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!
See or do natural attractions?
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- err, that's a Brendan sock for the record. //shb (t | c | m) 10:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Yvwv, Mrkstvns, LPfi, SHB2000, ChubbyWimbus: I often wonder where to list the city parks in a big city before it gets districtified. As per my common sense, a city park will go under "See" if it needs minimal preparations to visit (spending long hours in the park is considered "minimal" here), and it will go under "Do" if it needs extensive preparations. In case of distrifications, it is better to consider see and do attractions together due to overlaps in the scope of both sections, something I did for Chennai. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it#P draws the line according to whether there are sports fields, beaches, riding trails or other activities, and I'd count anything that requires preparation (other than packing your picnic) as such. Of course, a park can have a sports field in addition to "see" things, and often you'd like to keep the parks together, so you need to use your judgement. –LPfi (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think LPfi nailed it. //shb (t | c | m) 21:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarification. Yes, city parks come under "Do" if they require extensive preparations, while mostly-ornamental parks like Eco Park in Kolkata come under "See" (although Eco Park has some activities, they don't require extensive preparations). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
April fools article 2025
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I'm not sure how technically feasible those ideas are. //shb (t | c | m) 22:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Or the AI one can simply be a link to Special:Random. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yeah that doesn't seem nearly as fun of a prank. //shb (t | c | m) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Imagine a long list of questions like this:
- Do you like to travel by yourself or with others? 🔘 Solo travel 🔘 One special person 🔘 Groups
- Do you prefer short trips or long trips? 🔘 Day trips or overnight 🔘 Weekends 🔘 A week or more
- How soon? 🔘 This month 🔘 Next month or two 🔘 Later this year
- How far? 🔘 Close to home 🔘 The farther, the better
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- As I'm now adding April's Discoveries to the template, I'll be adding three references to Joke articles from previous years for the set displayed on April 1st. If there is no interest in creating a Joke article this year, then there'll at least be something. Ypsilon (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Imagine a long list of questions like this:
- Yeah that doesn't seem nearly as fun of a prank. //shb (t | c | m) 08:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Or the AI one can simply be a link to Special:Random. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm not sure how technically feasible those ideas are. //shb (t | c | m) 22:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
The Caption Obvious idea sounds awesome and I've whipped together Draft:Travelling with Captain Obvious. Please chip in! I'm not quite sure if the best tone for this is "absurdly obvious" or "absurd explanations for obvious things", so currently it's a bit of both, but let's see how this develops, we've still got two weeks. Jpatokal (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's a great start! One small thing, though: the draft namespace doesn't technically exist on Wikivoyage – I'll move it to Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Travelling with Captain Obvious instead for the timebeing. //shb (t | c | m) 03:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for starting up this! I added some good advice from Captain Obvious but surely there has to be a lot more that travellers need to be informed about. --Ypsilon (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Too late to the party, but I wanted to recycle the idea of User:Andree.sk/Map - we could put this on the front page, and anyone can claim a pixel. The price would be to make at least one meaningful (non-typo) edit for the area :) The editor can put their 'character' (perhaps even unicode) /color there - possibly with a link to the edit, or to the user... The last edit wins (you can takeover the pixel), and after a few days/week, we can close the article for the editing and make some nice screenshot out of it (after some beautification). -- andree 14:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's a nice idea — maybe we should try that! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Map policy
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Ground Zeroi want to travel Nomganga (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Go to travel basics. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I'm one of those rare users who can make both static and dynamic maps, and I agree that dynamic maps should be preferred most of the time, except in country or region articles that are divided into subregions that don't strictly follow administrative divisions. I'm nowadays making dynamic maps of such subregions using JOSM (e.g. Egypt), or approximating those subregions with lower-level administrative divisions (e.g. Nepal). There are also huge cities that don't strictly follow administrative or metropolitan boundaries (e.g. Kolkata), and I make both static and dynamic maps for them as well. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Event trainers
[edit]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)
- 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)
- Giving notice 30 days in advance is a long time. Even 2 weeks is more than sufficient. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yeah ultimately we want both. //shb (t | c | m) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think it would be good if we had 1 week's notice in advance of the event being advertised. It is better that we comment on event details before people the event is announced. This may mean that we get 14 days notice of some events and 100 days notice of others.
- I think we can be more relaxed about the trainer requirements for in person events than online events and competitions. The amount of damage that 20 people at an event in a classroom for an afternoon can do is small compared to a month long competition. (I occasionally get invites to Wikipedia or Commons events held at a local university, run by their Wikimedian-in-residence.) AlasdairW (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- I made a draft at User:SHB2000/Organising events – thoughts? //shb (t | c | m) 03:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The notice has several functions. For us being prepared to handle the edits caused by the event, a week is plenty. For us to convince organisers that they need to rethink their concept (points by number of articles created and the like), the discussion may require weeks – before the announcement that would include such issues is published.
- Requiring an admin gives misleading signals about their role. The only reason why an admin would need to be involved is if the event causes a need to delete or hide created content or to block participants – nothing a well-planned event should cause. Autopatrollers and patrollers (as suggested by SHB) are more relevant groups.
- Anyway, we cannot forbid and at least not prevent events that break our rules. Thus the page should focus on advice, and be made visible enough that "outsiders" will stumble upon it when in a preliminary phase of the planning. This includes WMF, which oddly enough often have people that don't understand the communities in such roles.
- –LPfi (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- The goal is to provide advance notice for community preparedness. Ideally, an enwikivoyage sysop should manage any resulting issues, not as a requirement but as a precaution. As a program host once said, "It's better to have a sysop and not need it than to need it and not have it"
- I made a draft at User:SHB2000/Organising events – thoughts? //shb (t | c | m) 03:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah ultimately we want both. //shb (t | c | m) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Giving notice 30 days in advance is a long time. Even 2 weeks is more than sufficient. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Although I don't believe I have the right to vote in this community, I suggest including examples of well-organized events in the draft policy. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Every user has the right to vote or express an opinion here. It's a wiki! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Although I don't believe I have the right to vote in this community, I suggest including examples of well-organized events in the draft policy. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- There are definitely things I appreciate about the draft (e.g., restricting it to medium- and large-scale events, rather than a few friends, and naming the problem of mistargeted incentives).
- However, I wonder whether the thing we would really want is: If you're organizing this event, you need to know how to edit Wikivoyage yourself.
- This would sound less like "Please follow these steps in announcing" and more like "Before you plan an event, you should first contribute a significant amount of material to a couple of Wikivoyage articles".
- This community has been generous in providing ample feedback to would-be organizers who are taking the trouble to get familiar with our approach, and I think it is easier to teach what you know. We could suggest some other ways to learn, e.g., reading this page for a couple of months, patrolling RecentChanges to see what others are reverting, watching the low-traffic Wikivoyage:Arrivals lounge, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I assume we're all good on moving this into projectspace now? //shb (t | c | m) 04:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Done – it's now at Wikivoyage:Organising events. //shb (t | c | m) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I assume we're all good on moving this into projectspace now? //shb (t | c | m) 04:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel a need for a user right for vetting people. Any of the regulars is welcome to set up an editing workshop whenever they want, e.g., at school, at work, or as a community event at their local library. Any of us could do it, and some of us have. We don't need a user right to do this.
- The point behind a user right is to give you relevant tools. In the case of user rights such as w:en:Wikipedia:Event coordinator and w:en:Wikipedia:Account creator, it gives you tools that are useful for running an event (e.g., helping people create their accounts). User rights also make it easier to figure out who has these tools, because it puts you in lists such as Special:ListAdmins.
- Unless specific tools are actually needed, I don't think we should create a user right. That tends to lead to a behavior we call "hat collecting" (trying to make yourself look important by getting as many user rights as possible, even though you aren't using them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has seen plenty of people try at hat collect, I must say it's rather rare on this wiki and almost anyone who tries to hat collect is almost always stopped. That said, I'm still indifferent because I do see the use of allowing non-admins to use the mass message feature but at the same time, I do think autopatroller or patroller should be enough. //shb (t | c | m) 22:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't see why some special status is needed. If we've recognized someone as an autopatroller, we consider them a trustworthy editor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is still plenty of merit in discussing whether having a permission to allow non-admins to use Special:MassMessage, though. //shb (t | c | m) 01:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd trust a patroller to use it. If they're going to abuse it, they shouldn't have been made a patroller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I'm fine either way of whether we want mass message to be included with patroller or a separate perm, so long as it's not bundled with autopatroller (since autopatroller requires a lower trust level than patroller and we have had to remove autopatroller from a few users before). //shb (t | c | m) 04:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we have. We agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I'm fine either way of whether we want mass message to be included with patroller or a separate perm, so long as it's not bundled with autopatroller (since autopatroller requires a lower trust level than patroller and we have had to remove autopatroller from a few users before). //shb (t | c | m) 04:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd trust a patroller to use it. If they're going to abuse it, they shouldn't have been made a patroller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is still plenty of merit in discussing whether having a permission to allow non-admins to use Special:MassMessage, though. //shb (t | c | m) 01:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't see why some special status is needed. If we've recognized someone as an autopatroller, we consider them a trustworthy editor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has seen plenty of people try at hat collect, I must say it's rather rare on this wiki and almost anyone who tries to hat collect is almost always stopped. That said, I'm still indifferent because I do see the use of allowing non-admins to use the mass message feature but at the same time, I do think autopatroller or patroller should be enough. //shb (t | c | m) 22:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Upcoming Language Community Meeting (Feb 28th, 14:00 UTC) and Newsletter
[edit]Hello everyone!
We’re excited to announce that the next Language Community Meeting is happening soon, February 28th at 14:00 UTC! If you’d like to join, simply sign up on the wiki page.
This is a participant-driven meeting where we share updates on language-related projects, discuss technical challenges in language wikis, and collaborate on solutions. In our last meeting, we covered topics like developing language keyboards, creating the Moore Wikipedia, and updates from the language support track at Wiki Indaba.
Got a topic to share? Whether it’s a technical update from your project, a challenge you need help with, or a request for interpretation support, we’d love to hear from you! Feel free to reply to this message or add agenda items to the document here.
Also, we wanted to highlight that the sixth edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter (January 2025) is available here: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter/2025/January. This newsletter provides updates from the October–December 2024 quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and ideas for contributing to projects. To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page: Wikimedia Language and Product Localization/Newsletter.
We look forward to your ideas and participation at the language community meeting, see you there!
MediaWiki message delivery 08:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Itinerary status
[edit]I think the itinerary status criteria need tweaking. See Wikivoyage talk:Itinerary status#Change status requirements?, where I got no response.
Currently, usable status for an itinerary requires complete Understand and Get in sections, which I think is odd, to say the least. I think the author should concentrate on the itinerary itself (the Go/Drive/Walk part) before worrying too much about Understand, and Get in is usually adequately covered (for usable) by just linking the endpoint cities. Generally, I think no section should need to be complete for a guide to get usable status.
Prepare and Stay safe – which are essential in some itineraries (and a "No special measures are needed" would be enough in some others) – aren't required at all.
Even for star, no general completeness is required in the current criteria, only (implicitly) a "complete point-to-point listing" for usable and "describes each stop and how to get there" in guide. Those criteria are open for interpretation, and as they are not repeated for star, it seems you just need to tweak the wordings to get to star from what is required at lower levels. A "take road A5 northwards for Bushville, which is a nice small town" would satisfy the guide requirements, but is woefully inadequate for star in my opinion, even with perfect lively language.
Changing requirements obsoletes the current status designations of many articles, so there should be consensus on the criteria changes before changing statuses – but I think most of the suggested changes are important.
(One more issue: on hikes where the stops aren't cities or other significant settlements, Eat, Drink and Sleep become essential. These can be included in Prepare, but I think they should be mentioned in the template and the status criteria.)
–LPfi (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree very strongly on the Understand bit – I've never understood why you need an Understand section for an itinerary to be usable and not the route itself. All the more so when it is the only type of article that requires an Understand section for usable. //shb (t | c | m) 09:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agree. The route is basic info. Personally, I think that should imply that a map is also provided. Doesn't have to be complete or show pins for every POI, but should at least give an idea of the extent of the route and major points. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think the point of the ==Understand== requirement is to explain why you would want to follow this itinerary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- If these changes are accepted, an alternative to revisiting all itinerary artciles would be to:
- Amend {{template:usableitinerary}}, giving it an additonal parameter which, if present, will have the effect of adding the text "This classification was made before XXXXX" where XXXX is the date on which the new crteria takes effect.
- On the same day, a bot will run which will change all instances of {{usableitinerary}} to {{usableitinerary|XXXX}}.
- When editors revisit any itinerary articles, they should reasses the article against the new criteria, reclassify the article if neccessary and remove the date from th template.
- Martinvl (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good idea. But let's get a stable version of the criteria before doing it. –LPfi (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Or we could ...just not worry too much about the labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- The reason to worry about labels (such as "usable" and its criteria) is that people often want to make an article usable, guide or star, and then of course look at the criteria, not only at how the article could be improved in general. I think its good that we have such criteria, directing efforts where they are most needed, but for that to work, the criteria need to make sense. –LPfi (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! You mean that whether the label align with current criteria is less important. It may not be critical, but it is confusing and undermines the system, especially if one gets the impression that there is little correlation. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- At most, I would support adding a note to Wikivoyage:Article status#Changing status that says sometimes the tags are outdated. It already says that if you see one that's wrong, you should plunge forward and update the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there are 229 usable itineraries per Category:Usable itineraries – unless multiple users actively review multiple articles at a time, it will take at least a year for the tags to be up-to-date. //shb (t | c | m) 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there are 229 usable itineraries per Category:Usable itineraries – unless multiple users actively review multiple articles at a time, it will take at least a year for the tags to be up-to-date. //shb (t | c | m) 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- At most, I would support adding a note to Wikivoyage:Article status#Changing status that says sometimes the tags are outdated. It already says that if you see one that's wrong, you should plunge forward and update the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! You mean that whether the label align with current criteria is less important. It may not be critical, but it is confusing and undermines the system, especially if one gets the impression that there is little correlation. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- The reason to worry about labels (such as "usable" and its criteria) is that people often want to make an article usable, guide or star, and then of course look at the criteria, not only at how the article could be improved in general. I think its good that we have such criteria, directing efforts where they are most needed, but for that to work, the criteria need to make sense. –LPfi (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Or we could ...just not worry too much about the labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good idea. But let's get a stable version of the criteria before doing it. –LPfi (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- But I think you can make the argument for any other type of article as well. I would make it a requirement for guide articles and above only. //shb (t | c | m) 23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but itineraries are the only category, except topic articles, to require completeness. I wouldn't remove the Understand requirement from usable topics and countries. I would add Understand criteria for parks. Current Understand criteria:
- Travel topics, usable: "at least a good overview of the topic"; stricter requirements for guide and star
- Countries, usable: "Information about the country's […] culture is included."
- Cities, guide: "A brief general overview allows the voyager to understand why this destination is of historic, geographic or cultural interest."
- Regions, guide: "all the standard sections have well-developed prose."
- Parks: no Understand requirements, even for guide, other than that the section needs to be there.
- Airports: no Understand requirements, even for star; the section is non-mandatory.
- For itineraries, I would keep some Understand criteria, from my proposal (but I don't think I thought very hard on the specific Understand criteria):
- Outline: "an Understand section telling what the itinerary is about."
- Usable: "The Understand section clearly tells what the itinerary is about,"
- –LPfi (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but itineraries are the only category, except topic articles, to require completeness. I wouldn't remove the Understand requirement from usable topics and countries. I would add Understand criteria for parks. Current Understand criteria:
- Yes, the Understand section is to a large extent about why you'd want to go there, and that's a reasonable requirement for guide status. But for usable, I think it is enough that somebody who wants to go there can use the article to do so. And even for guide, the Understand shouldn't need to be complete, whatever that means (other than for topics, where completeness in some sense is needed for a good article). –LPfi (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- I forgot about topic articles, but I can get behind that. //shb (t | c | m) 07:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Itineraries for historical routes like Silk Road, Lewis and Clark Trail or El Camino Real need some explanation of the history. For some this might be given in the intro, but most will need an Understand section. Pashley (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't need to be complete. My suggestion (in the thread linked in my first post above) was, for usable, that "the Understand section clearly tells what the itinerary is about". I think that would cover it to some degree also for historic itineraries. Do you think a stricter criterium is needed for those? –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
the upgrade frvoy listing editor from 2.1 - Listing editor do not run
[edit]Hello. I'm looking for a solution for our listing editor because it's still at version 2.1 and I think that's why it doesn't work anymore. Can you tell us how to solve the problem? Is it enough just to copy and paste the .JS and .CSS from here or is there another problem? Thank you very much in advance. Crochet.david (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Crochet.david, what does "doesn't work anymore" mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd assume broken (speaking from experience) because it's outdated. //shb (t | c | m) 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Broken, the [edit] button is missing?
- Broken, the [edit] button is there, but does nothing when you click it?
- Broken, the editing window opens, but it's blank?
- Broken, the editing window opens, but it's missing parts?
- Broken, the editing window opens and works, but it doesn't save your changes?
- Broken, the listing tool screws up the rest of the page when it saves your changes?
- "Broken" is vague. We might need specifics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at fr:Cheongju as an example, I see no "add listing" button and clicking the edit button at fr:Les Pavillons-sous-Bois does nothing when you click on it. //shb (t | c | m) 03:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- If the [add listing] button is gone, it might not be loading at all. Andyrom75, would you mind taking a look at this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Jdlrobson:. //shb (t | c | m) 03:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- The code from MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor broken in 2023 with updates to MediaWiki.
- I forked this into a new version MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor2023 and have been slowly slowly trying to improve the code to make it more maintainable and to have tests and to support all projects to avoid this happening again. The code still uses jquery.ui for example which was deprecated 10 years ago, so there's a lot of catching up to do. I underestimated the work here, and to be honest, in my opinion it's crying out for a modern rewrite using Vue.js from someone who understands its functionality better than I do.
- It should be functional at least (for now) and any pull requests for improving the code are welcome. There are instructions on MediaWiki:Gadget-ListingEditor2023 for how to incorporate it into your wiki. Jdlrobson (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Jdlrobson, fr:voy cannot implement the LE2023 as it is, because they performed several customization that should be analyzed first.
- @Crochet.david, @WhatamIdoing, I would love to take a look at it, but because of several personal issues I'm not able to take such commitment in the short term. Once solved at least part of them, I'll check if there's any quick fix to implement to restore the old functionality. Andyrom75 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. We can wait. Crochet.david (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if this problem is happening at the other Wikivoyages, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- I assume that the breakage is a result of the new Parsoid parser. The Parsoid support is only available at the English, German and Spanish branches. I think that this problem is available on all other Wikivoyages. --RolandUnger (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then it's probably time to ping @SGrabarczuk (WMF), who can ask the Content Transform team to look into this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I assume that the breakage is a result of the new Parsoid parser. The Parsoid support is only available at the English, German and Spanish branches. I think that this problem is available on all other Wikivoyages. --RolandUnger (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if this problem is happening at the other Wikivoyages, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. We can wait. Crochet.david (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also pinging @Jdlrobson:. //shb (t | c | m) 03:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- If the [add listing] button is gone, it might not be loading at all. Andyrom75, would you mind taking a look at this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at fr:Cheongju as an example, I see no "add listing" button and clicking the edit button at fr:Les Pavillons-sous-Bois does nothing when you click on it. //shb (t | c | m) 03:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd assume broken (speaking from experience) because it's outdated. //shb (t | c | m) 02:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Filter 63
[edit]To admins, please go to Special:AbuseFilter/63. Thanks, //shb (t | c | m) 11:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Courier services
[edit]I wonder if this should be covered under Postal service, or if it should be its own thing. For instance, if you are going skiing in China, SF Express provides a courier service for you to send your ski equipment to the resort so you don't have to carry all that equipment with you on the train. Similarly, if you are travelling around Japan, you can use Kuroneko to courier your luggage to your next hotel so you don't need to lug it onto the train with you. The dog2 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have passing familiarity with the Japanese company, not the Chinese one. I think since these are so niche, it makes more sense to mention them in those specific destinations and keep the general concept of a courier at postal service for trying to get Thing A to Place B. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- If the courier service is mainly used for shipping luggage, and it does it in times and at prices that appeal to travellers, then I think it should be in Get in or Get around along with the trains, planes or whatever that take people to the same places. If it is mainly used for shipping packages home, then put it in Connect in the city or country article. AlasdairW (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- The one in Japan is a regular courier company that can be used to ship anything, like DHL, UPS or FedEx in the West. It's just that Kuroneko also ships luggage from hotel to hotel, and given that Japanese trains don't have much space for luggage, it's usually much more convenient to just courier your bag to your next hotel, and their service is actually quite affordable. Japanese hotels are used to handling that, so the concierge can usually collect payment from you and arrange the pickup, and they usually have waybills available for you to fill in. I'm not sure if the Chinese company does hotel-to-hotel luggage delivery, but they're also just a regular courier company. I know that some ski resort partner with them so they can pick up your ski equipment and deliver it to the resort. And Chinese university students also use them to send their belongings from home to their university dorms and vice versa. The dog2 (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I used this service for a Japan ski trip a few years ago, it was incredibly helpful! The first place I thought to look just now was Japan#Get around, which would ideally be linked to from relevant regional #Winter Sports sections. I see there's already a small section in Japan#Connect, which I had assumed until now was more for communications than luggage? Gerode (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've added a section under postal service. We can always spin it off to a separate article later if necessary. The dog2 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I wrote a few sentences in Downhill snowsports#Plan your visit and Cross country skiing#Cope, with links to the courier section. LPfi (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've added a section under postal service. We can always spin it off to a separate article later if necessary. The dog2 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- If the courier service is mainly used for shipping luggage, and it does it in times and at prices that appeal to travellers, then I think it should be in Get in or Get around along with the trains, planes or whatever that take people to the same places. If it is mainly used for shipping packages home, then put it in Connect in the city or country article. AlasdairW (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
FYI: The Nabataeans are Coming
[edit]https://www.historytoday.com/archive/behind-times/nabataeans-are-coming —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Accidentally messed up a page
[edit]Hello.
I was trying to edit this page, but accidentally messed it up and now after the 'Go next' section everything repeats two times.
I would appreciate if someone could help me fix this. I can't do so myself because an error pops up.
Emksch (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- You can go to Special:History/Minsk and click on the timestamp of the preceding version and then edit that page to reintroduce your intended edits. You can "edit" the current version in another window or tab to copy and paste content. Click save only for the version without duplicate content.
- For somebody who doesn't know what you tried to change, it is a bit more complicated: basically the same procedure, but to find intended changes, one needs to use diffs: the easiest way might be to edit the current version in two windows/tabs, where one version of the duplicate content is deleted in one window and the other version in the other and the remaining content doubled or copied over. Checking diffs between those (unsaved) and the current version, one can see what actually changed, in addition to the doubling. Some tweaking of whitespace might be needed to get diffs that make sense.
- I won't do that now, but perhaps I do it later if nobody has done it in a day or two. Perhaps reverting for now is the best path, unless somebody starts working right away. Getting diffs to an old version is a bit tricky, normal diffs from the editing window always compare your unsaved version to the current version.
mw.loader.load('//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxEdit.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
- Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think the challenge is to find the intended and relevant changes, when there are other changes, such as duplicates and whitespace tweaks. Does AjaxEdit help with those, or is it just one alternative editor in addition to the wikitext editor, its visual mode and the visual editor (and all kinds of external tools, such as w:Emacs' wikitext mode)?
- I think the issue is to make it easy to see actual differences between versions. The ordinary diffs are not very handy when the differences are between paragraphs far apart in the text (you need to scroll up and down, and sometimes the actual differences don't show up but as removed and added paragraphs) – although it's much better now than a few years ago.
- I use parallel windows and copy and tweak things until I get the tool to compare the relevant paragraphs, ideally showing the paragraphs side by side.
- –LPfi (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- AjaxEdit is more of an alternative editor that allows you to edit individual sections without loading the entire page – which should prevent Emksch's situation of accidentally copying and pasting the entire article over again. //shb (t | c | m) 12:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know how that happened, but I assume there was intentional copying, which you could do in most any editor, just that the part copied was larger than intended or pasted twice. Such things happen, more or less with any tool that doesn't severely restrict what you can do. –LPfi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed an edit by user Emksch, where a new version of the article was added to the existing article. The wanted result was clearly to have only the new version. So, to get the wanted situation, the version of the article after the first edit by the user should be corrected. This correction should be the removal of the old version, making the combination of edits a replacement and not an addition. This is what I just did. --FredTC (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- OK. I didn't know whether some tweaks and additions went to one copy and some to the other, and I messed up my head trying to check that. –LPfi (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed an edit by user Emksch, where a new version of the article was added to the existing article. The wanted result was clearly to have only the new version. So, to get the wanted situation, the version of the article after the first edit by the user should be corrected. This correction should be the removal of the old version, making the combination of edits a replacement and not an addition. This is what I just did. --FredTC (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know how that happened, but I assume there was intentional copying, which you could do in most any editor, just that the part copied was larger than intended or pasted twice. Such things happen, more or less with any tool that doesn't severely restrict what you can do. –LPfi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- AjaxEdit is more of an alternative editor that allows you to edit individual sections without loading the entire page – which should prevent Emksch's situation of accidentally copying and pasting the entire article over again. //shb (t | c | m) 12:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Norway considers to limit right to roam
[edit]Concerning responsible tourism and overtourism, Norway considers limits to the right to access. Forbes has an article on the topic. /Yvwv (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct annual review: proposed changes are available for comment
[edit]Please help translate to your language.
I am writing to you to let you know that proposed changes to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines and Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter are open for review. You can provide feedback on suggested changes through the end of day on Tuesday, 18 March 2025. This is the second step in the annual review process, the final step will be community voting on the proposed changes. Read more information and find relevant links about the process on the UCoC annual review page on Meta.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.
Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.
-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) 18:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Timor-Leste naming
[edit]I started a discussion on Talk:East Timor about renaming this to Timor-Leste – since this is a fairly major change, I'm also mentioning it here. //shb (t | c | m) 00:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 is on—Come Join Us!
[edit]
Hello All,
Greetings from the Wiki Loves Bangla Team!
We are excited to announce that Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 is coming soon! This year, the contest theme will focus on Birds of Bengal, inviting participants to capture and share stunning images of Bengal's diverse birdlife.
Contest Details
- 📅 Dates: 1 – 31 March 2025
- 📍 Theme: Birds of Bengal
- 🎯 Organized by: Bangla WikiMoitree
Wiki Loves Bangla is an international photography contest hosted on Wikimedia Commons to document Bengali culture and heritage worldwide. As part of the Bangla Culture and Heritage Collation Program, it is held annually with a specific theme, inviting participants to contribute their photographs to Wikimedia Commons to expand free knowledge. Through this campaign, you can become part of a community dedicated to preserving and showcasing the beauty, behaviour, and biodiversity of Bangla’s birds. This initiative aims to highlight the richness of Bangla’s natural heritage to the world.
How can I participate?
The contest runs from 1 - 31 March 2025 on Wikimedia Commons. To take part, simply:
- 📷 Capture photographs of Birds of Bengal.
- 📤 Upload your images to Wikimedia Commons under the Wiki Loves Bangla 2025 category.
- 📖 Learn more about contest rules and guidelines on the contest page.
Why participate?
By contributing, you help in documenting the rich birdlife of Bengal, making knowledge accessible to all. Plus, there are exciting prizes to be won!
Prizes
1st prize: BDT 50,000, crest, and certificate.
2nd prize: BDT 25,000, crest, and certificate.
3rd Prize: BDT 15,000, crest, and certificate.
If you are interested in participating in the photography campaign, start photographing and get ready for the photo campaign happening on Wikimedia Commons. For more information about the rules and prizes of the contest, refer here. For any questions, email us or join our telegram group here.
Warm regards,
Wiki Loves Bangla Team.
~ Moheen (keep talking) 13:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
#WikiLovesBangla
Do we want a "living abroad" article?
[edit]We have several articles about things that involve relatively long-term residence abroad: Retiring abroad, Working abroad, Teaching English, Digital nomad, Studying abroad, ... There are some issues that are common to most or all of these; some are currently covered at Retiring_abroad#Taxation, Retiring_abroad#Housing, Retiring_abroad#Moving & Retiring_abroad#Health. Some other articles already link to some of those & more links might be added. Other issues are not covered at all as far as I can see:
- For many types of long-term visa you need a document from the police at home, or wherever you have been living recently, certifying that you are not a criminal. In many cases you need to get the destination country's embassy to certify that the document is genuine.
- If you want to marry at the destination, in some countries (at least China & Philippines) you will need a document from your country's embassy or consulate certifying that you are single. To get this, you may have to show the consulate other documents -- divorce decree, death certificate if you are widowed -- & I've seen situations where someone had to fly home to get the documents.
Would it make sense to centralise this information in a "Living abroad" article & link to it from the others? Pashley (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, "living abroad" can be a broad topic, covering subtopics like retiring abroad, working abroad, teaching English, studying abroad, culture shock, etc. Of course, "living abroad" should be distinguished from mere "travelling abroad", as you will be staying in a foreign land for longer periods than average tourists. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've always felt that moving is a form of travel and would be good to cover in a comprehensive travel guide, but so far, every article that's not about traveling somewhere temporarily has been an exception. I will add that all temporary or permanent residents of Germany are required to have medical insurance, and I was very shocked to find out recently that medical insurance for people on resident visas in Germany can be punishingly expensive, depending on a person's age and medical risk factors. Anyone interested in moving there temporarily or permanently as a freelancer needs to know about this and would benefit from knowing a lot earlier in their investigation and planning of a potential move than I did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- A Living abroad article sounds like a good idea to me. The other articles mentioned above (Working abroad, Studying abroad, etc.) can link to it as appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Because the topic is so broad, I think it makes more sense to use Living abroad as a list of the articles we've already created for specific circumstances. Ground Zero (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Ground Zero: That may make sense, and I will draft a list similar to concerns shortly. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Specifics for students, those who retire etc. should be covered in those articles, but general advice on the common issues fit better in the general article. I think it needs to be a proper article rather than a link list, but let's see how the article develops. –LPfi (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Ground Zero: That may make sense, and I will draft a list similar to concerns shortly. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Because the topic is so broad, I think it makes more sense to use Living abroad as a list of the articles we've already created for specific circumstances. Ground Zero (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- A Living abroad article sounds like a good idea to me. The other articles mentioned above (Working abroad, Studying abroad, etc.) can link to it as appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've always felt that moving is a form of travel and would be good to cover in a comprehensive travel guide, but so far, every article that's not about traveling somewhere temporarily has been an exception. I will add that all temporary or permanent residents of Germany are required to have medical insurance, and I was very shocked to find out recently that medical insurance for people on resident visas in Germany can be punishingly expensive, depending on a person's age and medical risk factors. Anyone interested in moving there temporarily or permanently as a freelancer needs to know about this and would benefit from knowing a lot earlier in their investigation and planning of a potential move than I did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Pashley, Ikan Kekek, Mx. Granger, Ground Zero: I have created living abroad as a list of articles related to living abroad. It can be converted to a full-fledged article if needed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
In Europe we have people of all ages who can afford to travel for extensive periods in a recreational vehicle, some of them even while working remotely. Many of them are from Northern Europe, who travel south during the winter. Since the weather conditions are changing, we are now also seing people from Southern Europe who travel north during the summer. My understanding is these people are "living abroad" even though they are not doing so permanently, but I would classify them as tourists because some also change destination country once in a while. Can Wikivoyage cater to this type of tourists? 2A02:AA1:1166:C7DD:C81B:4E7A:E9F6:E942 21:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, most articles in Wikivoyage deal with tourists, including the ones you're talking about. However, in my conception, "living abroad" means not just staying in a different country for extended periods, but also staying there for practical reasons, including education (learning or teaching), work, and retirement. They are not mere "tourists" in the sense that they are not just travelling to a different country for pleasure. Probably that's why many private space travellers don't like the term "space tourist", as some of them have had practical reasons to go to space (like filmmaking). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Odd comparison. But I don't think we need to care about whether people are living abroad permanently or just for an extended time – or living vs staying. We are giving advice for visa issues, moving (part of) your belongings, culture chock, health insurance etc. Some of those may not apply to a specific person living abroad, but they can nevertheless benefit from any advice that applies. The article is hardly relevant for RV folks who stay short enough that a normal visa, travel insurance etc. suffice – even if they feel they are living abroad – but if something is useful for them, all the better. –LPfi (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Townships?
[edit]I'm curious if West Bloomfield would be considered large enough to create a page - I know we don't want to have lots of tiny places with almost nothing on that page and that consolidation is preferred, but I don't see how it would fit into the current structure of Oakland County as there are a number of different places (parks, restaurants, community centers, etc.) that would probably clog up that page. I'd go ahead and forge ahead and make it, especially since it's already listed on the Oakland County page, but there's a bit of an issue I'm running up against - I definitely wouldn't call the area a city, as it is very much unincorporated, but I also wouldn't call it rural - it's more of a suburb. I understand that there is a suggested way to treat suburban areas, but said suggestion appears to make the assumption that the area is a suburb of a city, which. Isn't really the case here.
If I'm being silly and an unincorporated township should just get stuck on the county page, please let me know. Froglegseternal (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- The size of a town is not what determines whether it passes the what is an article test. I can think of at least one tiny town that has a star-rated article. From your description of the number of attractions in this town, it sounds to me like it could merit an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- We have city articles for settlements of any size - cities, towns, villages, townships etc (we don't care about official status). If the article is going to be about West Broomfield and the surrounding countryside, with much of the things being in the country (or other settlements) then a rural area article would be better. However as west Broomfield has a population of 68,000 it sound more like a town than a township to me (in the UK a township suggests a population of 68!). AlasdairW (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Your wiki will be in read-only soon
[edit]Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language
The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.
All traffic will switch on 19 March. The switch will start at 14:00 UTC.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
- You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 19 March 2025.
- If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
Other effects:
- Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
- We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
- GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.
Please share this information with your community.MediaWiki message delivery 23:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Just a reminder that these events are "for up to an hour", but in recent years, it's usually been "for less than five minutes". Most people won't notice this at all, but if you do, just wait a couple of minutes and try your edit again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Gas station in remote places. Get in or Get around section?
[edit]I am writing an article for Fort McPherson. It is the only community with gas stations within a 3-hr drive. I consulted "Where you can stick it" and it says Put these types in the Get around - By car section of the City or Park page.
Does that sound right when most travellers are getting into the remote place to fuel up gas, not necessarily getting around the community itself? My gut feeling is to put it into Get in section as almost all traffic are transient. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would still put it in "Get around," but if that's the main reason people stop there, it should also be mentioned in the lede. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Keeping standard info in standard sections is good, and the petrol station is relevant also for getting around locally. Having a mention in the lead covers the rest. You don't need the local petrol station to get in. –LPfi (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would also favour putting it in "Get around", making it clear that the town's main purpose is being a service town. //shb (t | c | m) 08:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Buy could also work, I remember seeing that in some articles about remote Australian towns. Possibly the way of thinking has been that one of the reasons to stop there is to Buy fuel.--Ypsilon (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Northwest_Territories#Get_around might also have something about gas in the region - ideally this would be a link to a definitive list of gas stations in the region, but could be a list of places (outside Yellowknife) that have gas stations. In Fort McPherson, the gas stations could have listings giving opening hours, lat/longs, details of shop or other facilities etc. AlasdairW (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that would also work – though for Australia it's largely due to service/gas stations also acting as that town's convenience store and essentials (like post). There's a bit more nuance to it but that delves way too much into economics/planning. //shb (t | c | m) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you all. I'll keep it in "Getting around" and add a point in the lead. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Buy could also work, I remember seeing that in some articles about remote Australian towns. Possibly the way of thinking has been that one of the reasons to stop there is to Buy fuel.--Ypsilon (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Naming "gas stations"
[edit]I don't want to hijack your thread, but I think a tangential issue could be calling these "gas stations" in the first place, since there are other types of general fueling stations that offer electricity, hydrogen, or natural gas (compressed or liquid). There are even stations that only have diesel and not petrol/gasoline. I think we should prefer a more generic term like "fueling station" to "gas station" for this reason and also list other vehicle fueling options as appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a big fan of honest, direct, simple communication. Inventing a new catch-all term is a bad idea when everyone in the world already knows what a gas station or petrol station is. Explaining any deviances, or availability of electric charging etc. would be appropriate, but I wouldn't try to guess what the next commonly used term will be as the world's energy technologies evolve. Mrkstvns (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Is "fueling station" a new term? I think it's been around for several decades. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Koavf, Mrkstvns: We already have a lot of possible generic terms to use instead of gas/petrol station, like filling station, fuel provider/supplier, (re)fuel(ing) station, motor station, service station, and vehicle station. I think we should use "filling station" as the generic term, as it is widely used across different Wikimedia projects (except in Commons where "fueling station" is used). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Of the terms you cited, I think "service station" is best because it carries no association to a specific kind of energy. (You don't really "fuel" or "fill" an electric car, you "charge" it.) Just a thought.... Mrkstvns (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you, with the minor caveat that in the U.S., we sometimes distinguish between gas stations where you can only get gas and service stations where you can also get some other services for your vehicle. I'm a non-driver, but I believe that service stations normally can do more than changing your oil, such as at least minor repairs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Which, to also be clear, were much more common in the mid-20th century, but the vast majority of x stations are just "get gas and maybe some snacks" or maybe a car wash, but rarely any basic mechanical servicing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Justin is correct that there are other fueling stations, but when it only sells gasoline and diesel, then "gas station" seems like a reasonable choice. There's a public charging place for electric cars near me. It's in the middle of a shopping center parking lot and I think it can charge 20 or more vehicles at a time. I wouldn't call that a gas station, but I'm not sure I'd call it any sort of fuel station. I'd probably call it a shopping center with some charging points.
- I share Ikan's perception that a "service station" offers vehicle repairs (at least changing tires and oil). A store full of junk food with fuel pumps outside is the common type in my area, and I would not call them "service stations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you, with the minor caveat that in the U.S., we sometimes distinguish between gas stations where you can only get gas and service stations where you can also get some other services for your vehicle. I'm a non-driver, but I believe that service stations normally can do more than changing your oil, such as at least minor repairs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Of the terms you cited, I think "service station" is best because it carries no association to a specific kind of energy. (You don't really "fuel" or "fill" an electric car, you "charge" it.) Just a thought.... Mrkstvns (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, we can use the term "gas station" (or "petrol station" in the Commonwealth) if the fuel station primarily sells gasoline (or petrol) and diesel. However, I prefer "fuel station" or "filling station" for most cases, and "charging station" for electric cars. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm with Mrkstvns and WhatamIdoing. For my example at Fort McPherson, it's definitely a textbook example of a gas station (sells gas & diesel, plus a convenience store with junk food and pop). In my view, "fuel station" is unclear and open to ambiguity. Is it to fuel up gas? Electricity for electric cars? Or hydrogen gas for fuel-cell cars? Charging station is exactly that, to "fuel" up electric cars. If a non-gas station (e.g. shopping centre, tourist attraction) has standalone electric charging facilities, I will call it a charging station. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
200 years of railway travel
[edit]
We are coming towards the 200th anniversary of passenger rail transport. On 27 Sep 1825 a steam-hauled train ran from Stockton-on-Tees to Darlington and back, acclaimed as a huge success as there were only two breakdowns and one serious injury. Might WV commemorate this in some way? Possibilities:
- Update / upgrade any rail themed pages such as “Rail travel in X” and itineraries.
- Perhaps one of those pages would be suitable for dotm / ftt.
- Update / upgrade any “Get in by rail” sections, at least for major mainline stations.
- Ditto any heritage lines and railway themed museums.
Any other thoughts? Grahamsands (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting bit of trivia. I'll have to keep my eyes open for an opportunity to add some rail related content. There are probably also some train museums that have been overlooked. Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe is it worth considering running Rail travel in Great Britain for FTT? //shb (t | c | m) 21:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Done – I've now nominated it for FTT. //shb (t | c | m) 08:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for that. The article is in good shape and looks to need only minor update.
- The anniversary will of course be most marked in GB - Natrail and the heritage industry are already noticing. But I'd like this to extend to other countries as far as possible, especially when we consider how far the GB rail network now lags behind others. Just look at China for the speed and extent of their system. Grahamsands (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah the current GB rail system does leave much to be desired (privatisation + HS2, what else can I say) especially when a lot of Asian countries (particularly China) excel in rail far more. :( (I'd still take the GB rail system over the rest of the Anglosphere, though). //shb (t | c | m) 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
What's different about this page?
[edit]Hey guys! I'm puzzled as to why the article Latacunga appears with a Contents box. Is this article somehow using a different skin or something? How was it invoked when other destinations appear normally? Just trying to understand what's going on....
Mrkstvns (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- The {{pagebanner}} tried to include a photo that did not exist. I have removed it, so the table of contents no longer displays and the default banner image does now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- The banner photo was deleted last month, see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Latacunga_banner.jpg. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- It can be undeleted and uploaded locally if it satisfies our EDP – which in this case probably means one cannot replace it with an equally good unencumbered one (deleted because of copyrighted artwork shown in the image). If needed, one can ask it to be undeleted for evaluation. –LPfi (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- And at the risk of getting a little too technical, the copyright on artwork was not just something like "I took a picture of a movie poster" or something that is typically and obviously a copyrighted creative work, but Ecuador lacks a freedom of panorama, so that taking photos of buildings, sculptures, and other architectural structures is covered by copyright, so a new banner should probably focus on natural phenomena. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I've added a new image that focuses on the natural landscape, as suggested by Justin. Feel free to replace it if you find something better. Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that my efforts to monitor c:COM:Deletion requests missed a Wikivoyage pagebanner. Wikivoyage is not bound by Commons' requirements for all photos to lack copyright restrictions on their commercial reuse, so if the preexisting pagebanner was better, we should indeed request undeletion for the purpose of uploading it locally with a warning for reusers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we be getting notifications from the Commons deletion bot? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- We should, but the bot that took care of this (or this functionality of the deletion bot if it was the one) has been defunct for a long time now. This is essential infrastructure maintained by volunteers instead of the WMF). I don't know whether the maintainer has withdrawn or just hasn't been able to fix it.
- The Commons folks are quite frustrated as the WMF launches all kinds of new projects (some of them loudly criticised from the outset) instead of taking responsibility for essential infrastructure.
- –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal, why isn't User:Community Tech bot working here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Does it work anywhere? phab:T339145 suggests that it was disabled on 6 June 2023, and a bug filed 14 June, triaged as High priority on 12 Dec that year ("given how long the outage has been"). Work seems to be ongoing, more or less, since then, but I see nothing on the progress since September. @MusikAnimal: any news?
- Not being notified of deletion requests is quite frustrating, and also means that more or less every deleted image should be restored for evaluation of whether it can be replaced or locally uploaded – and that undeletion and evaluation has to be redone for every use (there is no way to coordinate discussions on that matter across uses).
- –LPfi (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've commented at phab:T339145#10684901. I actually never dismissed the last ping from last October! Fixing this bot is on my ever-growing list of to-dos, where it has had to compete with multitudes of other things people are demanding my attention on, combined with a stressful past three quarters at the day job working on the monumental multiblocks project. In defense of my team, we didn't have the Python expertise needed to fix the bot, and the original author left the Foundation years ago. That's why it died. I spent long enough finally figuring out the Python bit and got stuck on the Toolforge part. @Taavi being the gem that he is was going to help me at the 2024 Hackathon, but both XTools and something else critical that I maintain (I don't recall what) decided to break that weekend, so I was stuck working on that instead :-P
- We happen to have another hackathon just one month away, and barring "Unbreak Now!" tasks getting slapped in my face, I will personally see to it that this bot gets revived. I realize it shouldn't take a Hackathon to fix a bot that a WMF team signed up to write and maintain. We have learned a lot about reducing maintenance burden since the bot was first written 7 years ago, and had it been written with those learnings we have today, I think it would still be running.
- One thing that would help is to "award tokens" or comment at phab:T339145 indicating how important this is to you and your wiki. To my knowledge only enwikivoyage has ever filed complaints. I hope you know that in my heart that was enough for my desire to bring it back to life, especially when I read you were (or are) planning to do this work manually! :cries:
- All of that said, I guess I can more or less promise something to come to fruition sometime next month, hopefully sooner. Please note that this comment is 100% in my volunteer capacity.
- Warm regards and sympathies! — MusikAnimal talk 22:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate your commitment and efforts. I've been doing my best to monitor all deletion requests for quite a while, mainly in order to try (clearly not entirely successfully) to catch efforts to delete images in use on Wikivoyage, and secondarily on other sister sites. If this bot started working again, I would dearly love to stop working so much on deletion requests and instead do other things that are more fun and possibly more useful to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal, why isn't User:Community Tech bot working here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Shouldn't we be getting notifications from the Commons deletion bot? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that my efforts to monitor c:COM:Deletion requests missed a Wikivoyage pagebanner. Wikivoyage is not bound by Commons' requirements for all photos to lack copyright restrictions on their commercial reuse, so if the preexisting pagebanner was better, we should indeed request undeletion for the purpose of uploading it locally with a warning for reusers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I've added a new image that focuses on the natural landscape, as suggested by Justin. Feel free to replace it if you find something better. Cheers! Mrkstvns (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- And at the risk of getting a little too technical, the copyright on artwork was not just something like "I took a picture of a movie poster" or something that is typically and obviously a copyrighted creative work, but Ecuador lacks a freedom of panorama, so that taking photos of buildings, sculptures, and other architectural structures is covered by copyright, so a new banner should probably focus on natural phenomena. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- It can be undeleted and uploaded locally if it satisfies our EDP – which in this case probably means one cannot replace it with an equally good unencumbered one (deleted because of copyrighted artwork shown in the image). If needed, one can ask it to be undeleted for evaluation. –LPfi (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- The banner photo was deleted last month, see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Latacunga_banner.jpg. AlasdairW (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
