Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub Voyage Tips and guide

Welcome to the pub

Shortcuts:
WV:Pub
WV:TP

Contents

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread

I'm a fan of the sense of smell and I saw this today: https://nautil.us/scent-makes-a-place-1175656/ and wondered if anyone had some feedback on making a travel topic on smell. It's so much more common to think of taste or sights when it comes to a travel topic, sometimes hearing or even sense of touch when it comes to climate, swimming, hiking, etc. and other than Berkeley's Aftel Museum of Smells, I don't immediately know a lot of smell-related destinations, but does anyone else think that this could be a viable topic? Things to know about smell, places to go for smells, how smell impacts memory, etc.? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I never thought of that as a travel topic, but I greatly enjoyed walking through a lavender field on my way to and from master classes one of the summers I was in Nice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be hard to curate the topic, but I suppose some botanical gardens have scent garden area with fragrant herbs and so forth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. However, I think the cope aspect of smell should be covered in some of the general travel topics, with the appropriate section linked in a hat note from Smell, to avoid messing up choosing destinations (or attractions) for the experience and ways to avoid problematic smells (a real issue e.g. for asthmatics). –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are certainly a number of perfume/fragrance related museums out there. Spice markets and flower fields tend to get associated with fragrance and, though not positive, so does India/developing countries in general and traditional leather tanneries have a reputation too. In Copenhagen there is a nose museum. And there are quite a few foods out there famous for their fragrance/stink. If you do your research and depending on how wide you want to cast the net I'm sure you can come up with numerous smell related destinations. SilentWV (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Trump just signed an executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to "Gulf of America". Obviously, this name change is only in force in the U.S., but should we make a note somewhere in the U.S. article that it is officially called the "Gulf of America" within the States? The dog2 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

No. Per Wikivoyage:Naming conventions, we care only about what names are most used in English. Official names are of no relevance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some Americans will call it "Gulf of America", others will call it "Gulf of How does this Lower the Price of Eggs?". Until it catches on in the U.S. we needn't worry about it. Ground Zero (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also no – I doubt many people will fall onto Trump's stupidity. --SHB (t | c | m) 21:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

No. One analogous case is Persian Gulf where we have the text:

"Persian Gulf" has been the usual term in English for centuries; this goes back at least to the Romans calling it "Sinus Persicus". It is sometimes also called the "Arabian Gulf", mainly in Arab countries.

As I see it we might at most need a similar comment on "Gulf of America" if and when that term comes into general use. As GZ says, we certainly should not worry about it yet, Pashley (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Haha, I had a feeling this was going to come up. I agree with everyone else. Trump is just playing politics at this point. Let's stick with solely calling it the Gulf of Mexico unless this or some other term becomes widespread. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another analogous case would be the South China Sea, which Filipinos call the West Philippine Sea and Vietnamese call the East Sea. But OK, I'm happy to wait and see if "Gulf of America" actually gains traction the U.S. If it turns out that Democrats stick with "Gulf of Mexico" while Republicans adopt "Gulf of America" (which is certainly possible given the polarisation of American politics), then it becomes a more complex issue as to what to call it. The dog2 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. Mrkstvns (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

As with anything political motivated, let's wait and see what status is after the midterm election. 90.233.200.244 15:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I doubt things will suddenly change in 2026 either. --SHB (t | c | m) 02:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Suddenly?! I don't think so either, it's either descent or ascent from here. 95.203.20.51 03:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Point being US federal midterm elections aren't likely to cause a shift in usage. --SHB (t | c | m) 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Point being that midterm election will be the benchmark compared to now. 95.203.20.51 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay buddy. Whatever you say. --SHB (t | c | m) 04:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

A similar example is Erdoğan’s edict changing Turkey into Türkiye. That makes a bit more sense as it was already in use for branding and marketing including for tourism, but “Turkey” is entrenched in common English usage, and Erdoğan can’t mandate otherwise. And Turkey has no plans to start calling its neighbours by their local-language names, which (working clockwise) are Ελλάδα, България, საქართველო, Հայաստան, Azerbaycan, العراق and سوريا. Grahamsands (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't initially notice because I use Vector 2010 globally (for ease of cross-wiki patrolling), but when I viewed Doetinchem on incognito mode, I noticed that there is no docent section on Vector 2022. Is there any way to make it appear, or are the idea of docents kaput forever? --SHB (t | c | m) 05:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

What's docent section? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Presumably Wikivoyage:Docents. If a page has Template:HasDocent, the listed name(s) appear in a small section in the sidebar in the old Vector skin.

Under Vector-2022, like most of the sidebar it's been moved to the Tools menu. Daggerstab (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is definitely less than ideal – @Wauteurz, Jdlrobson: do you have any fixes to this? --SHB (t | c | m) 00:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't. My modifications to Vector 2022 were never meant to scope outside of CSS tweaks, and relocating that cannot be done by just tweaking a stylesheet. Not with my capabilities, at least. Here's some food for thought though: Maybe displaying docents more prominently at the top or bottom of a page could be a viable concept? Maybe a subtle bar that tacks onto the pagebanner or something in that vein?
― Wauteurz (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be opposed to displaying docents a tad more prominently. --SHB (t | c | m) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000: Revisiting this - I did find a fix, I just don't know if it's doable on Wikivoyage.

Vector 2022 has configuration settings for menu pinning. I suspect the default here is 0 (= hidden) for all except vector-appearance-pinned. That's how Wikivoyage looks to me in an incognito tab, anyway. Setting specifically vector-page-tools-pinned to 1 (= pinned) should at least make the sidebar with docents visible by default again. I would recommend doing the same for all four pin-able menus though. The only thing I am unsure about is whether site admins have the ability to alter LocalSettings.php, or whether that's done from above.
― Wauteurz (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nice – I'd support your proposal if it can be implemented. //shb (t | c | m) 11:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

To clarify:

• Docents appear in Vector 2022 in an incognito window. I see them in the tools menu: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F58305523
• When I click "move to sidebar" they appear on the right hand side as they do for anonymous users.
• The proposal is to make them more prominent

Is this correct?

I am not sure the average reader would understand what this menu link is for (especially if seasoned editors are not familiar with the concept - myself included). What is this link for? Is it to ask the docent random questions such as "Which of these hotels is better?", "Do you know if X is open on Sundays?". Is it being used? If so, how often and by who (what kind of editors)? Could you provide some examples?

I can confidently say the majority of links in the menus are ignored by anonymous users (there is data to back that up).

I would worry the page banner may be too prominent. I suspect the value of a docent comes when you have read an article in full and not found the relevant information so you might want to consider a new component that either appears at the bottom of the page (e.g. like where navboxes appear in Wikipedia articles) or a smaller box on the side (like In other projects].

I would recommend such a new component should:

1) explains the intention behind docents

2) Identify the person in more detail to make them more relatable (perhaps a bio?)

3) provides more explicit calls to action for the reader to guide what this link is for e.g. "Ask a question"

Hope I've understood correctly and this is helpful. Jdlrobson (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jdlrobson I'm unable to view the content of your phabricator link. It says I don't have permission to view this object. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that Lancaster links to a disambiguation page. I presume that Lancaster, England is by far the most famous Lancaster worldwide, so should point it to Lancaster, England by default? Lancaster, Pennsylvania would probably be the most famous Lancaster for Americans, but for me growing up outside the U.S., Lancaster, England would be what I instinctively think of when you say "Lancaster" without any other qualification. The dog2 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I would support the following page moves, albeit not as strongly as for Newark:

• Lancaster (England) > Lancaster
• Lancaster > Lancaster (disambiguation)

--Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I support too – never heard of the Lancaster in Pennsylvania. --SHB (t | c | m) 22:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems reasonable. I straightened the links and only six were from substantive pages. It looks like the ambiguity auto-warning is doing its job. Grahamsands (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

And I have known about the existence of Lancaster, PA for decades but I'm not familiar with Lancaster, England. Per w:Lancaster, Lancashire, Lancaster, England "had a population of 52,234 in the 2011 census, compared to the district, which had a population of 138,375." Re: w:Lancaster, Pennsylvania: "With a population of 58,039 at the 2020 census, it is the tenth-most populous city in the state. It is a core city within South Central Pennsylvania, with 552,984 residents in the Lancaster metropolitan area." Care to reconsider? I think you should. The one in PA is almost 5 times bigger in terms of a metropolitan area, it would seem. If anything, it would seem that the one in PA should be the default. And why is it that you all thought you should make such a precipitous decision, not even waiting a single day for more comments? That's kind of egregious, my friends. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The pages haven't been moved yet, and I don't have a problem with waiting for more comments. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess I misunderstood what Grahamsands stated above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. I think he means that he changed link targets from disambiguation pages to the specific cities. @Grahamsands: am I understanding correctly? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree, the city in PA is what comes to mind for me, it's a regional tourism destination for Pennsylvania and neighboring states. As an American, I couldn't tell you anything about the city in England. (Lancaster CA is actually much larger than both PA and England, but it's not as much of a tourism destination.) Gerode (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lancaster, CA proper is bigger, in fact 173,516 in the 2020 Census per w:Lancaster, California, but per w:Palmdale, California: "Palmdale is the 33rd most populous city in California. Together with its immediate northern neighbor, the city of Lancaster, the Palmdale–Lancaster urban area had a population of 359,559 in 2020." Considering that they're in L.A. County, is that analogous to the 552,984 residents in the Lancaster metropolitan area? I'm unsure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pennsylvania comes to my mind too. From a tourist perspective, Lancaster is well-known for its Amish population and related tourism. I don't know anything about the British Lancaster. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lancaster, England is a historic city that featured prominently in the Wars of the Roses. The rivalry between Lancashire and Yorkshire in fact persists today. Lancaster, England also has quite a number of historic buildings, including a castle. The dog2 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but the above thread has convinced me that the other cities named Lancaster are significant enough that we can't prioritize the English city in our naming conventions. I suggest we stick with the status quo on this one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm fine with keeping the status quo too. The dog2 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, however I still support your proposal for Newark. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just to confirm that by straightening links, as you rightly infer I pointed them at their intended destinations. Usage in the 15th century when the other Lancasters were undreamed doesn't necessarily bind us now, but fyi York and Lancaster were rival dynasties rather than cities. There were major battles in Yorkshire but not Lancs, see Lancashire#Understand. Grahamsands (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Good points. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I'd Support the move. I'd say in most such cases the unadorned link (here Lancaster) should point to the original city (Lancaster, England). There are justified exceptions like Perth, but I do not think this is one. Pashley (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I think what I gather from this discussion is that Americans default to the Lancaster in Pennsylvania but the rest of the world defaults to the UK city. Am I reading this correctly? (though I suppose that just cements the argument for keeping the status quo) //shb (t | c | m) 07:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

On the note of the previous segment, I'd say Newark, New Jersey has far eclipsed the original Newark-on-Trent in England, so should we just direct this link to Newark, New Jersey? The dog2 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I would support the following page moves:

• Newark (New Jersey) > Newark
• Newark > Newark (disambiguation)

--Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's also a Newark, Ohio, etc., and none of that matters for these purposes. Newark, NJ is a big city, so yes, it should be the default. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also don't see why anyone would search "Newark" expecting to get "Newark-on-Trent" either – I support Newark, New Jersey, being the default. --SHB (t | c | m) 03:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll make the move if nobody objects in the next 24 hours. The dog2 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Support the move. Newark NJ also has an important airport. Pashley (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/25/nx-s1-5231810/5-money-draining-mistakes-travelers-make-when-planning-a-vacation —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Most of the advice relates to Responsible travel#Overtourism (choose dupes or off-peak dates) or Sustainable travel (use dupes that avoid long flights), some is about prejudice against hostels (some do cater well for families, not all are filled with college-age backpackers) and short-term rentals not always being a cheap alternative after all. They also suggest home sitting etc. Most of the advice is mentioned in our guides, but it could be developed somewhat.

I think we need to change the redirect from Airbnb to Short term rentals, which should be a separate article from Hospitality exchange, where it now leads.

–LPfi (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The article also talks about avoiding unrealistic dreams, based on marketing and travel blogs. If you aren't a millionaire, your travel dreams shouldn't be based on the honeymoon suite of a luxury hotel. Do we cover this in Travel basics? –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe might just be me, but I feel as though the travel dreams one is somewhat Captain Obvious. --SHB (t | c | m) 08:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably for us, but not necessarily for the novice traveller. Anybody understands that the luxury suite isn't for them, and many do want to be spoilt on their vacation, but actual budget options don't necessarily conform to what they expect travel to be like (based on travel blogs and advertising) – even if they would enjoy the budget version. Cf doing Europe. –LPfi (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you do have a point there. --SHB (t | c | m) 12:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I definitely support the idea of a non-"sharing" page for Airbnb, etc. Short-term rentals (which should be hyphenated) is a good title, but it could also be part of Vacation rentals.

We also need an article on House sitting. We have one on Pet sitting, and since most house sitting in practice seems to involve pet care, maybe it should just redirect there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pet sitting looks to be written for pet owners rather than those looking to pet sit as part of their travels. Although house sitting is occasionally just about building security (and maybe doing some maintenance or gardening) it is usually about looking after pets. Home exchange is also a related topic. AlasdairW (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

House sitting is also considerably rare compared to pet sitting, too. (where I am house sitters are unaffordable to most, but pet sitting is very common) --SHB (t | c | m) 00:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have a couple of cities where public transportation info has been hived off into a separate article, which then tends to turn into an encyclopedic listing of every single train & bus line in the city. I think this is a disservice to travellers and we should stop doing this. If you have opinions on the matter, please chime in at Talk:Transportation#Local public transportation in separate articles considered harmful. Jpatokal (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking for a way to uniquely identify vcards. I want to use the data in the vcards for a trip planning tool, but for the data to stay up to date I have to update my database every once in a while. Without a unique identifier that is hard.

If I look at the source code vcards don't seem to have an unique ID. I see however that the list items that contain the vcards do have an id, e.g. <li id="mw4w">. So I'm wondering whether that list-item id is a stable identifier for the vcard it contains.

Anybody able to shed a light on this? If somebody knows a better approach that is of course welcome too.

SilentWV (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I assume vcards is synonymous with listings? (I think I've seen that term being used on dewikivoyage) Wouldn't know, unfortunately. --SHB (t | c | m) 04:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

In this context more or less. I think they are originally digital business cards but nowadays they are often used to deal with structured data on webpages. Wikivoyage uses it as a listings template. SilentWV (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the tag ids mentioned by SilentWV are not stable and will be changed after an edit. These ids are used with the Parsoid parser. The listing template doesn't generate such an ID. But it could derived for instance from the Wikidata id is unique and stable. Unfortunately, not all listings use Wikidata (ids). --RolandUnger (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Wikidata id is stable for the Wikidata item (sometimes redirected, never reused), but there may be a listing for the same Wikidata item in more than one article, and what Wikidata item to use for a listing is not guaranteed not to change (the item may not exactly match the listed entity). I assume these issues can be handled by treating a listing as replaced when the Wikidata changes, and having some code for multiple listings with the same Wikidata ID (either for different aspects of the entity or just different descriptions, one more up to date than the other). –LPfi (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Wikidata should indeed be stable. Did however not consider that different items can use the same wikidata entry. I assumed it was a one on one relation. But now I think about it, it makes sense. Geographical features may be large and contain a multitude of things of touristic interest and world heritage has entries that contain lists, such as Belfries of Belgium and France. So, I have to give that a bit more thought.... SilentWV (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that there mostly indeed is a one to one relation, and it may even be that there should be one (we don 't use Wikidata for McDonald's for all McDonald'ses), but once in a while editors feel otherwise or don't know about the rule. And then there are listings in travel topic articles, region articles and city articles using the same Wikidata id for the same entity but with different descriptions (the should link to the main one in the city article but may not), and the place is sometimes listed in a nearby city (mostly wrongly – except if the article for the correct city wasn't yet created or the listing links to the main listing). –LPfi (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I assumed it wikidata should be a one on one relation without thinking about it. Your remark made me think about it and it is clearly not a one on one relation. E.g. the mentioned world heritage site of Belfries of Belgium and France contains several dozen buildings spread over as many cities. There may be a policy to avoid using this wikidata entry in wikivoyage, I can see a case to do so but not thought it through properly, but wikidata id is certainly not the unique identifier I initially assumed it to be. So this certainly requires some rethinking for my project.

The other point you make, about the different descriptions in different articles and that they should link to the main one in the city article seems however relevant. How does the linking work? Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't such a link require a unique identifier that I could also use for my project? If so, what is that identifier? SilentWV (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

See e.g. Grand old hotels#Q1481002 (The Ritz, London) and Christmas Markets#Frankfurt Weinachtsmarkt (no Wikidata entry, linking to the "name" instead). We also have similar listings that aren't linked, such as those in Grand old hotels#United States (these have a link to the right city, but not necessarily even to the article where the listing should be found). When names are used as anchor, they are mostly unique in that article, but sometimes the name is vague or otherwise ambiguous across articles (such as "Town Hall").

When a point of interest is mentioned in country, region or huge city articles, there may be a link to the listing (like in travel topics), the page or the city where it is to be found, or it may not be linked at all there.

–LPfi (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. That is what I feared. Wikidata should indeed be stable, but only a relatively limited number of entries have one. It crossed my mind that in theory I could create a wikidata entry for each listing, but as I understand it, wikidata entries are supposed to be only created for items that have sufficient notoriety, whatever that may be, so that would not be a valid solution. I'll read up Parsoid to see whether that can give me some ideas. SilentWV (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suppose in theory we could add a unique {{anchor}} for individual entries. Would that help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would definitely help. A unique ID creates an unambiguous way to link an entry with other data sets and synchronize them to reflect updates without the need for a complex and error prone fuzzy matching algorithm. SilentWV (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

In theory, but there are lots of listings, editors cannot be expected to add that anchor and manually created anchors may not be unique. There would need to be some automatic mechanism. Perhaps the listing editor could create those anchors (a reasonably short random string?) when Wikidata id is missing. Then most listings would get unique IDs over time. A bot could add them for existing listings to speed it up. –LPfi (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@WhatamIdoing: I believe that's already the case? Canberra/Civic#Canberra Centre automatically anchors to the listing. --shb (t | c | m) 11:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the listing template sets a span id identical to the name parameter, which then can be used as anchor. See my examples and associated discussion above (at 07:48). The name is usually unique in the page, but may not be across pages and may not be stable, especially not when ad hoc translations are used as name. The official name is more stable and is often found in the alt parameter, which isn't used as id/anchor (I think it formerly was). –LPfi (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

writing these can be a time consuming activity. actually ChatGPT is quite good in doing it with this query:

give me a short description about this list of restaurants in [[*CITY NAME*]]. write it in a neutral way without using words like "ideal". the descriptions are for a travel guide. Focus on specific savory food, don't write anything about drinks or sweet food. Write a bit about the style of the restaurant. Don't say anything about food delivery. Please no bla bla sentences like "A convenient stop for a quick and satisfying bite."

for a better processing, the list should only include the names of the restaurants without "updated December 2017" and so on. 2A01:599:214:306:1493:C1E1:20A4:5294 14:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Chatbots risk violating copyright, but the other issue is relying on them without doing some human editing. You can use them as a tool, but don't post unedited chatbot text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

yeah, the produced text needs some checking and editing. 2A01:599:214:306:1493:C1E1:20A4:5294 16:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Adamantly Oppose! We want input from humans, mainly travellers, not from computer programs. I can think of only one clearly legitimate use of AI in creating WV pages; translating from other WV languages. It is conceivable that, as Ikan suggests, there might be other uses, but I am far from convinced of that. Pashley (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  "''adamantly'' oppose" ...

  ChatGPT gets the information from reviews, which are written by humans. the produced text is just a summary. of course the produced text needs some checking and editing. also for improving the query. 2A01:599:214:306:1493:C1E1:20A4:5294 16:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  If you've checked everything for accuracy and edited the text such that no-one could tell what tools you used, you're good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  "Reviews, which are written by humans"? The year is 2025, reviews are often astroturfed or AI generated, and if they are not, they soon will be. Daggerstab (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I too Oppose the use of AI to write listings due to the tendency toward hallucination of such tools, which tend to fabricate obscure details and facts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  As do I. I don't mind having a tool actually write the description, if the result is good, but all facts (including subjective descriptions) need to be verified by the person adding them (either from personal experience or through checking the sources for trustworthiness of each individual claim). –LPfi (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Agreed. I recognize that some people use AI tools to polish their grammar and spelling, and I don't see an issue with that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, the reviews the chatbot is using might be written by real people, or then not - who knows if some of them are AI generated in the first place. However even if those reviews would be truthful (not always the case), the AI can still fumble up the information as SelfieCity pointed out. Therefore we shouldn't be using such services to create WV content. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Strong oppose – a hard no. AI chatbots are useless at this kind of thing, not to mention the countless other problems that would arise. --shb (t | c | m) 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

  While I have a lot of sympathy with this, when someone starts off by saying that they're finding that a tool "is quite good in doing it", it's not very convincing to just tell them that they're wrong. If it's working for them, it's "useful". I think the opposition should focus on other things, e.g., the fact that it's risky (might hallucinate false information) and not our goal (we want to be unique).

  Of course, if someone were to use such a tool in the way that Ikan and others suggest, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

A similar conversation is ongoing at our sister project Wikinews (and that conversation references similar such conversations at other sister projects): n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#ChatGPT. I am generally opposed to these for various reasons, but we don't have a local policy here and at the bare minimum, if you are using an AI tool to generate new material (but not, e.g. fixing spelling or suggesting ways to improve your vocabulary), then it needs to be disclosed which tool you used, which prompts you used, and when you made the request. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a similarly heavy policy proposal at the English Wikibooks (where you have not answered a question you were asked, BTW). I don't think that's either feasible or helpful. I think it could also create unexpected problems. Imagine if the prompt is:

"Hey AI, here's the long post from my blog about this restaurant. Please summarize it in two sentences, without giving any identifying information about me <pastes long text>".

Posting that prompt would mean disclosing your real-world identity, because anyone could use the prompt to find your blog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There may be similar problems, but in the given example, you could just give the blog post without telling it was yours. Then of course, you would be accused of a copyvio, so you would need to get your permission to use that post ("Hi. Your blog post so well described what also was my experience. May I use it in summarised form on Wikivoyage?"). I think there needs to be a practice developed for such situations, which aren't restricted to AI (how did you get that photo, on private property?).

On the other hand, already a long time ago you could be identified from your writing style. The study I vaguely remember said that analysing 40kB (?) of yours (emails? Usenet posts?) was enough to identify posts from you among a closed sample of people (a few thousand?). Using a spell checker, the needed text body was somewhat bigger, but still easy to collect.

–LPfi (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per the above and per relevant discussions at our sister projects, we should have a local policy on the use of generative AI/LLM tools. As I've written here and elsewhere, I think at a bare minimum that for any of these creating new content, users must disclose which tool was used, which prompt(s) it was given, and when the request was made. If others agree that we should get out ahead of this, I propose that we begin drafting at Wikivoyage:Artificial intelligence (WV:AI) sooner rather than later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We've had a discussion on this before and WhatamIdoing raised some good points before that having a specific policy on AI doesn't do any good but we could lose potentially good contributors over this. I can't find the specific comment, I still agree with her sentiment and would prefer having no AI policy. //shb (t | c | m) 21:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Huh, I'd be motivated to understand that argument. Thanks. I hope WIAD decides to chime in and educate me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It basically comes down to two problems:

• A rule against AI is unenforceable. We don't know where/how contributors are getting the text they post. It is, as a matter of principle, a bad idea to have rules that you cannot enforce. (You can have unenforceable non-rules, such as "We're in favor of peace and love and harmony" or Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first or even Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun, but you shouldn't have unenforceable rules.)
• A rule against AI will result in false accusations. False accusations will harm the accused person and, to a lesser extent, the bystanders who see acrimonious accusations. There is no effective way to defend yourself against false accusations. If you write personally something that someone says 'sounds like' AI, or that gets flagged by 'AI detectors', then there's nothing you can do except tell the truth, which your accuser is unlikely to believe. And if you did use AI, then you could lie about that and say you didn't, and there's nothing that anyone else can do to prove your lie wrong. I've seen AI "detectors" that flag some of my Wikipedia articles as probably being AI generated. I know that's not true. Also, most of them require a minimum amount of text (e.g., 100 words), and most individual listings are shorter than that.

Instead of trying to ban a "method", I think we should focus on the outcomes we want, which are:

• unique content
• accurate content
• from your own personal experiences (whenever possible) or from multiple trustworthy sources
• posted in a volume/at a speed that gives the rest of the community plenty of time to take a look at your work

and so forth. Then we sidestep the "you horrible user of horrible AI" and instead say: It doesn't matter whether AI hallucinated the detail about the old church being blue vs you got it confused with a different place. Errors aren't wanted, and if you make enough errors, then we'll block you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right. There may still be a need for advice and rules prompted by the availability of LLM and similar technologies. A fast rule on keeping volume down to a human speed could be helpful, and we certainly want advice directed at good-faith users. The discussion SHB referred to made clear that some valuable contributors want to be able to use AI, and used in good ways those uses won't harm. The advice needs to identify ways to use AI that can be tempting but that we don't want – sv-wp had a lot of that discussion about bot-writing (without AI). –LPfi (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't be opposed to creating an infomation-style page of the use of AI, explicitly stating that there is no official policy on the use of AI. There are reasonable use-cases of AI and I wouldn't want the lack of a page to imply that such use cases aren't permitted. //shb (t | c | m) 03:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Folk are rightly concerned about veracity and copyright, I'd like to focus on time input. Anything that boosts contributors' work per given time is welcome, because pages look to be going out of date faster than they're maintained. For instance I'm embarked on an upgrade of parts of Spain that on present progress will take until Sept 2027, and that will be just one portion of a single large country. Thus for restaurants in Santiago de Compostela:

- the refresh of an existing WV-EN entry (considering customer reviews etc) took me 5 minutes.

- a new entry suggested by Lonely Planet took 7 minutes.

- the first suggestion by Chatbot was blatant cut & paste from publicity blurb so I barge-poled it. The second looked like a genuine quality find, so after due checking yadda yah the new entry took 7 minutes.

Other contributors no doubt work faster but might find that their time-saving is minimal. Grahamsands (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The title, basically. The need for any non-autoconfirmed user to edit a module is next-to-zero, but the impacts of a non-autoconfirmed user breaking a module is far too high and often leads to a domino effect of several pages broken. Just earlier today, all of our template documentation pages were broken due to a single instance of vandalism. While we can utilise page protections, it isn't an effective long-term solution; there's only so much we can do compared to not giving anonymous users + new accounts the ability to edit modules at all. Very little is lost and much is to be gained. //shb (t | c | m) 23:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suppose to give a similar analogy, it's very much like how anyone who isn't an interface admin cannot edit .css/.js pages, or how non-autoconfirmed users cannot create userpages for other users on enwiki. Somewhat along the lines where the system restricts the ability to edit Module pages for autoconfirmed users only. //shb (t | c | m) 23:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that we don't have many users confident in editing the module code – we often want external help. I much prefer an expert editing code instead of asking me to insert it. Also, autoconfirmed is a very low level of protection for code that should be edited by experts only. With abuse filters it is possible to take into account some aspects of experience from other projects, which I think you cannot with page protection. Should we just add an abuse filter to protect modules? Some of our non-admin regulars often do this kind of work. Do we need less seasoned users to edit the modules? –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any bureaucrat can manually flag a user with +confirmed if needed. Leaderboard (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but bureaucrats are not necessarily available, and even if they are, the editor may not know how to ask for the action (or even that they are expected to ask for it). Regardless, I think (auto)confirmed is too low a requirement. –LPfi (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Maybe template editor? Template editors roles can be assigned by any sysop at any time without a nomination – if we want external help we could easily assign that role. --shb (t | c | m) 11:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

My main concern with leaving the status quo and relying on page protections is that new modules are created not too uncommonly and it's very easy to forget to add page protection – and as we saw earlier with Special:Diff/5015601 – one edit by an IP that broke all of our documentation templates. I wanted autoconfirmed to be the default and then further protecting the very high-risk modules (that aren't .css or .js pages) to template editor, but I suppose if we make the minimum template editor, then it could easily be given out by a sysop on request. //shb (t | c | m) 11:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

My suggestion was to add an abuse filter instead. It could be public, if we want public criteria and not more complicated rules often found in the filters. Global edit count can be used, and e.g. 5,000 would be much more than autoconfirmed, but probably satisfied for anybody whom we'd want to edit modules. The filters can be set per namespace, so such a restriction for modules is possible.

Template editor would be logical, and any admin being able to assign it lessens the problem with users from sister project, but there is still the frustrating feeling when you see a problem, do some research and experimenting and then, when you think that you have solved the problem, the system says that you don't have the rights. If asking for the permissions isn't a common solution across projects, the user may never think about it, and there is no trace of the actions that would cause an admin to assign the right and tell the user about it.

–LPfi (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

A few hundred edits is usually plenty, especially if you can also check for account age (I'd suggest a few months). You don't want to unnecessarily exclude MediaWiki devs, whose contributions don't get counted as "edits". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe asking for perms is quite common place across bigger wikis (where most of our technically skilled people come from), so it wouldn't be entirely out of the ordinary. My issue with an abuse filter is that it wouldn't give a whole lot of room to exceptions as opposed to a blanket default protection. //shb (t | c | m) 22:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

In practice, asking for permissions means the site stays broken longer. We only have three buros here. Two of you are in the same part of the world, and the third isn't active most days.

• You and Ikan usually stop editing for the day around 12:00 UTC. TT's off wiki.
• The site breaks at 12:15 UTC.
• A volunteer dev shows up to fix it at 12:30 UTC.
• The volunteer dev asks for the user right at 12:45 UTC, but nobody who can grant the perm is around.
• The site stays broken until you or Ikan wake up in the morning.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you figure we need another bureaucrat? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we are going to make timely technical repairs conditional on having a bureaucrat around, then we probably need several more bureaucrats, with an emphasis on people who are usually online in the hours after the deployment train runs on Wednesdays (evening/night in Europe, afternoon/evening in the Americas). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Solution is much simpler, allow sysops to also grant the confirmed right manually (I also say this after an awkward waiting period for a case we had on enwikibooks last year). Saves a whole heap of time as we generally have sysops active for most hours of the day (except between 23:00–03:00 UTC). //shb (t | c | m) 21:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which means semi-protection (your original proposal) instead of template editor (your later proposal).

I thought that admins were already able to grant confirmed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well I simply mentioned that due to you mentioning bureaucrats being needed to be involved – I still prefer template editor which can be assigned by any sysop, but if autoconfirmed is decided on as the bar, I'm also up for allowing sysops to grant it (which we don't, oddly enough). //shb (t | c | m) 22:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I thought TE required a buro. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe sysops can grant autopatroller (if the user in question doesn't have GR), patroller, template editor and IPBE. Buros can assign that plus confirmed, sysop, int admin, bot, account creator and buro itself. //shb (t | c | m) 11:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could a regular admin check whether they can assign "confirmed" and "template editor"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would be good for a regular admin to check, but for the record, I very well remember not being able to assign confirmed when I wasn't a bureaucrat and I have assigned template editor to a few users before. //shb (t | c | m) 21:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The groups I can change are:

• IP block exempt
• autopatroller
• patroller
• template editor

I cannot change confirmed user. I checked what groups I can add to myself, removing groups can be different. I am an admin.

–LPfi (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sweet, it does line up with what Special:ListGroupRights#sysop has to say (and it is expected that you cannot change confirmed user because that's under Special:ListGroupRights#bureaucrat). Cheers LPfi :). //shb (t | c | m) 08:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have started a proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Confirmed users. //shb (t | c | m) 05:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Admins, please read my comments in Filter 48 and reply there, and thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could someone let me know why Enoshima appears as a star article on the sidebar of wikipedia:en:Enoshima? (I don't know where Wikivoyage displays on Vector2022, but you can see it on vector2010.) Thanks, CMD (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, it also appears on MonoBook, which I use and will likely appear on all skins. It is because it is (or was, depending on when you read this), marked with that quality at the relevant Wikidata item: d:Q989803. It was done by a bot in 2014, based on this rev of the page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I did think it was coded in a common location, I just genuinely do not know how (if?) Vector2022 connects to other projects. CMD (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I removed it on Wikidata – it's neither a guide nor a star article. //shb (t | c | m) 22:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/01/top-most-under-the-radar-travel-places-spots-destinations.html —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If Hamburg, the Nordic countries, Uzbekistan and Western Australia are "under the radar" then their radar needs fixing. They could make a good start by reading WV, which has fairly good coverage of the lot. Grahamsands (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Philippines also being "under the radar" is also laughable. //shb (t | c | m) 08:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you asked 1,000 Americans "what are your top 25 travel destinations?", how many do you think would included Western Australia? My guess is two at most. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

For "top travel destinations" one would perhaps not list those on the other side of the globe. At least I wouldn't, if I were asked. Not being on a top list doesn't mean it is under the radar. And nothing in the post here, nor in the article said that this was about the USA (although quoting flight prices from there gave a hint, and some might recognise the agents that were asked – mostly those who themselves are in the US, I'd suppose). –LPfi (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would have assumed that it was US-centric because it's a US media outlet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The basic problem with the list is that they asked 10 travel agents. A travel agent is going to be tempted to answer with an under-the-radar destination that they sell an expensive trip to, not somewhere nearer that you might drive to with a tent in the back of the car. AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is also another issue with the article (and does explain why many of the destinations listed in question aren't the cheapest to get to). //shb (t | c | m) 06:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

"And nothing in the post here, nor in the article said that this was about the USA" CNBC is an American outlet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is, and I am a bit embarrassed that I didn't recognise the acronym (perhaps because I assumed the site was travel-oriented). But an entity being US-based is usually better known among those who themselves have connections to the USA, and thus such knowledge should not be assumed in a global forum. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree – I only knew CNBC is American because I have extensively read their articles before (particularly in the lead-up to US elections), but I would not assume that everyone knows CNBC is an American outlet. //shb (t | c | m) 07:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it's the confusion about it being American or if I'm alone here, but the list was actually better than I expected. I'd say with the exception of Hamburg, they all qualify as "off-the-radar" for a large number of American tourists, although the Ecuadorian cloud forest is hyper-specific compared to "Nordic countries" which is so broad. I think some of them make more sense when you think about how the average US tourist thinks about certain destinations and the typical priorities in the respective regions and countries (Western Europe over Albania or Nordic countries, Melbourne and Sydney area over Perth, Thailand/Vietnam/China/Bali over Philippines). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would you also classify the Philippines as being off-the-radar for American visitors too? (just out of curiosity – I don't actually know how popular of a destination the Philippines are in the US) //shb (t | c | m) 20:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would say the Philippines is off-the-radar for most Americans. When Americans want to visit Asia, there is much more to entice them in Thailand, China, Bali, Vietnam, etc. There are no famous or well-known sites in the Philippines nor are their any widely known cultural intrigues to the average American, so it's appeal as an Asian destination is low. It seems to have more colonial European sights, too, which make it less appealing. Most people say that the beaches are the highlight of the Philippines, but Americans can go to the Caribbean for a lot cheaper for pretty beaches, and other places in Asia have both beaches AND more Asian cultural sights. To be honest, when it comes to travel, I'd say the Philippines is most known in the US as a place where old men go to purchase brides rather than a place to visit for actual travel. Of course this is just "average American" impressions. There are still plenty of Americans who visit the Philippines for travel (who are not Filipino), but overall, I think when looking at the cost versus what it offers, the rest of Asia has more of what Americans want. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

"an entity being US-based is usually better known among those who themselves have connections to the USA, and thus such knowledge should not be assumed in a global forum" okay, granted, but 1.) that is just contextualizing who the audience is of the piece and 2.) there are some subtle hints that it's American between it being ".com" and having a division between "USA" and "Intl" news and using American spelling, etc. I mentioned a hypothetical about Americans being polled for off-the-radar destinations because they (we) are not going to think of Western Australia literally ever, so saying that Western Australia is not off-the-radar is also some kind of cultural bias. Australians and New Zealanders would probably think of it as "on the radar" but Paraguayans and Namibians and Uzbekistanis less so. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

My last enthusiasm for the article got lost as they dropped Iceland from their list of Nordic countries. It is the most accessible European country for American visitors, and also among the most unusual. /Yvwv (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be good to have some more articles based around certain individuals. We do have Alexander the Great and Marco Polo, but formats of the two articles are very different. I suggest articles similar to Alexander but would list the sites of memorials or museums on the given person. For people like Rabindranath Tagore where memorials can be found even in places he had never visited, we should restrict such listings to places he had notably visited or lived (like Dhaka, Kolkata, Kushtia, Mangpoo, Santiniketan, and many overseas travels). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would you consider articles like Voyages of Christopher Columbus or Architecture of Walter Burley Griffin also to be based around certain individuals? I do agree there is some potential in this topic if done correctly. //shb (t | c | m) 05:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

And Goethe's Italian Journey (a single book by a single person) also makes a very nice tour through Italy. FredTC (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes so long as it's done as a travel topic, we have lots more good examples. For individuals strongly associated with a particular place it's simpler to use "Understand" or an infobox, for instance the poet William McGonagall in Dundee. His best-known contribution to travel was to praise the "beautiful bridge over the silvery Tay", then bemoan the "ill-fated bridge over the silvery Tay" after it collapsed under a train. Grahamsands (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm talking about individuals associated with multiple destinations. Some well-known people of India are associated with different places within India and also beyond (Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and start such articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:What is an article? has discouraged from articles on individual people. A few years ago, I added examples of reasonable travel topics or itinerarys based on famous explorers, writers, legendary characters and other individuals. In any case, creating an article for a living celebrity would not be a good idea, as it would be difficult to be updated and unbiased. Travel topics such as Presidents of the United States and Nordic monarchies should also limit the description of living individuals to basic and neutral facts. /Yvwv (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm talking about creating articles on celebrities that have memorials and museums on different places on Earth the given celeb has visited. For example, Gandhi has visited different places in India and South Africa, and there are memorials and museums in places he has visited. Same for Tagore (India, Bangladesh, etc.), Vivekananda (India, U.S., Canada, UK) and many other famous people who are known for extensive travelling, and there are memorials and museums on the places they have visited. These people should be eligible for travel topics or itineraries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The text in Wikivoyage:What is an article cited by User:Yvwv does not discourage travel articles based on the exploits of historical or fictional characters, but there is a line discouraging articles on living people that I wasn't aware of. However, I really don't think it should be impossible to agree on reasonable blurbs for them as a matter of background to the travel-related meat of a travel topic or itinerary article. The current and several former U.S. presidents are living people, and while agreeing on blurbs for them in the Presidents of the United States article has sometimes been the product of contentious arguments, it has not been impossible. Therefore, I would support an edit to Wikivoyage:What is an article, but as a matter of procedure, we should discuss that at Wikivoyage talk:What is an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

As background see: Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article?/Archive_2018-2022#Articles_on_people. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Sbb1413: I was thinking of starting an Indian independence movement article. Once it becomes big enough, it could branch out and split into articles on the well-known individual freedom fighters like Mahatma Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Rani Lakshmibai, Sardar Patel, etc. Gizza ^(roam) 08:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it can be a valid topic, though it would be kinda different from what I expected. Regardless, I'll start a topic on it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. There will be overlap but the independence article will cover some different things. It will e.g. also include non-biographical listings like Jallianwala Bagh. Gizza ^(roam) 23:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The categories See and Do are in many cases overlapping. A principle has been that See lists attractions which can be casually visited (seeing the Manneken Pis in Brussels would be a quintessential example), while Do attractions (Activities) require active participation (such as gambling or ice skating); however, the categorization follows tradition more than a strict pattern. While Natural attractions are listed as see, outdoor life is listed as do, and many country and region articles list nature and outdoor destinations twice. As most natural attractions take some active participation beyond the vehicle transport (though driving or riding the bus to the Grand Canyon Village and walking up to the viewpoints would activate the pedometer less than walking through the Louvre in Paris). What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

To me, most natural attractions are places where I want to Do thingsː hike, camp, ride, paddle. I don't just want to snap a selfie with a volcano in the background, I want to get up close and hike to the top so I can see into the caldera. I think it's okay that the categories have some overlapː let the writer who adds it to a topic decide whether its more of a "See" or "Do". Most will make the right choice. Mrkstvns (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If I am undecided between "see" or "do", I ask if any advance preparation is required. If I am going to hike, then I probably want to pack my boots; if I am going to the theatre, then I may need to book a seat before I leave home. If I am going to a museum, then I normally just turn up (I know some museums require bookings but most don't). AlasdairW (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should have special rules (though I think the suggestions above are all very good). I think that if it's not intuitively obvious to you where this attraction belongs, then you should just pick one and not worry about it. The fact that you can't easily decide proves that no matter which one you choose, or what process you use to decide (flip a coin?), the result will not be bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

People who travel abroad are likely to encounter the cities with their architecture and monuments, before they venture into the outdoors, if they do it at all. Thereby, it makes sense to group natural attractions with outdoor life under the Do paragraph, at least in an article about a decently sized country. Consider Sweden#See; in which a very short paragraph on protected areas was recently added. /Yvwv (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not too recently. I now reverted the addition; it was directly followed by Nature in Do, which is the natural place to describe the protected areas in question. I agree that most natural attractions are better grouped with outdoor life in Do, especially as they mostly require a hike or a dedicated trip to reach. However, there are exceptions, such as a waterfall in the city itself, which would clearly qualify as a "see" (but if there is a Waterfalls subsection in Do, one might want to include it there). There might also be natural attractions that many visitors would pass by, and also those could be "see" listings, even when far from cities. –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

err, that's a Brendan sock for the record. //shb (t | c | m) 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not nearly as confusing as it sounds – if it's a lookout or a natural attraction itself (such as a waterfall), then it's a see; if it requires hiking, riding, driving or paddling, then it's a do. If something contains a mix of the two, it's not uncommon to combine the see and do sections. //shb (t | c | m) 21:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Whatamidoing: if the decision is hard, how you flip your coin probably isn't that important. I also don't think we should make the impression that there are fast rules about it. Often it matters how you treat similar attractions in the same article, such as the waterfall example in my reply to Yvwv above, how much content there is in the respective sections, or there may be other considerations not inherent in the attraction itself. The question may arise also in articles with much content, where you wouldn't combine the sections. Your rule of thumb is good, but editor judgement should have the last word. –LPfi (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do agree, it's not a big deal if it's misplaced; more often than not if it is, it's a sign to combine the two sections together. //shb (t | c | m) 10:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't agree on the latter. It is true for many rural areas, where most "see" attractions require some effort to reach, but where a similar problem arises for real cities, combining the sections would be an odd decision. See e.g. Rovaniemi, which has a short section on Natural attractions in See and more content in Do, beginning with Hiking and birdwatching. The content of the former could arguably be moved to Do, but the sights there are mostly by the roads you'd use anyway. The latter are much better covered in a separate Do than being mixed up with museums and churches. Both See and Do are long (two and four pages in my browser window). –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would argue that nature within cities tends to be rather the exception rather than the norm, at least on Wikivoyage. Not saying it's uncommon, but most of our natural attractions tend to be covered under park articles where it's much more common. Fir cities, yes I do agree that combining them isn't the best idea. //shb (t | c | m) 11:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I agree with LPfi, and while most destinations will have more "See" than "Do" listings, there's nothing wrong with places that have significantly longer "Do" sections. There's no need to combine them. If you misplace a listing, another contributor can always put it where it belongs. It can also be discussed on the talk page, but it's better to have a misplaced listing than to have no listing because the contributor was too worried about misplacing it.

When it comes to nature, I don't personally associate natural attractions with "Do", so I don't see a problem with putting a waterfall, a volcano, a river, a primeval forest, a 2000 year old tree, etc in the "See" section. I also think it's okay to give the sight a "See" listing and a hiking trail that goes to or past the sight a "Do" listing or if the place is an attraction but also has options for paragliding or other activities, giving those their own listings. In the Tottori article, the Sand Dunes themselves have a "See" listing (that is enough for most visitors) but a subheading under "Do" also lists all of the activities that you can participate in at the dunes. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

wiki prevents me from renaming Istanbul/Bosphorus to Istanbul/European Bosphorus which was agreed upon consensus per Talk:Istanbul#districts_section_needs_to_be_revamped._(or_the_whole_page). can someone give me a lift? Dudewithafez (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done, with double redirect fixed and relevant Wikidata item updated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say the renaming is unnecessary. The article does mention that it covers only the European side & gives a link for the Asian side. Pashley (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

You should bring it up on Talk:Istanbul then. //shb (t | c | m) 21:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's a month and a half left until April fools, so we could start thinking about what article (or which articles? if we run more than one) we should run. Some suggestions from previous discussions that sound interesting to me are Gibberish phrasebook or Captain Obvious travel guide. Ypsilon (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We can make a popover for "Plan your next trip with Wikivoyage AI (Beta)!" And however you interact with it, it just sends you to a random Itinerary article. Gerode (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another idea: we can have the homepage/featured articles have constant popovers/warning boxes saying things like "39 Wikivoyagers already searched for destinations like this today", "Hurry! Only 4 Stay listings left for your dates!", "This is the lowest price we've seen for Creative Commons content". And a huge red blinking clock. Gerode (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how technically feasible those ideas are. //shb (t | c | m) 22:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The AI one should be pretty easy: Link everything to Special:RandomInCategory/Itineraries. You could do the same for Category:Star articles or Category:Travel topics if you wanted to offer destinations or general advice as alternatives. It can be set up as an old-fashioned choose-your-own-adventure series of pages, or perhaps someone could make a little Javascript interface (radio buttons or tickboxes – they [or at least most of them] don't have to do anything, so long as you can click on them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or the AI one can simply be a link to Special:Random. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

That would usually result in the person ending up at an "Outline" article. I'd rather have them end up at one of our better articles (Guide or Star status). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seemingly that can be done with Special:RandomInCategory/Star articles. However, is there a technically feasible framework that would make this suitable for 1 April? Just redirecting a feature to an excellent article doesn't look like a joke.

(Should we have that link on our main page year round?)

–LPfi (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that doesn't seem nearly as fun of a prank. //shb (t | c | m) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Imagine a long list of questions like this:

1. Do you like to travel by yourself or with others? 🔘 Solo travel 🔘 One special person 🔘 Groups
2. Do you prefer short trips or long trips? 🔘 Day trips or overnight 🔘 Weekends 🔘 A week or more
3. How soon? 🔘 This month 🔘 Next month or two 🔘 Later this year
4. How far? 🔘 Close to home 🔘 The farther, the better
5. What's your favorite travel mode? 🔘 Car 🔘 Bus 🔘 Train 🔘 Plane

and at the end it has a button labeled something like "Have AI find your best destination!" that takes you to a random page (or to a page that we think would be a funny result, like Staycation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

That could work, but e.g. the fourth and fifth questions above require analysis of the answer and the user's location, for giving a sensible answer. We might intend to make fun of lousy AI engines, but the reader might just blame our judgement in choosing what AI to use.

Staycation might work, if "Close to home" is chosen, and Mars for "The farther, the better". One could provide star articles for some ("right") combinations of answers, with a good-enough probability that somebody trying alternatives would get one or more of those.

What framework is there to code this thing?

–LPfi (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your house is another possibility for "Close to home", if we want the result to be obviously joke-y.

I assume that if we don't take the hypertext route (i.e., each question is on a different page, with each answer taking you to another page, and the last one taking you to the destination), then it would have to be written in Javascript. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have had a user opersting under different names adding dynamic maps to country/region articles that already have static maps. Do we have a policy against this? I haven't been able to find it. Ground Zero (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well I think the issue isn't just that, they also keep changing the region structure unilaterally (such as Slovenia from Central Europe to Balkans). FTR I'm keeping a record of their socks at m:User:SHB2000/LTAs/Aichi Mapper, please do add any future socks to that list (I expect it to come in handy if they do something else which I won't name so not to give ideas). //shb (t | c | m) 07:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If memory serves, the last fight over static vs dynamic maps was six or eight years ago, and resulted in the pro-static people agreeing that sometimes there were advantages to having both.

I believe that maps showing regions (e.g., we divide this city into "/North", "/South", and "/Downtown" neighborhoods) are best as static maps and that maps showing individual points of interest (which change frequently) are best as dynamic maps. The main problem with static maps is that we have very few people who make static maps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above, and I do remember a discussion about this several years ago. I support the current consensus, and I agree that regions are best as static maps and locations with individual POIs work better as dynamic maps. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

As one of the few people here who can make new static maps (but not edit), I do agree that dynamic maps are generally favourable in most cases except for region/country articles. That said I don't think anyone is opposed to togglable maps (like Outback New South Wales, as an example). //shb (t | c | m) 09:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There may be an issue with offline use, so it is important that anything critical is shown in the maps that are displayed in such scenarios. I don't know what version is included and how that varies between different ways to save the page (pdf, browser cache, web page save, …), and I am afraid that few users who add or replace maps have that understanding. A guideline page should be written on the issue. –LPfi (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

In addition to region/country articles, the static maps are useful in large city articles for showing the districts with each district having a dynamic map for POI. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey everyone!

I wanted to bring up an interesting conversation happening over at Wikidata about forming a user group called trainer. The idea is to ensure that activities, especially those organized by Wikimedia affiliates, are led by experienced users who really know their stuff.

I think it would be great to kick off a similar discussion here. My suggestion is that any such events be accompanied by a sysop and that organizers give a heads-up about their plans at least thirty days in advance. We've all noticed how some activities can create more challenges for our volunteers than they solve, so I believe this could be a positive step toward improving the relationship between our communities and those seeking funding. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 04:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd be in support of something like that. It prevents competitions that cause chaos such as the Africa Expedition we previously had that only waste everyone's time and any other net negative events. //shb (t | c | m) 04:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Giving notice 30 days in advance is a long time. Even 2 weeks is more than sufficient. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

1 week would be fine. Notice is less important than participants not posting copyvio, copying the same information in every destination article in a country, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree about the notice; advance notice is quite important, especially if the event is organized by a Wikimedia volunteer/affiliate funded by some Wikimedia community fund Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 06:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think 1 week or 10 days would suffice. I do agree notice is important – it allows us to prepare for an expedition beforehand and better track the participants' contributions as opposed to it being thrown all at once. I also maybe think we could lower the bar to patrollers, since patrollers are generally trusted enough to fully understand how Wikivoyage works. But overall, I still support any change as opposed to the status quo which in the past has caused us to waste months unnecessarily on cleaning up problematic articles which could be better spent elsewhere. //shb (t | c | m) 07:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that a bit of notice is good, but the quality of the edits is the most important thing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah ultimately we want both. //shb (t | c | m) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply