Wikivoyage talk:Discover Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Would there be any interest in copying Wikipedia's "Did you know?" column, filled with strange but true trivia about destinations and events? For example, I recently wrote a few words about Tsu, which claims to have the world's shortest pronouncable city name. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:38, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Shortest in what script? In Latin script, I'm just browsing the UN/LOCODE list, and after the first few pages I've got Ofu and Tau in American Samoa as well as Cue in Western Australia. There's also As in Belgium, which is only two letters, as well as Ath... This claim doesn't seem to hold water, unless there's some jimmying with the definition of "short", "pronounceable", and "city". --(WT-en) Evan 10:48, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Um, what I meant is that the name of the city when pronounced is as short as possible — as the "u" is more or less silent it doesn't really even have a vowel, it just sounds like "ts" or "z" in English. "O-fu" and "Ta-u" are presumably bisyllabic, and the rest all have vowels.

But this is something we can debate on Talk:Tsu — my main point is, is there interest in running a trivia section like this? (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:01, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Plus, Tsu is really spelled "津" which is only a single character. ;) But seriously, this could be fun. If we refactored the geography listing on the Main Page back to two columns, we could put this in place of the third. Wikipedia limits theirs to just-created articles, but I don't think we need to be that bureaucratic about it. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:39, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

I got your original point about the DYK? section, and it sounds good. I'd rather see the section appear at the bottom of the Main Page -- it's a nice feature, but the principle use of the page should be to let people drill down into the destination guides. --(WT-en) Evan 11:49, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

OK, sounds like we have consensus for the idea. But using Wikipedia's name is a little dull, can somebody suggest a better, more travel-oriented name? LP has a "Weekly Travel Trivia" section, so that's out. "Reasons to visit"? "Go there because"? "Why go?" "Hook, line and sinker"?! (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:40, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

"Local Color"? "Because It's There" (if that's not already being used by some mountaineering wiki)? "Curiosities"? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill, currently writing from 128.165.144.60 14:45, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

"Wikitrivia"? "Discover"? (keeping with the imperative-verb theme of the MoS) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:59, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

And a few off the bat...

• The Parasitological Museum in Meguro, Tokyo, a popular date spot, showcases a tapeworm over 10 meters long.
• The Wakamiya Hachiman-gū Shrine in Kawasaki, Japan is dedicated to a mythical phallus called Lord Big Iron Penis.
• The temple of Sala Kaew Ku in Nong Khai, Thailand is packed with bizarre concrete statues over 20 meters tall and enshrines the sculptor's mummified corpse.
• The Saptohoedojo Art Gallery in Yogyakarta, Indonesia counts both Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama among its customers.
• A popular and useful souvenir from Fraser's Hill, Malaysia is a pair of leech socks.
• Hotel Adnis in Osaka, Japan offers a Hello Kitty bondage room.

How often would this be updated? - Sapphire

I'd just suggest an informal running queue like in Travel news/Logbook. 3-5 items on display, new stuff goes up top and pushes old stuff into the archives. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:49, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

Sounds good, but to keep everyone and new users from throwing up every bit of information how about as a rule every new tidbit has to stay up for at least a day or two. - Sapphire

A page for submissions would be nice so that someone doing a bunch of copyediting can save away all the items he notices for later use. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:34, 12 May 2006 (EDT)

How long should each tidbit be in the spotlight? I have a slight hesitation that at times there will be a lot of users who will keep changing the queue and one tidbit may not get the same amount of time as others. I'd propose a requirement of leaving a piece of information up for at least two days? - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:44, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

I don't see that happening really. Destinations on the main page don't get rotated for months on end. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 02:32, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

To my eye, mixing bold, italic and blue links in the same sentence looks kinda chaotic. Could we agree to stick with the scheme proposed -- link the place, bold the attraction, and let the reader figure out what's so unusual about it by themselves? (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:48, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

Using bold for the names of attractions helps in the See or Sleep listings because it contributes to an orderly listing format, but here is it puts too much emphasis (bold, usually capitalized) on the least interesting part of the statement, and I was trying to figure out a way to overcome that. It's also based on the assumption that every bit of trivia is about some specific attraction at that destination, leaving it unclear what to do when you're not talking about a museum or hotel. I'd be happy leaving bold and italics out altogether, but if we're going to emphasize something, I think it should be to draw a skimming reader's attention to the most interesting phrase of the statement. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 07:52, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

My thinking was that bold serves to highlight the actual attraction, so if they see "Parasitological Museum" in bold, they know what to search for on the Meguro page if they want to see that 10-meter tapeworm... (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:12, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

But taking note of the exact site is the last thing they're going to do. Putting something in bold makes it the first thing they look at, the colored link to the city is the second thing they'll look at, and the plain text is the last thing they'll give their attention to (if at all). So if "Wakamiya Hachiman-gū Shrine in Kawasaki" doesn't catch their interest, their attention won't linger long enough to even see that Lord Big Iron Penis lives there. To get people interested in places they're not already investigating (which is what I gather the purpose of this feature is), the order of emphasis should be 1) why it's interesting, 2) what city it's in, and 3) where to see it. If I were advertising a concert, I wouldn't put VanAndel Arena in bold, Grand Rapids, Michigan in color, and leave the name of country-music hunk Kenny Chesney in plain text. The same principle applies here: "The Wakamiya Hachiman-gū Shrine in Kawasaki, Japan is dedicated to a mythical phallus called Lord Big Iron Penis," would be more effective. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:22, 24 May 2006 (EDT)

OK, I see your point. It's not how Wikipedia bolds their DYK entries -- the focus there is on the article, not the interesting tidbit -- but I agree that your suggestion is better and I'll revise the entries accordingly. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:11, 25 May 2006 (EDT)

How do I get the Main Page updated? I done as directed to update, but it hasn't done anything. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 11:28, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

It's almost certainly a caching issue. You can clear the cache by visiting the URL http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge. -- (WT-en) Ryan 12:03, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

A suggestion: It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the nominees for this liberally salted with items from places queued for Destination of the Month and Off the Beaten Path. That way, when the place becomes DotM/OtBP, there'll be something that causes people to say "Oh yeah, I remember that!" thereby increasing the visibility of the whole site. Needless to say, they shouldn't all be from incipient DotMs/OtBPs, but some overrepresentation (maybe 20%?) strikes me as a good idea. Santa Fe, the Pitcairn Islands and Iya Valley are presently there, as a start. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:41, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

Is there a way we should distinguish these items relating to a future DotM/DotMOtBB from other items that could be used at any time? Especially, for the Santa Fe article and Cincinnati (I guess TVerBeek replaced Munich with it). - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 00:45, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Your idea of a section for DotM/OTBP trivia, so that we can tap specifically into those items at the appropriate time, seems to work for this. Hmm -- wonder whether there should also be such a section for trivia associated with Collaborations of the Week? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:17, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

• Thanks. I thought it was a great idea and just added the headline. I rather like the idea of the CotW idea too, hopefully, it would encourage contributors to help out on the CotW. A "CotW" header? - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 21:26, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

• • Unfortunately, there haven't been updates to the DotM and CotW sections for several months now. I've taken the liberty of merging the few existing trivia in those sections back into the main one. Simplify, simplify. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:07, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't mind getting rid of the CotW section, because it was pretty pointless, but I'd rather keep the DotM/OtBM section around. If the problem is there wasn't enough trivia I think that could easily be overcome by combing through an article or a little bit of research (Which I'll happily do). If you don't mind I'd really like keeping that section around. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 09:24, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

I agree that trivia for DotM/OtBP should be on the list. However, between the fact that nobody was contributing DotM trivia in that section and the fact that there's now a bot that handles the postings, the section for DotM/OtBP is anachronistic. Better to just load the relevant trivia into the main section and then move things around so that the DotM trivium emerges just ahead of the DotM. That would have to be done anyway, since the bot can't pick things up from the DotM section, so it's not like it's extra work. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:43, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't think this is a good one to use. No problem with the unsavory fact itself, but we supposedly should restrict this list to articles that are in at least a Usable state, and the Chernobyl article definitely doesn't qualify. (Hmmm -- a really off-the-wall CotW?...) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:06, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Good eye, forgot about that. Just came across that piece of info while reviewing a past conversation about the article and added without thinking about status of the article. CotW? Umm. Maybe in a couple of months - I suggest November, when I'll be in the area. During the week leading up to CotW I won't be able to contribute much so I'll give you guys all the info I have and you guys could add it in. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 00:12, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

I think we should keep in mind that this is a travel trivia section — I can still deal with intestinal parasites and war zones, but radioactive fallout probably isn't too high on the agenda of most travelers. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:32, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

The thing that I had added really doesn't belong here. It's something more appropriate for Wikipedia's "Did you know...?" Now, that it's been about an hour since I added I'm think to myself "Why the hell did I add that?" I'm highly interested in technology so there's a possibility I might venture into the area (After checking out the level of medical risks involved) while I'm in Kiev, but I very much agree with you that it doesn't belong in the Discover section. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 01:15, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Could we move the Discover section to be directly below DoTM/OtBP? I'm curious as to if it would look better there. Anyone already have a sadbox version of the Main page and see how it would look there compared to where it currently is? - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:59, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Note to anyone who disapproves of my adding this little fact, on the grounds that Perth (Ontario) isn't yet in Usable status: Please remedy by improving the article, rather than deleting the trivium. That one is simply too juicy to pass up! :-) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:36, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

(WT-en) Andrew updated the template today, with the trivium for Husavík -- which doesn't meet the "Usable or better" criterion specified in the guidance. (In fact, the Phallological Museum is the only content in the entire Husavík article.) I bring this up, not to criticize Andrew, but to raise the question of whether the "Usable or better" criterion is really needed. For one thing, if it's to be enforced, it puts additional burden on whoever's maintaining the template, since there's no way of knowing whether the source article is Usable except to go rummage through it. For another, it shuts off a lot of articles that might have fun facts like this one. Should this guidance be relaxed? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 24 June 2006 (EDT)

I'd actually like to see it enforced more. Fun facts are fun, but they're not of much use to the traveller if they can't at least figure out how to get there. If this serves to improve articles before they end up on Discover, all the better. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:34, 15 July 2006 (EDT)

DiscoverBot choked on a macron and was hospitalized for almost a week, unable to lift a bit. I've improved his iron mandibles so he can chew on UTF-8 now, and he's also learned how to sign his name and the date on the Discover page whenever he visits it. Unfortunately the timezone is UTC+8 though... (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:10, 26 July 2006 (EDT)

And now the bad boy of the disco world was leaving so many old copies of articles around that it slipped and fell in its own waste. Hopefully the remedial potty training I just administered will help. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:19, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Swept in from the Pub:

So I took TVerBeek's suggestion and created Project:Discover for the "Did you know?" stuff. Debates about naming and how to display this on Project:Discover, please. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:48, 23 May 2006 (EDT)

So regarding the flower city of Bandung, the phrase "the beauty of its women" was just changed to "the beauty of its female inhabitants". Maybe I'm just a male chauvinist pig man who's been living in South-East Asia too long, but what exactly is so wrong with the first rendering that we need four extra syllables to say the same thing? Would "the bravery of its men" also require changing to "the bravery of its male inhabitants"? If anything, I've always thought that "male/female" sound a lot more livestock-y than "men/women". (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:40, 15 August 2006 (EDT)

I too had a good mind to revert that change, till I realised that it would stay on the Main page for one more day and there were other things to do in life. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 14:16, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

The wording just struck the wrong chord with me; probably it was the combination of the possessive form with "women". Maybe "the women there"? --(WT-en) Evan 14:29, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

Speaking as a woman, I think I'd prefer "ig the hotties" or something along those lines. But seriously, what about "beauty of the local women"? Thos it'll probably be gone before we settle on something ;-)... (WT-en) Maj 14:37, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

The recent juggling of the Cincinnati trivium to match the date mentioned in it strikes me as maybe not the best idea. In my opinion a Discover item involving a pending Destination of the Month should appear just before the DotM actually goes up, rather than while it's featured -- say a week ahead of time. This avoids "overkill" in the Main Page and also serves to hold the attention of the casual reader: "Unknownistan is the DotM now? Oh yeah, I read about their use of heavy artillery in wedding ceremonies a couple of weeks ago in Discover. Kewl!" I raise this since it's about time to decide when to schedule in the Iya Valley trivium. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:26, 2 September 2006 (EDT)

So Discoverbot has been down for the last few days because the server running it has gone kerplonk. It should be back in action on Monday or so. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:49, 10 September 2006 (EDT)

The server is back online, but something somewhere broke(tm) and pywikipedia can't even log into Wikivoyage anymore. I probably won't be able to debug this until Fri-Sat at the earliest. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:49, 13 September 2006 (EDT)

Brimming with grandmotherly kindness, Evan and Maj have provided a new home to our poor little lost bot. He did a little manual spin just now and updates should return to normal tonight — only the timezone will change. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:29, 20 September 2006 (EDT)

And now ole Disco is on strike because he doesn't like the new Mediawiki version. The assembly line has been shut down while I search for a length of rubber hose to whip him back into shape. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Moved from Project:Travellers' pub -- (WT-en) Hypatia 09:22, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

I'm guessing it's Space#Trans-orbital_flight, right? Are we allowed to list meta-information on Project:Discover (that is, are we allowed to say anything about Wikivoyage itself in them)? (WT-en) Hypatia 02:05, 25 August 2006 (EDT)

Prompted by Lake Baikal's Eastern Siberia, I added a DOTM-style "slush pile" for entries that aren't quite ready. Currently the article in question contains next to nothing... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:00, 23 September 2006 (EDT)

So, I wanted to point out, first, that the "discover" entries are now part of the Wikivoyage RSS feed, http://wikivoyage.org/rss/english.rss .

Second, I wanted to give some ideas about how it works, since that may guide the development of new discover items. Each RSS feed item for "Discover" is a single line from Template:Discover. The link and title come from the deepest linked destination in the discover item. So, if you link Walla Walla, Washington, United States of America, the link will be to http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Walla_Walla and the title will be "Discover: Walla Walla". The date of each item depends on the edit date of Template:Discover; I assume the first item was published on the last edit date, and each of the following list items was published 24 hours earlier. Not a solid assumption, but then again, the pubdate on these things doesn't matter that much.

Finally, each RSS feed item has to have a unique URI. RSS readers use these identifiers to see if they've already read an entry or shown it to the user. I use tag URIs of the form tag:wikivoyage.org:en:discover:[title]:[first bold part], where [title] is the title and [first bold part] is the first emboldened part of the item. Spaces are replaced with dashes and non-alphanumeric chars are removed. So, the discover item about the Spam Museum has the URI "tag:wikivoyage.org:en:discover:Rochester-Minnesota:Spam-Museum". Note that I don't use the URL of the linked page; that would make having multiple Discover items about the same destination confusing for RSS readers.

It works for all the existing discover items (I also scrape the archive, to get old stuff, too). The only things I can see being tricky are 1) if the discover item links more than one place on the same level of the geographical hierarchy, it uses the first one, which might not actually be the subject of the item, and 2) if the links or bold text are changed after the discover item is launched, it may change the unique URI, so RSS readers may show the same item to users twice. Probably not a huge deal, but worth noting.

In the future I hope to have a more formal way for defining RSS items; for now, I just wanted to get this ad hoc scraping into place, because I thought people would really like these items in an RSS feed. --(WT-en) Evan 13:59, 10 December 2006 (EST)

Regarding Melekeok in Palau, I don't think there's a capital of an independent state (flag, seat at the UN, the works) anywhere in world with a population of less than 381. The Vatican is bigger, and neither Nauru nor Tokelau has a designated capital at all. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:50, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Tuvalu's Vaiaku comes pretty close with 516! -- but the WP article says that the entire atoll is the legal capital, so it actually has a whopping 4400 inhabitants. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:54, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Ah. I hadn't seen mention of the "independent state" distinction, and our current OtBP is about the Pitcairn Islands, where most (all?) of the <50 inhabitants live in the capital, Adamstown. --(WT-en) Evan 13:56, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Given that Turkmen leader Niyazov died this week [1], I've moved the story about his mother farther down the list to the slush pile. If it's a good idea to have it feature this week, please feel free to reinstate it, but I thought it might be smart to reflect and discuss first. --(WT-en) Evan 23:54, 22 December 2006 (EST)

I was thinking about this too. I don't think too many people will be upset if we state the facts. Personally, I liked the golden boy statue trivium, but I think Jani removed it. Also, I've added "former" to his title since, well, he's no longer President-for-Life. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 00:05, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I was minorly concerned with respect for the dead, but also figured there might be some editorial changes to reflect that he's president-for-life no longer. --(WT-en) Evan 00:12, 23 December 2006 (EST)

How about inserting an "On hold" section between the "Upcoming" and "Slush pile" sections for items which would be best featured at specific future dates - in other words, calendar-related items which are ready to go criteria-wise but are not quite ripe date-wise?

For example...

• Songkran, the Thai New Year, is celebrated in mid-April with a three-day nationwide water fight.

• In Turkmenistan, the month of April and the word bread were renamed after the mother of former President-for-Life Saparmurat Niyazov.

...would both be worth putting "On hold" until April. ~ 203.144.143.10 03:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Sounds good to me as long as there are enough entries to allow some to be put on hold. (WT-en) WindHorse 11:42, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Maybe the best thing would be simply to rename the "Slush pile" list to be the "on hold" list. When we tried previously to have auxiliary lists for trivia connected with DotM or CotW articles, it didn't work well. Best to keep things simple and minimize the number of auxiliary lists. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:47, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I've moved the two example items to the bottom of the existing ==Slush pile== section with a brief note explaining why they are there - please review and revert or amend in whatever way you think it can be improved. ~ 203.144.143.10 12:32, 3 January 2007 (EST)

As Bill said, maybe the 'Slush pile' can be renamed 'On hold' - however it might need to be two tiered in order to distinguish between entries that have been temporarily rejected because the article from which they originated was not up to standard and those that are merely waiting to be slotted in at the appropriate time. (WT-en) WindHorse 22:26, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I've made the change; look at it and see what you think. It looks right to me, but I'm biased. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:10, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Looks fine too me - though I just wonder whether contributors check the page regularly enough for the 'calendar related' section to function efficiently - anyway let's give it a try. It can always be changed back. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:43, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia uses tiny little pictures to liven up "Did you know?", should we do the same? DiscoverBot will happily process images too if they're on the same line, although the main problem will be ensuring the correct alignment as the entry marches downwards — adding some logic to plug new pics on the top row should be enough. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:48, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I think this could work, but things might get messy if more than one out of every three entires has a photo. Suggest trying it on the main page (maybe even move the giant spatula to the front of the line) to see if anything weird results. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:05, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I'll need to tweak the bot's code a little first. The easiest approach would just be to always keep one pic up top, and overwrite it when it finds a new one. The main problem will thus be the opposite: if there's no new pic in three days, it'll keep displaying the obsoleted one until it does find one... (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:26, 4 January 2007 (EST)

I've done a quick implementation of this now, so let's see if this works... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:43, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Yikes. I hope this works with the RSS maker. --(WT-en) Evan 23:38, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Looks like it kinda works. Will keep testing... (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:34, 22 January 2007 (EST)

Man, this is tricky to get right (especially when you're too lazy to do it Right and build a state machine). Diked out one spurious source of newlines that was messing up things, so now almost there...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:05, 26 January 2007 (EST)

So I think the bot's pretty much doing what it was supposed to do now: only problem is, it's programmed to keep the image there until a new rolls along, which looks kinda stupid if the new one doesn't show up. Should I add in a hook to automagically make it disappear in three days if no new one comes along? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:29, 28 January 2007 (EST)

That would be nice since a photo of a Buddisht gothic church doesn't have much to do with a golf course in Massachusetts, black beaches of Hawaii or Greenlandic Thai food. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:33, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I'm getting kinda bored of the 3 discovers currently displayed  :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:58, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

So the bot's finally back in action, and Bill just expressed a fear that we're going too far in the other direction -- that is, with daily updates, we'll soon run out. I think people will start putting more effort into Discover now that it's "online" again, and there's a fairly healthy queue at the moment (over a month), but if things start getting critical I can always reduce the update frequency. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:57, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

It's down to 19 in the queue as I write, so I think depletion is a real concern. BTW, there's still a problem with outdated images not getting removed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:56, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying to stick one in every few days: three times that effort would mean that we'd break even. (My method is to scan Recent changes for usable+ articles, that way we get the benefit of highlighting comparitively new and/or active articles.) However, I won't be adding one every single day! (WT-en) Hypatia 00:58, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The queue's still running kinda low. Should I reduce the update frequency to, say, twice or three times a week? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:22, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

The bot (and StatScript) was down for a few days in protest at the code changes associated with Google Ads, but it should start running again tonight -- poke me if it doesn't. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:34, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

After violent stabbing in the abdomen, it's updating again, but anonymously. Have I mentioned how much I hate Mediawiki? (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:02, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

After electroshock therapy, DiscoverBot has graciously agreed to remove the paper bag over its head and is now nymous again. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:07, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

• Want to know more about the Electricity in Japan, playing Golf in Scotland, Scuba diving, seeing the Northern Lights, Disabled travel or Soccer in Europe? With over 200 articles dedicated to individual travel related topics, Wikivoyage travel topics might just be what you are looking for.

Err, this is not "strange but true trivia about destinations and events". Surely you can find some factoids in the articles in question? (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:08, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

By the time that one reach the main page it will probably be outdated and people will be allowed to carry up to Z$1 trillion --(WT-en) Nick 13:14, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

No worries, it'll still only be worth one dollar. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:23, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Ole Disco's been having problems updating the template page recently:

Changing page en:Project:Discover
Changing page has failed. Retrying.
Getting page to get a token.
Sleeping for 6.7 seconds, 2008-10-08 01:01:31
Changing page en:Project:Discover
Sleeping for 4.9 seconds, 2008-10-08 01:01:43
Changing page en:Template:Discover
Changing page has failed. Retrying.
Getting page to get a token.
Sleeping for 8.7 seconds, 2008-10-08 01:01:49
Changing page en:Template:Discover

Looks like a problem on Wikivoyage's side, since sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't work. What's going on? This started happening last week. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:51, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Haven't changed anything, but it seems to have been working OK for the past 4 days. Knock knock... (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:43, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Gah, it's still screwing up regularly. Not sure what I can do about this... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:02, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

So, basically what's happening is that the Wikivoyage site is, essentially at random, rejecting some of Disco's edits. I couldn't figure out the logic that pywikipedia uses to retry though, so I'm not sure I can even work around this very easily... (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:26, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Do you know which edits are being rejected? Let's get some sleuthing going here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I don't think it has anything to do with the edited content, it's just that some edits take so long for the WT server to respond that Disco times out, often repeatedly. I'm getting precisely the same problem with Multilingual stats over on shared as well... (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:34, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I think the fact in this item is in error in a couple of ways. 1) It claims to be Europe's only chairlift to cross a river - the chairlift in Vianden, Luxembourg, crosses a river. (Though the article actually claims to be "Germany's only".) 2) It's not a chairlift but a cable car. Pedantic, I know.

Can't figure out how to edit a live Discover item though...? (WT-en) Andyfarrell 09:49, 20 December 2008 (EST)

There are a lot of Japan-related items in the queue; are we in danger of going overboard? (WT-en) LtPowers 15:34, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

I've noticed this, as well. With Okayama soon to be the DotM, I added some trivia to hopefully last through the month of August to prevent too much Japan items on the Main Page at that time. There is no need to discourage people from adding Japan information, but I think it would be a good idea to scout some good info to place between the Japanese entries. The same thing has happened with U.S. facts. Sometimes I look through articles at "usable" or higher status to place between same-country clusters instead of adding them to the bottom of the list. I will try to find some more information to make it more global when I have time. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 16:45, 25 July 2009 (EDT)

Instead of sorting the strange but true triva by date we can sort it by country. And we can delate strange but true triva that is no longer true. And no past tense. I will get started now to improve wikivoyage. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.187.124.70‎ (talk • contribs)

That's missing the point. It's an automatically maintained archive of past entries. It's meant to be a record of what's been done before, and is not (and should not) be a continuously-maintained repository of trivia. - (WT-en) Dguillaime 17:17, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

[2] Is that goal merely aspirational, or is it being claimed to have been achieved? =) (WT-en) LtPowers 08:35, 4 January 2010 (EST)

lol. That was a personal achievement. I think in the full history of "Discover", it has already been achieved (unless maybe Central Africa didn't have one. I never checked). Every region has a 2010 "discovery", although the current discussion to create new regions under Talk:Africa could make it a dated statement (perhaps easily remedied).

I'll add the disclaimer that I made Oceania a single region (with 2 listings, one for islands and one for Aus/NZ), since the regional break-up is done with sub-divisions that are not articles. I don't know if that disqualifies me or not. :o (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:56, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Now you've made me curious, so after a look through the archives, I think it may be both at the moment (perhaps pending whether or not Melanesia needs a "discovery"). I could have missed one, but I didn't see any "Sarahan Africa" discovery. As far as the moves go, with Rwanda moving to East Africa, Central Africa would still be covered with the fact I added from the DROTC. I didn't see any from Africa's Indian Islands that are proposed as a region though, but I'm sure we could scout one out if need be... (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Do you perhaps mean "continental section" then, rather than "region"? 'Cause there's an awful lot of regions in Wikivoyage. (WT-en) LtPowers 08:54, 5 January 2010 (EST)

The "regions" I was referring to are the desingnated "world regions" from the continental level. (Ex: Asia's regions are: Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia, & Southeast Asia)

There are 29 regions right now.

• Africa has 6
• Asia has 5 (6 with Russia, but I put it with Europe)
• Oceania has 1 (I added only 1 extra as stated above, although you could argue that there are 4 regions here.)
• Europe has 11
• North America has 5
• South America has 1 (no regional breakdown)

What regions were you thinking of? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:17, 5 January 2010 (EST)

Anything using the Project:Region article template. The "regions" you're speaking of are "continental sections". I'm not trying to be unnecessarily pedantic; I was just confused is all. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 6 January 2010 (EST)

In that case, we are nowhere near meeting that goal! Even if the entire world was covered by only start articles, the time it would take to feature every region with "region" defined as any article using that template would take a LOOOONG time! No, I'm afraid you are right. My "achievement" is quite limited in comparison. The Discover page was almost empty, and now the concerns about Japan overload should at least be put off for a few months.

I wonder how many countries have been featured (with a link) in at least one Discovery. With the continental sections done, I'd say that's our next "goal".

) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

It would be nice to have one discovery from every country in the world. (WT-en) globe-trotter 15:32, 6 January 2010 (EST)

Re: [3]. I don't know if the anchor is still intact, but Wikipedia claims that it's not in the Musée du Pantheon d'Haiti, but in the Musée National d'Haiti. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:32, 29 January 2010 (EST)

Do we have a policy on repeating discoveries? When this was first introduced, I noticed a lot were repeated (probably because there was not as much content). Is this okay? This discovery was featured some time ago:

• The Basilica of Our Lady of Peace, in Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire, is the largest basilica in the world.

Another small concern of mine is that there are way too many X-est (largest, longest, oldest, etc) discoveries right now. I've been trying to work them in among the others with respect to geographic variation. Those are the easiest and most convenient types of discoveries to add, but I think they'd lose their value if all the discoveries were X-est. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:39, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

I couldn't find a policy regarding repeating discoveries neither on Project:Discover nor on this talk page. I'd prefer we wouldn't repeat them, just like we don't repeat dotm's, but that may not be very practical until we've got a strong base of users constantly adding stuff here.

I also agree with you that this shouldn't turn into a contest of x-est things around the world. It was arguably me starting all this, although my intention wasn't really proclaiming that Tünel is one of the x-est things, I just wanted readers to go into the article and find out that Istanbul was one of the earliest cities that started an underground railway, though the (short) first line they put in service was for long the only line. Anyway, I agree that these x-est stuff should be shuffled around other entries, perhaps one in every three (i.e. just a single one of the displayed ones on the main page) is a good enough frequency. They can even be more infrequent whenever we have an adequate number of other types of discoveries. – (WT-en) Vidimian 16:21, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

We had a similar problem when there was an abundance of Japan-related discoveries. It's not that there is anything wrong with the discoveries; we just want variety. The anonymous user continues to add these to the list... We can't delete discoveries except under a few circumstances, but I do wish whoever it is would lay off for a while (Oh, and don't feel bad about your Istanbul discovery. Before I noticed the trend, I added the Pyongyang discovery, which is also a X-est!) I think I will go ahead and delete the Cote D'Ivoire discovery, since it has been featured. I'll also check the recently added ones. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:01, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

It may simply be the way these are worded, but they don't seem like discoveries to me:

• Joan of Arc's statue in Meridian Hill park is the only female equestrian statue in Washington, D.C.
• Wimbledon, United Kingdom has the oldest tennis tournament in the world.

Discoveries are supposed to be interesting and/or unkown factoids. The problem with the DC fact is that there is no indication that there are so many equestrian statues in DC that having only one depict a female would even be surprising.

My issue with the second one is that Wimbledon is the most famous tennis tournament and probably the only tennis tournament that most people are aware exist therefore, I question whether this would even be a surprise to learn. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:59, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

I think it's a bit nit-picky. Wimbledon is a bit of a 'duh', I suppose, but the factoid about Joan of Arc's statue is interesting. I think it's interesting that there's any female equestrian statue in D.C. at all. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:26, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Giant equestrian statues in D.C. are of a limitless quantity—as a local, I hardly notice them. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:43, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

A limitless quantity? So you think there are enough in DC to make this interesting? In that case, is there a number (even an estimate) that we could use? It would sound better to say something like "Of the 200 equestrian statues in Washington DC, the Joan of Arc Statue..." Otherwise, I think it raises the numbers question, because even as someone who has been to DC, I didn't really take not of an abundance of such statues. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 20:33, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Limitless. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 11:46, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

There have been a couple of panorama images placed alongside discoveries that I had removed, because they are too small and thin to really see, but since one has been re-added, I think it's best to bring it up here before deleting again.

Here is the image that was readded (with its discovery):

• Griffith Park (pictured), in Los Angeles, CA, used to be an ostrich farm.

The discovery is interesting, but I don't think this picture is adding anything to it, namely because you can't really see what the heck it is. There was also an image of the Vasco da Gama bridge that you couldn't even see the bridge on, because it was too small and thin. It doesn't fill up the space on the main page, so I think it'd look strange.

The discovery pictures are already small, and it seems that panoramic shots become such tiny slivers, they aren't suited for it. I'd like to get rid of that image again, but since it's been added, I'll try for a consensus regarding these photos. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 02:58, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Says who? Where's the proof?

Last year, officials accounted for 32 bodies: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/05/BA381H3SN0.DTL

Until there's proof, this "fact" should be taken down.

I think I already know of a bridge that has far more suicides: the Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge in China. If the figure "at least once a week" is accurate, then that's way more than the 30-something/year of the Golden Gate Bridge. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 15:47, 19 January 2011 (EST)

Wikipedia makes the same claim; it seems to be based on total figures over the lifespan of the bridge rather than a per-year rate. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:28, 19 January 2011 (EST)

Discover claims that Yonge Street is the world's longest street; however, this anonymous user [4] and Wikipedia [5] claim differently. How do we remove this fun-fact and publish the one in line? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:24, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

The section on Wikipedia is entirely unreferenced; I'm not sure I'd put too much stock in it. (WT-en) LtPowers 21:08, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

After editing the page and pressing submit: "Some parts of the edit form did not reach the server; double-check that your edits are intact and try again." And there was a blank page. I didn't take it seriously, pressed submit, and the page content was indeed gone. When I'm trying to undo it, I get that same message and a blank screen.

• have the technical problems from WT also migrated?* :(

Ypsilon (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

I was just able to undo that change with no errors. Perhaps a browser glitch on your end? -- D. Guillaume (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

I have also seen some other users blank a page, so maybe it's a bug. However, I haven't had anything like that myself yet. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2012 (CEST)

The Discover section used to be automatically updated each 24h by a bot called Discoverbot. The thing has been broken for years, and since I found the abandoned section a couple of years back it's been me who's been the Discoverbot.

Does any of y'all know how to write such a bot and implement it here/fix the old one somehow? It would be good to have a bot handling the daily updates, especially as I've noticed that if I'm away for a week or even three nobody else has updated the section. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll definitely look into this. --Saqib (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds great! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ypsi. I'm not into programming so can't help out with a bot unfortunately but I found a simpler way to do automatically updating of Discover section through parser functions. Template can be found here. @Andrew: We can also use same parser function to automatically update our featured article on monthly basis as well. --Saqib (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm...am I wrong or does that template imply a whole lot of copypasting? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're right. --Saqib (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I've grown to very much enjoy the process of updating DotM. I'd kind of miss doing it if we automated it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well this template will update only the featured article on main page and you'll have plenty of tasks left behind to do but anyway, its nice that you're enjoying doing it so keep it up! --Saqib (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ypsi. I've added all the listings to queue (until June 30) and so the template is ready now. --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) Nice! I'll try it out right away. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good. Now no more worries as you'll don't have to update the template daily. We will add more listings to queue (template) once we're near, maybe in late June however keep adding interesting facts to this page under nominations section. --Saqib (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Thanks, Saqib! There's one more thing: after the Discover fact of the day has been featured it should be archived here, on the top of the page. As the template doesn't move anything it's important to remember that old Discoveries should be copied there afterwards as well (not just deleted). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well this is something you'll have to keep doing until you're not tired of it. Perhaps you can archive things on weekly basis if not daily. --Saqib (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's OK. It takes just a couple of seconds. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thought of letting you that we've left only a month of backup in Template:Discover and so far, we've only a few new entries on this nomination page. --Saqib (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to search for new stuff in the next few days, although there is still a month left. If you or anybody else is bored, start clicking on the "Random page" in the bar on the left side and skim through articles that you get. Usually one doesn't even need ten random articles before something interesting, amazing, odd or funny shows up.  :) ϒpsilon (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

BTW, Saqib, if you plan to make "new days" from the current nominations it would be great if you would make them so that a new fun fact would appear as the first in each set rather than last. In that way it is easier to move them in the right order to the archive (no double entries, no missed entries, photo at the right place) and this was also how I did it when I updated Discover manually. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi YPSI. I'll try to do it as you suggested. --Saqib (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

YPSI. I've been recently given the Twitter handle of Wikivoyage so thought of letting you know that I've started to tweet amazing and interesting facts you adding to Discover section. --Saqib (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool! I've seen Discover's facts featured at the WV's Twitter before, but that has been just once a month or so. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but now I'll try do it on regular basis. Hope so daily. --Saqib (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

This year (from 18th June to 3rd July 2016) Christo, a famous artist will build "Floating Piers" on Lake Iseo . During these days people will literally be able to walk on water (see and article on NYT). The installation will connect the main island, Monte Isola, in the middle of the lake with Sulzano, a village by the lake, passing around Isola di San Paolo, another smaller island. May Monte Isola or Iseo be nominated in this section? Thanks --Lkcl it _(Talk) 19:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ypsilon may you help me? thanks --Lkcl it _(Talk) 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can do. Even if I very strongly prefer new entries to be put at the end of the nominations list (as of now there are facts to cover most of July).

But as of now there's a problem — things that are featured the Discover section must also be mentioned in the article it points to. Right now the event is mentioned in neither the Iseo nor the Monte Isola article. :ϒpsilon (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

ϒpsilon thanks for the reply. You are right, I have added a listing in Monte Isola article, section do. I have another question, what do you mean with " I very strongly prefer new entries to be put at the end of the nominations list"? As you now I'm not a native speaker and I want to be sure to have correctly understood. Do you mean that in the nomination list there are many articles and if I add one now it will be probably displayed in July? Thanks again and please forgive me for bothering you.--Lkcl it _(Talk) 09:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the event to the Monte Isola article, it's good to feature facts about current event every once in a while. I will move one fact that would otherwise be displayed on 18 June, to the end of the list to make place for a fact about the art installation, it will just take a few seconds. I meant to say that I prefer facts to be nominated early enough so that there would be no need to move around things. It's actually my fault because I have filled up the Discovery section for too far in the future (last autumn I was shocked to realize that the discovery queue was five months, now I've managed to cut it back to "only" three).

Ps. I'm not a native English speaker either. :) ϒpsilon (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done ϒpsilon (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks --Lkcl it _(Talk) 11:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I recently noticed Hobbitschuster moved Damascus down to the On hold list.

I've over the last week or so added some facts from countries that haven't been featured since 2013 (some of them maybe never before), planning to get each of them showing up before the end of the year. There are a total of about 30 of them, as of now there are half of them left and many of these countries are ones like Syria with a red warning box on the top of the country's page. While we certainly wouldn't even think of featuring any DotM/OtBP from a dangerous place, I do not think this applies to the Discover section which is more of fun fact picks rather than an attempt to sell the destination. I would therefore suggest returning the Damascus fact to the Nominations section or deleting it altogether (it's going to sit there for years and years otherwise). ϒpsilon (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, but some might consider it cynical to "feature" war regions in any way shape of form. On another note, I thought Jericho takes the title of "oldest city" (though it may not have been "continually inhabited") Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only criteria at Wikivoyage:Discover that would prevent a "discover" fact from going on the main page are article usability issues, so strictly as a matter of policy there should be no reason to exclude a fact about Syria. It's a reasonable argument that it could be insensitive to mention regions experiencing humanitarian disasters in a travel guide, but a counter argument could be made that a humanitarian disaster provides urgency for finding ways to bring the world's attention to a region. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good point, Ryan. Also, for dangerous countries (Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Somalia are also among the countries that haven't been in Discover for the last three years) I try to find facts that are not bound to specific attractions (that one cannot visit at the moment, anyway) but rather of a more general kind. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

So..? Can we move it back up or should it be deleted? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am still not sure whether I am sold on this whole thing. First of all, we are a travel guide, so featuring random factoids for featuring random factoids sake is not what we (should be) do(ing). Furthermore, we should think long and hard what kind of message it sends to feature something to "discover" about a war zone, us being a travel guide. On the specific factoid in question, Wikipedia admits that "city" "oldest" and "continually inhabited" are all problematic terms and next to impossible to define or get agreement on. Some "cities" (how do you define that? Some number of inhabitants? Certain buildings? Walls?) may be older (again, how is "old" defined? First mention? Oldest traces of habitation?) but not "continually inhabited" (again, what is the lower threshold for this? Are ghost towns with five people in them continually inhabited?). So there is the question what the potential gain from this feature is: The only argument I have heard is about a vague concept of featuring one factoid about a place in every single country. But the downside seems to me to outweigh this potential benefit. Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will come out in favor of continuing the "Discover" features. However, I strongly oppose featuring facts from countries at war. Humanitarian disasters are quite different from wars that render travel to a place suicidal. No facts about Damascus should be featured until war ends in Syria. And if a new policy is needed to codify something that I would respectfully say that I consider common sense, let's please come to agreement on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I'm a minority opinion, but "Discover" is trivia, not a travel recommendation, and I would prefer not to expand the scope of this feature to require subjective judgement calls about whether a destination is suitable for travel before a fact about it can be presented. Part of my interest in travel came from hearing about places I knew I couldn't get to at the time, but I was still inspired to learn more and visit decades later when it was feasible to do so. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I always thought Discover facts (much unlike DotM/OtBP/FTT) feature the destination/topic only indirectly. Instead I see them as more about the article about the destination rather than the destination itself, wherefore I do not think it's that much of a problem featuring trivia from places that are dangerous or otherwise unsuitable to visit. Right now, Discover tells readers about a massive bus terminal in Sao Paulo, a city we wouldn't want to have as DotM due to the Zika virus outbreak. Also, I don't remember anyone raising an eyebrow half a year ago when the Discover section featured a garden in Kabul. Nevertheless if people are uncomfortable having the Damascus thing up on the Main Page I'll respect your opinion and delete it; Discover can certainly "do without" Damascus, and also facts from the aforementioned Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia (Mogadishu is already there, but it's no problem removing it too) and South Sudan if needed.

Concerning the factual accuracy of different Discover facts, well, I take the factoids straight out of the articles (to avoid introducing any errors myself), assuming that the author of that text passage has knowledge about the place/topic. Also, the factoid we speak of doesn't actually say that Damascus is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, just that it is "credited with being". Sure, it's possible that some other city in e.g. India really is the oldest continuously inhabited city but Damascus gets the credits... ϒpsilon (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ryan and Ypsilon. Powers ^(talk) 17:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there any source for this outside the WV article? I am somewhat doubtful this is true and if it is, it may be subject to some very exact definitions of "longest", "highest" and "cable car" that might not be the ones every single voyager is familiar with. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

w:Mérida cable car. However, now I see that there they say it's the second longest. But I would be surprised to learn of other cable cars bringing up people to an altitude of almost 5 kms above sea level. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Continuing from the debate we are currently having sparked by the entry for Apple Valley (Minnesota), should entries here be focused on what are more or less provable facts or should it also include what are arguably value judgments or stuff like A is known as the crown of the jungle, jewel of the Alps, heart of the heartland or similar stuff that might be objectively true but much harder to prove (and offering arguably much less information) than stuff like "In Melbourne centre, a number of intersections require drivers to perform the infamous hook turn (warning sign pictured)." ? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

If an objective reason or inspiration can be given for the nickname, I think it should be included. For instance, if Lake Longasyoulikecompoundname is jewel of the Alps, then say it's because its waters glimmer like emeralds, or because it really is a hub of mineral extraction as well as being dazzlingly beautiful. We don't need to go all out bore-fest on keeping strictly to dry facts, but linking flowery fluff with facts is a good way forward. If we want travellers to discover an area they may not have thought of, there has to be a hook that captures their interest. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that sounds good. Denver is known as the mile high city, because - well, it actually is a mile high (and since w:Colorado Amendment 64 it can finally admit to being "sky high" in more ways than one). But a place just calling itself the bestest there ever was or will be is not likely to interest people in the article or make them likely to click the link. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

You should definitely write in a factoid for Denver, that's a good one. I often think WV doesn't have enough of a sense of humour. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to write a factoid based on that. But I'm not sure whether policy allows WP Links in "Discover"... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Apple Valley (Minnesota) is a place with an embarrassment of architectural riches, and Frank Lloyd Wright fans will swoon to see some of his later buildings, arguably designed at the height of his creative career.
  • This is not so much an actual objective fact but tourism brochure speak and in line with the overall WV:Tone of the article that seems to flowery and exaggerated to me. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just moved it back. This section is for articles that need more work before they can be considered. If you don't like the wording (which is ripped from the article itself, as many of these entries are), you are welcome to change it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just inserted the entry this discussion is about here again, because otherwise it would be near impossible for others to glean what this discussion is about. I think "Discover" should be about maybe astounding, maybe surprising but nonetheless objective and provable facts about our articles, not some marketing speech. Having an "embarrassment of architectural riches" is not in the same category of statement as having the oldest traffic light or a surprisingly cold climate for its latitude or the other type of entry we usually display. So my issue is not "merely" with the tone but also about the question of whether this should be the type of thing Discover is for. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see, that makes better sense. I'm not exactly enamoured by the entry either - in fact there are a few choices on this page that have my eyebrows raised (why is Riobamba known as the sultan of the Andes? who really cares that Frankfurt airport has two railway stations?), but at the end of the day, someone somewhere will get something from reading them, and each one is only displayed for three days. And yeah, I didn't mean to delete the thing from here too (sticky fingers, you see!), so thanks for reinstating. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think there is a case to be made to not have Riobamba listed here either. At least not with a "fact" like this. Also, I hope my edit to the Frankfurt Airport entry made it a bit clearer why people would care (foreigners taking the wrong train with the wrong ticket from the wrong station is surprisingly common and which other airport can boast two mainline train stations? So it's both useful and trivia) Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well Heathrow has five stations, but is probably less well-connected than Frankfurt. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are they both mainline rail stations? And do they serve "the airport" as opposed to Terminals xyz? At any rate, if this is less remarkable than I thought, I won't be too sad if consensus is to remove it Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

They serve different terminals, indeed. Two are rail and tube stations, two are just tube stations and one is just a rail station. However, none are served by trains going anywhere other than central London (maybe that's a factoid in itself!) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Given that this has grown beyond just a discussion of this one entry, I have raised the issue on the talk page. Sorry for fracturing this discussion so much, but I think we might have hit on the very real question "What do we want Discover to be" and I don't think this part of this page is exactly the best place to discuss this. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘How does reading this information User:ButteBag provides change your opinion on the "factoid"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh good Lord! That article is indeed unfit to be listed; quite a funny read, but not a good travel guide. The fact the page banner is a picture of the local high school (as opposed to some of FLW's breathtaking architecture) should have given it away. I withdraw my objection to putting it on hold, and indeed would suggest it be totally removed, unless we want to change the fact into something more meta (along the lines of WV having the only English E11 guide):

• Apple Valley (Minnesota)'s article was intended as a "witty, humorous exception to Wikivoyage's totalitarian, no-fun regime".

Bin it, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think this discussion can now be moved wherever it needs to be moved after it has reached some sort of conclusion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've rewritten the Apple Valley (Minnesota) article and the corresponding 'discover' blurb. If the 485-acre w:Minnesota Zoo and its 2500 animals in six climate zones with several miles of walking trails is the primary reason for the voyager to stop in this particular outer Minneapolis-St. Paul suburb, we say so. I presume, since this is a different blurb and different article, the original may be archived for posterity now? K7L (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, and thank you. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks, and this discussion can be archived where it needs to be archived asap. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that "if you cannot afford travel insurance, you cannot afford to travel". Millions of refugees travel by necessity with no kind of insurance, and I don't think many working-class transplants to cities buy travel insurance to cover their travel back to their villages for Chinese New Year, Eid, Christmas or what have you. Besides, that's a statement of opinion and not a tidbit of information.

How do you all feel about not approving the nomination of this line of text for "Discover"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be put on hold at the very least... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The On hold section is pretty pointless IMO. It's not hard to find new discoveries, so what if we'd just delete stuff that's incorrect/unsuitable/bad/needs work/you name it.

When I first found Discover around 2010, there was a stash of about 10 discoveries on hold that would almost certainly still be there, if I wouldn't (around 2015) had simply moved some of them back to the nominations and deleted the rest. --ϒpsilon (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Putting something on hold is a much smaller psychological hurdle than outright deleting. And it usually results in the issue being resolved. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from nominations

• During a total solar eclipse, the sun's corona (pictured) can be seen radiating around the black circle of the moon.

  This one would be perfect for August 21, 2017, when there will be a total solar eclipse in part of North America. If there are no objections, maybe it can be swapped for one of the entries that are already scheduled for that date (or a few days before). —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. I will move it to the days just before, swapping it with Bahrain. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's not written down as a policy anywhere on the page, but formerly we just linked one article in the fun fact; the article where that fact could be found. Nowadays apparently everything in the fact that can be linked to is linked to and I'm not so sure it's a good idea. Thoughts? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm definitely guilty of doing what you say, but it is probably a good idea to only link to the article that's being highlighted. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

So how much would you link in this item, which ran a month ago?

• The Eisler Brothers Country Store (pictured) in Riverton (near Baxter Springs, Kansas) was one of the stops on Pixar's Route 66 research trip for 2006 film "Cars".

We have an article on Baxter Springs which has a section for tiny, nearby Riverton. We have an itinerary for Route 66. We have a Radiator Springs itinerary which retraces a "Cars" film research trip, described east to west. All three are relevant to this item, all except the main Route 66 article mention Eisler's and the cinematographers' research directly. I'd be inclined to link all three, not just the town article. They're relevant and the purpose of this section is to drive traffic to individual articles. K7L (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cases like that one might merit more links. But I noticed you didn't link Kansas, nor link film to movie tourism. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

There can be flexibility; it's a matter of common sense really as to what best serves the traveller. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been linking everything simply because Wikivoyage:Discover#Criteria says "[[Link]] any place names." But I agree that in many cases it would be better to have just one or two links. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, I notice that someone has started adding the country after the destination ("Faro, Portugal", "Turpan, China" etc.) and of course linked them. I mean, when the reader clicks on the link and get to the article they get to read about the destination including what country it is in. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess in some cases it's not entirely clear which of several places of the same name is meant.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if the name of the target article actually has the country or region written in brackets to specify which one the article is about. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's me. I'll agree to stop linking the country, but I do think that including the country (or state) name in the fact is useful for the traveller, so they know roughly where in the world they're reading about from the off. Considering these facts tend to be for lesser-known destinations, that seems like value added to me. By contrast, the recent fact about Aitutaki is not much help if I have no idea where Aitutaki is in the first place. Why should the reader have to go onto the article to discover that Aitutaki is not in fact a made up word, but a beautiful island in the Pacific? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I've always seen Discover as a clickbait kind of a year-round advent calendar, with interesting and unusual things from places readers have often never heard of before and would never know to look for. This will then make them want to click on the link and go discover the article and the destination. ϒpsilon (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree entirely. But there should be a tiny bit of geographical context at least. Apart from anything else, if a reader sees a fact about somewhere they've never heard of, but which happens to be close to where they live, or near somewhere else they're going to visit, or in an area they would like to know more about, then they are much more likely to want to click. Without that context, the place could be anywhere in the world, and they might just think "well that's irrelevant to me" or "I don't want to waste time finding about somewhere with a name I can't even pronounce." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

We seem to now have these as "Criteria":

• [[Link]] the article that contains the fact in question.
• The article linked to must contain the fact in question.

That looks a bit duplicative? K7L (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yup. I placed the "must contain the link" thing in a parenthesis after the first criterion but if anyone thinks it's too obvious (side note: I argued with a certain "W.Frank" about this a few years ago), feel free to delete it completely.

To TT's points; I imagined clicking up exotic places and sort of guessing where in the world they are was interesting to readers. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The second-to-last bullet, i.e. "Relevant images are optional but welcome, ideally once for every three facts..." doesn't reflect current practice where, without exception, we have an image for one fact in every trio.

I propose we modify the wording to:

• Relevant images are required for one in every three facts. They should be placed above the fact in question, with the following formatting:"

(the bold is purely for emphasis to highlight what I've changed, and is not intended for the final published version).

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yup, sounds like a good idea. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I will make the change now. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The wording sounds a bit harsh. I've understood there is no problem adding a fact with or without image, regardless of the previous ones, as facts can be reordered as needed. I'd prefer something like "There should be a relevant image for one in every three facts. Images can be added or facts reordered to conform to this. The images should be placed ..." --LPfi (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't it be better to have a set of guidelines which encourages the person who adds a fact to complete the job, and not just do the bare minimum, requiring someone else to edit the fact to suit our format or scrabble around the WV article / Commons looking for a picture? If you prefer that wording, I don't mind that much, but do feel it may encourage sloppiness. Sorry to be harsh again :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is a valid point. I suppose most people want to do good contributions, so that not adding an image where one would be needed is no problem, as the following contributor just gets to put their illustrated (or unillustrated) fact ahead in the queue. This would make it a little easier to contribute, as you do not have to contribute a batch or wait for the right moment (when you have no image or want to have your illustration). Whether harshness is needed is an empirical question, for which I haven't done the maths, so if you feel there might be a problem, leave it at current wording. --LPfi (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think we'd rather have the fact with no image than have no fact at all. K7L (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Given that we often move around facts in the nominations, I don't see any problem if someone accidentally adds a fact without a photo where there should be one with a photo (or vice versa). The next contributor can simply add one with a photo and place it before. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The current top item in the template, with the photo of the flying saucer, leads to an embarrassingly bare article. Yes, it's just about 'usable', and our criterion only calls for articles to be 'usable' at minimum, but by no other measure is that article something for us to be proud of showcasing. Do we really want such bare-bones usable articles to be linked from our home page, and potentially be a bunch of people's first impression of Wikivoyage?

It's in the template now and it fulfils the minimum status, so there's little purpose in removing it, but can we all resolve to be more selective in future? As far as I'm aware, the point of 'Discover' isn't to highlight articles that need a tonne of work doing to them, it's to showcase weird and wonderful places that the traveller could actually read about in some depth. Yes, this is a bit of a moan, and all written from the comfy armchair that is hindsight, but I wouldn't be bringing this up if I hadn't noticed a similarly poor article linked from the template two weeks ago - that was an outline so shouldn't even have been added in the first place, but in terms of word count actually has more content than Mars. Let's make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the policies say "Linked articles don't need to be perfect, but preference should be given to those with a status of "usable" or higher.". It doesn't say articles need to be usables, let alone "strong usables, almost guides" to qualify for the main page. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Correct, but just stating that dodges the issue of whether we want bare-bones articles in 'Discover'. The policy of preference towards usable or higher is there for a reason, IMO. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I think it's OK allowing "short" articles up there every now and then (like a few times every month), because places that feature extraordinary/"freaky" facts almost never have good articles (for example the southern pole of inaccessibility or the suspected coldest place in the world). ϒpsilon (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I also think that referring to an article in "Discover" can be a good incentive to clean it up. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, "Discover" is not cleanup nor is it a remedial school. It's a showcase of interesting and supposedly-complete (or at least usable) articles on the front page. Even then, the criteria for "usable" for a bottom-level destination are absurdly low - some way in, something to see or do, somewhere to eat and sleep, that's it. (Regions are another matter as we hold them back if certain key articles under them are bad.) If a page doesn't meet "usable", it needs to be fixed before taking it anywhere near "page one". K7L (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not suggesting referring people to Outline or Stub articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a general disagreement as to what "discover" is supposed to be. Some think it fine to feature facts from outlines in Syria, some think we should only feature articles that meet a certain standard of quality and are not in a war zone. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the question of "what Discover is supposed to be", or at least what kind of articles apply, is answerable in large degree by the policy Ypsilon quoted above. If someone on this site long ago explicitly wrote that "preference" (a nonbinding term, as Ypsi said) is given to Usable and better articles, then it follows logically that the consensus leading up to that policy was that the standards for the kind of articles that are applicable to "Discover" should not be anywhere near as high as what K7L and ThunderingTyphoons! suggest that they are: "a showcase of interesting and supposedly-complete (or at least usable) articles on the front page"; "weird and wonderful places that the traveller could actually read about in some depth". If some of us want the standards to be raised, fine, but the procedure for that is to propose a policy change, accrue consensus for it, and then implement it - not to simply pretend the policy is something different than what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Discover section comprising just good quality articles, famous places and articles that otherwise get plenty of airtime wouldn't IMO be a Discover section any longer, but just a waste of Main Page space. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. We already have one of those and it's called DotM. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which major wiki links to majorly deficient articles on its main page? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Again, if the community doesn't like the policy, it should be changed. Not ignored. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As of now, the so-called majorly deficient articles in Discover are the exceptions that proves the rule. Or do the rest of the articles have to be in mint condition to make up for the deficient articles that every now and then? ϒpsilon (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is about whether we should change policy or not! Why would there be a separate discussion needed when we're all talking about it here and now?

To summarise, I asked the community whether we really want such low quality articles linked from the main page. The response has been mixed. There is no attempt to ignore policy, however trying to preserve the current policy based on guessing what editors of 5 years or more ago may or may not have been thinking is stupid. Let's try to reach an agreement now, and then make the policy reflect what we want, rather than what may or may not have been decided in the dim and distant past.

If it's not clear by now already, I think linking to low quality articles from the main page makes WV look amateurish. I am generally happy to feature usable articles, though would be reluctant when they are only just usable, without much content, or a custom banner. However, I really see no justification in featuring articles that don't even qualify for usable status. The idea that the weird and wonderful facts 'Discover' excels at featuring can only be found on stubby non-articles is patently false, given that a large majority of the articles we feature are usable or higher. If someone wants a particular fact that is only found on an outline article to be featured, then the least they could do is spend 30 mins doing that article up a bit, and getting it to usable, so it is actually worthy of being a main page feature. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There are interesting things in all kinds of articles, both well developed and less developed ones. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. And all I'm saying is that some of these articles could do with being developed further before they get the kind of exposure that being linked from the main page affords them. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think we can expect the due diligence to verify whether the purported trivia fact is true in the first place. And while the editor in question finds that out, a bit of effort could be put into prettying up the article in question. And it is a major visibility boost to put an article on the mainpage, so we should ask whether we want embarrassingly empty articles there or not. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow, we're now also having a problem with facts not being true (in other words readers and editors can't trust the content in our articles)? What else is there maybe wrong with Discover that hasn't come up before?

Thinking about it, low-quality articles could use more exposure on the Main Page, in order to attract people to edit them. It could be called "Help out" or something along those lines and Discover in its current form could be replaced by this. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are both parts of that comment sarcastic, or just the first? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think we're overlooking a huge factor in this. The reason why we can afford to hold DotMs to the standard of having Guide or better status is mainly because we only need to change them out once a month, but we need to come up with a new Discover factoid every single day. If we start getting too picky, we'll run out of eligible articles for Discover just as quickly as we would if we had a new DotM every day. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discover should present articles, places and facts that readers don't know about before — articles that don't get much airtime. People should learn something new when looking at Discover. I find it natural that this every now and then includes articles of so called lesser quality. This is just what I think Discover should be about. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

My reaction to reading a discover-style factoid in one of our articles is "huh, interesting, is that even true?" If yes, great, put it on the discover page. If not, edit and say as much in the edit summary. It is to me a bit strange how patently wrong discover "factoids" end up on the main page. Maybe one factoid per day is indeed too much? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

But how common are "fake facts" in the Discover section then? And how need they to be proved? WP-style references?

A few years ago one editor let understand that the articles that we feature on the main page as DotM are usually substandard. When I asked them for a few examples of bad articles (because I couldn't perceive there to be any), the only example they were able to come up with was Dar es Salaam, in particular its sad looking See section (which I of course agree with). The funny thing was that it was featured back in 2012, incidentially at the time when we were busy with other things when the project has just migrated from the other site. Are we talking about a problem of this magnitude? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I recall a dubious traffic light statement and the Apple Valley (Minnesota) trainwreck. Both of those could - I think - have been prevented by a quick perusal of WP. And both those facts sounded strange on the face of them (because they turned out to be wrong). I would not ask for anything but the word of a trusted contributor that they did the due diligence, but apparently, it is a controversial thing to say that - at the very least - the facts or purported facts that seem questionable are looked into by those that add them... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apple Valley? Achieving euphoria is easy in this virtual Xanadu... and I seem to recall that an honest-to-goodness Apple Valley fact was featured in the {{Discover}} box once all was said and done. That said, any concerns were already expressed on the article's talk page as early as July 2010. My only concern about how this was handled? What if a Discover factoid were created ("Apple Valley is world-renowned for its famous, legendary architecture...") before the article went through a full rewrite. The next tantalising Apple Valley fact ("Apple Valley's 485-acre state zoo is one of the first to divide its collection into six named trails by habitat, instead of species...") might have been discarded as a duplicate as there'd already been a previous fact (and a DoTM nomination) submitted for the same destination before the article was truly ready for the world. That would be a shame, as the voyager would be tragically missing out on all that Apple Valley has to offer. Every item that appears before the corresponding article is completed and ready is a missed opportunity to promote the same article here later, when the page is actually polished and ready for the road. That would be tragic. K7L (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Remember we can list the same page more than once, but doing so within the space of a year or two is needlessly repetitive. The tragedy you imagine isn't going to happen.

As much as I dislike badly underdeveloped articles being listed, I think you may be setting the bar too high; we would well and truly risk running out of articles if we were to continue having a daily fact and insist on articles being more or less complete (i.e. 'guide' or better). That level of pickiness is unfortunately not sustainable with the way things currently are on Wikivoyage. However, I do think a policy of insisting on 'usable' or higher is both realistic and desirable.

I also think the 'fake facts' point is a side issue, and one that has diverted this conversation unnecessarily. If anyone feels strongly about that issue, please start a new topic below this one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I like some of the recently added facts, either. Brisbane being super laid back or one rocket scientist I had not even heard of previously being cited as "one of the greatest scientists" does sound like going overboard with the informal. But that's just my two copper coins... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Brisbane one was a bit nebulous, and I was going to pick something else until I came across the kangaroo rest area photo. The NZ one could be easily changed to the same town being the centre of green-lip mussel production, if the scientists are deemed to be unimpressive.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm also not entirely sure what "the essence of Baja California" is and how Cabo San Lucas captures it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just copied what it says on Cabo San Lucas. The fact states how the destination captures the essence; by being good at all the things Baja is known for. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with entries which attempt to characterise a destination in a certain way, either as 'laid-back' or as offering the typical Baja California experience. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this a mistake or a new decision I've somehow missed? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Because of (sort of) a typo when copying the factoids to the template. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this Celsius or Fahrenheit? Readers could be an English speaker (native or non-native) from any part of the world and this statement will be interpreted differently depending on which country that are from. See WP:Global. Gizza ^(roam) 03:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added °F, in the way normally in articles. --LPfi (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most likely in Celsius, as mentioned in the next sentence in Abu_Simbel#Climate. Ypsilon (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right now at the main page, the "Shawshank oak" is misspelled in an unsightly fashion. I tried to edit but did not find the source code. Please advise. Ibaman (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done, and I can't understand how the extra "n" ended up there. It's Template:Discover that handles the updates. --Ypsilon (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it okay to modify the entries in the template directly, as well as on the project page, to correct grammatical errors? JsfasdF252 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. In that case, please check out the article the discovery links to as well, because often the sentence is literally right out of the article. Ypsilon (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply