主题:Travellers' pub

Welcome to the Pub

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

Before asking a question or making a comment:

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

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to ask a new question
QA icon clr.svg

Experienced users: Please sweep the pub

Keeping the pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see an old conversation (i.e. a month dormant) that could be moved to a talk page, please do so, and add "{{swept}}" there, to note that it has been swept in from the pub. Try to place it on the discussion page roughly in chronological order.
  • A question regarding a destination article should be swept to the article discussion page.
  • A discussion regarding a policy or the subject of an expedition can be swept to the policy or expedition discussion page.
  • A simple question asked by a user can be swept to that user's talk page, but consider if the documentation needs a quick update to make it clearer for the next user with the same question.
  • A pointer to a discussion going on elsewhere, such as a notice of a star nomination or a request to comment on another talk page, can be removed when it is old. Any discussion that occurred in the pub can be swept to where the main discussion took place.
Any discussions that do not fall into any of these categories, and are not of any special importance for posterity, should be archived to Project:Travellers' pub/Archives and removed from here. If you are not sure where to put a discussion, let it be—better to spend your efforts on those that you do know where to place.
Wikivoyage sysop.svg

Nosedive of our U.S. Alexa rank

For some reason that's of yet unclear to me (it can't be seasonal variation alone) our Alexa ranking in the U.S. has taken a worse nosedive than a 737 max with mcas on steroids. It doesn't seem to have caused real world consequences yet, but we should probably find out what's going on before it's too late Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this observation is true. The cause is as unexplainable as the jump about two years ago. The nosedive started about three months ago (see here), is not yet stopped and was combined with a decrease of the count of U.S. visitors from about 15 % to 10 %. The values for India and Germany are more stable. The usual temporary changes within a year cannot explain this behavior, too. Maybe Wikitravel could improve its U.S. ranking. Unfortunately, the awareness of Wikivoyage is still low. The major part of traffic is coming from search engines and Wikipedias but not from direct access or from other websites. Social media cannot help, too, because of low usage. A better visibility of Wikivoyage could surely help but I do not know how to do this. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to compare it with other website rankings sites like SimilarWeb and see if it is a trend occurring everywhere or only on Alexa (in which case the way Alexa measures website popularity in the U.S. might have changed). The German Wikivoyage shows a Seitwert ranking though I don't quite understand it. As you say, Wikivoyage still has low general awareness. Many people who end up here from search or Wikipedia don't leave with a sufficiently strong impression that they remember the site and visit directly from then on or follow us on social media. Apart from the fork, we tend to get minimal mainstream media coverage as well. The only thing I can think of is to place "Share" buttons at the bottom of articles, so when a reader finishes an article and thinks it's worth sharing, they can share it via email or a social media platform. Gizza (roam) 08:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we should in theory enable sharing, but there's a problem with that, in that it could be controversial to associate ourselves in any way with sites like Twitter and Facebook that, shall we say, have played very dubious roles in world politics. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Traffic for travel sites usually drops during northern autumn. Wikivoyage's drop in global Alexa rank is not worse than previous years. Also, the other site is no longer a relevant competitor. /Yvwv (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I support exploring the idea of a share button, though think the politics stuff is a red herring. For better or worse, billions of people use Twitter and Facebook, and our content getting shared on those platforms to reach more people should be seen as a good thing.
What do the figures say regarding Wikitravel? Can we discount them as "no longer a relevant competitor" just like that? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking about our global rank. Our U.S. rank shows dramatic short term movement that's not mirrored by that other site (in fact we've fallen behind it in the U.S.) or the global rank of either site... Could there be an explanation related to Google trying its hand with travel guides? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the data Roland linked to there are not one but two drops in the U.S. ranking as of lately; early August to mid-September 8,886 down to 18,911 (the ordinal numeral a little more than doubled) then the ranking improved somewhat up to 13,799 in October and then down to 28,458 until now (again the ordinal numeral a little more than doubled). Is that really normal? --Ypsilon (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, just chiming in here as a staff member who use to work with the search team and cares about Wikivoyage. :) It's possible that wikivoyage.org (the portal) traffic has diminished, but not the actual language variants. That's a little less alarming IMHO. Here's the stats for English Wikivoyage showing that since the beginning of 2019, page views have increased! And traffic to English Wikivoyage from the US makes up the overwhelming majority of traffic. That's pretty consistent over time too. Not to say we shouldn't be watching and be concerned, but to provide a little contextual relief (I hope!).
It could also be possible that Google, which makes upward of 95% of traffic (and there for greatly influences Alexa rankings) could be doing something different. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Throwing out another idea here: should Wikimedia be purchasing Google search ads? They could even be targeted to searches for "wikitravel", so that people could be educated and redirected to us. WT may not be a relevant competitor in terms of quality, but they are still very much a competitor in terms of traffic: their articles outrank ours for many search terms, leading many casual readers to make edits there. By representing themselves to the casual reader as the Wikipedia for travel, they also hijack and do ongoing harm to our reputation. Sdkb (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a non-profit site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed we do not advertise. The only place where Wikvoyage can and has promoted and raised awareness of itself are other Wikimedian sites. The edit-a-thon (to celebrate our 5th anniversary) was a moderate success. Many people came to the site for the first time and some new editors stayed on to varying degrees. As far as arbitrary statistical landmarks go, we are close to hitting 30,000 articles soon. Perhaps we should ask the WMF to post a box on the top of pages highlighting this and include a link directing people to main page. While it was nice to get people editing, it would be great to get people reading our best content. Gizza (roam) 10:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a big difference between advertising and being a profit/non-profit organisation. Would be interested to see Wikimedia guidelines on promotion of sites, can anyone point us in the right direction? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I rather agree with Traveler100. We don't, and shouldn't, allow advertising on Wikivoyage, but isn't that different from advertising of Wikivoyage? I think that's a question that's unanswered by virtue of never having been asked: Wikipedia obviously has enough name recognition to preclude any need for advertising, and the issue has apparently never come up in any of the smaller WMF wikis, but that doesn't mean we know how the WMF would respond to such an idea. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Google used to donate a small amount of free advertising to non-profits, but I'm not sure if (a) they still do this, or (b) if we would qualify. (My guess is that they probably have the program, but that we wouldn't qualify.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I, perhaps wrongly, read Ikan's comment as less about what we as a nonprofit should be doing, more about what we realistically can do. The Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, and clearly charities do advertise. But how much does an ad campaign on YouTube, targeted at travel videos, say, cost? How much would it cost to purchase Google search ads, as suggested above by Sdkb? I like the idea of advertising outside of the Wikimedia bubble in principle, but my concern is how practical it is. The first question the WMF would ask if we were to propose this as an idea is "how much will this cost?" --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would support the idea as long as we were in agreement with the WMF and the advertising campaign showed some potential. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On a separate note, while I know that one person is unlikely to significantly change the website's rank, there was a period when I was extremely active here, sometimes making thousands of edits within a few days. Since I've not been so active on Wikivoyage, especially over the last couple of months, the rank has dropped noticably. Is it possible that there is a connection? Or would one user not be enough to impact the U.S. rank even by a thousand or so? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Getting back to the suggestion of Google advertising: Since Wikimedia doesn't profit from an increase in this site's Alexa ranking, what would be the good reason to spend money advertising it? Charities advertise because they need money for poor people, disaster areas, political causes, arts organizations, etc. I suppose Wikimedia needs money for servers, paid staff and such, so if they thought it was cost-effective to advertise, they'd probably already be doing it. But I don't think advertising on Google to raise a Wikimedia site's profile is likely to be cost-effective. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It would not be aimed at making money, i.e. financial contributions, but encouraging new readers to the site and hopefully more contributors. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
On how much it costs, you decide what your daily budget is and are charge between $1 and $2 dollars per click through. So basically look at $2 per new reader, but obviously no guarantee they will stay. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, if the Wikimedia Foundation feels like just spending money with no money coming back to them. You think they do, considering that they've been asking for contributions for Wikipedia? I think not. I wouldn't even consider suggesting this to them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Their aim isn't to make money, though, so the fact that no profit will be generated from this venture is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the potential rewards of the venture (attracting more readers, a subset of whom will become contributors - this ought to be a goal the Foundation shares) are significant enough to outweigh the cost. What do they fundraise for if not to make the wikis better in various ways, whether that be by hiring full-time staff, developing software improvements, or in this case increasing traffic? I still think it could be rather costly, and certainly don't think the chances of this being approved are very high, but it's worth exploring, potentially alongside other smaller sister-wikis. I am also grateful to Traveler100 for the brief explanation.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The last half year or so Alexa have had more information. E.g., Similar sites by audience overlap and sites linking in. It is clear that WV is way behind on sites linking in, except that one of them is Wikipedia (92 percent comes from Dictionaries and Encyclopedias of which Wikipedia is of course the top one). Elgaard (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Google Trends comparison of Wikivoyage with WT ([1]), you will notice that WT is a more popular search term everywhere except in Venezuela. Some countries are greyed out but it seems that WT triumphs over Wikivoyage is well over 100 countries. We benefit from Wikipedia's links to us, but apart from that I still feel WV is behind the old site on many measures. Gizza (roam) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually over a 5-year trend, we have made progress against them. In 2014, WT was being searched for 20 times more than us and now it's only 8 times more than us. That can be partially attributed to WT declining rather than us becoming more well known though [2]. When you compare Wikivoyage with Lonely Planet, in 2014 LP was searched 30x more than WV, while nowadays is 20x. So you could say moderate but not substantial progress has been made [3]. Gizza (roam) 23:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Re WikiTravel vs WikiVoyage: Probably not completely relevant to Alexa Rankings but earlier this year travelling Peru, Bolivia & Chile I started using WikiVoyage but switched to WikiTravel as their coverage was more up to date and broader (i.e. they included towns WikiVoyage had nothing about). I believe there are reasons for this but I'm travelling SE Asia at the moment and not ready to get into a discussion (which would be a separate subject/thread/section anyway). I'll start a new discussion when I get home in a few months (or longer or whenever). Maybe relevant to Google search results (I've no idea how those affect Alexa. Reality is WikiVoyage should be way way above other other sites e.g. TripAdvisor keeps coming up in Google searches but whenever I look at it it's pretty useless and they "tours" they advertise are a complete joke. PsamatheM (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update @PsamatheM:. Do you remember the names of any of the towns where Wikivoyage's coverage was weak or non-existent? We should make closing any gaps with them a priority. Gizza (roam) 05:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@DaGizza: I'm travelling at the moment on "variable" internet and with only a tablet. So for now it's brief (and unverified) responses. From memory e.g. I wasted a lot of walking and sweat (very hot) in Trujillo (Peru) as the bus information is/was disastrously wrong (relevant bus companies have their own ticket sales not at central bus station so its walk and walk and walk). When I visited Jauja (Peru) WV then had no page (and Jauja is a quite amazing place, massive Tunanmarca ruins, Canoncitos de Pichiluli, etc.). But even now WV's page is pretty poor compared to what WT offer. Inaccurate information that causes travellers problems is a guaranteed way to quickly drive people away from the site. I gave up applying updates to WV soon after arriving in Peru when I posted a listing for an excellent tour (I'd done, free) and the "policy police" descended deleting it, followed by endless discussion to try and form consensus and I believe the listing was restored but "life is too short" and for one listing it was a farce. I actually have a really strong belief in projects like Wikipedia, WV, etc. but I believe WV needs to significantly reconsider aspects of it's attitude. I'm sort of preparing my ideas but wont start putting them up until I'm home and can properly engage in any discussion they might prompt (of course the might not prompt anything).PsamatheM (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: I agree that there's excess biting of newbies and even semi-established editors and blind adherence to many policies which don't necessarily improve Wikivoyage in the long run. One policy we do need to adopt from Wikipedia is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia (or in our case Wikivoyage), ignore it." See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Many times, edits are just reverted without even an explanation in the edit summary let alone a personal message to the good-faith editor who would feel like they're being stalked and not welcome here. Gizza (roam) 01:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that I'd think could improve Wikivoyage that would deviate greatly from the Wikivoyage Manual of style, but that's my opinion, not the collective opinion of the site. And my question to you would be: How does Wikipedia prevent people from driving a truck through their guidelines, with their policy of ignoring rules? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Reverting an edit without explanation is just plain ignorant, except in the case of (a) obvious vandalism, or (b) repeated touting. At the same time, giving people licence to ignore rules would set us up for edit wars between someone who wants things done one way, and someone who thinks it's better done another way. The rules resolve these disputes and avoid wasteful edit warring. Eventually, anyone who joins a collaborative project has to learn that their work will be edited and changed by other users. It does not help newbies to let them think that their contributions are perfect just the way they are and aren't going to be changed by others. At the same time, not biting newbies is a really important practice, and I am sure I have been guilty of doing so in the past. Where an experienced editor is too heavy handed with newbies, it is important that other oldsters call them out on it. Ground Zero (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: I have substantially expanded the Jauja article with text adapted from the Wikipedia article. Could you take a look at it and add/delete/improve on my contributions as you see fit based on your experience there? With your help, and selective borrowing from Wikipedia, we could end up with a decent article, Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: Two aspects.
1. I was not being critical of the article but using it as an example of somewhere that WT had good coverage for but (at that time) WV have no page at all about. (One of the contributory reasons that back then I gave up using WV as a source of information whilst travelling Peru, Bolivia & Chile.
2. Having only tablet, phone and variable internet I would not be able to work on the article until I return (maybe many months away). Probably breaking rules but specifically see posts on my own web site https://psamathe.net/tag/jauja/. Tunamarca is a very significant site. Cañoncitos de Pichiluli is amazing. There are not any tours so info on e.g. WV becomes even more useful. Both are close to the town to be part of the town article. Pueblo Viejo isn't enough to visit on its own but is worth going via it on your walk to Cañoncitos de Pichiluli (but you'd need the GPS coordinates as there is no "way to go" just a good start point and a network of paths used by local farmers and shepherds).
So for now (due to my current "mid-travels" state) I'll have to pass any work on the article back to you (or others). Feel free to take any info/text from my personal website, you have my permission to take any photos (either directly into WV or onto Commons (though please credit them to psamathe.net - though they are just a few photos I'd be putting up there anyway in due course and but I'd be exporting them from raws so quality/resolution would be better (but more about info than photographic perfection). Let me know if you need any details or info and anything (but I don't have originals with me). Sorry if I appear lazy not doing the work myself but if you/somebody could do the bulk I doubt there would be much for me to tweak.PsamatheM (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: In addition to above, Getting in by bus is at the bottom of the page https://psamathe.net/jauja-southern-sierra/ PsamatheM (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Never fear, there's no problem in linking your blog in a discussion thread! Enjoy your continuing travels! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of stuff from your cool blog, and another hotel, but I should stop procrastinating and get to planning my imminent trip. Ground Zero (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, the English Wikipedia addresses the "Ignore all rules" problem these days mostly by giving it lip service and then rigidly enforcing Teh Rules in contradiction of the policy. When it does come up, there's usually a conversation about it. In its best form, it's really no different than how we decide things that aren't regulated, like whether a particular restaurant/bar combination business should be listed in ==Eat== or ==Drink==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that, WhatamIdoing. So I'm not sure having a similar policy would really result in any change here, other than confusion. Would you agree, or do you think it would be useful somehow? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that it has the potential to reduce the number of "Can we really block this guy, even though technically there's no obvious category in the blocking policy?" discussions from maybe two per year to one, which might be a small win. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
By replacing the long discussion about whether it's okay to block a user with a statement that "I decided to 'ignore all rules' and block that guy". It won't stop them all, but it might stop some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's more of a value or principle than a policy. Thinking about it a bit more, WV:the traveller comes first covers similar territory so it's probably not needed here. Gizza (roam) 08:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: - I empathize. Same thing happened to me when I listed a tour in Berlin. We happily list hotels, and other businesses without any qualms, but somehow tours are off-limits. We are inconsistent in our policies, and its very frustrating. Pick up any guidebook that people pay good money for. You will see that hotels, tours, and other businesses are listed if they are helpful to the traveller. We seem to have made some sort of inconsistent purity pledge that shortchanges the fundamental goals of this project. Marvin The Paranoid (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The walking tour in Peru that PsamatheM mentions was the occasion for a discussion that resulted in a site-wide exception for walking tours, so while PsamatheM's experience may have been trying, it actually led to a presumably permanent change (the guidelines changed over a year ago and haven't produced any disruption, so while not everyone agrees with them, they seem unlikely to be rolled back).
But when you say the tour policy "shortchanges the fundamental goals of this project", this is one of the goals:
Tours can be listed on Wikivoyage as long as they constitute a value-added activity. If a traveller could fulfill the substance of the tour on their own, the tour should not be listed.
And if it wasn't already clear that this site is directed at independent travelers, the end of the linked section is:
In practice this policy disallows listing most audio tours and guided tours since the substance of such tours can generally be fulfilled by an independent traveller, and the information provided on such tours should ideally be included in the appropriate Wikivoyage article.
The other part of this is something that you wouldn't remember because it happened a long time ago, but when we did allow tour links, articles like Florence were absolutely filled with spammy tour links and listings. A consensus on this site has so far agreed that the purpose of our guides is to enable independent travelers to visit the destinations we cover. Anyone who would rather take package tours probably doesn't need this site and won't have trouble finding such tours. Moreover, we simply lack the readership and expertise to try to do what we used to try to do with such listings, which is to judge which tours are good and which are pure money-sucks.
That said, exceptions to guidelines and policies are always possible (barring legal requirements, of course), but they have to be argued for on the relevant article's talk page. And if you want to change the tour-listing policy for the entire site, you can always start a thread at Wikivoyage talk:Listings and see if you can persuade a consensus to agree with your proposal. Whatever the results, someone will be unhappy, and that's the way it is and the reason why there are so many different sites - it's a Worldwide Web out there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and the history. It is good to know that there has been forward movement in this area. My edit was made a while back, when I was still new to WV, and I did not realize that a discussion could have been used to make my case for keeping it. --Marvin The Paranoid (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
We should make this clearer. I'm wondering where the best place is to start a discussion about where and how to make it clearer that all policies and guidelines that are not legally required could possibly be subject to exceptions on a case-by-case basis if a compelling argument results in a consensus for an exception on a particular article's talk page. That's how we've been operating, but perhaps there may be objections to the idea of case-by-case exceptions, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd say put another bullet on Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first saying something like "The community may come to a consensus not to apply a particular policy in a specific case, if applying the policy would be to the detriment of travellers." Powers (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Good phrasing, though the mechanism for discussing things should be spelled out, probably. Let's discuss this at Wikivoyage talk:The traveller comes first. I'll start the thread now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek One of the great problems with "organised tours" is how they are used. When completely independently travelling in Peru last years, in northern costal areas I took organised tours several occasions because no public transport was available and taxis were far far more expensive than the tour (and independent traveller could take a bus to a town, maybe then a taxi, maybe meaning an overnight stay but all ludicrous when an organised tour can provide transport cheaper and easier). Tour minibus would arrive at the site, I'd ask the driver or guide what time they were heading back and say "See you then" and I'd head off on my own - using them for transport but it is an organised tour. I'd given up bothering to add anything to WV after the "walking tour" grief mentioned above, but would I have got away with listing an organised tour on the basis it was way cheaper as transport than alternatives? or would it have caused another involved discussion ..... PsamatheM (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, on that basis. There are examples of listings of tour buses on the basis that they are transportation in various articles. I'm sorry you gave up adding content to Wikivoyage after a listing you posted caused a change in policy; how much more responsiveness could you ask for? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's the thread about making exceptions to rules: Wikivoyage talk:The traveller comes first#Exceptions to rules. Please have a look and comment on the phrasing, so we can agree on a form of words. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Reason I stopped bothering was that I posted a useful, valid listing, useful to many independent travellers - it was immediately taken out followed by a "consensus discussion" .... Life is too short and given the massive shortcomings in so many articles on the site (both in complying with policy and with badly out of date information then the issue my listing created well illustrates how the site is missing the bigger picture. Spend ages focusing on a minor listing overlooking the vast amount of work needed elsewhere. And that is why I believe some changes in attitude are needed to stop driving much needed travellers away when they are the ones who could spot errors and fix them (but then they'll make a "style" or policy error and .....). But that is another topic and one I don't have time or resources to engage in discussion over at the moment. PsamatheM (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM: It's easy to endlessly criticise this community's approach and then when challenged say "I don't have time to engage", but if you have an idea of how your old "grief" could have been better handled than by a discussion resulting in a change of policy that makes it easier for the type of tour you were advocating for be listed, then please share it. You got the outcome you wanted, but still it's not good enough. You talk about changing attitudes, but instead of presenting the better alternative for this site that you clearly envision, you carry on bemoaning things from months ago which you feel didn't go your way. I think we would all be more receptive to suggestions if you presented them in a positive way ("Here's an idea I had, this is why I think it would make Wikivoyage better, what do you think?"). But at the moment - and I apologise if I'm perceiving you incorrectly - I feel that you're quite happy to tell us all what we're doing wrong, but are not interested in putting forward constructive suggestions of how we could do better. I'd love to be proven wrong. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@ ThunderingTyphoons!: As I said some way back in this discussion, I don’t have time to engage at the moment (I said “but I'm travelling SE Asia at the moment and not ready to get into a did (which would be a separate subject/thread/section anyway). I'll start a new discussion when I get home in a few months (or longer or whenever).” Struggling to even backup my photos to the cloud the internet is so slow and unreliable so to start a discussion now I’d probably disappear for a week and it would get very disjointed -hence my saying later not refusing to engage as your comment suggests.
I’m not bemoaning the past but using it as an illustration about issues. The grief to get one listing up was ludicrous. Better way to handle it would have been e.g. to leave the listing up and ask me to justify it as an exception, to trust somebody independently travelling “on the spot” to make a sensible judgement, etc.
I didn’t “get the outcome I wanted” - I wanted to provide information to help other independent travellers. The work to get one listing up made me decide my time was better spent travelling so all the horrendously out of date, wrong, misleading info about e.g. bus routes is probably all still misleading other travellers.
As I said I would be putting forward suggestions when I get home and have internet, laptop & time to discuss - now I’m not sure I can be bothered. I was interested in putting forward constructive ideas as I said earlier. PsamatheM (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
After all, Wikivoyage is not as well-known as Wikipedia. In addition, the main active people are mostly people in the community, and even many competitors like us are encountered, so the need for external promotion is necessary. Basically, the Wikivoyage channel I created on YouTube is to help the anyone know our Wikivoyage. I also hope that there are friends who want to publish promotional or teaching videos. You can provide to me about your G-Mail. I will Provide willing people to become admin, so you can post videos to YouTube channel of Wikivoyage.--✈ IGOR ✉ TALK?! .WIKIVOYAGER ! 16:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"The editor will now load. If you still see this message after a few seconds, please reload the page."

Tried to fix a spelling mistake on Stromboli. I am getting this message every time I try to edit a destination page. I can edit this page just fine, though. 11:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It works for me, so either it was a temporary glitch that has now resolved, or your web browser is unhappy. If you still have problems with it, then I have two suggestions:
Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Not a temporary glitch. It appears to be Javascript based. I can also duplicate it when I try to edit the page in Pale Moon with Javascript disabled. It looks like the new Javascript-heavy editor doesn't have a fallback for non-Javascript users. The action=sumbit workaround works. 11:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
It's supposed to have a fallback, and that fallback is supposed to be the 2003 wikitext editor.
What's your OS/web browser/other potentially useful platform information? And are you disabling all the Javascript, or just some of it (e.g., via NoScript)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I realized I can get thru if I press enter again in Links. Digging deeper: it looks like the fallback is <noscript><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=/w/index.php?title=Nha_Trang&action=edit&section=1&venoscript=1"></noscript>. This fails to load in my desktop browser because I have meta redirections and/or noscript tags disabled since they're pretty much never used for anything but ad tracking and page hijacking, and in Links it requires extra confirmation to get redirected which kind of looks like the page didn't render in full. In addition I have Javascript turned off completely in browser configuration in my desktop browser.
It looks like a roundabout way of doing things to me. I think it makes more sense to put the normal editor on the original page, then redirect the user to the Javascript editor if their browser has Javascript. 15:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
I believe that websites generally work the other way around.
You've mentioned Pale Moon and Links. Both of those run on Linux, Windows, or macOS. Which OS are you using? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I am getting the same message "The editor will now load. If you still see this message after a few seconds, please reload the page." when trying to edit an article on Firefox 73.0 macOS Catalina 10.15.3. I can make edit via the listings editor, though. Syced (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

How-to video: Create district overview maps

User *angys* asked me how to create dynamic district overview maps like in Kuala Lumpur or Amsterdam. Thus I made an explanatory video for him. Hopefully it can be helpful to other editors as well:

Create GeoJSON with JOSM and upload to Wikimedia Commons

Some additional explanation

In short there are two options to create a district overview map:

1a. geojson.io only
Go to geojson.io, draw the lines/polygons, give them the desired color and title. Copy the GeoJSON file and proceed to step 2. A certain disadvantage with this solution is, that you cannot merge nodes. So if you have 2 polygons right next to each other, they won't be perfectly aligned. With the solution in 1b this problem is nonexistent.
1b. JOSM & geojson.io (shown in the video above)
Draw polygons as desired and export as .geojson. Important: The export of polygons to .geojson only works as expected in JOSM, if the polygons have a describing tag assigned to it, which is normally applied to an area (e.g. landuse=residential)! You can assign the title tag to each polygon/line right in JOSM, if you don't want to do it in geojson.io (e.g. title=[[Amsterdam/Noord|Noord]]).
2. Upload to Commons
Create a new map in Wikimedia Commons and paste in the GeoJSON created in 1.
3. Create mapmasks
In order to grey out the irrelevant parts of a district article map you can paste the GeoJSON from 2. into the tool Mapmask <-> GeoJSON Converter to create the mapmask code.

--Renek78 (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In case you don't want to give Google clicks: File:Create GeoJSON with JOSM and upload to Wikimedia Commons.webm. Thanks for this, Rene. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Justin, sounds like a reasonable alternative. Just the resolution is quite poor. --Renek78 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Time for another edit-a-thon?

Pardon me if edit-a-thon isn't common on Wikivoyage, I was drawn over to this project in the 2018 edit-a-thon to celebrate 5th year anniversary. Perhaps it's time to run another one (for March)? This should leave half a month to organize and set up an automatic way to count contributions after participants signed up. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There has to be some sort of arbitrary statistical landmark. The 10th year anniversary is too far away. The closest milestone I can see is the 30,000 number of articles which Wikivoyage should reach in half a year's time. This is the first multiple of 10,000 that WV would have reached in the post-fork era so it is a significant moment. You could say that quality is more important than quantity but you'd have a harder time convincing the WMF to celebrate 100 star articles or 1,000 guides compared to the total number. And the edit-a-thon will give everyone the opportunity to improve all of these articles. We definitely need a boost in our editing community. Many established editors have become semi-active or inactive in recent months and unfortunately nobody has replaced them. Gizza (roam) 08:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree with the last two sentences by Gizza; it's been quiet around here lately. An editathon is perhaps something we can only use sparingly to achieve maximum impact. I wonder if there isn't something more long-term and ongoing we can do? External marketing has been mentioned before. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be around an anniversary or a particular milestone. Many edit-a-thons just pick an arbitrary time to start. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it could probably be an annual event... like the Asia month annual edit-a-thon in Wikipedia. If there are enough people here interested in making this an annual event (which would definitely help get a lot more activity at Wikivoyage), I don't see why we shouldn't have the edit-a-thon as an annual event... what's the worst that would happen? they'll just say "no". OhanaUnited, I suggest you consult with the user Atsirlin about this - he was the main force that made the 2018 Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon become a reality. Maybe he could help make it happen this time as well. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited, ויקיג'אנקי: if that's the case, we could send a request at meta:CentralNotice/Request whenever we feel ready to have another edit-a-thon. As the topic of external marketing has frequently been raised on the pub, one thing we could additionally do this time is to include links to our social media pages on the landing page. There was a mixture of support and hesitancy when it came to including those links on our normal articles but as a trial we can see whether including those links will convert a few more first-time visitors to Wikivoyage into longer-term readers and editors if they start following us on social media platforms. Gizza (roam) 23:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you feel about having a Discord server for for the English Wikivoyage community?

I am currently looking to create one for the small Hebrew Wikivoyage community. I think it works a lot better than the IRC servers, it is a lot more secure, it gives us a lot more options to collaborate, and it is a better and more up-to-date way of welcoming the new editors interested in joining the effort.

I can see that many other Wikimedia communities have opened Discord channels as well.

I am mostly hoping that it would be a good place to have more natural communication with the new people whom are curious about Wikivoyage, and would like to chat in real time with our more active members (and because it can be used on a mobile app, this probably means more people would participate in the chats when someone new joins, in comparison to the activity in the IRC servers).

How do you feel about this idea? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed in theory but I am very pro-IRC and do not see the value in moving to another service. How is it that IRC servers are not working? How are they more secure? I'd be interested in any sources you used to make these claims. IRC is very much a "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" situation for me but I am happy to be corrected. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried using Discord before? it is a much more up-to-date platform. Several things I like about discord so far (and i'm quite new to it still):
  • It is much more secure - people cannot look up your IP address or figure out your real email. The Wikipedia Discord server seem to accept only people with verified emails, while other Wiki servers I've seen accept anyone - So I guess, we could also decide if we want it to only be available to verified people or if it should be available to anyone whom wants to join in right away.
  • It works on both PCs and mobile devices, and the apps are very advanced - they are a sort of combination between a modern VoIP apps, IRC and internet forums. You can even have audio or video group conversations in it and people could send each other files directly if they want. I believe that it is also possible to configure it on your phone so that you would get a notification if there's any activity on the server while you are on the go.
  • While IRC is very nostalgic for many of us (I grew up with it in the 90s too), my impression is that Discord seems to have gradually become a popular alternative to IRC among younger folks these days. So using it as the main communication platform might probably better appeal for younger people considering joining the efforts.
  • While the user lists at the IRC channels only show users currently connected that are probably siting by a stationary PC, many times it seems to me that it is hard to get an immediate response in the IRC channels or even a late response. The situation seems to be less of an issue in Discord as the discord app on people's mobile makes it much more available to the members.
  • Discord servers seem to be programmable... allowing addition of many various useful features.
  • A discord server is similar to a forums platform - on the server we could create different channels for the main things our community is focused on ... for instance a channel for the main Expeditions, channels devoted for people focused on the site's maintenance, etc..
  • As the participants in it might be more active than IRC because it is more available to people in mobile phones, it seems like the perfect landing page to send new people to.
  • I understand that people don't have to install the app for it to work... if they want they could alternatively also use it through a web browser.
  • I believe concentrated collaborations focused on improving specific things would be much more easier through it due to all the features I mentioned above. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I personally have never used IRC, but I have used Discord before, and to this day maintain some small servers, some of which are related to editing on private wikis. I cannot compare the two, but I can offer a bit of insight perhaps. To correct ויקיג'אנקי:
  • The servers themselves aren't programmable. They are customisable to a large extend, but most of these customisations are done through the use of Discord bots, which are programmable and offer most of the extended usability of the servers. I don't have experience with programming and creating Discord bots though, so I can't really tell you what it'd take.
  • Discord largely has a young userbase and would most likely be a way to get more interaction going with younger (potential) editors, as well as being not too difficult to get the hang of for veteran editors. It does require an account, which is about everything you need as a participant. The platform can be accessed through the browser, on mobile through the apps, as well as on desktop. If it is any insight, the reason I never bothered with the IRC to now, is because the thing as a whole seems very dated and impractical to me. It seemed to me as though it'd require a lot more effort from me to set up than it'd gain me.
Other than that, the above is pretty much accurate. Discord as a community tool offers lots of possibilities. Through the means of a custom bot, I reckon it wouldn't be too difficult to, for example, transfer ranks between a server and Wikivoyage (speaking of autopatroller, sys-op, moderator and so on). This might not be ideal since not every WikiVoyage Sys-op might want to be an Admin on the Discord server, but that's details that need to be worked out later. Either way, depending on their rank in the server, a user can see different channels. Moderation servers and logs, for example, are best not shown to the average user, and visible only to moderators and admins.
I have seen bots around on "product support servers" that let one create a ticket, which is essentially a private room. This could be a way to let users make their own projects/expeditions, and users could browse these in one way or another. Also not unimportant: Channels are distinguished between in voice channels and text channels, and they do pretty much what you'd expect. These can be organised through categories. To visualise, this image shows the structure of one of the wiki-specific Discord servers I run. It's not got a load of members, so it's nothing big, but the essential structure is there: The general category contains a closed channel which no-one but administrators can post in, and is pretty much a landing page; general and learn-to-wiki are channels intended to as they suggest. One is the general discussion, the other a channel for helping people get the hang of wikitext. The about category is mostly for feedback to us (administrators/sys-ops) in several kinds of ways, and the category mod talk is for sys-ops' documentation and discussion. Finally, there's several voice channels for different purposes.
Either way, the sky is the limit when it comes to customising a Discord server. I for one would be in favour of creating one for Wikivoyage and wouldn't mind lending a hand to its creation. If there's any questions I may be able to answer as a more long-time user of the platform, as well as the owner of several servers, please do send them my way!
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
We have to meet people where they are. For text- and voice-based collaboration, Discord is it. IRC works for what it is, but people have to make a concerted effort to find it and use it. Powers (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Bookstores worth traveling for

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/adventure-town-bookstores-worth-traveling-forJustin (koavf)TCM 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Babel templates

Hey, I was just wondering where the templates for Babel are stored. I would like to update the Babel for Minnan/Hokkien/Taiwanese to add in the Chinese character version (which makes more sense than having the Romanised version, since Chinese characters are by far the most common way of writing Minnan, while the Roman alphabet is virtually never used by native speakers). I was also thinking of whether adding Teochew to Babel will be a worthwile endeavour. The dog2 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: The template have been replaced with a parser function, so that instead of {{babel|en|es-2}} and templates on 800 WMF projects, you now input {{#babel:en|es-2}} and it's a part of the MediaWiki software itself. Changing this would probably be done via phab:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Ahhh, so that makes it a lot harder then. The dog2 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
In short, yes. But also makes more uniformity and ease of using the function across wikis. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@The dog2: I had a similar problem a few years ago with American Sign Language at metawiki. You can see the discussion here: meta:Talk:User_language#Issue_with_ase. It's possible that you might be able to make the changes at translatewiki.net, but I don't know for sure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Amire80 will know whom we should talk to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for the mention.
As Koavf says, it's very good for uniformity. The problem for the particular case of Min-nan is that currently in MediaWiki we only have one variant of it, and it's in the Latin script.
However, it may be possible to add a Chinese characters variant. Since it's something that will go into technical details, I'll continue it on The dog2's user talk page. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Under which section does one list gas stations?

Would it be under 'Buy'? Andrepoiy (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends on why you're listing it. Most of the time it's only relevant to Get Around: By Car; travellers don't really shop for gas. Powers (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
In most cases, don't list them at all; they are common enough that we need not give a list.
There are exceptions. Some stations are of historic interest or serve as landmarks for navigation, & in a remote or desolate area travellers may need to know where stations are to avoid running out of gas & being stranded. Pashley (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the above answers, but note they are not mentioned in Wycsi - will do that now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Travelling with conscription requirements

As some countries impose travel restrictions to nationals who are eligible for conscription, it is suitable to create an article something like Travelling with conscription requirements? If so, is the title appropriate? Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. What other title could be clearer? I can't think of one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:Or Travelling with military requirements? Just in case to include reservists who are also subject to travel restrictions (eg. South Korea).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Good point. I don't know; what's the best way to express this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps just go bold? If there are necessities to rename, then they can be done later...廣九直通車 (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Translating Mindong phrasebook

Hey people, I've noticed that the Mindong phrasebook is a lot more complete in Chinese Wikivoyage than the version we have here. However, I do not speak or understand the language myself. Will it still be appropriate for me to try to translate at least parts of the phrasebook? The main issue is that since I do not speak it, I can't verify the accuracy of the entries. The dog2 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: The way that Wikivoyage works with sourcing is a little... loose? Since we don't really require sources and the entire guide is built on word-of-mouth, there aren't strict academic or sourcing guidelines that might be expected at (e.g.) Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I suggest that you use your best judgement and maybe put some stuff in a sandbox if you want to get some feedback. But basically, if you think you can adequately convey new information to travelers, then go for it: ttcf. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Have a look at our version, and the version on Chinese Wikivoyage. You can see that our version barely has anything at all, while the Chinese version has a complete pronunciation guide, and quite a substantial phrase list. The dog2 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm a little confused as to why you wrote this tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I was just wondering if it would be appropriate for me to translate the phrasebook from Chinese Wikivoyage, given that I do not speak or understand the language in question. The most I can do is copy things over. The dog2 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Go for it. You don't need to speak the language, because someone else has already written all the Mindong phrases, but you can use your expertise in Chinese and English to make that person's work accessible to a wider audience. If there are a few mistakes present in the source document, they'll eventually be spotted and fixed, just as we have even seen in our "mainstream" phrasebooks like French and Spanish.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Piggybacking off of both of these, User:The dog2, feel empowered: you have good instincts and are a valued member of this community. Go for it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've made a start, though because of life, it will take some time for me to finish translating it. If anyone here is bilingual, you'll know that translating is not an easy job even if you're fluent in both languages that you are translating between. One caveat though is that I'm not familiar with IPA, and the pronunciation guide for the Chinese version of the article is of course geared towards Mandarin speakers (which is why I did not just translate it over from the Chinese version), so if anyone can find help me put in a suitable pronunciation guide for English speakers based on the IPA that is included, it will be much appreciated. The dog2 (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


Should we rename the phrasebook? Mindong is actually quite a broad term encompassing a variety of closely-related dialects in that region, not all of which are mutually intelligible with the Fuzhou dialect. The version I am in the midst of translating over from Chinese Wikivoyage is usually just called "Fuzhou Hua" (福州话 fú zhōu huà) in Chinese. The dog2 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. It's senseless to have a phrasebook that covers mutually unintelligible languages/dialects, unless it focuses strictly on reading and writing, as in a phrasebook of written Chinese with no speaking component. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
For reading and writing, people should use the Chinese phrasebook regardless of which part of China they go to. Formal written Chinese is based on standard Mandarin, so if you go to Fuzhou, that is the form you will see written down. The phrasebook in question is therefore for a primarily spoken language. We've treated our phrasebooks of other Chinese dialects like Minnan, Teochew and Cantonese the same way; we use them to aid with oral communication, but direct people to the Chinese phrasebook for written communication. The dog2 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Right. So there's your answer. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The question is, what should we rename the phrasebook to? The dog2 (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Fuzhounese, right? Unless I misunderstand, isn't that what this phrasebook covers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It's true that the phrasebook is based on the Fuzhou dialect, but Fuzhounese is not a term that I've ever encountered in English. In Singapore and Malaysia, people call the language Foochow or Hokchiu. The dog2 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I've seen that term, but alright, maybe some other folks have a clearer idea what the most useful name is, so you can get a second opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest Fuzhou dialect phrasebook. I haven't encountered the term "Fuzhounese" either, but maybe it's used among English speakers in Fuzhou, I don't know. I would prefer a China-oriented term because, like I said at Talk:Minnan phrasebook, English-speaking travelers to Singapore or Malaysia are more likely to use English or a Malay phrasebook than a Mindong phrasebook.
Is Fuzhou dialect mutually intelligible with the dialect of the Matsu Islands? If so, do people there refer to the dialect as Mindong, Fuzhou Hua, or some other term? —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is called "Fuzhou dialect" and begins: "The Fuzhou dialect, also Fuzhounese, Foochow or Hok-chiu...." We don't have to follow Wikipedia, but it seems to be the conclusion of that larger community. Ground Zero (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The term "Foochow" is the old spelling of Fuzhou, based on the Mandarin pronunciation, while "Hokchiu" is based on the Minnan/Hokkien pronunciation of Fuzhou. In Chinese, it's always called Fuzhou Hua whether you're in China, Malaysia or Singapore. Between using "Foochow" and "Hokchiu", my slight preference is for "Foochow" because most people in Fuzhou can speak Mandarin, while virtually nobody in Fuzhou understands Minnan. "Fuzhou dialect phrasebook" is something I could live with though I find the name a little unwieldy.

@Mx. Granger: With regard to Matsu, the official term used in Taiwan is Matsu dialect or 馬祖話 (mǎ zǔ huà). My understanding is that it is very similar to Fuzhou Hua, albeit with a different accent, and they are very much mutually intelligible. It is actually fairly common to refer to the dialect spoken in Matsu as Fuzhou Hua. This is probably similar to how the dialect in downtown Fuzhou and in Chagle are slightly different, but very much mutually intelligible. On the other hand, even within the prefecture-level city of Fuzhou, when you get to Fuqing, the dialect is significantly different. I've heard that people from Fuzhou need some effort to understand the local accent in Fuqing, and at least in Singapore and Malaysia, the diaspora from Fuzhou and Fuqing are considered two separate dialect groups. One you get to Fu'an, the local dialect is still classified under Mindong, but people from Fuzhou will not understand it. The dog2 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on what you've said, I continue to think "Fuzhou dialect phrasebook" makes the most sense. "Fuzhou phrasebook" might be a little less unwieldy, not sure if it would be confusing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Paradoxical violation of don't tout?

Look here. This is an example of a businessman removing a listing out of a belief that it's bad for his business for him to list it. I'm not sure it's important for this place to be listed, so I have no motivation to revert his edit, but it's pretty strange, isn't it? Some relevant history at User talk:Sven H Hangson. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting.. Why would a firm not want to be listed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The objection isn't clear to me. My best guess is that whenever the article is changed or updated, the business's website gets a notification even though no-one had actually visited the site from Wikivoyage. This is the first time I've sent this complaint. I have restored the listing without the website because I think it's worth keeping ad a vegan- and vegetarian-friendly place. Ground Zero (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
He seems concerned about search engine optimization. I've followed w:en:WP:External links for years and years, and I've never heard this. I've asked at w:en:WP:VPT#Effects of nofollow.
On the general question, there are a lot of vegetarian and vegan people in Sweden. Vegan-friendly restaurants are not uncommon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The question of what we include or don't include is governed solely by what serves the traveller best, and I think it goes without saying that the traveller is better served by listing the restaurant, including a link to its website, than by not listing or linking. As others have said, I'm unconvinced the link has any effect on traffic to his business website, but even if it did, that's not our problem. I've reinstated the URL on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional interface for edit conflicts on talk pages

Sorry, for writing this text in English. If you could help to translate it, it would be appreciated.

You might know the new interface for edit conflicts (currently a beta feature). Now, Wikimedia Germany is designing an additional interface to solve edit conflicts on talk pages. This interface is shown to you when you write on a discussion page and another person writes a discussion post in the same line and saves it before you do. With this additional editing conflict interface you can adjust the order of the comments and edit your comment. We are inviting everyone to have a look at the planned feature. Let us know what you think on our central feedback page! -- For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) 14:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus... Single collation page?

Should there be a single page collating all the disprate warnings and advice from various pages? (There was a single page for Zika...) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when we could archive such a page, but I think that right now, it's a good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes it will be a travel topic and breadcrumbed from Stay healthy. Once it's well developed, it should be prominently posted on the main page and if need be, social media. But it will have to be continually updated. The Zika virus article is a good starting point in terms of structure. Gizza (roam) 23:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, such an article can be useful. Ypsilon (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James:, Your thoughts? Asking so that someone with appropriate expertise can draft an appropriate article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'll link this here -https://www.gov.uk/guidance/travel-advice-novel-coronavirus being the advice from the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know pings don't work when you edit the username without a new signature, so re-pinging User:Doc James. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree in my opinion a single page with all the various travel recommendations is better than multiple ones. Expecially with the recommendations changing so frequently. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your view, Is anyone (rapidly) drafting the relevant page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also - https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Template:Warningbox/sandbox , Is there a recognized symbol that could be used to mark a health alert type warning box, as opposed to the default warning triangle? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
One more point, while I'm not any kind of medical professional if there's just one or a few cases in a country and the number is hardly if at all changing, I don't think there's a reason for warningboxes or other warnings in articles. In that case I'd imagine the few people unlucky to have been infected are most likely in the hospital or otherwise quarantined. So, for example a warning like the one added to the Nigeria article isn't necessary - the country has exactly one case as of now. If the number of cases on the other hand is rapidly growing (ie. dozens of new cases in a day), it means the disease is loose and if you happen to be in that area there's a real risk you may catch it. --Ypsilon (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, Given the wording of the relevant section certain other diseases are more likely to be encountered.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I have plunged forward and started a coronavirus outbreak article. It only has the bare minimum for now so please add more information! The name may also need changing but I strongly suggest keeping "coronavirus" in the title instead of technical names for the virus or disease (nobody searches for SARS-COV-2, COVID-19 or nCov-2019). Gizza (roam) 04:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is an exceptionally useful article. A big thank you to those who put it together. I'm in SE Asia now and am watching the situation carefully as I am concerned about being stranded here (which would be very nice in many ways, but I have obligations at home). I am going to plunge forward and find a place for a link to it on the Main Page. Ground Zero (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Social media nomination

I have nominated the 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak article to be shared on our social media platforms. Please see the proposal at Wikivoyage:Social media/Nominations. Thanks. Gizza (roam) 00:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Gizza - That social media nominations page is not very active. Luckily, I'm the sole administrator of Wikivoyage's Facebook page who also remains active on Wikivoyage itself. I will make sure and give the coronavirus article a mention when I can.
I think Wikivoyage has a Twitter account too, but I'm not sure if it's being actively updated. I'd volunteer if I were on Twitter, but I'm not. This is probably something we should look into addressing.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


I would suggest to consider the change of the current FTT due to the worldwide emergency and the translation of that article in the other languages. Any Wikivoyage homepage should highlight this topic. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's not as though the schedule can't be moved back, so that the current FTT gets a full month.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We're not going to change the FTT at this time. I do understand the awkwardness of the position we're in, as a travel wiki during a period of time where travel to many areas of the world is being discouraged or banned outright, but our mission remains that of serving those who do travel. In this situation, that means acknowledging there's a pandemic afoot and providing readers with up-to-date information and an accurate assessment of the risk of travelling - which we already do with the link on the Main Page to our 2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak article which IMO is pretty first-rate - but that also means acknowledging the reality that there are still flights in the air, including budget flights, and still passengers on them. If we were talking about a FTT (or a DotM, or an OtBP) that was specific to a country or area of the world that was particularly hard-hit or where particularly stringent travel restrictions applied, that might be different. But Flying on a budget is a very broad topic, and it's perfectly possible to do so to a country that's less affected by COVID-19, or domestically within the same country, or if all else fails, later after the pandemic is over - the information remains accurate in all those cases. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We might change it actually, it depends on consensus. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons! - Yes, but a little consideration, please, for those who do the work of devising the schedule and making banners, and who would have to scramble and take time away from other tasks to reconfigure that schedule and make new banners on the spur of the moment. I'm not saying let's do what certain world leaders are doing and pretend coronavirus is a hoax or is being overblown by the media, but I am saying that there are ways to handle this more seamlessly and with less disruption. If we decide to alter DotM to acknowledge the coronavirus, I would prefer that we put the entire thing on hiatus - DotM, OtBP, and FTT alike - and remove the carousel from the Main Page until the situation is sorted (perhaps we could replace it with a single non-rotating banner pointing to the 2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak article), and I would prefer that we wait to institute those changes until March 21st or some other day when we'd be changing out one of the features anyway. Because firstly, if what epidemiologists say is true about the spread of the disease, then the only effective difference between any destinations we might feature is whether it's a place that's currently being ravaged by coronavirus or one that in the very near future will be. So it's a fool's errand in the first place to try to pick and choose which articles are okay to feature and which should be pulled, especially given that we might have to reverse those decisions on short notice given how rapidly the situation on the ground is changing. Secondly, Flying on a budget is only FTT for ten more days, and as I said, it's a broad topic that's not linked to any particular geographic location and is thus less susceptible, relatively speaking, to said rapid changes on the ground than a destination article would be. And if it can be avoided, I'd prefer not to monkey around with pulling articles off the Main Page early and then figuring out how many days are left to make a whole month. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we should change it. I am not very concerned with exactly how many days the existing FTT "should" get. Obviously, if any given maintainer doesn't have time to make the change, then that editor is not expected to do any of the work. But that should not preclude others from changing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To elaborate, we would be absolutely putting the traveller first by featuring the coronavirus on the carousel, as it is the number one issue in travel right now. "Travellers" are not just people who are travelling right now, or will be doing so imminently. Everyone who travels at some point in their lives is a traveller, and anyone who uses Wikivoyage to plan a trip or just do some research is a Wikivoyager.
Cynically, this may also help our readership figures, as it prominently displays the issue that everyone's talking about. The current static display above the featured event is a bit of a visual mess for Chrome and Firefox users (though perhaps one that can be fixed), and it involves scrolling down in order to see it. People who don't know it's there won't necessarily look.
By contrast, there is nothing "now" about Flying on a budget; it is so useful it could be featured any time for as long as the oil lasts. And it's not as though not featuring now involves deleting it from our servers, so travellers planning trips can still make use of it.
On Talk:Main page, I asked whether it would be possible to add a fourth item - coronavirus - to the carousel. I'll repeat that question here, as it's relevant, and is a way to feature the virus article more prominently without compromising our existing schedule, if people feel strongly about that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WhatamIdoing - You personally may not be "concerned with exactly how many days the existing FTT 'should' get", but consensus has held that having some featured articles on the Main Page longer than others is unfair to their authors, even under extreme circumstances (the linked talk page discussion asks what we would do if, hypothetically, a terrorist attack were to occur in a current DotM). There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't accommodate that consensus into whatever we decide to do about DotM, and in a world where scientists say that up to 70% of the human population will ultimately be infected with the virus, there's also no reason why we should treat any particular article as a more sensitive subject than any other article. In fact, not only is flying on a budget "a broad topic that's not linked to any particular geographic location and is thus less susceptible, relatively speaking, to said rapid changes on the ground than a destination article would be", as I said above, but also not everyone who flies does so by choice. Many businesses are setting their employees up to work from home or telecommute, but (for the time being at least) there are also some that aren't, and business travel is still a thing that's happening. And Wikivoyage is at the service of business travellers too. We can live with the status quo for 10 more days, especially with an acknowledgement of COVID-19 already occupying a prominent place on the Main Page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
In it:voy we have put in homepage the coronavirus article and it will remain there for at least three months. Travel is important but travel safely and healthy is more important. Just for chatting, w:Spanish flu was "just a flu"... --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, even if it would be the 21st today. The coronavirus article definitely ought to be prominently displayed on the Main Page, and it would be hidden away in the featured articles carousel – it would only show one third of the time unless there's only one article in the carousel. A better place would be for example an additional narrow red box between the map and the carousel, or above the map. Or even a visible link (red text? a red box? a miniature warning box?) on the map itself. Also the epidemic will almost certainly be around for some time (ie. more than one month) and I don't think we should put the featured topics (or any other featured articles) on hold for an indefinite time unless those articles are about destinations heavily affected by the covid epidemic. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) ThunderingTyphoons! - I'm torn between, on the one hand, wanting to do right by our authors and less disruption for the DotM maintainers on this site, and on the other hand, the feeling that it does look a bit tone-deaf for us to be promoting travel in any capacity under these circumstances. With that in mind, how about this for a compromise. We make a banner for the coronavirus article and add it to the carousel as a fourth item, as you suggested. Then, on March 21st, April 1st, and April 11th, we remove the current FTT, DotM, and OtBP (respectively) from the Main Page as we normally would but don't replace them with anything, until eventually the coronavirus article is the only one on the carousel. Depending on how long the epidemic lasts, any upcoming articles on the schedule to be featured can simply be moved a year into the future - same month - so there's no issue vis-a-vis Time to feature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
People should really be limiting social contact quite a lot during this pandemic, but we have to face the possibility that it drags on for years. And while we probably should not promote leisure travel in any form right now, nor business travel as opposed to working from home, a big part of the appeal of travel sites during a time of enforced or voluntary restrictions on movement is vicarious. I will also say that I seriously doubt budget travel will be the same after the epidemic is over, as the airline industry is being ravaged by bankruptcies. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Excellent points, Ikan; I'll add my voice of support to them. Bumping the DotM, OtBP, and FTT probably doesn't make sense since we don't know how long this epidemic will last, and in any case it doesn't prevent people from travelling or from thinking about travelling. I do think we should add something more visible. (Quite honestly, I didn't even realize what was below the carousel, as my browser window isn't large enough to show it and I never linger on the main page.) A fourth item in the carousel would be good, or perhaps a small extra banner between the Welcome and the carousel. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm happy with exploring Andre's suggested compromise, and am equally happy with looking at Ypsilon's idea to put in a new, static box above the carousel. The idea that such important information shouldn't be animated has merit, as does the point that maintaining the normal featured articles may be inappropriate and increasingly pointless if more countries go into lockdown. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

As things currently stand, it looks like opinions are trending very slightly in favor of continuing to run DotM/OtBP/FTT as normal (albeit perhaps with a coronavirus banner as a fourth feature for the duration of the pandemic), and I'm prepared to say we have a solid consensus against the immediate removal of Flying on a budget and/or any of our other current featured articles. So for now let's refocus the discussion on how best to address the coronavirus issue on the Main Page, and let's put off the issue of pulling feature articles off the carousel until no sooner than March 21st, unless there's some truly startling development in the news between now and then. Agreed? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favour of Ypsilon's proposal. The box between the map and the carousel would give an higher visibility to the article. PS I've noticed the current link in the homepage only after reading this discussion... --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Coronavius (Covid-19) is now pandemic say WHO - (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51839944). I would not oppose pulling the DotM/OtBP/FTT, and NOT running an April 1st item this year. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that we should pull Flying on a budget, but making 2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak more prominent is good. Generally I think that readers read articles on the front page to consider something to do in a few months' time, not to leap in a taxi to the airport. If you are going to travel 500km in the next few months, you are probably at less risk of catching the virus spending 1 hour on a plane than 4 hours in a train or 8 hours in a bus. The virus is likely to be a major issue for the rest of the year. However we do need to be more ready to change featured articles in response to the news. Unfortunately DOTM work is mainly done by a very small number of editors which limits how easily we can make last minute changes. AlasdairW (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Building on the final point that AlasdairW made, maybe we ought to take this opportunity to clarify for ourselves exactly what we hope to accomplish with DotM, which IMO has never been very well delineated. Are we promoting particular places to our readers as potential travel destinations, or are we highlighting well-written articles and rewarding editors' dedication by ensuring their work reaches a wider audience? I'd always assumed it was the latter, as the former doesn't jibe very well with our fair and balanced, not-for-profit ethos as a WMF family member. But if it's the former, then it follows that we should take a closer look at the ramifications of continuing to promote travel in the midst of coronavirus epidemic (and I mean travel as a concept - as I said before, it's almost pointless to speak in terms of which definitions are safer than others; any place that isn't affected now soon will be). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

An alternative would be to use the "Featured Events" space to highlight the article, with a picture of a virus or a COVID19 graphic. The FE space is intended to make the Main Page appear more timely, and to highlight events that travellers may be interested bin. COVID19 meets both of those criteria in spades. Also, events are bring cancelled or postponed, so we will have less to feature. As creator and curator of the FE space, I support putting Featured Events on hold until the pandemic is over. Ground Zero (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the best idea yet, to be honest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Can the FE space be temporarily put higher on the Main page than the carousel, and can the text of the headline (presumably "2019–2020 coronavirus outbreak") be made bigger? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Some major events have been canceled, and some countries (at least in Europe) have banned gatherings of more than 500 or 1000 people, so I was already going to suggest to put the Featured events section on hold. I agree the Featured events section can be a good place to put the warning, for example with a similar design like Italian WV's Main Page as Andyrom suggested. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to place it higher on the page, as I mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, continuing to feature it down in the 'scroll zone' is not good enough. Above the carousel, or in the carousel, I don't care, but it has to be visible at the point people arrive on the main page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Above the carosel is the preferred choice. In alternative as the first page of the carosel (4 in total, but shifting the 3 existing ones). --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I also support putting it above the carousel. First page of the carousel would also be okay, that's what they're doing at zh.wikivoyage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to put more focus on this, so I've changed the Featured Event space as proposed as an interim step. I don't know if there is consensus to put it above the carousel (which I support), and I haven't the foggiest how to do it. Ground Zero (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have yet another idea. Wikimedia sometimes puts boxes on top of each article, in all wikis calling people to vote for stewards, photograph something and what have you. Could this be implemented on WV for the coronavirus epidemic? It would be visible on the top of all pages, not just the Main Page (of course we could have additional warnings on the Main Page). --Ypsilon (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Site notice? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
That would be a great idea, for sure.
Since there will shortly be an empty space where the virus is currently sitting, and events normally are, I wonder if we could temporarily fill it with a prompt for readers to explore our star articles? It may get them a bit of deserving attention from updaters, and is a nice way to show off our best works on the main page. It can be 'sold' as Wikivoyage looking back on some of the great places we've visited, and encouraging virtual visits via our travel guide in lieu of actual visits for the duration of the crisis. Just an idea I had this morning.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Site notice is apparently what it's called, we don't seem to have the template here. Central notice is metawiki's template that can be broadcasted to all wikis in all languages, though on the other hand Wikimedia informing readers on all wikis how to behave in the current situation (much of what's in our article is also useful for people just "traveling" between their home, workplace, school and local grocery store) isn't necessarily a bad idea... --Ypsilon (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we could do it at MediaWiki:Sitenotice. If we do want to do that, let's workshop the text first, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As time goes by and more news continues to come out, I have found myself drifting more and more toward the opinion that maybe suspending DotM for a while would be a good idea after all (I mean, obviously, in addition to giving coronavirus coverage a more prominent place on the Main Page). I want to say that I'm very sympathetic to Ikan's comments about the vicarious pleasures of reading travel articles at a time when actual travel is increasingly impossible. That same perspective informed my opinions earlier on. But I think we need to balance that with a factor that I've not heard discussed much on this thread, which is that of optics. Regardless of what our rationale may be for continuing to have the featured-article banners on the main page, there's a distinct chance that our readers, our social media followers, or - less probably but potentially more consequentially - the press, who have recently been heaping praise on Wikipedia for their vigilance in keeping disinformation out of coronavirus-related articles, might misunderstand that rationale and assume our intent is to promote travel, and thus feel that we're acting recklessly and failing to take the coronavirus threat seriously. And I think that, especially for a smaller wiki like ours, we underestimate the importance of the goodwill of our readership or potential readership, and the damage that can be done if it's lost, at our peril.

Happily, if we pull the banners in the name of optics, there needn't be a sense of urgency to act immediately - we can still do as I suggested before, which is to wait until the 21st - and rather than waiting the many months or perhaps years that will elapse before the virus itself ceases to be a threat, the optics argument would probably enable us to quietly reinstate DotM once the news media finds a new obsession, which will almost certainly happen sooner due to issue fatigue among the public.

Just something to think about.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support that, but I think it really depends on how we present things. Suppose we put a notice on the page suggesting that people should follow the recommendations of health authorities to limit social contact and avoid inessential travel and then say "however, if you'd like to read about some destinations while you're staying home, here are three articles we're featuring for your reading pleasure this month"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to suspend DOTM. As AlasdairW said, most readers aren't reading articles on the front page so they can jump into a taxi and set off immediately. I think readers see featured articles as recommendations for somewhere to consider planning a trip to or some interesting armchair travel. Adding a prominent link to our coronavirus article above the carousel (or as the first page of the carousel) would convey that we are taking our readers' safety seriously.
For comparison, I looked at the front pages of Lonely Planet, Trip Advisor, and Fodor's, and all three acknowledge the pandemic prominently but also continue to feature articles advertising destinations. Fodor's published an article called "We Won’t Stop Writing About Travel (Even in a Pandemic)" explaining their decision, somewhat similar to Ikan Kekek's suggestion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Something else to think about—if we can get a relevant article into featurable shape on very short notice, we could run it as the next FTT and bump the French phrasebook to another month. A topic like Stay healthy, Infectious diseases, Hygiene and body care, Travel health kit, Returning home, or Travel insurance might be timely, for instance. (If we get an article in shape in time, I'd be happy to make banner images to take some of the work off of AndreCarrotflower.) I'm imagining doing this in addition to highlighting the coronavirus article in a more prominent place on the main page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A mock-up

Here's a concrete suggestion for something we could put above the carousel. Of course the text can be modified or a different image can be substituted. What do others think?

Granger (talk · contribs) 00:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this banner. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Me too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
As a general rule, textboxes should be wide enough to accommodate article titles on one single line. I tweaked it accordingly. Yes, it has my full support. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd support this, and put the Adelaide Festival back into the Featured Event space for now. It has not been cancelled. Ground Zero (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Seeing support from multiple users and no opposition, I've implemented the change. Normally I would wait longer for a major change to the main page, but given the fast-paced nature of the situation I figure it's better not to delay unnecessarily. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks great! Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's awesome! Perfect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Granger, looks good.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Great job! Thanks Granger! --Ypsilon (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with this update of information. Having a prominent warning about a travel concern of such high importance is a sensible measure for a travel website.—The preceding comment was added by SelfieCity (talkcontribs)

Following up on the issue of suspending DotM

I want to start out by thanking Granger for bringing that Fodor's article to light. It was very much a relief to learn that other travel guides have been deliberating the same issues that we have, broadly speaking, and have decided that despite everything that's going on and the fear and trepidation it's stirred up, the reading public is still in a position to appreciate the difference between writing/talking about travel now and endorsing the idea of travelling now. I think that provides us with enough cover that I'd be okay with continuing as usual with DotM, despite my earlier fears. All the same, I think it might be a good idea to put out some sort of messaging explaining our reasoning for doing so. I think this is an especially important thing to do on social media, where DotM is highlighted in, if anything, a more active way than on the site itself. Here's a draft version of a post I intend to place on Wikivoyage's Facebook page in a day or so. Your feedback is welcome.

Hello readers.
In light of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, we want to update you on the latest steps Wikivoyage is taking.
We at Wikivoyage are passionate about travel. But we also recognize that the most important thing right now is, as much as possible, to slow the spread and mitigate the impact of the virus. And we understand that part of the reality of the fight against the virus is that for now, unnecessary travel is irresponsible and increasingly impossible. Over the past days, our community has been engaging in a discussion of how best to proceed with our mission of serving travellers in light of the current world situation.
On our Main Page, you'll find a link to our coverage of the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic. Again, please do everything you can to avoid travel during this pandemic, but if travel is unavoidable, our article is a comprehensive source of information on the pandemic as it pertains to travellers, including what to do to prevent infection and what to do if you do get infected. This information is being continuously updated as the situation progresses.
Also on our Main Page, you'll find links to our current Destination of the Month, Off the Beaten Path, and Featured Travel Topic articles. Our intention is to continue displaying these articles as normal, including promoting them on our Facebook page. Importantly, our intention is not to promote the idea of actually visiting any of these places now or in the immediate future. The primary purpose of our Featured Articles is, and always has been, to highlight the hard work of our dedicated team of travel writers by presenting our readers with the best-quality articles Wikivoyage has to offer. We are proud of the fact that our Featured Articles have served over the years as the inspiration for some truly fantastic travel adventures, and we hope that our readers are equally inspired by the articles we have in store for the coming months, but, once again, we implore you to please put off any unnecessary travel for the time being. These places will still be there waiting for you after the pandemic has passed - and given the grave impact that the pandemic is having on the travel industry, your custom will likely be more welcome than ever.
Another reason why we will continue to display our Featured Articles is because we also recognize that the stress of constant bombardment with news and information during this scary time, combined with the loneliness and isolation that comes with social distancing and lockdown, are having and will continue to have a real effect on people's mental health. We want you to stay up-to-date as the situation evolves, but we also understand the value of taking your mind off things from time to time. Even if right now you can't get away from it all to your favorite sun-soaked tropical isle in a literal sense, you can still "travel the world" virtually just by reading through our latest Featured Article, or any of our other articles.
Wikivoyage is the free, non-commercial, worldwide travel guide for everyone. That means you. And from the bottom of our hearts, we want to sincerely thank you for making us your most trusted source for travel information. We love travel, we know you love travel, and we intend to continue to be at your service for years and years to come. All things must pass, as they say; the coronavirus will too; and we all hope to be able to resume our normal lives and our normal travels as quickly as possible. But for now, please stay well, please stay informed with the recommendations of your local authorities and medical experts, and please take care of yourselves, your loved ones, and your neighbors.

(Pinging past participants in COVID-related discussions: ShakespeareFan00, Ikan Kekek, Gizza, Ypsilon, Ground Zero, Andyrom75, ThunderingTyphoons!, WhatamIdoing, Bigpeteb, AlasdairW, OhanaUnited, SelfieCity. Granger was already mentioned above.)

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a really great draft! Thank you! I agree with it completely and would only tweak a few things. I'll make the edits now, and you can see if you like them - they're very minor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
It's very well written. No tweaks from me. Gizza (roam) 06:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Excellent! Very passionate and accurate. Just one note. I'm not an English native speaker, but although the concept behind "your tourist dollars" is correct (and I agree with it), it sounds very venal, so I would suggest to reprhase it. Again congratulation. --Andyrom75 (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep, good draft. I made a few changes in individual edits before this one. May I further suggest pinning the post once it's live, so it doesn't get lost by later ones?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, good, just a few days ago I would have not been sure about advising against local travel in the the areas with few known cases, but I think that time has passed. AlasdairW (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
That looks good to me. I would suggest adding a link to the message on the Main Page. Again, I will suggest the space occupied by Featured Events. The event that I added yesterday has been delayed until April 7, and will likely be delayed further or cancelled. The next event up is the Invictus Games. There's no information on their website now, but the way things are going, I think we can expect those to be rescheduled or cancelled. Ground Zero (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
ThunderingTyphoons!, thanks for rephase it, and sorry to use a not commonly used word :-D I admit that I've used the dictionary too, to translate the Italian word that I had in my mind to be accurate in message :-). Once agreed the text, I'll be more than glad to translate entirely in Italian. --Andyrom75 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Good idea and well written. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Covid warning boxes

Many of our Covid warning boxes on country pages warn about the outbreak in the country, and list details. I think that as things have changed from "avoid certain areas" to "go home while you still can" and "we're not letting foreigners in", we should focus the warning boxes to information about travel restrictions as that is what is most useful to travellers now. Ground Zero (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Though I think we should still give key information about the situation within the country for travellers who are travelling for essential reasons or unable to get home. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Enhanced Password Reset now available on Wikivoyage

Note: I am posting this on English Wikivoyage, but I welcome this message being translated and shared on other wikis. Thank you!

Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team has released a new feature, which is called Enhanced Password Reset (EPR), to Wikivoyage and Wiktionary. With this feature, you can optionally select to require both username and email address to be submitted on Special:PasswordReset in order to generate password reset emails. This feature was developed by the Community Tech team, in response to the #3 wish in the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey. We decided to incrementally release the feature, so we released to Wikivoyage and Wiktionary first. The release to all other wikis will happen soon. In the meantime, we would love your feedback!

To enable the feature, go to the “Email options” section in “Preferences.” You can click on the checkbox that states, “Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided.” Once you click the checkbox and save, the preference is enabled. Please note that Password Reset Update is not a global preference by default. It is enabled per wiki. However, you can make it global in your global preferences. For more information on password resets and EPR, you can visit the Help:Reset_password page on MediaWiki. Thank you, and we look forward to checking out your feedback on the project talk page! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ikan Kekek, I think you may want to try this out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess I don't need it right now? Dunno. Thanks, WhatamIdoing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I suppose its main use is to avoid others spamming your mailbox with reset messages. I think there is a maximal frequency on these, which makes them just a small annoyance even in the worst case (unless somebody is eavesdropping on your e-mail); the feature can be activated if you at some point feel fed up with such messages. --LPfi (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"Huge" cities are not all that huge. Could we call them "big" instead?

At a certain point, some city articles need to be split up into districts, and at that point, we start calling them "huge". But most of these cities are far from huge. New York and Tokyo, for example, are indeed huge - you could easily devote a week or more to seeing everything in those cities. Seattle and Philadelphia, for example, are not - you can see all the main sights in one weekend, even if they are worth splitting into multiple district articles. So I wonder if we could use the term "big" instead: New York, Tokyo, Seattle, and Philadelphia are all indisputably big cities.

I don't know how much work is involved in making this terminology switch, so maybe it's not worth it.

Yumenotsuyoshi (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Some of our "huge" cities (Buffalo, Wellington, and Edinburgh spring to mind) aren't even big, at least not in the same way that the ones you cite are big. Cities are mostly divided into districts because they're complex and have a lot to offer the traveller*, so if we're going to change the designation, I'd prefer something which spoke of complexity or tourism interest, rather than size. But I must also say that I wouldn't be hugely fussed if we didn't change from "huge city".
*Or if we get meta, cities are divided into districts because a lot of work has been done on them, meaning there's too much content for one article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, welcome to Wikivoyage :-) ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
"Big city" is already what we call a city article with the full template. ("Small cities" don't have every section, like Stay Healthy.) "Small", "Big", and "Huge" mostly refer to the size of the article(s), not the populations of the cities themselves. Powers (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I think we should separate the properties of the city itself from how we treat them. There are huge, complex cities we haven't destrictified and there are quite simple modestly sized cities that we have districtified. What we call the templates need not be visible to the reader, at least not until they start editing. The "huge" wording has bothered me for quite some time. Can't we just say "[City} is described in several district articles ..." or (more to my taste) "This is an overview of [city]. For specific sights, restaurants, and accommodation, see the district articles." --LPfi (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This sounds good to me. Yumenotsuyoshi (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I have always assumed that there was a subtle hint in there: if the city isn't "huge", then you shouldn't be splitting it into so many districts. I sort of doubt that if I were going to an unfamiliar mid-sized US city that I'd be happiest needing to read through six or eight district articles to find a hotel or a restaurant. And if the city is smaller (say, less than 50,000 or 100,000 population), then I might wonder about the quality of the listings, because even a fairly tourist-focused city isn't likely to have 50+ restaurants that we would recommend (and it wouldn't be helpful to me to have such a long list anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Objectively, Richmond, Virginia is by no means a huge city, while Karachi is. Are you suggesting that purely because of these respective cities' populations, we should be districting Karachi and not Richmond? Before you answer, you should look at a couple of threads in Talk:Karachi/Archive 2013 that concluded otherwise. There are two requirements for "huge city" templates that divide cities into districts for the purposes of Wikivoyage: (1) There must be so many listings that putting all of them into one article makes it quite long and cumbersome, or at least less readable than using district articles; (2) The points of interest must be distributed around town, such that they aren't overwhelmingly in a single area that can't be practically divided up (which is the reason Karachi isn't districted). If we're getting hung up on terminology, we could debate changing the name of the "huge city" template, but to what? "Districted city"? What would actually be less confusing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that Karachi needs any districts. I am, however, suggesting that Richmond probably doesn't need seven districts, especially since most of them are underdeveloped, and one is non-existent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've suggested before that Richmond's districts should probably be merged back into the city article. Unfortunately, no one who knows the city has weighed in, so the discussion has stalled. See Talk:Richmond. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The name of the template is unimportant, but the text the template provides is not. The "X is a huge city" phrase is misleading, especially when people may think that cities without that phrase aren't. I gave two suggestions for changing it. --LPfi (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care if the text that's viewable outside of edit mode says "This city article is at guide/usable/whatever status". That's OK with me, and I hope if we decide on that, it'll be simple to change the output of these templates to say that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes to the reader, all of them can just be called "cities". Some cities have districts and some don't. Similarly, we don't differentiate bottom-level regions with regions that are divided further although the article structure changes slightly. Internally we need to continue to classify cities with districts and those without separately. Gizza (roam) 00:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good comparison. I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Same. Support. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kill Bill tourism

Does a lady dressed in all yellow cutting down the Crazy 88 (were there really 88 of them or did they just call themselves that because it sounded cool?) with a Hattori Hanzo sword ring a bell? In that case, read on!

We've featured a couple of Fiction tourism articles as FTT; Breaking Bad Tour and Seinfeld Tour (and now The Wire Tour is nominated). How about one from a movie next? I figured of my favorite movies could make a nice itinerary and started writing Kill Bill tourism a while back with the help of some web pages specializing in movie locations, as well as our guides for destinations, local transport websites, Google Maps etc. I think the article starts looking quite nice already, but feel free to add to it. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


(Swept in from Grahamsands Talk page)

Good morning, Graham. Thanks for your updates regarding FlyBe. I think the information you're adding would stand out better in a cautionbox, rather than as straight prose. What do you think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I considered that, but thought the added value of doing so would only stand for a day or two while everyone caught up with the news. I was thinking more of the longer term impact on viability of airports and indeed of whole destinations such as Newquay, Northern Ireland and Jersey. I'll complete the present update in the next ten min then we can take stock. Grahamsands (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It will be of value for longer than a day or two, because people will have tickets booked and will still want to get where they're going, and at some point it will become clear which routes are going to be replaced and which are axed. I understand there are other sources of information, but we do aim to be a self-contained travel guide. If necessary, we could put the box in a template, and deploy it across however many articles (so you edit the template page, and it changes automatically across the site,) if the idea of keeping so many articles updated over an indeterminate period of time is daunting.ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It's tempting to try to be the first with travel news, but the way Nationalrail enquiries crashed last night suggests that most travellers are ahead of us. I didn't think the extra prominence of a cautionbox added much, but don't object to one. But what doesn't work is standard warning content for all Flybe destinations, for the very reason you raise. For some it's a hammer blow (Newquay, Belfast). For some it's a damned nuisance but you can workaround (Southampton). For some it's a major concern (Blue Islands still fly to Jersey, but can they keep going?) For some it's indirect (Flights to Scilly and by Loganair to the Scottish islands are by separate carriers, but what about the onward air connection). So that's what I've sought to portray. It's difficult to see other operators taking these routes in the next few months as everyone is retrenching over coronavirus. Grahamsands (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems at least a few dozen articles still recommend FlyBe for getting to destinations. Someone will need to go through and remove the airline from each of them. I can try to do that when I have time, or one of you can if you have the chance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's move these discussions to the pub, I don't own the topic . . .
continuing from that, we'll find more examples as the days go by. For instance the warning has just gone on the city pages, not on the surrounding regions - Newquay and Exeter are handy portals for Devon and Cornwall, or were. But what travellers would find most useful right now are other ways to Get In. My impression is that rail links are reasonably well-described for the affected destinations, but bus routes for many are kinda vague. Grahamsands (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we going to bother with an April Fool's joke article this year?

I'm guessing not, given that it's March 8th and we haven't even come up with a list of possible topics yet, but in case I'm wrong and there have been discussions going on somewhere that I wasn't aware of, could someone please point me to them so I can know what to make DotM banners for? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems unlikely but if we want to, we can 1.) Republish something from before, 2.) Repurpose something we started but never finished, 3.) Cobble something together (possibly something that's pretty easy), or 4.) Do a power move on May 1 instead. Preferences? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I like Koavf's suggestion #1. We have April Fools Day articles dating back to 2006. We could start cycling through them again for the amusement of a new generation of readers, rather than diverting energy from building real travel articles. Ground Zero (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think reusing old ones is a fine idea. If we do want to make a new one, I had the idea of Pangea the other day. But we could also save that for another year. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikivoyage_talk:Joke_articles#Time_to_start_thinking_about_this_year's_article?. --Ypsilon (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I added a revision to Time Travel, motivated by certain events in the news (it needs editing). I had considered making a proposal to suspend April 1st stuff this year, because of the serious issue of the novel coronavirus, which needs people to have accurate and "real" information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to push the envelope, then further updates to the relevant sections of that article based on actual history would be the way to go...

( I seem to recall Venice, for example, imposed "visa restrictions" on visitors at certain periods due to regional pandemic concerns for example..).

I.E Go for things based on actual history, rather than jokes as such..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Light relief: If the Onion quotes advice for time travellers to quarantine... https://www.theonion.com/who-warns-outbreaks-in-victorian-england-confirm-corona-1842123259, maybe the time travel article should reflect the advice as well...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Another option is something that by definition would have virtually no content as a kind of non-comedy joke. E.g. Nirvana or A Journey to the Center of Your Mind where there is just a picture of a clam blue ocean or something. We can cobble that together quickly. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That could work. I have to say though that especially given the ongoing cornavirus pandemic, an April fool's article comes in really low on our list of priorities, so I would advise against spending too much time on this. The dog2 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not for April Fools Day, but why don't we have an article on Self-isolation for 14 days? I'm going to need that article when I get home next week. Ground Zero (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you don't get sick. That seems like a non-travel article, but it should be somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I've started this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I question whether that is a travel article, as I mentioned above. Let's discuss that on the new article's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
(Aside) Given a lot of major countries are in effect saying Don't travel.. At what point does Wikivoyage effectively cease to be a travel guide for the duration? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Short of blacking out the website, we can't stop being a travel guide. There will almost certainly be other changes to how we run or what content we feature going forward as the situation develops. Personally, I'm hoping that if a lot of Wikivoyagers are in isolation but otherwise healthy, we will see more edits over the next month or so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The warning on the main page is excellent, but if you come to a destination/travel topic webpage via search, that warning isn't helpful. Could we include some sort of standard travel warning at the top of all pages until the virus ceases to spread at its current rate? Also, as a note, although someone may have mentioned this already, an April Fools' Joke seems in rather bad taste at the moment given the coronavirus and its impacts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree it's bad taste. We're still allowed to laugh, aren't we? But I would agree with other comments that there are more important things to focus our attention on this year, so I wouldn't be opposed to either reusing an old April Fools or doing something really simple like Nirvana.
In the coronavirus section, a site notice (banner at the top of each page) was mentioned; we should pursue that, IMO.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I think an April Fools article can actually be of great value these days to cheer up readers that are confined to their homes, or somewhere else due to them being sick with corona, possibly infected, or their schools or workplaces closed or general lockdowns. As can our travel guides - surely many love to read about places and plan future travels especially if they have extra spare time now? --Ypsilon (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
One more vote against doing any April Fool's joke article this year, short and simple or no. Yes, we need laughter and levity in these times, but context matters. If the optics of carrying on with DotM, which is a normal feature of our Main Page, are questionable (though I'm satisfied with the arguments in favor of doing so), then the optics of interrupting our regularly scheduled programming not with vital or breaking information about the crisis but with something frivolous would be almost unquestionably bad. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose April Fools article as I stated previouslyShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If enough editors are familiar with the topic we could run an April Fool on "Travelling without leaving home". I would see this covering video conferences, exploring a city using streetview etc. This is a topic which would be of practical use in the present situation, and could be given a funny introduction and title for April 1, which might be changed later. AlasdairW (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I support this, it sounds like a great idea! Such an article would blur the boundaries of being a joke article and being useful advice. We could push it for April Fool's by including some over-the-top suggestions like "visit Imaginationland by sitting in a cardboard box and pretending it's an airplane" or "hold a seashell up to your ear while applying a spray bottle of salt water to your face", and then tone it down afterwards to make it a bit more serious and useful.
We also don't have an article for Staycation (and I'll note that the Other Wiki does have one!). The word "staycation" is used on exactly two pages. Even though interest has died down compared to when the idea was new, it's still very much a thing people know about and consider doing. That's tangentially related to the same idea of "Travelling without leaving home", although I assume you meant that one to be more literal, as in not leaving your own house. --Bigpeteb (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Travel for shut-ins? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I like this idea a lot. Let's do it! The fact that it could essentially morph into practical advice is great. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Clarifying my stance: support the creation of a Staycation (or similar title) article, support promoting said article as an alternative to travel during the coronavirus pandemic (possibly as April's FTT, if we can get it up to Guide status in time?), oppose using it as our April Fool's joke article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a real change in attitude. Until now, we never approved non-travel articles like one about isolation or one about staycations. Maybe we should have such articles, but it's interesting that it took a pandemic to change views about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek - I would push hard for the article to be entitled Staycation. I think the argument that staycations are within our scope comes from the facts that 1) as Bigpeteb said, the concept has been around for a lot longer than the coronavirus epidemic, and 2) staycations are intended to incorporate as many of the tropes of actual travel as possible except for the change in physical location, which is also the reason why an article on social distancing or quarantine or whatever would not fall within our scope. As for Travel for shut-ins or Travelling without leaving home, that sounds to me more like we're inventing a concept just for the sake of writing a Wikivoyage article about it. Those might work as April Fool's Day joke articles, but as I said before, I would oppose running one of those this year. If we're going to do something like this, we need to regard it not as a joke but a serious opportunity to provide valuable information to our readers, both now and after the pandemic has subsided. Given the current zeitgeist, it's just too likely that an April Fool's feature would strike the wrong tone. At best, no one's in the mood for dumb jokes at the moment; at worst, as I said above, it comes off as imprudent and out of touch and makes Wikivoyage look bad. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that a "Staycation" article would fit within our scope. That said, I don't think now is necessarily the right time to write a "Staycation" article—staycations typically involve doing travel-y activities in the local area, which is not recommended in places with serious outbreaks of COVID-19.
I think a humorously written article about staying at home could work for April Fool's this year. Raising people's spirits with lighthearted entertainment is important in times of crisis. It might depend on how the article is written.
I think self-isolation is within our scope in theory (like Returning home is), though I question our capacity to write a medically accurate article about that topic. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
IIRC, English Wikipedia also has an April Fool's Day tradition of using joke articles for Today's Featured Article and some of the other elements of their Main Page. I suppose following their lead, in terms of whether or not they plan to suspend that tradition this year, might be a way to gauge what's a good way forward. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I think they stopped doing it for Today's Featured Article a few years ago but still do it for "Did you know". But I'm not certain. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never really been too gung-ho on April Fools articles, though the one about East Berlin was kind of fun. But this year, it would be in poor taste to have one, so I oppose it. And AndreCarrotflower, if you don't approve of the Self-isolation after travel article, are you going to nominate it for deletion? I think it's by definition a non-travel article, but it shouldn't be deleted, and if we decide not to keep it here, it should be moved somewhere, not deleted. Personally, now that it's been started and is somewhat well-developed, I would support leaving it up for at least the duration of this crisis, whereupon we could revisit it. I don't think it's at all strange that the highly unusual experience of a pandemic is at least temporarily altering our views on what's topical. And the justification in that case is, what does a traveler do when they must not travel? OK, it's a stretch, but everything feels very provisional and uncertain right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The red link is blue. Let's talk about staycations. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't really think it's in poor taste to have an April Fool's Article. Light humor is important and very human in stressful and troubling times. Just because every utterance isn't about death, doesn't mean someone is unconcerned or callous. I agree that staycation is too legitimate to be a joke article, though. An article that is literally about exploring Your House (kitchen (Eat/Drink), living room (See/Do), bedroom (sleep), etc) would be easy enough to create. I also think it's light and inoffensive. It's not like we need to mention the coronavirus in the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The UK government during World War II at one point tried to persuade people to "Holiday at Home!" so... 11:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I support ChubbyWimbus's idea of "Your house" as an April Fool's article. I agree that humor is important in troubling times, and I don't think this is in poor taste – it's not a joke at the expense of the victims of the virus; rather, it's playfully acknowledging and supporting the steps that people are taking to reduce the virus's spread. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Support --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. I understand why some people think it's in poor taste to do any kind of joke article during this current pandemic, but as someone who's feeling increasingly isolated and shut-in by new quarantine rules every few days in my city, some travel-themed humor would be very welcome right now. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Support — I like ChubbyWimbus's idea. Given the current situation, I'm fine with some light-hearted humour that also helps to cope with the relative isolation. The dog2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Support "Your house" - it is clearly an April Fool. We can consider "Staycation" as a separate matter, but I see this more as having a vacation when local travel is possible, including making day trips to nearby cities, so now may not be a good time to start this. AlasdairW (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Nolo contendere. My personal opinion regarding the April Fools' article remains the same as before, but I recognize that I'm outvoted, and IMO the current proposal is among the less pitfall-laden of the possible paths, so I won't stand in anyone's way here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's information: Wikivoyage:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/MY HOUSE. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, here's a start: Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Your house. Have at it! —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

US suspends US- Europe travel..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51846923 —The preceding comment was added by ShakespeareFan00 (talkcontribs)

For thirty days. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Finnish taxis

An IP user has been adding taxi information, mainly on two taxi apps, to a lot of Finnish city articles. I have no idea whether the IPv6 address is stable, so not relying on direct communication (I will put a link to here from the IP user talk).

I am not sure how to handle this. It is clear that the info should be added to Finland#By taxi instead of all these pages, if the companies are relevant country wide – but I have no idea of whether they are of any use outside some areas. The crucial question is whether some actual taxi driver in the vicinity can be reached with those apps, and I suppose you need local info to know. The company can claim coverage even if only a tiny percentage of drivers, usually having to drive a long distance to get to you, are connected.

The general problem has existed since the taxi reform: taxis and call centres are no more locally bound, and any company can claim as large an area of coverage as they want. I am not a frequent customer, so have little data from the ground.

--LPfi (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the user registered: Vkem has made similar edits. Copying my talk page message. --LPfi (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

本页面最后更新于2020-03-18 22:07,点击更新本页

本站的所有资料包括但不限于文字、图片等全部转载于维基导游(wikivoyage.org),遵循 维基百科:CC BY-SA 3.0协议