Name
[edit]
- Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers by location? --Saqib (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
- That would be a move in the right direction. Does anyone mind if I make the move? --Peter Talk 16:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Re-thinking
[edit]This page was never very successful on WT. Maybe there's a better way to do this? Could we have a template to put on one's userpage that would make their username appear on this list? Like {{home|Bogotá}}? That would allow users to easily update their current home too. --Peter Talk 04:54, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
- The template sounds like a good idea. Would it display a box/userbox, or simply be a hidden way of categorising users? It may be difficult to implement on this page though, and would require more detailed coding (probably some intricate category hierarchy). On a side-note, the TOC is messing up the indenting of the bullet points at the top. If only we had a TOCright template! (joking, of course) JamesA >talk 05:09, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
- I don't practice template voodoo, so I can't speak too much to it. But I imagine it essentially as a simple, non–userbox-looking userbox (I don't want to open any doors to WP userbox hell). --Peter Talk 05:19, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
- Peter, i fully agree that i don't want any WP userpages ever on WV. I think everyone can write its home (if he wants to) on his user page. Jc8136 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
Lovely idea, but it seems that even here we have reverto-maniacs --W. Franke-mailtalk 22:15, 6 October 2012 (CEST)
Good idea. I don't know if a template could put a user on this page, but a template could categorize users and then a bot could add them to this page. –sumone10154(talk) 21:42, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
- Actually, we wouldn't need this page, it could just redirect to a Category page (similar to Wikipedia's). –sumone10154(talk) 21:48, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
I was quite amazed to have my edit reverted here with the edit summary of "i'm afraid , this is not right way". Leaving aside the fact that we don't have a "policy" about who or what can be added here and that plain reverts are usually used just for vandalism and obvious mistakes, we have recently introduced a pop-up listing editor which is ideal for this type of information since it will enable both a World map of the geographical location of Wikivoyagers to appear and for editors to list their phone and fax numbers, etc. Now before you edit war and revert me again, please discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using our now normal listing format for this page. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Using sub-section heads instead of indented bullets to identify regions and sub-regions
[edit]Currently, we have section headings to identify continents, and sub-sections for each country within the continent. For areas inside a country, we use indented bullets. (See China for an example. But we also use bullets to identify users, which (IMHO)looks funny and can sometimes be downright confusing. For an example of the latter, see France, where we have a user and an empty province at the same level.
I would like to use increasingly deeper sub-sections for areas within larger areas. For an example of this, see User:Peter Chastain/Sandbox. Does that seem like a good idea? Peter Chastain (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea Peter. --Saqib (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have begun to make that change (I got as far down as France). I broke France into Regions (there are 27) but included only the ones represented by people in this listing. I think we should list editors who have not specified a region before all the regional subsections, so they don't appear to be in the subsection. Since it would be labor-intensive to add empty subsections, I suggest letting people add subsection headings as needed. I appreciate any feedback on this: it is not too late to back out of the change entirely, although I think it looks better than the old format. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Despite the clear and longstanding consensus demonstrated above to do this, one of our admins (who presumably thinks he knows best and is too important to discuss his viewpoint) has reverted my re-formatting of the home nations of the UK into sub-section heads instead of indented bullets. I do hope we can get some more active contributors into this site as it seems that some folks have too much time on their hands. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Frank, don't mind but I don't see any discussion to use bullets for country sub-regions. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- There wasn't.
- My edits that you so cheekily reverted, did not use bullets, but rather implemented what you previously agreed to.
- Incidentally, Scotland, England and Wales are not "country sub-regions", but nations with their own languages, postage stamps, UEFA national football teams, legal systems (in the case of Scotland), flags and national cultures and identities going back at least 700 years longer than some more recent and more artificial "countries" and at least as valid entities to be categorised as "countries" as Belgium or Rwanda or Iraq.
- My proposal would be to not create any "empty countries" but to fill in small blanks where the first level political divisions below countries already have some entries. That's why I think it not worthwhile to delete "Wales" even though we've currently got no users there.
- Until and unless we have more than 9 users in any sub-section I would not be in favour of any further division unless done by an actual user who already appears in a listing in the division to be subdivided. (This is to take care of cases such as where a Pakistani user may not wish to be listed in an "Indian" division of Kashmir or Kurdish users that may not wish to appear in a sub-section of Turkey.) --W. Frankemailtalk 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the complex administrative divisions terminology of U.K. but I think even if the four countries England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are described as countries, they're part of the sovereign state Britain and should be listed as sub-regions here. Furthermore, nobody deleted Wales sub-section and I think you was trying to make sub-sections of those four countries and you can see, they're still sub-sections. What else you want Frank? And Btw, I had reverted your edit because you was using a template which is not discussed here yet. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's partly why we are writing WV - so you can learn about these things. However, you should know by now that whether a country is a sovereign state or a member of the UN is not as important from the travellers perspective as the practical differences. As for what I want, I need you and all the other admins here, to think very carefully before they revert experienced editors that are making good faith edits. If you did not think that is a good idea to use our standard listing template in these listings, then it would have been much more collegiate to put your point of view here and ask me to revert my own edit until such time as we had discussed this radical "innovation". --W. Frankemailtalk 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know much about the complex administrative divisions terminology of U.K. but I think even if the four countries England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are described as countries, they're part of the sovereign state Britain and should be listed as sub-regions here. Furthermore, nobody deleted Wales sub-section and I think you was trying to make sub-sections of those four countries and you can see, they're still sub-sections. What else you want Frank? And Btw, I had reverted your edit because you was using a template which is not discussed here yet. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Frank, don't mind but I don't see any discussion to use bullets for country sub-regions. --Saqib (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Despite the clear and longstanding consensus demonstrated above to do this, one of our admins (who presumably thinks he knows best and is too important to discuss his viewpoint) has reverted my re-formatting of the home nations of the UK into sub-section heads instead of indented bullets. I do hope we can get some more active contributors into this site as it seems that some folks have too much time on their hands. --W. Frankemailtalk 16:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have begun to make that change (I got as far down as France). I broke France into Regions (there are 27) but included only the ones represented by people in this listing. I think we should list editors who have not specified a region before all the regional subsections, so they don't appear to be in the subsection. Since it would be labor-intensive to add empty subsections, I suggest letting people add subsection headings as needed. I appreciate any feedback on this: it is not too late to back out of the change entirely, although I think it looks better than the old format. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Retirement
[edit]What should our procedure be when editors clearly announce that they have left the project and will definitely not be returning to edit here again?
Should we
- 1) Remove the entry
- 2) Let the entry stand, but add "(Retired)" after the entry
- 3) Do nothing (so that we seem to have more active editors in a particular location than we really do) ?
--118.93nzp (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is much point. This list will never be truly reflective of the WV community since registration on the list isn't mandatory. Also nothing precludes a 'retired' editor from returning in the future. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I understand both your points but I think it better to discuss a likely event in the abstract before the personalities involved clouds everyone's judgement.
- Too often this head-in-the-sand, not-worth-bothering-about attitude has then suddenly changed to foaming at the mouth when someone who actually is interested in these seemingly trivial matters actually makes an edit.
- In the absence of any rationale to the contrary, I will plump for (2) on the basis that if something is worth doing at all, it's worth doing well. If an editor changes their mind about retirement it will then be a trivial matter to remove the "(Retired)" label after the entry. --118.93nzp (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- In that case I support you for Option 2. Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Upon reflection, I've decided it would be best to italicise "(Retired)" after the original entry, to try and make it slightly clearer that this is a "conventional" status designation; I hope this won't make a difference to your support for this trivial proposal, Andrew. --118.93nzp (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
listing template usage on this page
[edit]I like the effort to allow users to appear on a map, but I'm concerned that using the listing template might encourage some users to reveal too much info by adding a home phone and/or address in the corresponding template fields. Could we set up a different template for this page (ie {{wikivoyager|name=|location=|lat=|long=}})? If I understand the listing template correctly, so long as the new template handles the #coordinates tag then the dots should appear on the map (mw:Extension:GeoData), although it might take some playing around. Does anyone have time to try this out? If not I can take a stab at it when free time is available. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good point.
- We might also want to clarify that it's best that the user themselves edits their own entry, rather than someone else without their permission. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That does sound good to me. I'd probably be in favour of starting this page anew, as so many people listed here are no longer active and some have barely edited at all. I'm not particularly familiar with the listings templates, but I might have a go over the weekend. Could we perhaps change 'location' to 'hometown', just so we get something semi-standardised that isn't overly specific? --Nick talk 00:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- If this was a page showing the location of docents, I'd agree on the change to 'hometown', but I do see this as a page where users need not be too regimented or standardised and can be allowed to self-identify with a particular location. Otherwise we have to get involved in the tedious minutiae of whether it's their birthplace, or where they first went to school, or where they spend the most time, or their official residence (and do they get a few bites at the cake if they have one in Balmoral and one in Sandringham) and what happens if they are posted overseas for a long duration (Saqib?), etc, etc, etc... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's true. I was just concerned that some might post their address as their location. --Nick talk 00:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, some users are concerned about having their location too precisely revealed... --118.93nzp (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for plunging forward and asking a few people. Really all we want is (at most) a town/city or (at least) a country. We certainly don't want anyone's precise location! --Nick talk 02:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I made an attempt at Template:Wikivoyager, but the lat/long coordinates aren't being reflected properly on the map when that template is used. I'll give it another go when time permits unless someone else can jump in, and perhaps we can get @Mey2008: to weigh in. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The coordinates were inaccurate. It should always be used 5-digit coordinates. Of course they should not point exactly to your own house number. :). Only thus overlapping markers can be avoided. For 2-digit coordinates all user markers of a city are at the same point. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Thanks for trying Ryan... --118.93nzp (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand - the lat/long I've entered using Template:Wikivoyager should add a dot to the map in California, but I only see a dot for Schwalz in Kentucky (lat/long for Schwalz entered with the listing tag). If I use the listing tag with the same lat/long then a dot appears in California. Is the mapframe template getting its data from something other than the #coordinates database? -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- For reference, the experimental template has now been removed, so if anyone would like to help out with debugging it can be seen in this version of the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- You know, if ever there was a case for using less-precise coordinates... Powers (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- For reference, the experimental template has now been removed, so if anyone would like to help out with debugging it can be seen in this version of the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand - the lat/long I've entered using Template:Wikivoyager should add a dot to the map in California, but I only see a dot for Schwalz in Kentucky (lat/long for Schwalz entered with the listing tag). If I use the listing tag with the same lat/long then a dot appears in California. Is the mapframe template getting its data from something other than the #coordinates database? -- Ryan • (talk) • 09:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Thanks for trying Ryan... --118.93nzp (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- The coordinates were inaccurate. It should always be used 5-digit coordinates. Of course they should not point exactly to your own house number. :). Only thus overlapping markers can be avoided. For 2-digit coordinates all user markers of a city are at the same point. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I made an attempt at Template:Wikivoyager, but the lat/long coordinates aren't being reflected properly on the map when that template is used. I'll give it another go when time permits unless someone else can jump in, and perhaps we can get @Mey2008: to weigh in. -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for plunging forward and asking a few people. Really all we want is (at most) a town/city or (at least) a country. We certainly don't want anyone's precise location! --Nick talk 02:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, some users are concerned about having their location too precisely revealed... --118.93nzp (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's true. I was just concerned that some might post their address as their location. --Nick talk 00:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- If this was a page showing the location of docents, I'd agree on the change to 'hometown', but I do see this as a page where users need not be too regimented or standardised and can be allowed to self-identify with a particular location. Otherwise we have to get involved in the tedious minutiae of whether it's their birthplace, or where they first went to school, or where they spend the most time, or their official residence (and do they get a few bites at the cake if they have one in Balmoral and one in Sandringham) and what happens if they are posted overseas for a long duration (Saqib?), etc, etc, etc... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That does sound good to me. I'd probably be in favour of starting this page anew, as so many people listed here are no longer active and some have barely edited at all. I'm not particularly familiar with the listings templates, but I might have a go over the weekend. Could we perhaps change 'location' to 'hometown', just so we get something semi-standardised that isn't overly specific? --Nick talk 00:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have two digits after the decimal separator, ie: (44.24, -76.50) and that drops me a block away in the middle of the local fairground. No one else has listed themselves to my hometown or anything within a hundred miles, so no overlap. K7L (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Overloaded with long-inactive (including some never-active) users
[edit]I realize this isn't exactly an issue of life-or-death importance, but at this point the vast, vast majority of users on this list are no longer active on Wikivoyage. (If they ever were - looking through contribution histories, there are several whose sole edit was the addition of their name to this list.) I think that, in order to prevent people adding their names to this list for vanity purposes (which IMO is functionally equivalent to spam), we should pare it down to currently-active Wikivoyagers only (plus perhaps retired Wikivoyagers of especial notability, such as Peter Fitzgerald), and require a certain number of edits and/or duration of sustained activity on Wikivoyage before allowing users to add themselves to this list.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I say yea. Ground Zero (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead and remove non-notable inactive users. And I'd say a minimum of 10 non-userspace edits should be required for a listing here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek - I'd say minimum 100 non-userspace edits before current Wikivoyagers can list their names here, and a minimum of 10,000 for retired Wikivoyagers' names to be retained on the list after their departure. That latter number is roughly the threshold at which anyone who's a sysop (and users like Ypsilon who aren't sysops but maintain sysop-like activity levels) would make the cut and anyone who's not wouldn't. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, though I wouldn't make a Federal case out of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I support Ikan Kekek's lower standard for now. Depending on how big the list remains, I could support a higher threshold to trim it further. Gizza (roam) 02:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ten edits is a low number, though. Anyone could reach ten edits, add a username, and stop editing. A hundred edits, however, is more about what it means to be a "Wikivoyager" — someone who actually takes time to edit on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- We need to consider the effect of discouraging enthusiastic new users against the harm caused by this kind of edit. I'd say the harm from this kind of post is slight if any, and is much greater from someone with a greater number of edits who chooses to spend years editing only their user page (if you don't know who I'm referring to on that, I would rather not link their page). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. If a new user adds location, however, we need to make sure they stay active per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think 100 edits is about right. Rather than assessing all "enthusiastic new users" equally, we should acknowledge the fact that while some newbies will go on to be valuable contributors, others will lapse into inactivity in short order and still others will go on to become persistent problem editors. I would regard premature placement of one's own name on this list as being somewhat akin to hat collecting (a Wikipedia term for the practice of inexperienced users habitually requesting sysop tools that they are clearly not qualified for, as a sort of status symbol), especially since this is a page that takes effort to find - it's not linked from our Main Page, the pub, or any of the more prominent ones on the site. Looking back at the administrator nomination archives, Wikivoyage has had a couple of experiences with hat collectors, one of whom ended up falling into the "lapse into inactivity in short order" category, and the other into the "persistent problem editor" category (in fact, he was indefbanned on English Wikipedia after running afoul of ArbCom and was well on his way to meeting a similar fate at Wikivoyage had he not gradually drifted into inactivity of his own accord). Yes, two users is a pretty small sample size, but Wikipedia's is much larger, and the fact that the folks over there don't show a lot of tolerance for hat collectors (quoting Rschen7754 in the Chihonglee case: "if you proceed to request userrights that you are not qualified for, you will continue to have your requests turned down and possibly forfeit any chance of gaining them for a very long time") demonstrates that, on the whole, new users who are hat collectors - and more broadly, new users whose primary purpose in being here is not to contribute to the travel guide but for self-promotion or to burnish their own sense of status, which correlates with the concept of a newbie listing one's own name prominently on this page - tend not to prove valuable members of the community in the long run. As for the minority for whom that's not the case, I would imagine they would be relatively more understanding when their names are deleted from the list, provided it's done in a friendly way and the reasons for the deletion are explained. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Curtaintoad has well over 100 edits, so he's an inapt example. Do what you like, but I hardly ever pay attention to this obscure corner of the site and seriously doubt it really matters much which users list their locations here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think if someone wants to list themselves, that does no harm—no need for minimum edit quotas. Like Ikan Kekek, I rarely visit this page, so it doesn't matter to me much. But let's not discourage new editors unnecessarily. Removing inactive users is probably useful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Curtaintoad has well over 100 edits, so he's an inapt example. Do what you like, but I hardly ever pay attention to this obscure corner of the site and seriously doubt it really matters much which users list their locations here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think 100 edits is about right. Rather than assessing all "enthusiastic new users" equally, we should acknowledge the fact that while some newbies will go on to be valuable contributors, others will lapse into inactivity in short order and still others will go on to become persistent problem editors. I would regard premature placement of one's own name on this list as being somewhat akin to hat collecting (a Wikipedia term for the practice of inexperienced users habitually requesting sysop tools that they are clearly not qualified for, as a sort of status symbol), especially since this is a page that takes effort to find - it's not linked from our Main Page, the pub, or any of the more prominent ones on the site. Looking back at the administrator nomination archives, Wikivoyage has had a couple of experiences with hat collectors, one of whom ended up falling into the "lapse into inactivity in short order" category, and the other into the "persistent problem editor" category (in fact, he was indefbanned on English Wikipedia after running afoul of ArbCom and was well on his way to meeting a similar fate at Wikivoyage had he not gradually drifted into inactivity of his own accord). Yes, two users is a pretty small sample size, but Wikipedia's is much larger, and the fact that the folks over there don't show a lot of tolerance for hat collectors (quoting Rschen7754 in the Chihonglee case: "if you proceed to request userrights that you are not qualified for, you will continue to have your requests turned down and possibly forfeit any chance of gaining them for a very long time") demonstrates that, on the whole, new users who are hat collectors - and more broadly, new users whose primary purpose in being here is not to contribute to the travel guide but for self-promotion or to burnish their own sense of status, which correlates with the concept of a newbie listing one's own name prominently on this page - tend not to prove valuable members of the community in the long run. As for the minority for whom that's not the case, I would imagine they would be relatively more understanding when their names are deleted from the list, provided it's done in a friendly way and the reasons for the deletion are explained. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. If a new user adds location, however, we need to make sure they stay active per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- We need to consider the effect of discouraging enthusiastic new users against the harm caused by this kind of edit. I'd say the harm from this kind of post is slight if any, and is much greater from someone with a greater number of edits who chooses to spend years editing only their user page (if you don't know who I'm referring to on that, I would rather not link their page). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ten edits is a low number, though. Anyone could reach ten edits, add a username, and stop editing. A hundred edits, however, is more about what it means to be a "Wikivoyager" — someone who actually takes time to edit on Wikivoyage. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I support Ikan Kekek's lower standard for now. Depending on how big the list remains, I could support a higher threshold to trim it further. Gizza (roam) 02:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, though I wouldn't make a Federal case out of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion:
- Anyone can put their name on the list,
- Anyone with fewer than 100 edits can be removed after six months of inactivity,
- Anyone with over 10,000 stays on.
Ground Zero (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- In my reading, the current consensus supports removal of 1) all users with <10 mainspace edits, and 2) inactive users with <10,000 mainspace edits. I don't think there's any clear consensus regarding what to do with active users with 10-99 mainspace edits, but if I were to proceed based on the first sentence of this comment, I don't think the end result would be appreciably different than if I were to use the 100-edit benchmark for users who aren't inactive. I'm going to do so, and we can of course revisit those numbers later if there's any problem. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. The details are not a huge deal, and it's worth doing something about this. Ground Zero (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. The details are not a huge deal, and it's worth doing something about this. Ground Zero (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I might just add that making that more clear on the page itself might be helpful. I mistook: "Please feel free to add your user name to the lists below and to use the 'other' listings template to provide co-ordinates for yourself." as an invitation, and didn't dig deep into the Talk page to see that I probably needed more contributions first. Not a big deal, just an overzealous first day mistake on my part. --Gatewayvacations (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- I continue to think keeping this list pared down to active users is a good goal, but I, too, am beginning to have doubts about the way we're (I'm) going about it, given responses like the above. Perhaps a different way would be to initially assume that anyone who adds their name to the list without the requisite number of edits intends to become an active contributor, and then make the decision on whether the name stays or goes after a certain amount of time has passed - say, a month - and a consistent pattern of contribution or non-contribution will have become apparent. Does that sound better? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be better. We should do our best to be welcoming and encouraging to new users. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Can we please adopt that policy? I'd suggest waiting 3 months before such a removal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- And to me. Ground Zero (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like consensus to me. I'll restore the old version of the message at the top of the page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- And to me. Ground Zero (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Can we please adopt that policy? I'd suggest waiting 3 months before such a removal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be better. We should do our best to be welcoming and encouraging to new users. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Any Taiwanese Wikivoyagers?
[edit]Many of the Taiwan pages are in dire need of updates. Ernest Macomb (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, Ernest. Unfortunately, we don't have users categorized by location, but we do by language, so you can see if anyone in Category:User zh has any Taiwanese. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If we wanted to recruit some editors for a project, then I suggest leaving a note for Joycewikiwiki of m:Wikimedia Taiwan on her talk page at Meta-Wiki. Editing Wikivoyage can be a fun project for chapters that organize editing events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's a list on Wikivoyage:Wikivoyagers by location, but it's seriously out-of-date and filled with users who've only made one or two edits to Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also babel boxes, used to tell one's languages, are used only by some Wikivoyagers; you can find users who know a language using the categories, but you cannot rule out that there are regulars who just haven't declared their proficiency. –LPfi (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a bit late to this, but using babel boxes to find if a user is from Taiwan is not going to do much help. Category:User zh lists 110 users; although many users were from the times of Wikitravel, most users in that list have not specified their location. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also babel boxes, used to tell one's languages, are used only by some Wikivoyagers; you can find users who know a language using the categories, but you cannot rule out that there are regulars who just haven't declared their proficiency. –LPfi (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)