamic map but trying to click on it to go to the full description page will lead to a broken link if they are in a city district page. This raises the issue on image attribution. You can test it on any listings with images at Queens/Flushing-Northeast and Toronto/Etobicoke. Anyone have insight on what recent changes broke this functionality? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, needs to be fixed. For some reason, the File: prefix is prefixed by the district name. I try to check Module:Listing for the bug. –LPfi (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oops, the city name, not the district. Seemingly the article name is included in the image argument, and removed, but not properly so for subarticles. Module:Marker is possibly more relevant than Listing, but it is some underlying functionality that is the culprit. My understanding of how modules work is too weak for me to find it. –LPfi (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The marker on the map seems to be constructed using mw.text.jsonEncode. Where can one read that code? Was there some change recently? –LPfi (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

[split off as suggested by OhanaUnited 02:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC). –LPfi (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)]Reply

The images embedded within listings are often not the best currently available. They don't display unless you click and faff about, so they don't enhance the page appearance encountered by the general reader. Wouldn't it be neat if there was some repository of images that were the best available copyfree, that could be simply incorporated into the page layout? We'd be sure to use those instead, right? Grahamsands (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The main problem with that is that somebody needs to pick those best available images. That's done in Commons' galleries, where images uploaded in the last dozen years aren't included. We could use the image on Wikidata, but they might not be chosen according to what they are like as thumbnails. Perhaps a specific wikidata property could be created for thumbnail images or even Wikivoyage thumbnail images (like for our banners). About having to click several times, that could be improved, but we don't want clutter, so some discussion is needed on the trade-off if we want to change the status quo. –LPfi (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Picking those best images and considering how best to display them is exactly what editors should do, same as picking the best attractions or accommodations to list in a town, we shouldn't lazily accept what's already on the page. It's hardly an onerous task, and we want the best for our readers. Grahamsands (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we can take assistance from AI tools to ease out the problem, just like we sometimes use AI to pick the best attractions to visit, and choose the appropriate accommodation. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't heard about us letting such decisions to AI, and I'm not sure we should do it with images. But regardless of what way the images get chosen, it would be good if the choice were saved at Wikidata, to be used automatically. As the images aren't shown in the article itself, the less effort we need to use choosing, the better. –LPfi (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

How much effort do we need to save here? The first example cited was Queens / Flushing. That page is under-illustrated, with one strong image and two so-so. It took me 10 min to find six more good images on Commons, about the right number for a page of this length. Inserting them might take 3 mins apiece, say 20 min, which I'm not volunteering to do as the entire page needs updating, a solid day's work. Grahamsands (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Choosing images sounds like a task that some people would love to do. Maybe we could advertise it better? It's even a task that people who don't speak English well should be able to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It could be a good task, but I have seen a lot of image adding that isn't optimal: ignoring our guideline of Minimal use of images, trying to illustrate individual listings instead of the article as a whole, writing captions to that effect, and placing the images in ways that suite the editor's browser window rather than conform to best practices.

Increased advertising of this activity should thus be done cautiously, to avoid frustration both among those adding images and those patrolling.

The original issue was about images for the dynamic map, which is different from illustrating the article.

–LPfi (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a side note, Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images probably needs both a little re-writing ("1 image per screen": Whose screen size?) and some reconsidering, as availability of internet access has generally improved since then (the last significant update was in 2018, based on a discussion started in 2016).

But I agree that it's a tangent for the current thread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

How carefully did you read Minimal use?

"1 image per screen (1,000–2,000 bytes)"

I suppose you want to suggest an increase in the number of images we should use, and if so, do that at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy. But keep in mind that the mobile interface sucks and the site is still better viewed on a computer. I would be likely to oppose any change in the language, as there is flexibility to use more images than stated in the guideline as long as there isn't an unbroken stream on the left side; images left, right and center; or images that go below the end of the article, which looks terrible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I read that, and I wondered which method we're using to measure "1,000 bytes". One screenful – edge to edge, top to bottom, on my laptop, with my font, my size (larger than default), my zoom (120%), etc. – is right around 2000 characters for me, but others may have half that, or four times that. Shorter lines (e.g., using only half the line at the end of a paragraph, or a short item in a list) adds volume without adding characters.

If we're using the file size, then wikitext and URLs add bulk to the file without affecting the screen size. We could have "1,000 bytes" and have a half-full screen (on my laptop) or "2,000 bytes" and still have a half-full screen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

These are rough estimates. An A4 with 67×47=3150 is quite close to 2k, if there are images, headings and paragraph breaks, probably much less if there are lists. I suppose an A4 is close to readability optimum (my browser and Emacs windows are not far off). My mobile phone seems to have 50×33=1650, perhaps 1k with images etc. The numbers don't seem to be too far off. Without prescribing a test with some specific browser window size, we cannot give precise advice. LPfi (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

From your estimate, the numbers appear to be off by 50%. 3150 = would be "quite close" to 3K, not 2K.

I think that a more practical suggestion would be: Every well-developed section should usually have one image, so long as this can be done without the images dropping down into the next section. On desktop, this usually requires a minimum of 10 to 12 lines of text per landscape image. Very long sections can have two images.

This would address the wikitext-vs-displayed problem and the difference between a solid paragraph and a long bullet list with one or two words on each line.

But as we noted above, this is a separate discussion from the original concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we take the "select the best picture" conversation into a sub-section? My original intention of this post is to report a bug which leads to the legal issue of image attribution. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

While the Commons bot that alert us to images about to be deleted was revived, images are still being deleted without notification, namely those (I assume), that were nominated before 4 May. The issue was told in the linked announcement, but I did not realise its implications. So, expect some imgages to be removed with no notification on the talk page. If they might be valuable, they should be temporarily restored for local upload, like when the bot wasn't working. –LPfi (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are usurped or dead URLs (e.g. w:en:WP:JUDI) normally archived, or removed? I'm looking at the page Northampton_(Massachusetts)#Eat, where the second link is usurped. Thanks, OutsideNormality (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If a url no longer goes to the home page for the listing in question, please update it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually, looking back, it seems like the URL was never "usurped" and was directly added as a spam link in Special:Diff/4154976/4167772. Thanks anyway for the advice. OutsideNormality (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Surprised this was sent very late. I made a guide on all the candidates on Meta at m:User:SHB2000/U4C guide 2025, for those interested. //shb (t | c | m) 03:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! It is now practically mainstream media (In Wisconsin Dells) that Kalahari's expanding its Indoor Waterpark into what was a mainly unused parking lot (which is currently either getting demolished or already is demolished as of posting) and will add a fully glass dome with a retractable roof (this is not an ad, this is according to many sources including the Kalahari its self, Fox11online.com, Whitewater West, Martin Aquatic, and Maverick Hayes' Social Media). Now the real question is should I add this too my page? Cheers! HistorySports (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To your page meaning what? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@HistorySports, I think it's fair to add information about waterparks to Wisconsin Dells#Do or Wisconsin Dells#Sleep. (You pick which one based on whether people mostly stay there, and happen to use the water park, or mostly go to the water park, and a few people stay there, too – just use your judgement and don't stress about the distinction too much.)

The important thing isn't the news ("they're expanding!") but what is available today ("Wisconsin's biggest indoor waterpark").

In general, when I skim through that article, I wish that there were prices for the activities and longer descriptions. In particular, there seem to be a lot of attractions, but I have no idea which one I'd choose. Is one the lowest cost? The best value? Best for little kids? Best for teens? Best for older adults/multi-generational families? Open year-round? Has the most swimming pool lifts for wheelchair users? If you can, try to add some sort of information about the differences between different attractions that might help travellers decide which things they want to do.

Also, it looks like there are several listings that need to be moved to Baraboo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks WhatamIdoing! I will follow your advice and hopefully we can have a great page for the area of Wisconsin Dells! HistorySports (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I wasn't clear and that's totally my fault, but I was talking about the Wisconsin Dells page, sorry! HistorySports (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. So you know, it's not your page: it's a Wikivoyage article. The only page I'd consider your page is your user page. That said, on the face of it, I would put activities in "Do", not "Sleep". Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is up with Wikistats page views for English Wikivoyage?

87 million last month? https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikivoyage.org/reading/total-page-views/normal%7Cbar%7C2-year%7C~total%7Cmonthly

36 million from Brazil apparently. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is a very interesting anomaly indeed. No idea why, but still very interesting to know why we have so many views from Brazil. //shb (t | c | m) 00:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe users on VPN? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/off-the-beaten-path-american-festivals —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No-one seems to be paying any attention to the fact that we are likely to lose a photo. We need to decide whether we're OK with that or not. I will not make a unilateral decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me, or does it seem like too many photos have been getting removed lately? Mrkstvns (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Has there been an uptick in deletion requests at Commons? Or are we just noticing them more, now that the notifications bot is working again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

As someone who was monitoring c:Commons:Deletion requests until the bot started working again, I think it's the latter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I hope this deletion can be resisted. Tirrenia ferries in 2017 made a deal with Warner Bros to plaster their ships' exteriors with cartoon characters such as Batman, to give them a jazzy attractive look. That deal continues and you really cannot take a photo of any T ferry without including the character: it's as integral to the ship as the company logo and the pointy bit at the front. The intention of any such photo is to portray the ship not replicate the character, and IMO it's a misuse of copyright law to claim we can't publish it copyfree. Grahamsands (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Such arguments have been presented in the RFD on Commons, and I think that they are legally sound. However, "misuse of copyright law" is not what this is about. There is no word of God saying that utilitarian objects (in this case: the ship) can be freely photographed, and if the law says otherwise, Commons can do little about it. I think the current copyright laws are a disaster, caused by lobbyists and weak politicians, but that means that the copyright laws need to be changed (read: one should spread awareness of the absurdities), not that we can ignore current law. –LPfi (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation requires that Commons files be available for unimpeded commercial use. They don't have to, and we don't have to, which is why we have a freedom of panorama fair use exception doctrine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, true. For Commons, the stringency is because of their mission – they don't want to host content that cannot be used. All kinds of compromises are possible or even necessary, but commercial use, such as in small-budget books, is essential for their mission. In some cases, where copyright law is unclear, they could be a bit braver, but that's a separate issue. –LPfi (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had the time to fully look into it and I've been quite busy IRL this month, but it seems we have a new copycat site called https://www.localcityguide.net/. It mirrors Wikivoyage pages word-for-word with "2022 © Local City Guide. All rights reserved." and some pages like Itineraries ([1]) do nothing to even remove mentions of Wikivoyage. What's interesting about this site is that they've listed those behind the site so openly in the About us section – I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it could be something to go off. What are the WMF's protocols when a site copies an entire project and what can we do about it? //shb (t | c | m) 08:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It has a nice presentation, a handful of blog entries posted in June 2022, and it looks like the foundation of the site is our stuff, refreshed regularly. (Changes I made yesterday already appear.) There is no ability to edit articles. Ground Zero (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is against the terms of service, CC license restrictions, and American copyright law. You should contact the Legal Team via email at legal[little-anarchy-symbol]wikimedia[point]org. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I picked an arbitrary page of which I have knowledge, but which is not on the average tourist itinerary, Estcourt. It has an outline status. I clicked on "outline" and the first sentence read:

"An outline article is a status rating for any article in Wikivoyage ... " [My emphasis].

This is proof that they are copying the WIkivoyage site. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the contents are incorporated by a script directly from Wikivoyage similar to the html frame technology that's why the articles are up-to-date. I made a small change in some status ratings of the German Wikivoyage, and immediately you can read that this is a usable Wikivoyage article in the footer. --RolandUnger (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Copying Wikivoyage's contents is okay. However, you have to provide "reasonable" attribution. That's usually done with something like a simple link to the original article on Wikivoyage. I don't see Wikivoyage mentioned on their website, so they need to fix that – but remember that the goal is for them to fix it, not to punish them or prevent them from sharing our information.

w:en:WP:BACKWARDSCOPY has some advice on how to contact websites that haven't complied with the license terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have sent the developers of the site an email about this. //shb (t | c | m) 02:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've also forwarded it to WMF legal (cc Koavf). //shb (t | c | m) 02:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merci. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

15 days later and no response. Sigh... :/. //shb (t | c | m) 06:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some input at Wikivoyage talk:Naming conventions#Disambiguators for Mexican destinations would be appreciated. //shb (t | c | m) 13:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Thailand just lost its crown to Malaysia, at least for Q1 2025. Should we update our articles to reflect that, or should we wait and see if Malaysia can sustain its lead? The dog2 (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: I think you should update the articles to say that both Thailand and Malaysia are the most visited countries of SE Asia, along the lines of, "Thailand, along with Malaysia, are...", "Malaysia, along with Thailand, are..." or even "Malaysia and Thailand are...". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should wait till yearly figures are available before changing anything. Too many things can change from one quarter to the next. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed – one quarter might not be a true reflection. //shb (t | c | m) 00:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have added a static map in Maharashtra, but it disappears without showing a dynamic map when I click/press the link "switch to interactive map". Same happens in West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Chennai, etc. I think there's a bug in {{Regionlist}} that causes this disappearance, as the template itself was last edited on August 2024. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same issue on it:voy. For sure is caused by a change server side. I'll try to figure out if we can solve locally or if we need to open a ticket. Andyrom75 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've patched it. Now it works again. Be sure to refresh/purge the page you test. Andyrom75 (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikimedia Community,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees assigned the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) to update and implement a procedure for assessing the lifecycle of Sister Projects – wiki projects supported by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

A vision of relevant, accessible, and impactful free knowledge has always guided the Wikimedia Movement. As the ecosystem of Wikimedia projects continues to evolve, it is crucial that we periodically review existing projects to ensure they still align with our goals and community capacity.

Despite their noble intent, some projects may no longer effectively serve their original purpose. Reviewing such projects is not about giving up – it's about responsible stewardship of shared resources. Volunteer time, staff support, infrastructure, and community attention are finite, and the non-technical costs tend to grow significantly as our ecosystem has entered a different age of the internet than the one we were founded in. Supporting inactive projects or projects that didn't meet our ambitions can unintentionally divert these resources from areas with more potential impact.

Moreover, maintaining projects that no longer reflect the quality and reliability of the Wikimedia name stands for, involves a reputational risk. An abandoned or less reliable project affects trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Lastly, failing to sunset or reimagine projects that are no longer working can make it much harder to start new ones. When the community feels bound to every past decision – no matter how outdated – we risk stagnation. A healthy ecosystem must allow for evolution, adaptation, and, when necessary, letting go. If we create the expectation that every project must exist indefinitely, we limit our ability to experiment and innovate.

Because of this, SPTF reviewed two requests concerning the lifecycle of the Sister Projects to work through and demonstrate the review process. We chose Wikispore as a case study for a possible new Sister Project opening and Wikinews as a case study for a review of an existing project. Preliminary findings were discussed with the CAC, and a community consultation on both proposals was recommended.

The application to consider Wikispore was submitted in 2019. SPTF decided to review this request in more depth because rather than being concentrated on a specific topic, as most of the proposals for the new Sister Projects are, Wikispore has the potential to nurture multiple start-up Sister Projects.

After careful consideration, the SPTF has decided not to recommend Wikispore as a Wikimedia Sister Project. Considering the current activity level, the current arrangement allows better flexibility and experimentation while WMF provides core infrastructural support.

We acknowledge the initiative's potential and seek community input on what would constitute a sufficient level of activity and engagement to reconsider its status in the future.

As part of the process, we shared the decision with the Wikispore community and invited one of its leaders, Pharos, to an SPTF meeting.

Currently, we especially invite feedback on measurable criteria indicating the project's readiness, such as contributor numbers, content volume, and sustained community support. This would clarify the criteria sufficient for opening a new Sister Project, including possible future Wikispore re-application. However, the numbers will always be a guide because any number can be gamed.

We chose to review Wikinews among existing Sister Projects because it is the one for which we have observed the highest level of concern in multiple ways.

Since the SPTF was convened in 2023, its members have asked for the community's opinions during conferences and community calls about Sister Projects that did not fulfil their promise in the Wikimedia movement.[1][2][3] Wikinews was the leading candidate for an evaluation because people from multiple language communities proposed it. Additionally, by most measures, it is the least active Sister Project, with the greatest drop in activity over the years.

While the Language Committee routinely opens and closes language versions of the Sister Projects in small languages, there has never been a valid proposal to close Wikipedia in major languages or any project in English. This is not true for Wikinews, where there was a proposal to close English Wikinews, which gained some traction but did not result in any action[4][5], see section 5 as well as a draft proposal to close all languages of Wikinews[6].

Initial metrics compiled by WMF staff also support the community's concerns about Wikinews.

Based on this report, SPTF recommends a community reevaluation of Wikinews. We conclude that its current structure and activity levels are the lowest among the existing sister projects. SPTF also recommends pausing the opening of new language editions while the consultation runs.

SPTF brings this analysis to a discussion and welcomes discussions of alternative outcomes, including potential restructuring efforts or integration with other Wikimedia initiatives.

Options mentioned so far (which might be applied to just low-activity languages or all languages) include but are not limited to:

• Restructure how Wikinews works and is linked to other current events efforts on the projects,
• Merge the content of Wikinews into the relevant language Wikipedias, possibly in a new namespace,
• Merge content into compatibly licensed external projects,
• Archive Wikinews projects.

Your insights and perspectives are invaluable in shaping the future of these projects. We encourage all interested community members to share their thoughts on the relevant discussion pages or through other designated feedback channels.

We'd be grateful if you want to take part in a conversation on the future of these projects and the review process. We are setting up two different project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. Please participate between 27 June 2025 and 27 July 2025, after which we will summarize the discussion to move forward. You can write in your own language.

I will also host a community conversation 16th July Wednesday 11.00 UTC and 17th July Thursday 17.00 UTC (call links to follow shortly) and will be around at Wikimania for more discussions.

-- Victoria on behalf of the Sister Project Task Force, 20:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I definitely hate to say it but Wikinews has to be one of the most failed WMF projects. The English Wikinews is barely sustaining and I think that is fine for the timebeing, but the other Wikinews projects simply lack the editor base to actively review new news articles. It came up in tawikinews' closure proposal where their newest article dated to 2018! //shb (t | c | m) 02:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that we're meant to post that kind of thing on the Meta-Wiki project pages: Public consultation about Wikispore and Public consultation about Wikinews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware; I just wanted to give out my 2c in short form – I have a longer list of suggestions planned which I'll do when I get a bit more spare time. //shb (t | c | m) 23:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not a big fan of Wikinews, but one thing about the report published by Sister Projects Task Force is concerning. This report is written in a very critical manner, namely, it does not mention that dozens if not hundreds of volunteers have spent a considerable amount of their time on developing Wikinews. The report does not mention any single good thing about their work, which does not seem fair. The report demonstrates that the current level of activity and content development at Wikinews is low (and this statement is fair), but it does not set any threshold of what would be good enough metrics for a community to deserve the resources from WMF. Moreover, the report does not attempt to analyze which steps Wikinews editors took to develop their project, and why these steps were unsuccessful. It just says: you did a bad job, so we will close you down and even deprive you of any possibility of moving Wikinews elsewhere because the name stays with Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikivoyage is a smaller project too, and it would be discouraging if a similarly critical report about our work appears. It is not completely unrealistic when half of the language versions are dormant, while many others are somewhat comparable in their metrics to the most active editions of Wikinews. I think that only English Wikivoyage is clearly above that threshold, although the actual threshold is not even defined, so almost any level of activity can be deemed "low" if one wants to say so.

What are your thoughts on that? --Alexander (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have not been using Wikinews, so my reflections are based on the closure of Wikinews in Swedish and the current discussion, linked above. One point raised in the discussion is that the metrics chosen didn't take into account the special nature of the project.

I assume the Sister Project Task Force is right in that this kind of evaluations need to be done from time to time, but also think that the evaluations should focus on whether there are paths forward, rather than on whether the project is viable according to current trends.

Wikinews has the problem that a significant dedicated editor base i needed – Wikipedia or even Wikivoyage can stay alive and stay interesting even with no edits for a year or two, while a news outlet would loose nearly all of its readers. The coverage needs to be adequate on at least some areas (geographic or thematic) for the site to stay interesting. The critical mass needed is much larger – and that critical mass additionally needs to be able to counter people with a bias (good-faith or not) or with an agenda not aligned with the project goals – keeping touting at bay is much easier. I assume new language versions should be started only if there is hope of quickly building that critical mass.

–LPfi (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes I do believe that LangCom has decided to suspend the creation of all new Wikinews projects for that very reason. //shb (t | c | m) 23:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alexander, it's true "that dozens if not hundreds of volunteers have spent a considerable amount of their time on developing Wikinews", but it's also true that keeping a failing project because of past efforts is an example of w:en:Sunk cost fallacy.

I suspect that if someone made a credible proposal to move Wikinews to another host, the WMF would be be open to negotiations over the name. (But any new sponsor might prefer to come up with their own name.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess my main problem is the absence of any well-defined criteria that distinguish a sustainable project from a failing one. Do you understand what these criteria are? -- Alexander (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

A well-defined criteria that defines what a sustainable project would still heavily rely on how the project functions, though. For Wikinews, it needs to be very active and metrics that may be appropriate for Wikivoyage or Wikibooks like number of articles aren't super relevant because 20000 articles is no good if the last one was written 2 months ago (the numbers are hypothetical but my point stands). //shb (t | c | m) 08:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the same metrics can not be applied to all sister projects, but "very active" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Imagine someone decides that Wikivoyage is not sustainable because it contains a lot of outdated travel information that has not been updated in the last 5 years. That would be a problem... -- Alexander (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We don't want well-defined criteria. There needs to be judgement on the projects actual prospects. Opening a community discussion is good, as that's a way to see whether the metrics give a correct picture – although there should be discussions with the projects before opening a discussion like this (I don't know to what extent there have been such discussions). –LPfi (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I still don't love the way the SPTF decided to mass-send these messages to every wiki without consulting the Wikinews community; it really should be up to them (and when I mean them, I mean the more active Wikinews projects such as en or ruwikinews) to decide their project's future, not the rest of us or the vast majority who don't get involved with Wikinews. //shb (t | c | m) 23:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The issues should have been raised with the projects first (not only the big ones, but all projects affected). I don't know whether that was done, but seemingly not enough, anyway. It seems the SPTF (?) wanted to introduce a more general practice of re-evaluating projects, and just chose the two as examples. They should have understood that doing it that way, without consultations, would upset people. –LPfi (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

TBF, there were several closure proposals before, including one for all language Wikinews. Those for major projects failed, but one can argue that this was a signal to the communities to evaluate their performance which they apparently did not get. I agree though that opening such discussion before notifying the Wikinews communities first is not really good. Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They definitely should have; I hope they use this as a learning lesson because the general sentiment from the enwikinews community is quite clearly unimpressed from that discussion. //shb (t | c | m) 09:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well this comment certainly aged like milk. //shb (t | c | m) 13:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear. I hope there are others in the SPTF who are more keen-eared. This risks degenerating into one more of the WMF-not-respecting-the-community affairs. –LPfi (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

SPTF (or Victoria, at the very least) seems so predetermined to close Wikinews that I've never heard something so blatantly biased such as "However, I expect that the wikinewsians would be in COI" – so to them I assume knowing the ins and outs of your own project is apparently a conflict of interest? It's a massive insult to non-Wikipedia based projects. //shb (t | c | m) 11:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can understand her view, but I think it is misguided, and somebody in her team should get them to discuss their actual mission. If a project indeed needs to be laid down, the process needs to be lead very sensitively – and the consultation in this phase shouldn't be on whether to lay Wikinews down. It is "to work through and demonstrate the review process", "a community reevaluation" and "potential restructuring efforts".

The demonstration of the process has been a disaster and potential restructuring efforts require a good understanding of he project, which cannot be had without a keen-eared discussion with the communities.

The "re-evaluation" should be based on such potential restructuring paths, where restructuring isn't about where to dump the Wikinews content, but how to save the project, if possible.

–LPfi (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with you about about the "re-evaluation" but the way they have been responding to community feedback feels as though they have the result pre-determined and this is merely being used as a box ticking exercise – which is why I think it's crucial that we as a fellow sister project speak up about the way this was poorly handled because who knows what they will do when it's our turn to undergo public consultations. //shb (t | c | m) 14:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wrote about some concerns in meta:Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews#Process and analysis seem flawed. –LPfi (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, LPfi; hopefully our project will be fine (I think it will because Wikivoyage or really any other WMF project does not have the same issues as Wikinews does of requiring an active community), but more feedback is certainly better. //shb (t | c | m) 03:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Whereas I agree that the process it to some extend flawed (and I agree with the points LPfi makes in the response on Meta), it would be useful to see whether some metrics used for analysis (in whatever flawed way) could be improved for Wikivoyage, so that they are out of discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Victoria: as primary author and for what I think is trenchant feedback: to the extent that this taskforce is assessing the sibling projects, it would be helpful if the individual communities knew what kind of rubric there is to grade their health. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

First of all, the Taskforce in not assessing all siblings projects, the Wikispore/Wikinews was a proof-of-concept exercise.

We used this rubric, which was discussed in a public consultation a year ago - but didn't get much attention, because Meta is littered with documents that are never implemented.

In the Wikispore consultation we ask for the proposals for the clarification of the "activity" and other criteria. Victoria (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this and thanks for letting me ping-pong you around various WMF projects with pings. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. I'm happy to answer anywhere in English/Russian/Belarusian when there's no personal attacks involved. Victoria (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've been going through some of the stats, and "very active" is an interesting point. The defenders of the "very active" Wikinews language editions seem to be engaged overwhelmingly in copying/pasting content from suitably licensed external sites. They have turned Wikinews into mirrors for other sites, rather than writing articles.

Just imagine how we at Wikivoyage would react if someone here said "I am a very active Wikivoyage editor. I spend at least an hour a day copying and pasting pages from other travel websites!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We do copy info from hotel websites and other sources, but we don't have the luxury of reliable free content written in our style. Being a channel for reliable news could be a mission of Wikinews (more or less the same way some "social media" sites do it). If so, the question is whether they can do it well enough for it to be worthwhile as a WMF project (and whether the other things they do are done well). But that's not the discussion the SPTF initiated, they chose to go by statistics instead. –LPfi (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was mentioned somewhere that the stats may be skewed by bots – I'm still confused on how you'd be able to tell if the stats were skewed by bots or not. //shb (t | c | m) 23:11, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Most bots, especially most big ones, do have an appropriate user agent field in their page request, so the server logs can be used to tell apart at least those. With more advanced techniques, you can also distinguish typical bot behaviour from that of human users. There are some grey areas (such as a human using a tool other than a typical web browser, or using some script through the browser, and bots configured to look like humans), but I don't think it is impossible to get quite an accurate and reliable picture of bot vs human traffic. –LPfi (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting to know – I suppose you can tell by things like sudden influx in page views as one example but yeah unless you told me I wouldn't be specifically able to pick it out. //shb (t | c | m) 10:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

From aggregated data, some patterns can be recognised as probably bot-caused, but to know for certain, you have to check the user agent fields, and where ordinary user agents cause bot-like patterns, you have to analyse behaviour of individual traffic sources – not trivial if somebody is really trying to hide their bot as multiple human users. –LPfi (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

LPfi, I'm not talking about copying "information"; I'm talking about copying entire pages, word-for-word.

We do have copy-able options; there are multiple travel websites with appropriate copyright licenses. You know what happens to any editor who decides to "help" by copying from Wikitravel. Look at https://travel.fandom.com/wiki/Travel_Wiki whose pages are similar in style but with different section headings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why? When I look in edit mode, I can see links to archives in Talk:China, but not when I simply look at that talk page. Will Wikivoyage in mobile mode ever not suck? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't answer your first question, but the answer to your latter question, as we both know, is never (we are a massive afterthought for the WMF). //shb (t | c | m) 02:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

In which case, we will eventually read that the Wikimedia Foundation dropped Wikivoyage from lack of sufficient participation. Would we be able to fork in that case, or does Wikimedia own the copyright for Wikivoyage as they do for Wikinews? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Each individual editor, including IPs/logged-out editors, owns the copyright to whatever copyrightable material they post on wiki. The Wikimedia Foundation owns the domain names and the trademarks (e.g., name and logo). Anyone who wants to fork can do so freely. The Wikimedia Foundation will sometimes even informally help people do so. The mobile site does have the links to the archives. Click on the "(i) Learn more about this page" button at the top of the page to find the "invisible" content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Please don't be that fearful when Wikinews is proposed to be shut down or merged with Wikipedia. I wanted to work in the Bengali Wikinews Incubator project, but my lack of activity in recent weeks has prevented me from participating further. So, I have focused on Commons and Wikivoyage, where I am still highly active. I don't think the SPTF would suggest something similar for Wikivoyage, and I think it is actually a popular website. My static map of West Bengal is now widely shared on Facebook (both English and Bengali versions), along with an AI-generated list of places to visit in the state. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are a superb Wikivoyage content creator! I'm not afraid in the very near term, but usage of all websites nowadays has to be mostly mobile, so if this site's mobile interface remains terrible, its eventual demise is a foregone conclusion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Are you refering to the archive links that appear when I click "more about this page" at the top?

The issues with the mobile site exist as this project does not have active interface admins.

Note: The WMF has nothing to do with the content or presentation of content for this site.

Relevant links:

• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WikimediaMessages#Site_admin_helper
• https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Recommendations_for_mobile_friendly_articles_on_Wikimedia_wikis

Jdlrobson (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "Learn more about this page." I didn't know to click that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why the WMF would have nothing to do with presentation of content on Wikivoyage. We are using MediaWiki and settings provided by the WMF, and we indeed are a WMF project.

Not having active interface admins (I thought we have some) shouldn't mean too much – having technically knowledgable people locally is a bonus, it (and them dedicating time to do major work) shouldn't be a prerequisite for a WMF project.

–LPfi (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We do indeed have 5 Wikivoyage:Interface administrators, which User:Jdlrobson should know, because he is one of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am an interface admin but I would not consider myself active. Maintenance of the listing editor for example causes me more anxiety than enjoyment these days.

In my time in this project I have seen quite a few complaints about the mobile experience but nobody has articulated clearly what needs improving. I personally dont think that overall it is a bad experience and the fact most of our page views are on mobile should be reassuring. That said there are templates like climate data that I think could be improved on mobile.

If you really want to improve the mobile experience I'd recommend making a wiki page with discussion of changes, proposal/consensus and then implementing them. I havent seen this sort of thing since Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. I guarantee the majority of changes you want do not need WMF involvement but they will require discussion and community consultation. Jdlrobson (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wauterz is certainly active. Have you ever tried adding a listing or reverting more than one edit at a time in mobile mode? I'm sure we can compile a list of badness from the mobile interface. Where is the best page to put it on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Andyrom75 is also fairly active on itwikivoyage. //shb (t | c | m) 22:18, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

To answer the very first question of @Ikan Kekek, I've noticed that the infobox has a "display:none" style that hide those boxes in mobile view. I think this style is added serverside (maybe @Jdlrobson you can confirm), because it's not added by the template neither by the templatestyles.

However, as said from @WhatamIdoing, you can still see it clicking on the "(i)" button. Andyrom75 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the example you have provided the archive links provided here could be shown at the top of the page as on desktop and would be a single line change to Template:Infobox (adding the ext-discussiontools-emptystate class). We have to tell the software how to behave.

That said doing this looks really bad IMO as it makes every talk page require considerable scrolling to get to the content so personally as someone who primarily uses mobile I would oppose that change. The archive links as they currently behave work perfectly well for me.

Perhaps placing a single link "view archives" there that reveals them would be a good compromise to make this more obvious via some minor changes to the template? Jdlrobson (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think the text "View archives" would be really helpful. We really need to take you up on the offer to put up a litany of Wikivoyage Mobile badness up on some page, but no-one has suggested a good place for it. Do you have any ideas? I see there's no Wikivoyage:Mobile version page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what the status quo is but I would just be bold and create it: Wikivoyage:Mobile version.

Let's see if anyone is interested in collaborating and see what evolves. Jdlrobson (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone, we (Kiwix) are planning to make an offline app based off WikiVoyage content that people could download ahead of Wikimania (taking place this year in Nairobi). The organizers would like us to add a couple of pages from the Wikimania Wiki [2] [3][4][5], but we can't build a ZIM file off two separate locations.

My idea at this stage would be to copy these here somewhere. Where do you think would be best / least problematic? Thanks, The other Kiwix guy (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could it be in the Project: namespace (e.g., Wikivoyage:Wikimania 2025 and subpages)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Past events/Wikimania 2018 Cape Town Guidebook (which would have been Wikimania 2018 Cape Town Guidebook during the event) for how we have done it in the past. There was also Wikimania 2014 London Guidebook, but that was merged and redirected into London/City of London. I don't think that Project space is appropriate for such a guide, so I would suggest Wikimania 2025 Nairobi Guidebook, with subpages if required. AlasdairW (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, thanks a lot. The other Kiwix guy (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please be notified that there is a request for comment on Meta about paid editing and advanced rights, at m:Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed. You can voice your concerns regarding the topic.

This message is to notify those who haven't made comments in this RFC. For those who have made comments there, you can ignore this message.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 08:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@HingWahStreet: I don't see this being relevant to this project; no Wikivoyage project in any language has CUs for this to matter. //shb (t | c | m) 09:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 Sorry I don't know about this. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 09:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@HingWahStreet: Well I asked because you only left a message on this project (as per GUC check) – I get if you wanted to send this to all projects (which I also wouldn't do but who am I to stop you from doing so), but the only project you sent this to doesn't even have CUs. //shb (t | c | m) 09:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 You mean only CUs (not others) can join the discussion? 〈興華街〉📅❓ 13:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@HingWahStreet: No, I never said that – what I'm trying to convey that only notifying enwikivoyage for an RfC that doesn't even remotely affect this project is what got me wondering. //shb (t | c | m) 13:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The story here: A CU on a small Wikipedia recently created a business to write Wikipedia articles. This has made some people suddenly realize that CUs are not officially prohibited from being "paid editors". They propose that CUs be banned from having some paid editing jobs (e.g., writing articles for companies) but not others (e.g., writing articles for an art museum).

I doubt that it will make any difference to us, and I doubt that it will make much difference overall. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I may be mistaken, but I believe HingwahStreet has a bit of a history with Bojan (the srwiki CU involved with paid editing), too (not that it matters for the outcome of this RfC). //shb (t | c | m) 23:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Saved you a click: CU == Checkuser Brycehughes (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

But wait wtf is a checkuser Brycehughes (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Checkusers are a small group of users on some wikis that have access to tools that reveal IP address info of usernames. We haven't found the need to appoint any. AlasdairW (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is an argument to be made that this wiki can have CUs and there is a benefit to that, but as the person who's made all this wiki's SRCU requests since 2022, I consider that stewards doing our CU checks are sufficient enough for the timebeing. //shb (t | c | m) 08:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

m:CheckUser. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

(cc @Ikan Kekek, ThunderingTyphoons!:) Special:VerifyOATHForUser now exists for bureaucrats as well. There isn't much of a use case, but it is a WMF requirement that all interface admins have 2FA enabled; this new change means that were any new IAs to be appointed, you can actually check instead of relying on word of mouth. //shb (t | c | m) 10:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just did a major edit on the San Juan (Puerto Rico) page. Within "Get Around", there was a big block of info about buses under "By public transportation", and another big block of somewhat repetitive info under "By bus". (And the other public transport info is under By Train, By Ferry, etc.)

I merged the two sections into one hopefully coherent block, and put it under "By bus". But the system won't let me delete "By Public Transportation" - it says that's a harmful edit (even though the content is now redundant). Can someone please help clean up by removing "By Public Transportation"?

Thanks!! 2604:B000:A217:FF41:C1DA:4A9C:9D3C:9EB5 15:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Update: It did let me edit the "By public transportation" section down to a single paragraph instead of deleting it entirely. I still think the section should be deleted, but at least there's not a massive duplication of content from my previous merge.

I think you can do the edit by yourself. New or non-logged-in users aren't allowed to remove too much content in a single edit, with some exceptions (such as article template comments, self-created pages and some specific types of garbage). You hit that limit. –LPfi (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply