Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub Voyage Tips and guide

I'm not sure how many people here have really noticed this...but I find this year in particular we've really been lacking enough people to take on janitorial tasks. VfDs going well above the 14 days (to which I still argue the solution is to reduce the time period to prevent discussion fatigue, but I digress), featured articles not being updated on time, touting left for hours on end, more spam...the list goes on.

At least out of the 23 active sysops, the current team seem to be doing reasonably well, so I think this is really a call for more admins. For anyone hesitant, it's not a huge time commitment, but just more people having the ability to do these tasks alone will help out a lot. I'm more than happy to give any feedback to anyone considering running. //shb (t | c | m) 12:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

At least for myself, this is partly explained by diverting some of my time and energy to perform CheckUser blocks. With more of us (yes, like you SHB who is now a steward) taking on additional roles both within and external to Wikivoyage, and more edits to vet through compared to a year ago, we need to start thinking about admin retention (beyond just editor retention). This was one of the panel discussion in Wikimania Nairobi last year (full disclosure: I was invited, and accepted, to participate in this panel after arriving in Nairobi). What I'm curious to know is the general threshold (account age and edit count) that our community finds a candidate to be acceptable. When I look into the archived nominations, almost all the candidates are either sure-in (7+ year account with 5000+ edits) or sure-out (3-month account with under 50 edits). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Couple thousand edits, couple years? Realistically, the list of active autopatrolled editors is probably the candidate pool. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The last admin nomination had quite low participation, relative to the size of the current active editor pool. We first need to encourage more people to participate in voting/discussion. And if someone has no strong inclinations to support or oppose, a "Neutral" or "Comment" with reasons will still provide value to the nomination, and help the closer decide whether consensus has been achieved or not. Gizza ^(roam) 01:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't want to comment there, because I don't know enough about the Justin's wikipedia ban, which sounds serious... But the other two topics - it's strange to me that being non-nuclear regarding AC is still a topic, after all these years, and seems to cover any other good work a person may have done. Also I don't understand how any past participation on WT is a blocker point... So I didn't vote. -- andree 10:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you have an opinion about an admin nomination, do feel free to offer it. And for everyone: every user is entitled to offer an opinion about user rights nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seconded this – RfAs (or any nomination, really) aren't votes, so neutrals provide just as much value to the discussion as a support or an oppose. //shb (t | c | m) 13:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh thanks for the stats link – I guess that explains everything. //shb (t | c | m) 10:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do start to wonder if this also builds the case for automating things that are otherwise tedious or just annoying to do by hand...maybe something worth looking into. //shb (t | c | m) 23:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you give an example of that kind of edit? The important things usually require human judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Things like WV:VfD (a gadget similar to the one on Commons – shouldn't be too hard to tweak to this site) and maybe featured articles is what I'm thinking. //shb (t | c | m) 00:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean that you want a script that will put {{vfd}} on the article and automatically add a new ===Section=== at the end of the Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion page? That sounds like a case of https://xkcd.com/1319/ to me.

It looks like we had a VFD nomination about twice a week last year. A script could save about one minute per nomination (probably less, but let's stick to round numbers). If it was used for every single nomination (plausible; for comparison, enwiki uses Twinkle for about 90% of AFD nominations), that would collectively save editors about 90 minutes per year. Therefore, if it takes more than 90 minutes to set up, the net benefit wouldn't be seen for longer than a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is more than just that: the gadget would also notify editors (something that we currently don't do), and also potentially append ''Not ending before {{subst:#time:H:i j F Y (T)|+2 week}}'' at the top of each nomination to prevent nominations from going untouched. All these would just be annoying to do by hand, and something that can easily be done through a gadget that likely won't take all that long to create (since equivalents exist elsewhere and it's not hard to tweak + modernise it to this site). //shb (t | c | m) 10:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Notifying editors is maybe nice, most of the time, but I think that two weeks is easy enough to do in your head that I see no particular value in the "Not ending before" idea. In particular, it feels like something that would make the rules be even more rigid. Enwiki has had fights over deletion discussions that closed less than one hour before the official time. I would not want us to take any step that could lead us even a tiny step towards that sort of expectation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I looked at all 33 admins and see whether they're active (using WP's definition of 5 mainspace edits in last 30 days). I have accounted for logged actions, which did not change the table. TLDR: We may be losing 6 admins (18.2%) of the entire admin corp before the calendar turns 2027.

Here is the current snapshot:

Admin activity snapshot (as of June 15, 2026)

Criteria	Total number	% of entire admin corp
Not active (<5 mainsapce edits in last 30 days)	19^	57.8%
Inactive (0 edits in last 1+ years)	6*	18.2%
Inactive and in imminent risk for sysop removal (0 edits in 2 years)	2†	6.7%

^ Includes 1 of the 3 CheckUser.
* All 6 of them have not edited for 1.5 years, and would be "sysop removal" eligible before the end of the year if they don't come back.
† Their desysop was deferred in March 2026 for lack of notification to the affected users.

I think it's time that we loosen up our community criteria to counter "edit count creep". Couple thousand edits and couple of years may be too stringent to our current needs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

We need to be careful how much we loosen requirements. There are security issues involved in giving people admin tools. So something has to establish their trustworthiness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes we should be careful. But at the same time it should be no big deal. We're already seeing the disconnect between what the community feels like with its unwritten rules (2000 edits, 2 years) vs what is written in the nomination instruction ("track record of at least a few months" among other things). I went into the archives and looked at some of the unsuccessful admin nominations. At least four editors went in with the presumption of what was written, got told with "not yet", and shortly afterwards quit the project altogether. Turning adminship into a big deal does not help with editor retention either. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ohana massively on this one – the last thing we want is our RfA process to turn into enwiki's or ruwiki's, both of which are struggling with admin retention (enwiki somewhat has solved this through AELECT, which is really a bandaid solution to a problem created by their own community being needlessly strict). //shb (t | c | m) 10:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where does the idea that 2,000 edits and 2 years are required come from? I've been on this site and its predecessor for at least 20 years and don't remember any such unwritten rule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the security concerns are a bit overblown – if something really bad happens with an admin, the option for an emergency desysop is always there. That's not to say that we should elect rookie editors as admins, but it's not as bad as it might seem. //shb (t | c | m) 10:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: WhatamIdoing wrote that few days ago. They were the only person who responded with actual numbers in mind. Here are several, unsuccessful nomination benchmarks along with outcomes (skipping over sockpuppets and eventual LTAs):

Unsuccessful RfAs and account outcomes (edit counts and account age are at the time of RfA)

Account	# of edits (approx.)	Account age	Outcome after unsuccessful RfA
#1	1800 edits	6 months	substantial dropoff and essentially stopped 5 months after
#2	700 mainspace + 2400 userspace edits for drafting	1.5 years	editing stopped 2 months after
#3	450 edits	11 months	editing essentially stopped 7 months after
#4	5800 edits	1.5 years	editing continued, though far less active than before RfA

From the limited sample size, we have a 75% chance of losing the editor within 6 months after their failed RfA. We got to do better. And judging from account #1's RFA in 2022 in the table, it appears that our community does think 2000 edits and 2 years is the comfort threshold to support an RfA. I understand it's not an easy topic to bring up, but it is time that we loosen up the criteria. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:39, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should still have the threshold high enough that no LTA is tempted to try to get promoted. I didn't dig deep enough in the archives to find the two unsuccessful nominations – what level of experience did they have? A few months of editing might be enough if they really have shown that they understand site policy and ability to work well with the community, but that requires quite enthusiastic engagement with the site. Three months and 300 edits would hardly suffice in my book. –LPfi (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Right. 6 months or so of really great editing that showed real knowledge of Wikivoyage policy and practice and at least something over 500 edits could be sufficient. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah no I agree – anything under 6 months is way too short in my opinion. That's not really enough time to actually get a proper grasp and understanding of Wikivoyage policies and practices. //shb (t | c | m) 12:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 Please see my latest, added table above. The 6 months suggestion seem to be invalidated by 4 failed RfAs. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is the theory-vs-data problem. Yes: in theory, under some unusual circumstances, a couple of editors would support an RFA candidate with only six months of "really great editing". If we say six months, and someone tries at six months, they might get support from those couple of people, but the RFA is going to fail overall, and they're going to feel rejected by this community.

I suggest that we do two things:

• Provide actual data to potential candidates. It might sound like "In theory, if your contributions are stellar, then you could become an admin with just a few hundred edits and six months' experience. However, in practice, most candidates with less than 2,000 edits or less than two years' contribution here tend not to get elected." If we think that we have a problem with a requirement ratchet (the standards creep a little higher every year), then we could even add a sentence saying that we discourage voters from imposing higher expectations for volume and tenure.
• Actively search for candidates. One step is to search for people with 500 edits + six months experience and put them on the autopatrolled list; another is to actively search the autopatrolled list for potential admin candidates and beg them to become an admin. This might be best done with a little off-wiki coordination, so you don't invited a doomed candidate, but most people don't run because they weren't invited to. (Also: not me, thanks.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

These are good suggestions that we can explore to implement. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't agree that the 6 months suggestion is invalidated by the 4 failed RfAs that you cited. Each case is individual. But I do agree that we have usually wanted people to edit for a year before becoming admins. I'd point to User:Rschen7754 as a notable exception, though under special circumstances. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that the "general purpose" documentation should say 6 months, if (as appears to be the case ) less than 2 years has only been successful in recent years under "special circumstances" (usually of the technical variety: example, example). We can say that special circumstances may exist, without misleading anyone into thinking that less than two years is at all normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

(Also FYI I had admin activity reviews planned tomorrow to be handled on July 1, almost exactly a year after last year's removals) //shb (t | c | m) 10:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

None of those folks should have been made admins. Do you want to argue for any of them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not re-litigating RfAs on their merits. I'm pointing out that after they failed RfAs, most of them quit. Do we really want to create a "do or die" atmosphere at RfA? Two of the four continue to contribute in other WMF projects, which is an indication that setting high standards for adminship does not address the admin deficit, but also causes regular contributors who failed RfA to find other things to edit (just not on Wikivoyage). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's unfortunate that people who are nominated for admin and not confirmed would choose to stop editing on Wikivoyage, but I refer you to User talk:KevRobbAU to see how they absolutely never should have been given any special powers. As for the other cases, what they choose to do after not being confirmed is no indication that the decision was a mistake, and we have no control over that. So what are you suggesting? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion to improve the overall RfA experience (aside from lowering the standard) is to offer advice on how they can improve after their unsuccessful attempt. None of my 4 examples showed instant dropoff, but rather a slow fade into disappearance. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you point to relevant examples where we didn't do that, should have, and how we should have done that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I want to focus on improving the overall atmosphere and not fixated on a particular editor. But since you insist on a specific example, #1 (User:Tai123.123) falls under this category. They were invited to apply, accepted, and ended up with non-promotion that I would characterize as near-miss (2 support and 2 neutral, 0 oppose). Aside from a few comments within the RfA that advised the nominee to edit more, there was no other feedback provided to the editor. In enwp, there was feedback on how I can improve in preparation for next nomination. Did we do that here? No, there was nothing said to the editor about this process on the usertalk page. As a matter of fact, we didn't even write a "thanks for putting yourself forward for nomination" message on their talk page or any other "not yet" closes. We can do this as a starting point. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was surprised to see myself pinged here considering I've not been active for a couple of years. I remember when I was norminated and being somewhat disappointed (though understanding why it didn't) when it didn't go through, I think my dissapearance from the site was mostly due to other factors (starting at a new university) but I think if I felt like I had a commitment to the site I might've kept some level of activity (probably not writing stuff but I did like the small bits of administration with the front page I did). I think my dissapearance from editing came less from anything about this site itself more just that I found new interests and had no commitments to keep me here. I'm now wondering if my life would be different if it went through, if I'd still be editing here.

Anyway, thanks for the ping (even though the intention probably wasn't to ping me), I enjoyed reading the discussion and remember interacting with a lot of you in like 2021. Those days where I was filled with wanderlust after the pandemic feel so distant, so thanks for the blast from the past. I hope you're all doing well, and the site is running fine. I still check Wikivoyage when planning trips.

Cheers! Tai123.123 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, I misremembered and actually did support Tai's nomination for admin. I kind of feel like they were given a roadmap for a possible if not probable success on a rehearing later, but I was concerned at the time about a lack of participation in the discussion, which I think showed that not enough people were familiar with their work. What more do you or@Tai123.123 feel we could have said or done? I read the Wikipedia thread you linked, and I saw a

mention of coaching for prospective admins. How do they do that, and how is it organized? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's mostly informal, and AFAICT done by people who either have a lot of practical experience with the RFA process, or at least think they do. If you ask, someone will look through your edits and suggest, e.g., that you get more experience with AFD, and specifically that you go !vote in a hundred obvious AFDs, and do a few dozen completely obvious non-admin 'keep' closures, so that your agreeing-with-the-outcome stats will be pretty. Or they'll say that you don't spend time on noticeboards, so you should go answer obvious questions at one. (They never recommend that you take an unpopular stand or do anything controversial, because being agreeable is more likely to win AFD than being right.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the more important thing is: Here, everybody knows your name. Admins are elected because we know you. We don't need a statistical analysis of your views on deletion or reverting spammers or whatever, because we already know you. The advice here would probably be the same for everyone: Make sure you're visibly checking Special:RecentChanges every day, make sure you're posting at the pub every week, and make sure that you show our laid-back, calm, we're-all-capable-adults-here vibe (e.g., no screaming at the touters; just revert them, leave a polite note, and move on). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you've hit on the heart of it, when you say "everybody knows your name." That doesn't require 2 years of editing, and I'd oppose stating that being an admin usually requires anything other than "more than 1 year of editing, including participation on policy and organizational discussions, and a reputation for being dependable and reasonable". I think it's fine for people to speak their minds on matters of policy and organization, as long as they don't advocate viewpoints that personally offend people and remain respectful and willing to work within consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that "more than 1 year" would be an improvement on the "few months" that we've got now, and that the participation and reputation points would be helpful to people who would like to become admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you've nailed it perfectly with "it's fine for people to speak their minds on matters of policy and organization, as long as they don't advocate viewpoints that personally offend people and remain respectful and willing to work within consensus" – I would argue that it's we want people to have different viewpoints and healthy disagreement. I can list quite a few wikis where this is unfortunately not the case, which ends up resulting in those wikis becoming cabals (kawiki, eswikivoyage, ttwiki, anwiki...the last one was particularly egregious). That's not to say there should always be disagreement (otherwise you'll end up on the other side of the spectrum like azwiki, uzwiki or Commons), but there's a healthy level of balance that this wiki (and I guess all English-language projects) achieve quite well. //shb (t | c | m) 12:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've been active for two years, with a few thousand edits, right in the middle range being discussed. I find picking at wikis to be much healthier than doomscrolling. Nobody has told me off on anything I've done here so far. I'm open to mundane janitorial roles that I can do for 5-20 minutes a day, 2-5 days a week.

I'm watching this discussion. I'm fine keeping on with shepherding the destinations I know and copyediting neglected pages, but if there's a need for something else, what do you all suggest for me? Gerode (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gerode would highly recommend self-nominating yourself at WV:URN! I think you'd make for a great admin (only reason why I would slightly hesitate nominating is because I'd like to close that discussion – though I suppose this community doesn't really care about that so much but yk...). //shb (t | c | m) 21:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Gerode, I'm also inclined support you for admin. Thanks for offering! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

actually yk what...since I have the time rn and that RfAs feel like they take 1 million years, I'll start to get the ball rolling while I have a fair bit of spare time tonight. //shb (t | c | m) 11:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

btw are there any other takers willing to become admins? Mrkstvns, Andree.sk, Brycehughes perhaps? //shb (t | c | m) 12:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would be willing to pitch in, though I try to limit my daily activity here so I can have a life for things I enjoy. Like traveling. Cheersǃ Mrkstvns (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine RN, doing the technical stuff only, I think I wouldn't have the patience to be kind to vandals:-))) also I'm not that good with local process knowledge... If you guys are seriously understaffed, I can try it, but like Mrkstvns above, I'm trying to limit the activity here too... -- andree 19:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is there anything you can't do at the moment, that might be useful for you? For example, does any of your technical work require you to look at deleted pages, or would being able to delete a page make you able to clean up after yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not really, in the end I think I need to improve my wiki development methods, rather than get more permissions :) Cleanup would be nice, but it's not really critical for me - I don't put sensitive stuff here. But it is annoying to see my lame-ish attempts in the logs, hopefully not too many people inspect that... :-D -- andree 19:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm sort of in the same boat as andree. Happy to help out if you're in a jam, but I'm not sure I have the temperament for adminship... I almost never look at my watchlist and I have a habit of disappearing for months at a time. Brycehughes (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• I'm an admin at Wikipedia, but I have less than 300 edits at Wikivoyage so I don't suppose it would be a good idea for me to self-nominate at WV now. Before I nominated myself for admin at WP I was a regular at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion which helped establish myself as a potential admin. But I don't know what would be a comparable process at WV for me to participate in to that degree. Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion has had fewer nominations this whole year than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion gets in one day, so there's much less opportunity to gain experience participating that way here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  The upside of being a small wiki is that you'll likely come across the same Wikivoyagers a lot, so if you participate in various areas of the project, people will get to know you and your contributions should speak for themselves. As for ideas of where to contribute, keep an eye on the Pub (this page), WV:RFC and WV:Destination of the month.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion at Talk:Trip_Planner#h-UI_problems-20260616201300, it appears not entirely clear whether or not there is consensus to have the Trip Planner enabled for all users as a default. How do you all feel? Sdkb ^talk 17:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Don't want to derail this but for some reason it always tells me I'm logged out when I click on it. Brycehughes (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have no issue with it being enabled for all users by default. Tripadvisor already offers its AI trip planner service right on its main page with no login required. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Me neither – it should be something more widely available, but I think Jdlrobson mentioned that there was some issue with the number of API calls or something like that? (were the planner to become default for logged out users) //shb (t | c | m) 00:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

So you see the top icon, it opens the small gadget - but Trip Planner shows you "If you see this message, the Trip Planner is either loading or you are logged out. This feature is only available for logged-in users (creating an account to use this feature is simple and quick)." ? Could you check browser console for any errors? -- andree 17:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Moving this to your talk page. Brycehughes (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have strong reservations about enabling this feature by default for anonymous readers without supporting data. In my professional experience with large-scale platforms, unvalidated features can frequently have a net-negative impact on user engagement and retention. Any decision here should be data-driven rather than consensus-driven; it is important to remember that active editors like ourselves do not represent the average reader.

Before rolling this out widely, i would highly urge you consider:

• Data & Instrumentation: What data do we have to show that general readers (e.g. not active in Travellers pub) actually want or need this feature? For users who already have access, what percentage of logged-in users have actively opted out of the gadget? How does this affect user behavior?
• Design & Consistency: The UI currently feels inconsistent with our existing design system and styling guidelines. It needs further refinement to match the visual standards of the rest of the site.
• Performance & Core Web Vitals: More critically, the implementation causes noticeable repaints and layout shifts. Because of the limitations of the gadget system, this will negatively impact our Core Web Vitals, which directly risks our search ranking and organic traffic over time.

Jdlrobson (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

What can we do to get some usable data?

What can we do to mitigate the SEO risks? SEO is important to this community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious about 2 specifically – on one hand, yes, it does somewhat have a bit of a mildly dated look, it doesn't feel all that much different to how the listing editor used to look some years back. //shb (t | c | m) 12:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, Jdlrobson, did you write that list of considerations using AI? I'm not accusing you of such, but I will say the text highly reads like it. If it is, I'm not sure how many of them are actual concerns – particularly the third one (how does layout shifts end up affecting SEO???). //shb (t | c | m) 12:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

How does asking someone whether they used AI to voice their concerns move the conversation forward? So what if they did? You think they didn't bother to read it before posting it? This isn't article space. Brycehughes (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Because a) using AI to write your comments for you is plain lazy and outright rude (related essay, though not quite the same topic) and b) AI has the ability to hallucinate that the comment loses credibility were it to be AI-generated. //shb (t | c | m) 13:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with (a) as applied generally (though I empathize with your gripe in that specific case) and re (b) if the user reads and is happy with the AI's work, then what difference does it make for a talk page comment? I don't want to derail this (again) but AI is for better or worse embedded in a lot of people's workflows these days, accusing people of using AI (on talk pages) is a waste of time and inhibits problem resolution, and in most cases we should just let it go. Brycehughes (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The question was perhaps derailing but the issue is real. The AI-like style is highly disrupting, whether one used AI or not. An AI-style comment also makes readers wonder whether the content was intended or partly made up by the AI. –LPfi (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Again, my point is, what does this matter? Assuming they used AI (perhaps they did not), why is this disrupting? This is a software development question, a field where AI has proven to be extremely useful, and if they used AI to perform an analysis, well then more power to them. If we want to have a widget thrust out to the larger audience, then it should pass muster with AI. The reflexive dismissal of AI critique is akin to an ad hominem defense of any critique. Respond to the content, not the creator. Brycehughes (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This thread is not on the gadget talk page, where the technical issues should be discussed, but in the pub, and the question was whether is should be enabled by default. Thus, ordinary Wikivoyagers should be able to follow. Headings like "Data & Instrumentation", "Design & Consistency" and "Performance & Core Web Vitals" are highly disruptive when posted here. I'd hope humans would understand that.

There is no problem with somebody having an AI perform an analysis, but the results should be reported in a form suitable for the forum where they are presented. If you want to quote the AI, do so, but provide the context yourself and attribute the quote.

–LPfi (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

These seem like highly normal things that should be discussed here when deciding whether a software widget should be broadcast. I didn't realize the pub was a dumbed down setting. Brycehughes (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But those AI-like bullet headings are unneeded. What do you lose by removing them. We don't need headings in a posting of four short paragraphs. In a context where they are well-known jargon, they may help people get the right associations right away, but here they are disruptive. Am I dumb because I don't like bolded headings in a four-paragraph posting? –LPfi (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what "Core Web Vitals" means. That's jargon, which should be avoided here. –LPfi (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do understand "the implementation causes noticeable repaints and layout shifts". Instead of referring to the "vitals" one could say "such issues have a negative effect on our rating". Perhaps even +"through the 'Core Web Vitals'" if that seems useful. –LPfi (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Eh. You can't wrap your head around "core web vitals"? Their points were fine. Brycehughes (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that using "headings" (you meant the non-heading use of bold for emphasis?) is highly disruptive. I also disagree that using AI is "plain lazy and outright rude". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

About "how does layout shifts end up affecting SEO?": That bullet is about performance and CWV. I think the layout shifts sentence is about degrading performance, and "the limitations of the gadget system" are about the CWV part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we can move this part of the discussion back to Talk:Trip_Planner. I'd also love to hear what esp. the last part actually means (@Jdlrobson) - I'm trying to make the gadget as unobtrusive as possible, but obviously I am not CEO expert. If there's a better way to do some UI stuff, I'm all for it! -- andree 06:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've left some feedback on Talk:Trip_Planner @Andree.sk. Hope it's all helpful and answers some of the questions on this thread. We can keep this technical conversation there.

Regarding the AI side-chat, personally, I feel really discouraged and disappointed by this exchange. I was directly asked a question and provided my answer despite struggling to find time for my Wikivoyage commitments. I will be stepping away for a bit longer after this exchange.

There is a certain irony about gatekeeping AI-assisted messages for enabling a tool which was built with AI assistance.

One of the more important lessons I have learned through travel is to be respectful and not to make assumptions about people's motives and intent. Note, you could be discriminating against someone who doesn't have English as a first language or unintentionally contributing to gender bias.

AI is not going away any time soon, and the newer generation of contributors is more likely to be using it whether you like it or not. Perhaps prioritizing/accelerating discussion of a AI policy could be a way to get a shared understanding or what's acceptable, and eliminating misinformed and outdated biases. Jdlrobson (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's also the problem of AI detectors incorrectly "detecting" AI use when the text was written by an autistic editor, and the wikis have a lot of autistic editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I for one don't mind AI-generated text (indeed esp. when the code generation is AI-assisted), as long as it represents authors opinion/ideas. I already saw it on github in discussion etc., it's probably better than no comments at all. So thanks also for your feedback, I'll for sure let my AI credits work on it! :))) -- andree 04:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that I contributed to the discouragement; I value your contributions. I might have been biased because of somebody, probably a troll, using AI style in their postings. A single AI-assisted post is no big deal, but I do think that writing what you want to say by yourself is valuable, and I don't want people in general to use AIs instead. Of course, if your English is weak or there are other special circumstances, the AI assistance might be warranted. Still, people contributing here should know English well enough to express themselves intelligible, with some follow-up questions for clarification if needed. –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts are mostly with LPfi and I too apologise if my comments seemed discouraging...but Jon, while I fully appreciate the work you do and I also don't want to further discourage you, what else were you expecting when you outsourced your reply to a computer? You're lucky that the proposed AI guidelines have yet to be adopted (which would've fully prohibited that), but getting a visceral reaction to AI comments is really not something unique to Wikivoyage or most Wikimedia projects for that matter (ahem, Windows 11 and Copilot, or the common struggle of AI chatbots taking over help pages of websites). //shb (t | c | m) 12:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I imagine that he was thinking that he had important facts to contribute, and that getting that information to us sooner instead of later would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Public privately-owned spaces in New York City: https://craigmod.com/ridgeline/230/
• A new hiking trail in Japan: https://www.fieldmag.com/articles/katsuo-trail-japan-hiking-guide

―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikivoyage team, I kindly request for permission for a wikivoyage training for my community members at African and Proud community. Linason Blessing (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Linason Blessing: Hey, thanks for letting the community know – do you have any page on Meta-Wiki for which community needs training? I'm a bit short on time these few weeks, but Wikivoyage:Tips for new contributors and Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians are always good places to start. If you're running an event, also see Wikivoyage:Welcome, event organizers. //shb (t | c | m) 12:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Linason Blessing, thanks very much for the request. I wouldn't have time to do a video chat or something like that, but I'd be happy to give a short introduction in writing and answer any questions anyone has. Is there a good page for me to do that on?

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

This is the link to the community page African and Proud Linason Blessing (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

(m:African & Proud (AP), in case the above link doesn't work) – btw thanks for sharing the page. I'll take a look at it when I get some spare time. //shb (t | c | m) 11:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Would you like to start a thread on the talk page, so that people notice it? Then, I'd be happy to reply to it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The first thing to do is to improve a favorite article yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing is right. @Linason Blessing, the best way you can learn how Wikivoyage works is to read the links User:SHB2000 gave you and then edit the article about wherever you live or most like to visit and see how the rest of us respond and make further edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Two pages you & your trainees should look at are Wikivoyage:Tips for new contributors & Wikivoyage:Africa Expedition. Pashley (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Legal & Safety Contacts

Hello community, the Wikimedia Foundation has provided a single legal and safety contact page, to be linked in the footer of your wiki, to ensure access to accurate legal information. This is a regulatory requirement. We have already rolled out links to English, German, Italian, Spanish and other wikis and we will deploy to your wiki soon. Please read more on the project page and leave any comments in this thread or on the talk page.

-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sannita (WMF), what kinds of web pages require these kinds of footers? Only those open to editing by all users, or at least not websites only the owner can edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd assume it's the MediaWiki page to edit the footer, which I'm not sure has been created on this wiki (since I can't find the name of it). shb (t | c | m) 23:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You cannot locally edit the footer: it's determined by a server setting. No user of this wiki can directly edit this without server access. It will be added by WMF staffers at some point across all pages in this and other WMF wikis. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Understood. My question is much more general, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek all Wikimedia projects webpages will receive the link in the footer. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@STei (WMF), I understand. What I'm asking is: Which kinds of websites are legally required to use such footers outside of Wikimedia? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The WMF will not answer that question, because that might be perceived as giving legal advice. AIUI the answer is more or less "any large website that operates in Europe". AFAICT that the exact method is not prescribed, and a link to an ordinary "Contact Us" page will suffice in most cases. It has to be easy to find a way to contact the business/website operator if someone encounters a serious problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @WhatamIdoing. That's clear enough for me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not just the large websites, actually! See e.g. Article 5 of the EU eCommerce Directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/31/2024-02-17/eng#art_5

But we also think this helps people get the right kind of help they need with certain issues. PBradley-WMF (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if this is an article worth creating given that we have quite a number of Canadian editors here. Quebec of course has its own unique cuisine, but even within English-speaking Canada, there are some regional dishes that are not easily found in other parts of the country. For instance, when I went to Vancouver, I remember this drink called the London fog (essentially an earl grey latte) was sold in virtually every coffee shop, but I did not encounter that drink at coffee shops in Toronto, which leads me to think that is a Vancouver specialty. Even the ice cream shops in Vancouver almost always have London fog as a flavour. The dog2 (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

You mean there's more to Canadian cuisine than the bland donuts and watery coffee sold by Tim Hortons? Who knew?! Mrkstvns (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

+1 to this. //shb (t | c | m) 23:49, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm open to it, Canada#Eat isn't too big yet but it easily could be if you have a lot to add. London Fog has recently become popular across the border in Seattle too, it looks like it started north and is spreading south! Gerode (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Toronto has the peameal bacon sandwich, which is a simple and hearty dish. And unfortunately I didn't get to try it, but apparently they have their own version of roti shaped by immigration of East Indians from the Caribbean. The dog2 (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

That bacon sandwich is yummy! There's a fair few BC regional foods that could be mentioned: salmon in general but particularly sockeye, albacore tuna, spot prawns, california and BC sushi rolls, Nanaimo bars, Okanagan wine, peaches, cherries... Canada has also invented a bunch of ice cream and potato chip flavours that are unheard of or usual elsewhere. Moon mist or tiger tail, anyone? How about some all-dressed Ruffles? Good suggestion for an article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Consider what cuisine content is best placed in Canada/Eat, or might be better developed on a regional or city page and cross-referenced. Perhaps readers would benefit more from signposting of content that’s already there, than from a new stand-alone page. The fast-food chains certainly need a brief mention: on a long drive, Timmie’s could literally be a life-saver. Grahamsands (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Certainly valid counterpoints. There's already a Fast food in the United States and Canada, though that looks overlong to me and not sure how useful it really is for the driving situation you mention.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it's definitely worth creating. I loved the food when I spent some time in Ontario a few years ago. It's probably one of the most under-rated cuisine out there. WikiSeto (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Canadian food is not just fast food though. The ethnic restaurants in Toronto and Vancouver are also sources of innovation where you can find locally adapted dishes. Vancouver has its own style of sushi called the B.C. roll for instance, and even the California roll originated in Vancouver, not California. The dog2 (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This art project refers to several distinctively Canadian foods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@DumagueteAAMeetings: has added info on Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in the Dumaguete article & those edits have been reverted. See User talk:DumagueteAAMeetings for discussion. In my view the reversions make sense; this is not really travel information. On the other hand I've seen both expats & tourists in Duma who, judging by the amounts they imbibe, might benefit from AA.

Should we have a general article on finding various services abroad? We do have some info on other services; for example there is info on schools at Working_abroad#Children & this under Retiring_abroad#Financial_matters

If you have children who are still of school age when you retire, the need to educate them may affect both your budget and your choice of destination. There are international schools in many places, mainly for the children of expatriate employees of government and large corporations. These are usually quite good but they are not available in all destinations and they tend to be very expensive; most parents do not care because an employer foots the bill, and the employers do not care much since it is a necessary business expense. There is a directory at Council of International Schools.

Some of this involves duplication & much of it might apply in other articles. Should we centralise it in one place?

I'm inclined to think not because we do not want to become a yellow pages & to some extent this is Captain Obvious; if you need AA somewhere, check the AA web site. Also it would be tricky to define a scope for such an article, useful but not cluttered. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Does the scope of Wikivoyage extend to ex-pats or just to travellers? Martinvl (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

While most of the travel guide is written with "I am visiting place for a short period", we do have longer-term pieces like Expat taxation in Europe, Retiring abroad, and Working abroad, which aren't really about vacations. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Maybe it can merit a passing mention, but the nature of Wikivoyage doesn't really orient towards expats beyond the topic articles mentioned by Justin. //shb (t | c | m) 00:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm torn on this, because travellers do need AA meetings, including short-term travellers. However, I also think that Pashely is correct: if you need AA somewhere, you probably already know that you can check the AA website. It might be good to provide some information in a more general way, possibly as a section in Alcoholic beverages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The question of scope has been extensively discussed before; see Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?/Archive_2003-2013#Scope. Pashley (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is where I'm at too. Putting all our AA details at the bottom of the Alcoholic beverages article that's otherwise about enjoying alcohol is problematic, but I think an article like Sobriety abroad would be in scope for WV, and would be easy to link to from party destinations. Gerode (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think we could very well have a paragraph on the addiction issues and a link to AA.org (with a note on finding the links to local associations). We already have quite extensive Stay safe, Stay healthy, Respect and Stay legal sections – and I don't think "all our AA details" amounts to more than a few sentences. We don't need to pretend that enjoying alcohol is unproblematic. You don't need to think about those sections when reading the rest of the article, but they should indeed be there, like Stay safe sections on mountaineering and water sports. Of course, if the travel topic gets written, most content on sobriety can be offloaded to there. –LPfi (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It looks like we introduced Wikivoyage:Travel Tracker in April, which appears via "My Travel Map" in the user menu at top right. I clicked and tried it out, only to realize too late that it logs a public edit with my choices. Given how some countries have been known to ban travelers who have visited other countries with which they have disputes, this seems like exceptionally bad information to be making public. And it's far worse when there is no warning whatsoever to users that the information is going to be logged publicly (in contrast to what they might expect for a similar feature on any other site).

Sorry to be going on a rampage through all the Wikivoyage gadgets recently, but given the Wikimedia movement's focus on privacy, I think we ought to disable the gadget as a default unless this can be fixed. There needs to at minimum be a prominent warning, but even with that some users may gloss over it or not fully realize the privacy implications. Sdkb ^talk 23:33, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

In much smaller issues, my other suggestions from having tried the feature:

• There should be a link to the documentation/feedback page; the only way I found Wikivoyage:Travel Tracker was by noticing the edit history, and it took a bit.
• The outlines around the countries include the countries' water territory, which makes many look like blobs. I would use the land territory only.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

IMO, I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption, if you're editing a wiki, that if you're going to hit the publish changes button, it probably will be published on-wiki. Though I see xaos has fixed this in Special:Diff/216812 and probably agree it could do with a better warning (which I'll do once I have my second factor with me).

On the other hand, regarding "some countries have been known to ban travelers who have visited other countries with which they have disputes" – how many countries still do this nowadays for this to be a concern? The only one I'm aware of is several MENA countries (mainly Lebanon and Syria) banning people with Israeli stamps or visas, but that's really hard to enforce nowadays. Serbia only annuals Kosovo stamps (but they don't outright prohibit you), and Azerbaijan only does so if you have Artsakh stamps (which are no longer a thing since the country doesn't exist anymore). //shb (t | c | m) 00:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't recommend trying to get into the U.S., nowadays, with stamps from Iran, North Korea, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Iran and NK thankfully don't give passport stamps anymore (though iirc visiting there does invalidate your visa waiver eligibility?). //shb (t | c | m) 00:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

American here: I can't in good conscience recommend that anyone come to the United States now, until we decide that we just don't like fascism that much. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption, if you're editing a wiki, that if you're going to hit the publish changes button, it probably will be published on-wiki This is a reasonable assumption for people who know how wikis work, so you could argue that I should have known better. But non-editors expect our site to work the same as other sites on the internet, in which a feature like that would be private. They likely don't realize that interacting with the gadget and saving their map results in an edit at all, let alone that the edit would be public.

Doing some spot checks, many of the users of the gadget have <30 edits. In addition to whatever we decide here, we owe all of them a talk page message explaining that their map is public and how to oversight it if they don't want it to be. Sdkb ^talk 03:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

"But non-editors expect our site to work the same as other sites on the internet, in which a feature like that would be private. They likely don't realize that interacting with the gadget and saving their map results in an edit at all" – this feature being public isn't unique to Wikivoyage either. Both Jetpunk and this feature from cmoreira (the two most prominent web country trackers on the web that I've seen people actually use widespread), also have this public. This is really not something unique to Wikivoyage. And quite frankly the privacy concerns are massively overblown – where you've visited doesn't tell all that much (and isn't PII by any means to warrant OS). //shb (t | c | m) 04:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked at Jetpunk, but for cmoreira, it looks like it's public only in the sense that it generates a URL you can share. But there's no realistic way to access a URL unless you share it, and it's not tied to an account that might be under your name/have other edits, which makes it a totally different situation. In general, on the internet, features where you just "save" something (as opposed to "posting") are assumed to be private. Sdkb ^talk 04:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just because the internet normalises something doesn't necessarily mean it's a privacy issue on a venue where things work differently (especially on public wikis where almost everything is public and visible). Do we then ban userpages because someone someone might think it's private? What makes this different from quite frankly any userspace page? //shb (t | c | m) 04:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can we change the button from "Save changes" to "Publish changes"?

If you save your map, there isn't the caution that appears next normal text edits: "By clicking the "Publish changes" button, you agree to the Terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 License. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." This should probably also be added. AlasdairW (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done (though we use 3.0, not 4.0). //shb (t | c | m) 10:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.

I think we have an inconsistency in our license text - the bottom of a page says 3.0, but the warning when you edit says 4.0. When I have more time I will investigate further. AlasdairW (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there's privacy concern, but it's vastly overblown. We have the Commons app which reveals an editor's precise date, time and location in metadata whenever they upload a photo. That is far more precise than an editor self-selecting the list of countries on the travel map which may or may not be accurate, and the travel occurred at some unspecified time in the past. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that's more an inditement of the privacy issues with Commons than it is a defense of My Travel Map — I distinctly recall realizing that I had accidentally revealed my then-home address through a Commons upload and having to have it OSed. But the key difference to me is that, by uploading a file to Commons, there is a clear understanding that a user is publishing information publicly, whereas for My Travel Map there was no indication of that.

The By clicking the "Publish changes" button, you agree to the Terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. text that Xaosflux added doesn't really help much — it's legalese that already appeared in the grey box, now just copied and made larger/italicized. I'd prefer to see a more plain-language disclaimer along the lines of Your edits to your map are public and will be permanently associated with your account. That might scare off some users, but, well, it ought to. Sdkb ^talk 19:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sdkb I'm pretty sure I went through the workflow that allowed creating a revision without ever getting the terms of use before. Are you sure this is redundant? Xaosflux (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, this does seem redundant now - let me check, I certainly did NOT try to make it redundant. Xaosflux (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK, it seems that someone else added the "redundant" version, see here. It certainly does not need the TOS/Copyright twice. Xaosflux (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah, sorry I flipped the timeline. Using small text/gray for the legal notice seems preferable, so I'd be inclined to change the spot where you added to the text I proposed above. Thoughts on that? Sdkb ^talk 16:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Xaosflux (or @WhatamIdoing, as you propose a similar thing below), seeing no objections, could you implement? Sdkb ^talk 14:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sdkb I removed the duplicate disclaimer, and updated the remaining one to match CC-BY-SA-4 as used on the rest of the site. Xaosflux (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would it make sense to add the extension https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DeleteUserPages here, so that users could remove their pages (I guess including history)? I would welcome this... -- andree 08:44, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've not been a fan of that extension for two reasons: a) user talk pages are almost never deleted on Wikivoyage, not even on user request (unless it has OS material), and having this extension prevents someone actually familiar with policies double checking; b) this allows banned or blocked users to delete their own userpages with nothing stopping them. //shb (t | c | m) 10:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It would solve the current topic - plus I don't see why we should force users to keep their userpages around. I would expect the admins can still access the content? -- andree 12:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here is a draft of a MassMessage that could be sent to the 151 affected users:

Heading: Your privacy and use of the Travel Tracker

Message: In April, Wikivoyage introduced the Travel Tracker (also known as "My Travel Map") in the user menu at top right. It has recently come to our attention that the initial version of the tool did not make clear that maps created through it are public and are associated with your account. You are among the users who used the tool and published a map. If you wish to have your map deleted, you may do so by emailing a request for oversight. We apologize for this matter.

How does that sound? Sdkb ^talk 20:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I oppose a massmessage – this is an overblown concern for something that was pretty obvious for a wiki. And once again, I fail to see how this constitutes as PII. //shb (t | c | m) 22:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A massmessage is ok as the initial version of the tool was misleading, but I don't think that oversight is required. "If you wish to have your map deleted, use the Edit tab on the map page and add {{speedy}} ." AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This quite frankly isn't an appropriate use of massmessage and I would argue a massmessage like this needs broader discussion and consensus. I still fail to see how the tool was misleading (this is a wiki – anyone should know that almost nothing is "private" on a wiki) or even how this is a privacy concern beyond the very obvious fearmongering for concerns that are almost non-existent in today's world. //shb (t | c | m) 22:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The point is that not everything you do is publicly logged. We don't publicly log the pages you visit, for one. Some tools save their data on the user's computer, and this could very well have worked that way. I don't buy that privacy isn't a concern because this is a wiki. Rather the opposite – the WMF sites respect privacy much more than most other sites, which raises expectations. And the map really is problematic if you didn't intend to do that info public. –LPfi (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

None of this answered any of my points of how this is a privacy concern. //shb (t | c | m) 23:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

anyone should know that almost nothing is "private" on a wiki I think you vastly overestimate how informed most internet users are — if you asked the average person on the street what a wiki is, I think you'd get answers like "a shorthand for Wikipedia". New users on Wikipedia quite often do not realize that their contribution history is logged.

And there's a difference between knowing that most edits on a wiki are public and realizing that this particular feature that might be private on a typical website is public plus connecting that mentally to a privacy concern. Remember, I didn't start this thread because of a hypothetical; I initially failed to make that last connection myself. If you'd asked me before I used the tool whether it would make a public edit, I'd probably have guessed yes, but without that prompt I tried out the feature before I realized "oh, that probably made an edit publishing personal info." If that's my experience as someone with 80,000 edits, I don't think it's at all safe to assume that a user with 10 edits will think better. Sdkb ^talk 00:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay but you still haven’t answered how this is a legitimate privacy concern. //shb (t | c | m) 03:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's rare that any one piece of information alone creates a privacy risk, but when you combine a list of countries someone has traveled to with other info they might have disclosed on-wiki (voluntarily or accidentally), there are risks. I don't want to get too detailed per w:WP:BEANS. Also, different users have different thresholds for how much they're willing to disclose. It's better to be safe than sorry, so we should err on the side of informing the affected users so that they can decide for themselves whether to leave their map up or not. Sdkb ^talk 03:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

One thing is telling about one's visits to 'suspect' countries to border authorities of countries like the US (that was the original worry above), another that a travel map may tell the real identity of an anonymous account to those knowing them IRL. I assume there are more.

The message in itself has the issue that telling that there is a possible privacy issue makes exploiting the breach more likely. Somebody else may notice the message before the user themself does, somebody who might not have known about it formerly.

–LPfi (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you've been to certain suspect countries that the US lists, that invalidates your ESTA, meaning you'd need to notify US authorities before getting a visa anyway. Openly listing where you've been doesn't really change that. //shb (t | c | m) 07:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sdkb: "I don't want to get too detailed per w:WP:BEANS" – unless you actually explain what it is, I really don't buy your concerns. If you disclose personal info about yourself on-wiki, that's really on you; there's only so much babysitting the community can do (for things you disclosed yourself). And even then, where in the world does such a map even create a privacy and/or security risk? //shb (t | c | m) 07:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It does not appear that you are going to be persuaded (and I should note for anyone unaware that you are the gadget's author, if I'm reading the history correctly). It appears that the prevailing consensus in this subthread is supportive of a message, although I'd like to hear from a few more editors to make it clearer. Sdkb ^talk 16:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

A consensus is when a general opinion has been reached. Whether I'm the gadget's author or not is irrelevant. Every time I ask you what the specific "security" risk is, you either deflect the point completely (with some fearmongering and info that no longer holds true), or completely refuse to answer. Until that has actually been properly answered, that is not a consensus. //shb (t | c | m) 22:23, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

SHB, I'd say that "If you knowingly disclose personal info about yourself on-wiki, that's really on you". If you disclose it because you didn't understand that it would be public, then that's really on the people who created a tool that doesn't adequately explain what happens to the data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That statement was regarding "with other info they might have disclosed on-wiki (voluntarily or accidentally)" (emphasis mine), which has nothing to do with the tool – I still stand by that statement, because the responsibility of disclosing info about yourself (in places like userpages and comments) is absolutely on you. //shb (t | c | m) 22:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Combined with". Of course the tool is relevant, if it adds the missing pieces. If I tell secrets about myself anonymously somewhere and the tool allows connecting them to me, that's a problem, as is if I have disclosed my identity, and the tool discloses the destinations I wish to keep secret.

Our difference of views boils down to whether people using the tool should understand that their usage is public, and whether their possible failure of doing so is none of our business. The former is about how much people actually understand (we think you overestimate that), the latter about one's responsibility when handing over a loaded gun, and is a more ethical question.

–LPfi (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you perfectly said it yourself: "if it adds the missing pieces" – the keyword being "if". However, in almost all cases, where you've visited isn't useful info to piece whom your identity is – in the rare instance (which I'd put it at under 1%) half your map is shaded, it might reveal what you do for a living, but in the vast majority of cases it's useless. I would argue that your edit history on-wiki (particularly the destinations you edit) tell much more personally identifiable information than what the travel tracker can ever piece about you. //shb (t | c | m) 08:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think Sdkb is correct about editors overestimating what the public understands about WMF-hosted wikis. There's an edit button right there on the page, but most people are surprised and distressed when they're told that literally anyone can use that button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Request to implement: Despite the objections of one editor, there appears to be consensus to send this message, and I think arguing further with that one editor would be a poor use of editorial resources. Admins have the permission to use MassMessage; could someone please do so? Sdkb ^talk 14:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  So far only two users in this thread has agreed explicitly for a massmessage, and this is not what massmessages are used for on this site. That's not consensus on this site (status quo bias applies). //shb (t | c | m) 23:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  I'll add my voice to the consensus: I think a mass message is a good idea. Users should be informed that the tool may have published their information without them realizing it. No opinion on whether to use the oversight functionality. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  One problem is that people reading the user talk but not the Pub get to know that the user has disclosed some information, which may not be obvious. I would recommend not to say 'You are among the users…' – the user probably knows already. Still, direct the message to the affected users. As it may not be clear where the page is, one could link it with a Special:My… construct (showing a redlink to the other person). –LPfi (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Ignoring that this isn't what massmessages are used for, and that this doesn't constitute PII under the oversight policy (i.e. not a valid use of OS-1). If I may suggest: You are receiving this message as you are [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:VisitedMap|one of the users]] who used the [[Wikivoyage:Travel Tracker|Travel Tracker]] prior to July 2026. [line break] Previously, the tool did not make explicitly clear that the map in question will be public and visible to everyone (this has now been rectified). If this is a concern, you may request deletion (button found on the [[Special:MyPage/Visited#bottom|bottom right]]); if this doesn't concern you, you do not need to do anything. --~~~~. //shb (t | c | m) 10:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  Do not include a link to Special:WhatLinksHere. That gives them a list of other users, which is (a) irrelevant to the message and (b) increases the harm done to the (few?) people who are concerned about their information being publicly visible to anyone on the internet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

  @LPfi, I consider that a friendly amendment. Feel free to adjust and send it out. Sdkb ^talk 18:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Since this is something Sdkb has repeatedly dodged or refused to answer, I'm creating a separate subthread for this: what are the privacy and/or security concerns behind publishing a map of where you've been on-wiki?

So far, nobody in this thread, and I mean absolutely nobody, has managed to find a legitimate concern that still applies in 2026. This needs to be answered for, without blatant fearmongering (saying "I won't answer because BEANS" also counts as such); otherwise, the proposed mass message has no bearing. //shb (t | c | m) 23:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Several editors have already discussed this with you above. Just since you have chosen not to listen does not change that. Sdkb ^talk 01:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

And all of them are things are not concerns in 2026. You are the one who once again has repeatedly failed to answer my question. //shb (t | c | m) 01:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

So you mean that everything is public anyway, so disclosure is just disclosure of non-secrets? That might be true to some extent, but I don't think there is any general consensus on our already living in 1984. To the extent the issue is relevant, you should specify what info you think cannot be kept secret. Also, from whom you cannot keep it secret matters, and whether those parties actually already know it or just have the ability to figure it out. –LPfi (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Shb, I'd like you to think about this from a different POV, namely that your personal information should be controlled by you. You should have the freedom to disclose it, and the freedom to not disclose it. Exercising that freedom requires knowing what happens to your information in the gadget. It should be your choice. If you think it's private but it's actually public, then that's not your choice; that's the creator's/designer's choice.

For example, when ChatGPT made people's chatbot discussions public without them understanding what was happening,[1][2] that was a privacy problem that wasn't their choice.

We don't want something similar happening here. It doesn't matter if, e.g., some country is checking people's social media accounts and using that information to deny visas. What matters is that people should be able to make their choice freely. And that means clearly informing them that it will be public to the whole world.

The solution is simple enough: Change the line that says "Select the countries/territories you have visited below to generate your personalised map. Make sure to hit the "publish changes" button to generate and publish your map." and add something like "This will be posted publicly so anyone can see it." We can talk about the best wording, but all it needs is a sentence to warn people.

(Additionally, the "By clicking the "Publish changes" button, you agree to the Terms of use" sentence appears twice, and it's supposed to have links to the TOU page and to the CC-BY-SA license.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: btw Done your solution – both the ToU and CC-BY-SA are also linked. I've also added a "request deletion" button at the bottom, which solves the first sentence of yours. I think that solves the issues you mention. //shb (t | c | m) 06:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's a big improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

(also just as a side note, the example for the US DS-160 forms you mention very thankfully don't include Wikimedia platforms...which I guess does prove my point earlier that no country actually forbids you from visiting just based on a map of where you've visited) //shb (t | c | m) 23:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Since we don't use the Event namespace anymore as we host events on mainspace, I guess we should deprecate this namespace. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Support Not only do we not use it now, there are no pages here in the Event or Event talk spaces. I suggest having it removed via phab: to keep from someone making errant and unneeded pages. If, for some reason, we want it back, we can place another request at phab:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have reservations. If we're doing in-person editing event on Wikivoyage, we should have access to it. I don't know how long a phab request is fulfilled, but if it takes more than a week then it can be problematic to organizers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not to be confused with Events, which in English is up to date but in Japanese is hollow. The Esperanto version continues to list meetings for that community, I wonder if that's in the right place. Grahamsands (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have similar reservations as Ohana here. I don't think it hurts to keep it in the odd scenario it becomes useful. //shb (t | c | m) 23:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Special:UncategorizedPages does not show latest results. It returns only the results as of 10 May 2026. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes, these reports on the server side don't load. As I recall, they should run weekly or maybe every two weeks, so I think the solution if one is stalled here is to post to phab:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's phab:T430587 now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf, WhatamIdoing: It's not just Special:UncategorizedPages. Seems like all special pages in Special:SpecialPages are affected by this. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It won't be all of them (since that includes, e.g., Special:Watchlist and Special:RecentChanges, and those are working). Which other pages did you look at? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Special:BrokenRedirects also seems to be working just fine. //shb (t | c | m) 07:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, that one is stuck at 10 May, at least on my account. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

When I go to Special:BrokenRedirects, it says "The following data is cached, and was last updated 05:52, 10 May 2026" at the top of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Huh, I stand corrected then. //shb (t | c | m) 22:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This has been fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

To avoid the false positives at WV:Maintenance panel, I have created an experimental template {{PartOfEvent}} for events Los Angeles 2028 and 2026 FIFA World Cup. Since discussion is required for creating templates, I'm informing this in a pub. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

After using {{PartOfEvent}} for those two articles, the number of articles using {{PartOfTopic}} has reduced to 1242 from 1244. Whereas the number of actual travel topics is 1242. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I know station articles, and the concept is fairly new; I suspect station articles have sleep sections simply because it's standard on all other types of articles. However, I propose we eliminate that section simply based on the fact that almost no train station will have a hotel inside the station, and keeping the section will likely end up with almost all station articles saying "see xyz district article for accommodation". In the rare instance that a train station does have a hotel inside it, I suppose it could be added, but those should be the exception, not the norm. //shb (t | c | m) 10:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Right. I recall there is or was a hotel in the St. Pancras Station in London, but that's an exception for most of the world. Isn't it extremely common for there to be rest houses in Indian train stations, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not actually too sure – I've never taken trains in India to know. //shb (t | c | m) 11:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are "retiring rooms" in many Indian stations, which are basically rest houses. Otherwise, only a handful of stations have IRCTC-run rail hotels. So, instead of outright abolishing the "Sleep" section, I suggest merging it to "Wait" or "Cope". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The section can be made optional. If the station itself has a hotel, "retiring rooms" or similar facilities, the article can have a Sleep section. --Ypsilon (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the situation of many Indian stations. In many cases, the station itself contains a dormitory, a "retiring room", or an IRCTC-run hotel. However, I think they should be listed in the station article instead of the corresponding city or district article if the facility is used mainly by rail passengers. If the hotel is also popular among non-passengers, then it would get listed in the corresponding city or district, with a blurb about it in the station article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Station article template says:

'Where can you sleep/nap/rest inside the station, including on chairs and benches. How comfortable will you be, and will you get in trouble if you stretch out or stay too long.

Hotel options on or connected to the station, and an overview of nearby neighborhoods offering hotel accommodation. If the station is adjacent to a well-defined neighborhood and travellers can easily find hotels from that district article, link to it. However, stations are often not close to anything, and the station article may be the best place to list a few hotels (ones whose defining feature is "being close to the station").'

Isn't that good advice? Except that I don't think we should say that stations often aren't close to anything. In Europe train stations are usually in the centre – if they weren't when the station was built, they are now, because of city growth – and bus stations are often connected to them.

I think a Sleep section telling where to take a nap and linking the district for accommodation is no problem. The latter is kind of redundant if Understand links the neighbourhood. as it should, but still no problem. Leaving out the rest options because of Sleep is missing is worse. And it is sad if the adjacent Grand Old Hotel isn't pointed out.

(I'll tweak the advice in the template.)

–LPfi (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree with LPfi that the information that the template says we should use is useful for travellers.

Regarding stations being close to anything, purpose-built high-speed stations in China and France are often in the comparative middle of nowhere (though usually connected to somewhere by a further train or bus), while a lot of 'city' stations in North America are placed out in the suburbs and may or may not have onward transport options.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. But in my experience, stations in the middle of nowhere are usually relatively small and not that complex, so I doubt very many of them would merit standalone articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

btw @Mx. Granger I take it you're referring to North American stations, not Chinese stations, right? Not that I've ever been to China to see for myself but from photos I've seen and from some friends' experiences a lot of HSR stations are designed like airports (which to me seem article-worthy). //shb (t | c | m) 06:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of stations like Guangmingcheng railway station in the outskirts of Shenzhen, a high-speed rail station which is nowhere near the complexity of major Chinese stations. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay yeah having looked at that WP article that doesn't seem anywhere near complex enough to warrant a separate article. //shb (t | c | m) 00:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

(comment was written at 22:00 30 June but not saved) I don't think most city stations of North America stations would qualify for a station article tbh. Even then, those in China tend to be rather exceptions, not the norm (and in places like the LCR in Laos you're unlikely to find accommodation in those middle of nowhere stations). shb (t | c | m) 06:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that the section should be optional. I think also that the section should be hemi-demi-semi-encouraged, specifically with this question in mind: If the train/bus limps in to the station, behind schedule and in need of repairs, and everyone's ordered off until the needed repairs can be effected, what's the traveller to do? "Hotel across the street" or "No hotel for 20 miles" would be useful information if you're unexpectedly stuck there. I'd similarly suggest that a note about the nearest hospital would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so stations vary greatly, therefore the page format should be flexible. But IMO one essential is that travel-critical info should appear on the main city page not be squirreled away on a "station" page (not a problem if there's cross-referencing to avoid duplicate listing). Ditto for negative info, such as the absence of some facility you'd expect to find there. Grahamsands (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

For hotels usable to those not using the station, such as those mentioned in London St Pancras International#Sleep, the main listings should be in the city or district article (I think the linked Sleep section is a good example on how to do this; I don't know why Camden isn't linked, but it has a link in the Nearby section just below).

If the station really isn't near anything, the listings could be in the station article. In that case I think a single sentence in the city or district article's Sleep, linking to the station article's Sleep, would be a best practice – not necessarily useful for most city visitors, but a way to make sure the main listings are findable.

–LPfi (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be optional, just in case the station itself has a hotel. Like Tokyo Railway Station is home to Tokyo Station Hotel, and the railway stations in Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore originally opened with hotels in them. But that said, quite a number of train stations were originally built with adjacent hotels specifically to serve railway passengers; many Canadian and British cities have this, for instance. Should they be included? The dog2 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Where they're still hotels (a lot in the UK aren't anymore) and still near stations (a lot in Canada aren't anymore), they should be listed, but as Granger pointed out, remember most of those stations don't need their own article. In fact, I'd estimate the only stations in those two countries complex enough that they might need articles are London St Pancras and Toronto Union. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

If I recall correctly, quite a number of the ones in London are still hotels. They were built back when most railways in the UK were run by private companies, and each company built its own station with an accompanying hotel. The dog2 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think telling whether there are hotels in the neighbourhood or ones in easy reach by public transport, and where to look for them (the district article, mostly) is worthwhile regardless of actual railway hotels. No need to have the traveller click to the district article to try to figure whether any of the listings there is viable. Also whether there is some place to rest for shorter times is valuable.

What is the problem with a short Sleep section stating "There are hotels nearby, listed in London/Camden. For shorter rests, your best option is to buy something at the café, as the benches are usually taken" (fictive example, Saint Pancras has more text) or "There are no good resting spots in or near the station. The most convenient hotels are those in the centre, as transport elsewhere is convoluted". –LPfi (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: sorry, I missed your comment earlier. It might just be my bias, but to me seeing "x station has no hotels – see y district for nearby hotels" feels like it gets repetitive, especially if hotels within stations aren't the norm. Perhaps maybe then it should be left optional for outline and usable articles, but mandatory for guide and star articles? //shb (t | c | m) 07:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It gets repetitive if its common across station articles and you read a lot of them. On the other hand, repetitiveness isn't that bad: such a sentence is easy not to use brain power on, like the "X is a town in northern Y". If you are interested in a specific station, it doesn't get repetitive. If there is a little more content, such as in my examples above, it is valuable information. Content in the section could be optional for usable, but the heading should still be there, for somebody to add that info. –LPfi (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that for most stations, there is more to say than "for accommodation, see [surrounding district]". If they aren't railway hotels and the district is in the city outskirts, I doubt that transport to them, in most cases, is straight forward. As the district probably is large, it is likely that some hotels are more easily reached from the station, with lines that aren't necessarily highlighted in the district article (they may be marginal for those not using the hotel and the station). It may also be good to point out hotel areas that are quite far away but along good communications from the station. And then we have the quick rest scenarios. –LPfi (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that for the vast majority of stations complex enough to merit articles (which is mostly continental Europe and parts of East Asia), stations tend to be in city centres where the district will be small in area. To me it feels more intuitive to explain that in the lede. //shb (t | c | m) 13:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The current station articles:

• See Wikivoyage's Melbourne CBD article for information about hotels near Southern Cross. Plenty are within walking distance, or at the very least, within Melbourne CBD's Free Tram Zone. [OK – actual info]
• See Brussels/Molenbeek and surroundings for surrounding accommodation. [default wording, it seems – one hotel is by the station, the others a kilometre or so away]
• There are no hotels within the station, but there are some on Europaplatz and Washingtonplatz. See City West § Sleep and Mitte § Sleep for individual listings nearby. [the recommended districts are the adjacent ones, not the one with the station; the maps are too crowded for one to see the station]
• [just a listing, for a hotel in the station]
• [no Sleep, the district not told]
• Sleeping in the station is discouraged. Even if some parts of the station are open around the clock, the seating areas are closed off during night-time. [the station is in the centre, which has hotels]
• There is ample accommodation in the general area. See Zurich § Sleep. [OK; this is useful]

I think these Sleep sections are useful in the cases where they are written to be so, even if all of these seem to be in the city centres. The generic wording would be less useful, but I agree that the Understand should tell where the station is, and in what district, as told in the template. LPfi (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi hmm actually yeah maybe I'm convinced now. Appreciate putting it all together. //shb (t | c | m) 00:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if, instead of "x station has no hotels – see y district for nearby hotels", we'd prefer something like "The nearest hotels are in [link] and [link]." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Definitely is an improvement. //shb (t | c | m) 00:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Few people would expect there to be a hotel in the station building, so the lack of one doesn't need to be told. I added to/tweaked Brussels-Midi/Zuid#Sleep and Stockholm Central Station#Sleep, which now are about what I'd expect, alongside Melbourne Southern Cross, Berlin Hbf, Zürich HB and Pancras. The Indian ones need more info. –LPfi (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just saw your additions to both articles – those are awesome! I know I was the one who proposed that we abolish this section, but now I'm somewhat convinced to keep it as-is. //shb (t | c | m) 09:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a good idea to keep it for stations where the accomodation is actually in the station, but it's not needed for stations where it isn't located in the station. In Sydney there used to be a YHA hostel that was in Railway Square which was part of Sydney Central station, but it's currently closed while the Atlassian skyscraper is being built and will move there. CooeeCruiser (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems over the course of this discussion, two main arguments have emerged:

• Sleep sections shouldn't be mandatory, as most stations will not have hotels or accommodation within the station. Thus, it can be assumed that if a station article doesn't have a Sleep section, there will be no accommodation. Because no station accommodation is the default, not the exception, it will become repetitive.
• Sleep sections should be mandatory, as even though they might not be the standard, it can be useful to point out which district the station is in and where all the nearby accommodation is (even if it's mentioned earlier in the article). Major stations (mostly HSR) in the middle of fields or on the outskirts (mainly in France or China) are unlikely to merit their own articles where this would be a concern.

I was mostly in the former camp, but LPfi's points have strongly convinced me into the latter camp. Curious to hear other opinions, especially after LPfi's last few points. //shb (t | c | m) 10:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel like either option is a fair representation of my view, and I believe my view is fairly common. I'd summarize it this way:

• Sleep sections are optional. If the station contains or is immediately adjacent to a hotel or accommodation, it should be listed. Otherwise, providing information about nearby places to sleep is optional.

I expect that optional choice to be made on the basis of common sense and editorial judgment, after taking into account all the facts and circumstances about the location and the current state of the article. In particular, if the station article is lengthy, then a link to the district article (which was probably last seen several screenfuls ago) could be convenient, especially for mobile users. However, if the article is currently short and the link is easy to find, then there's no need to duplicate the link. An article whose contents were something like "The City Railway Station is in City. Sleep: See City#Sleep" would be silly, and Wikivoyage contributors are perfectly capable of recognizing that and making the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page was unilaterally created by @CrunchLabs:. On one hand, this has no consensus whatsoever, but I've refrained from deleting it for now, as I actually don't think this is half as bad of an idea for an edit-a-thon. Since most of our edit-a-thons (at least those run by this site) are pretty low maintenance, what is everyone else's thoughts on making this an actual edit-a-thon (and once again, I'm more than happy to grade articles on the end). I'm thinking any article improved during the month of July should count, but open to other thoughts. //shb (t | c | m) 02:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not a bad idea as such, but this is an event that is happening in hours. Even if we put forth Herculean effort to make a great guide, literally no one would use it for actual travel around Independence Day. Editing America-related articles until the 25th is nice I guess, but this is also a terrible time to travel here and there has been a drop-off in tourism due to our creeping fascism and xenophobia. I'm pretty dour about this as an American who isn't a bigot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts were more or less that it'll become useful in the future. Given most cities and parks of the US are already reasonably well-covered here, I more or less expect that this will just end up being an improvement for many smaller destinations that primarily attract domestic visitors. But all of this are just my thoughts not really backed up by anything so take that as you will. //shb (t | c | m) 05:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I guess the better target would be India and Pakistan's independence days on mid-August, since both countries have poorer coverage of destinations compared to the U.S. or Europe. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd be in support of that – since India and Pakistan do make up the bulk of South Asia, it could be an even broader themed edit-a-thon even if the other South Asian countries don't have anything special in August. //shb (t | c | m) 07:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm having issue with this user's decision to include Chinese name for a New Jersey town. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted that edit...questionable decision for sure. //shb (t | c | m) 13:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

See also Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion#Wikivoyage:America’s_250th_Birthday Pashley (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done, speedily deleted as per the author's request. //shb (t | c | m) 23:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, everyone. Although I don't expect this gadget to be used all that much, I've created a new gadget for Wikivoyage:Requests for checkuser (which is enabled for everyone for the time being). You should be able to see the interface pop up when you click the "Add new request" button in the centre of the header (though it can take a second or two to load). This should at least format CU requests a lot better (which is particularly important as the template adds a permalink in the CU log).

Any feedback and improvements are appreciated. //shb (t | c | m) 06:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't quite get why it is enabled by default. Checkuser info is needed only by those who know what it is about, who all should either be regulars (who can see this thread and enable the gadget by themselves) or experienced cross-project patrollers, who probably have an established cross-project workflow. –LPfi (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We don't have any sort of permission that allows for both cross-wiki patrollers and project regulars to use this gadget (I don't think it's possible to enable it only for those with "autopatrol" on). And as for "experienced cross-project patrollers, who probably have an established cross-project workflow" – no, there is no such established workflow for CU requests (there is for OS, however). //shb (t | c | m) 12:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

We don't need permissions. The point is that regulars can enable it for themselves, while I imagine cross-project patrollers would just use whatever method they are used to for filing the request – even if they found the gadget they would not necessarily try it out for just a single case. –LPfi (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The point isn't so much about what people filing in the requests would find it and more that the request is automatically formatted correctly which makes handling the CU request itself a lot easier. And regarding "I imagine cross-project patrollers would just use whatever method they are used to for filing the request" – no, once again cross-wiki patrollers for CU requests will use whatever is easiest for them (if it's enabled by default then that makes it even easier), the best wikis I find to deal with are often those that accommodate us patrollers. //shb (t | c | m) 22:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been a checkuser and I haven't been making requests, especially not across projects, so I really cannot say to what extent people would use the gadget. Thus, use your judgement. –LPfi (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are a couple of threads there that need attention and participation, and I know from sad experience not to count on anybody paying any attention to that page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

...after a short discussion above, the default editor listing buttons functionality was extended. By selecting a text that resembles legacy-style listings (e.g. See section of Amandola), and clicking the respective button, the listings will be automagically created. If you see some regressions, please report :) -- andree 20:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it's a regression, but it's certainly wonkyː when I click the button to create a Sleep listing it includes the "checkin" and "checkout" fields, as expected, but also an irrelevant "hours" field (more appropriate to a Buy or Eat listing). Cheersǃ Mrkstvns (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I sometimes use the hours field for restaurant and front desk opening hours. Checkin and checkout are more important, but I don't see a big problem in it keeping that field (but it isn't among the suggested fields). –LPfi (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I occasionally use the hours field for places that are only open for part of the year, for example a campsite which only opens in the summer. AlasdairW (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just replaced a bunch of section link templates, but this replacement didn't seem to work. See the difference here. What's the solution (other than to bring back a template deleted per consensus)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Further edits here. They worked, but there may be a more elegant solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There were oddnesses. Plain {{see also|Bulgaria#By taxi}} works:

See also: Bulgaria § By taxi

–LPfi (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Three other taxi firms in town have no website but appear to be in business. Grahamsands (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't paying attention when this came to fruition, but I think it's potentially a fantastic addition to the site. God how I long for a replacement for Lonely Planet's old Thorntree – the Reddit version is a bit lame. But then so is ours. One of the most active threads is a silly discussion about whether one can visit South Sentinel Island. I feel like there is a market here, and a bullshit-free website like WV might just be the place for true traveller's forum to bloom. Does anyone have idea ideas how we could jumpstart this? We seem to be lacking both interesting (or even valid) questionaires as well as even semi-informed answerers (editors referring people to the relevant article seems a bit... meh). My only idea is perhaps a banner for some period of time inviting users to check out the forum. Any other ideas? Brycehughes (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it can be on the lines of the following banner once proposed for what it once was WV:Tourist office (now WV:Travel forum):

The WV:My Voyage proposal was excellent, and it could replace WV:Community portal if properly implemented. But sadly, it remains abandoned since 2014, and the Main Page effectively replaces the community portal for most users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Right, something like this. I also think that the practice of referring posters to articles should stop. Instead, if we got this going, then the forum should inform the articles as opposed to the other way around. The forum should be for up-to-date (though casual) information that then provides a basis for article updates. I am currently in Central Asia and one extremely helpful (although often out-of-date) website is Carivanistan and I think this provides a good model, where the forums inform the articles. (Unlike WV, Carivanistan is a dictatorship, but then so is Central Asia...) A lively forum is potentially a way to really juice this website with actual travellers, which I think we are lacking a bit vis-a-vis the armchair travellers (no judgement). Brycehughes (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I still think that we could cite the articles ("as told in Helsinki#By boat, there are plenty of ferries from Tallinn, just use any of them"). Especially when the OP has provided close to no information ("What is there to see in Rome?"), I don't think we should put too much effort in the answer. Of course, being rude towards trolls may discourage good-faith naïve users, who aren't as good at spotting trolls, so we probably should give decent answers also to bad questions (in the cases where we don't simply revert). Pointing to the article with a nice phrasing is one way to handle it. –LPfi (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Brycehughes: I kinda have the same thoughts as you, which is why I (and Ikan Kekek) largely proposed it last year. In some ways I find it's better than the tourist office which it replaced, but it does feel like the vibe of the tourist office kinda just...stuck? //shb (t | c | m) 09:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did not follow tourist office, and I joined it only after when it became travel forum. I have just started a thread with my tour plan for Bengaluru (or Bangalore), and I will provide updates there. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi I've just got a modification alert on the GR 92 page. It says that there is a dead link. https://www.era-ewv-ferp.org/e-paths/e12/e12-in-spain/ European Ramblers Association E12 path. bracket.bracket.Dead link|date=July 2026 |bot=InternetArchiveBot . bracket.bracket.

I just checked the link and it works. Beyond deleting the deadlink message, what I want advice on is, what I have to do to avoid again that the bot misunderstands this link as a deadlink where, in fact, is not. I don't want a editions fight with a bot!! Mmorell (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Paste this template after the link: Cbignore. Brycehughes (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks Mmorell (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to know that the link wasn't dead at that time. There are a variety of HTTP codes and the bot could view many or all o them as "dead" without the nuance of what each one means. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think they're accusing the bot of malfeasance, just don't want it being tagged again. Brycehughes (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not alleging malfeasance either. The point that I was trying to make was two-fold: 1.) it may well have been dead at the time, so the bot was functioning properly and 2.) calling a link "dead" can be a matter of interpretation: e.g. maybe the server recognize the bot as a bot and served up an HTTP response that a human wouldn't have gotten. That's not malfeasance or even malfunction, just a difficult way to include the nuance of what it means for a link to be "dead". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I started trying to deal with this a few months ago. From the guidance on the User:InternetArchiveBot user page, I stumbled upon the IABot Report false positives tool. I had to mess with the profile buttons in the upper-right in order to get the required permissions. This tool works most of the time, but there's some links that get repeatedly retagged, I assume because of the bot-filtering that Justin describes. I wasn't aware of the Cbignore template, but I want to try that out for the links that IABot retags after reporting. Gerode (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems that pages that need Javascript to present anything useful tend to be marked as dead. This might include those that want you to prove you aren't a bot. –LPfi (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

↠Pine (✉) 03:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unlike wikipedia once you click on edit on a page you will instantely enter edit Mode i almost removed the s in cities in the uzbekistan page because of this error ~2026-39485-56 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

and also how do i delete my temporary account i too lazy to make an account ~2026-39485-56 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Temporary accounts cannot be deleted. No idea what you mean with your first comment, though. //shb (t | c | m) 21:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I disabled the blocking in Special:AbuseFilter/90. Admins should probably take a look at the discussion. There is perhaps a related issue in Special:AbuseFilter/93. –LPfi (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is a severe overlap in Olongapo and Subic. Ideally, both are separate cities/municipalities that border each other in the Philippines. Instead, Subic overlaps Olongapo's content under the guise of it being the name of the bay that both areas share. Might a serious restructuring be needed? Borgenland (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this content should definitely be merged into a single article. I don't know the region well enough to know which article is best (i.e., whether or not "Subic" is a more widely-recognized colloquial name than "Olongapo", or if it's more an administrative formality). Gerode (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Borgenland, Gerode: I suggest "Metro Olongapo" as a catchall term for both municipalities, per the WP article on Olongapo, "Together with the municipality of Subic, Olongapo forms Metro Olongapo, one of the twelve metropolitan areas in the Philippines." I don't know anything much about the Philippines though. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

At least in my circles (expats in the Philippines), Subic is far better known because there was an American naval base there during the Vietnam War. Like Angeles, which had an air base, it developed a sex industry at that time & is still a sex tourism destination, though the customers now are mostly Japanese & Korean. Some of the aging servicemen say those places have gone far downhill & are now not even close to what they remember. Pashley (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd keep the two articles; they seem like distinct destinations to me. Of course they should link to each other & duplication should be reduced. Pashley (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am proposing a cleanup of the Subic article to make it strictly about Subic town. On searching further I found that the overlap extends to Morong (Bataan), which apparently has jurisdiction over Ocean Adventure and Zoobic Safari. Borgenland (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also noting that Subic town has a larger share of the eponymous bay’s coastline. Borgenland (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd oppose merging, but cleanup sounds like a fine idea; plunge forward. Pashley (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Started revamping Subic. Will start on the market tonight. Borgenland (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have just created custom mapshapes for the subregions of North Yorkshire, but they fail to work as they returns the error "maplink: Title "Wikivoyage/North York Moors and Teesside.map" is not a valid map data page". So I tried this on my sandbox, and found same error regardless of the data page. Then, I fix the typo at London#Get around and find that even its mapshape returns the same error. I guess it's a universal error you will get once you edit an article. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have just edited Madrid#Districts and it also returns "maplink: Title "Madrid_Inner_Districts.map" is not a valid map data page", even though I have never touched the data page in question compared to the previous ones. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, the data is still there........ so perhaps some change on our side? -- andree 14:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's definitely on our side, as I see no problems on Commons. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:56, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see this error in many places across the Wikimedia Template:Maplink documentation page Gerode (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

probably releated report --->

Tracked in Phabricator ^(?)
Task T433008

-- andree 19:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to voice your opinions in a request for comment about the future of Abstract Wikipedia. Thank you! Kowal2701 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I voiced my concerns on the RfC in question, but I'll say it here too: there's been zero consultation specifically with the abstractwiki community, with the proposer only having made one edit to abstractwiki prior to this, and a majority of the participants coming in from a discussion on enwiki (why does enwiki think they are a primary affected party?). It's nice the WMF (especially Sannita) is actually a bit receptive to feedback in this instance, however, but I'd keep that in mind when reading many of the initial comments. //shb (t | c | m) 12:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes. If the consultation is done on a page where the community's comments are drowned in walls of text from en-wp, the community cannot be expected to engage. –LPfi (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: tbh some of the concerns on that page do seem valid – particularly patching raw information into actual coherent sentences since almost no two languages have the same sentence structure and rules-based order (that's something even I don't know what can be done without using AI). The others, though: massively agreed with you. //shb (t | c | m) 11:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's the same problem as with Wikinews: there are valid concerns and a problematic (some would claim out-of-process) process.

For the concerns: this is a highly experimental and difficult project. If it succeeds, it will be revolutionary. I get the impression though, that the magnitude of the difficulties hasn't been appreciated, not by the critics and – what's worse – not by the project itself. I tried to check whether there were any linguists in the team, but such information was difficult to find. No wonder they have struggled if they tried to approach it as a purely technical problem, with primarily programming expertise.

–LPfi (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly very ambitious and is something that has been in the works for over a decade, while f: is still in beta and will be for years. This project won't be functional to make encyclopedia articles for at least a decade and probably two. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

About "almost no two languages have the same sentence structure and rules-based order": For simple sentences, this isn't true, because most languages accept a simple subject–verb–object format: Look at the moon. Mira la luna. Regarde la lune. 看看月亮. Olha para a lua. Посмотри на луну. Those that don't often have a predictable variation. Hindi and Bengali, for example, sound like "The Moon, look." I wouldn't expect anyone to be using this for poetry, and I think it would break down with complex sentences, metaphors, and many idiomatic expressions, but I think it is possible that it could be helpful overall, even though I'm convinced that it can't do everything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that it would work best if a way is provided to integrate Abstract content with local language specific content. As a minimum this could be by having articles which have local sections and abstract sections, but it would be better if finer control is provided, and the mechanism is intuitive to local editors. A local editor should not have to figure out whether changing "Look at the moon" to "Consider the moon" requires a change to the abstract statement or the translation engine, and language editing wars need to be avoided. If you look at w:2026 FIFA World Cup, there are many tables which I think could be converted to abstract form and used in some of the 116 Wikipedias which have this article. AlasdairW (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This will be the near- or mid-term value of f: and abstract.wp: it can provide baked-in, consistent methods of displaying data from d:, such as with infoboxes or tables, but it can't write wholesale articles--even short ones--for a long time, if ever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think the general notion is that someone would hand-code an article, and that this would provide a basic outline that could be adapted by local editors. For example: "$city [is] [in] [[link|$location]].[ref] [The population] [is] $population-number [as of] $year.[ref]". The Wikivoyage editor could see that and say "I'm keeping that first sentence, but we don't do refs to citations here, and I don't really care about the population." The Wikipedia editor could say "Thanks for the refs, but these short, choppy sentences sound they were written by a seven year old, so I'll copyedit it." Everyone gets some value, but nobody blindly accepts everything 100% as it was originally generated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions should not have been approved in the first place due to lack of genuine community consultation. It was approved 3 weeks after it was proposed on Meta (which is lightning speed) because it was proposed by a former board of trustee (i.e. cronyism), contrast that to Wikispore and WikiJournal's proposals. And now, 6 years later, we see the end result of a proposal that did not receive community scrutiny to flesh out the details and challenges. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

As someone who made basically the exact same allegation on m: myself, I will say that the explanation given at the time was that the general Abstract Wikipedia/Wikilemma/Wikifunctions project essentially started with the creation of d: (2012/2013) and had been worked on with a newsletter publishing the process publicly for years. I am not 100% convinced by that reasoning, but it does soften allegations about pure cronyism. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Denny proposed it many years before that. It's been talked about since at least 2005. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Talked about and actually presenting the proposal to the community for voting are two separate things. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

What does a layer=W parameter/value do in the Mapframe template? The template documentation for the layer parameter says "see Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps#Mapframe" but that anchor doesn't exist and the article doesn't mention the layer parameter at all. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The layer parameter has been ignored by mapframe for about 10 years. It was meant to allow the default map layer to be selected (W=Wikimedia, M=Mapnik, R=Relief Map). However selecting anything other than Wikimedia means that the reader's IP address is sent to an external server. If this is done as a result of the reader selecting the layer on the page they are warned of this privacy issue (if they pay close attention), but not if it is the default in mapframe. Because of this minor privacy issue, the layer parameter is disabled. (Mapframe2 does support the layer parameter, but it is only intended to be used on Destinations.) AlasdairW (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ah ha. Thanks. Any objection to replacing "see Wikivoyage:How to use dynamic maps#Mapframe" in the documentation with "ignored parameter"? Brycehughes (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I interpret silence as no objection. Done! Brycehughes (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's how we roll! :-) -- andree 16:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I am a user who reverts and reports vandalism globally. In my opinion, this wiki should opt out global sysops, for the following reasons:

1. This wiki has 33 local administrators and 17 of them are active, so this wiki does not meet the scope of opting in global sysops.
2. From what I see in Special:Log/block, Special:Log/delete and Special:Log/protect, although this wiki allows global sysops to perform administrative actions, almost all administrative actions are performed by local administrators.

Thank you. Font8388608 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Font8388608: My question is why. Has there ever been a case of a GS (or steward) that's used their tools not in the best interests of this site since 2021? //shb (t | c | m) 23:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I also oppose the suggestion. Global sysops have helped greatly by reverting vandalism when admins don't happen to be on the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me when most of the local admins weren't present and therefore global sysops could revert most of the disruptive edits? Font8388608 (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Plenty of times – GS/stew intervention has been particularly helpful during the times when a certain few LTAs were active (not going to namedrop them per DENY, but I'm happy to do so off-wiki). Also, having been a global sysop (and now steward) and been pretty extensively involved in this sphere for about 2 years now, the worst wikis to deal with x-wiki anti-vandalism are the wikis that set up needless bureaucratic hoops for no discernible benefits whatsoever, and I really don't want this wiki to be one of those said wikis. //shb (t | c | m) 12:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Font8388608, if I knew which times of day we tended to lack admin coverage, I wouldn't want to announce them publicly. Suffice it to say, help from global sysops has been very helpful, and we're glad to have their assistance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The global sysops are generally helpful, and we have no reason to want them to leave us.

I also don't understand why the OP would make this suggestion at a wiki they've never edited before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe this question was raised in good faith because our project doesn't fit into the definition of a "small wiki" (see the definition of small and large wikis on Meta). Specifically, the first line on that definition page reads "Every wiki with checkusers should be treated as a large wiki. However, some of those wikis may need help. Global sysops must ask communities for permission to use their rights on that project." The presence of CheckUser elevates our status to large wiki, even though we have not reached 50,000 articles yet. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

So do we have to do anything to assure global sysops that we continue to welcome their help? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nothing, really. Our policy already permits GS help on an as-they-see-fit model, which overrides the Meta definition in this instance. //shb (t | c | m) 23:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Recently mapframe does not react correctly on clicking on the markers. This is not the case on every article that has mapframe. Examples: Taipei has the problem, but on Aalst there is no problem. Looking at the source code I don't see what difference there is in mapshape usage in these articles. FredTC (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe it's a known issue – see phab:T433703. //shb (t | c | m) 14:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problems are known. But I think there is another one: Phab:T433755 (a style sheet problem). --RolandUnger (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, the problem is probably on the backend rather than the frontend. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems there's currently an unannounced event at m:Event:Culture Connect Africa/Wikivoyage/2026 which involves Wikivoyage, ongoing between 21:00, August 1, 2026 – 09:59, November 1, 2026. I haven't properly looked into this (just very busy irl)...but somebody should try to contact the event organizer, as this is currently running against site policy. (cc @Ikan Kekek:, if you happen to know). //shb (t | c | m) 10:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is probably Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Request for Wikivoyage Training for African and Proud Community above: "I kindly request for permission for a wikivoyage training". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected then – to the organizers, please accept my apologies for not properly looking. //shb (t | c | m) 22:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

However, I think that they need to alter their competition rules to align with Wikivoyage:Welcome, event organizers. In particular as the competition encourages article creation, competitors should be directed to Wikivoyage:What is an article?. Parts of the rules look like they have been edited from an earlier Wikipedia competition without fully updating to align with how Wikivoyage works. I am also disappointed that the organiser that posted the request has not made any other edits on Wikivoyage, despite the advice to "edit the article about wherever you live". AlasdairW (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree. Moreover, Wikivoyage:Copyleft needs to be emphasized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

At least this event is trying to improve transportation and recreation activities in the project, and not something like linking human rights and Wikivoyage 🤦 OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I agree with you on that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

+1. //shb (t | c | m) 00:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've boldly updated their event documentation page, and pinged the person who created it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

A new user recently created World Sango Festival which will likely be redirected to Oyo#Do. Discussion at User_talk:ABORISADEADETONA. I think this raises some broader questions which can be discussed here.

Some festivals like New Orleans Mardi Gras do get their own articles. Others like Sinulog get redirects. The festival of the Sea Goddess Mazu gets neither, though it has > 100,000 particpants; it is mentioned at Putian#See. Kumbh Mela has neither, though w:Kumbh Mela gives participation numbers in the hundreds of millions and it is mentioned in many WV articles.

What are the criteria here? Do we need a policy laying them out? A festivals expedition? Pashley (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I had a look at New Orleans Mardi Gras and I think that its layout looks resonable, though I would like to see a additional section entitled "Location". Note that not all festivals have parades - for example the en:Edinburgh Festival Fringe tke place at a variaty of locations. If an article were to be written about the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, then the "Parade" section would be omitted. The layout that I would sugggest therefore is:

• Understand
• Dates
• Location
• Parades

Martinvl (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If a festival page is created, but then needs redirected, I'd like to advocate for first connecting the 'article' to Wikidata, before redirecting it. I've just done that for World Sango Festival.

If you've never done that before, then my process is:

• Find the Wikipedia article. (Hopefully it already exists.)
• At the bottom of the three dots/tools menu, find the "Wikidata item" for the Wikipedia article. That will take you to a page like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q24927689
• Scroll to the bottom of the page, where links to other articles are. Find the "Wikivoyage" section.
• Click 'edit' to add a Wikivoyage page. In the first little box, type en for the language, and then put the name of the Wikivoyage article in the second box (it has a search tool, which helps make sure you get the correct spelling).
• Click 'publish', and you're done!

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I have created the Kumbh Mela article just as the OP mentions the festival. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply