Wikivoyage/Migration/New policies

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Bodies of water policy[edit]

Hi, everyone. This is from WMF Migration/Policy clean-up:

  • Nutshell: We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water. They may be referred to in other destination guides as attractions or as part of an itinerary or in a travel topic.
  • Related pages:

I would like to suggest abolishing this policy. In VfD discussions on Wikitravel, more longstanding admins have informed me that this policy is almost never the reason for deleting any article, because this is the overriding policy:

"Generally, articles can be created for destinations where a traveller can sleep."

So if a traveller can camp around a lake, it's probably fine to write an article about that lake, and if one can't, it probably isn't fine.

Is there any important or good reason to maintain the bodies of water policy, then, given that the "destinations where a traveller can sleep" policy is sufficient and really the guiding criterion?

Ikan Kekek 01:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

* Agree. Bodies of water are also specifically mentioned in "What is an article" as something that we don't write articles about, so a separate policy seems redundant. -Shaund 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I disagree. People still want to know what role bodies of water should take in our travel guides, and this page tells them that. Just saying "we don't write articles about them" is both overly simplistic and incomplete. LtPowers 14:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, what I've observed is any time there is an article about a body of water, it is not deleted because the article is not simply about water, but about a lake around which people can sleep. So my argument is that the alleged policy against writing articles about bodies of water is not actually practiced, and should therefore be deleted. Ikan Kekek 16:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ikan, I really don't understand what you're saying here. What do our deletion practices have to do with whether this is a good guideline or not? Nothing in this guideline says "WE DELETE ALL ARTICLES ON BODIES OF WATER", so saying "we don't delete articles on bodies of water" is no contradiction. When we keep an article on a body of water, it's usually under the "Land regions" provision of this page. LtPowers 01:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that "because it's about a body of water" never seems to be a reason for deleting an article, nor should it be a reason not to write an article. "Because people can sleep there" is a sufficient reason to write an article, whether it's about a body of water, an island, whatever. I consider the bodies of water policy to be pretty much an irrelevant distraction, and completely unnecessary. Ikan Kekek 05:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
As a water orientated person. I feel I should point out that one can sleep on most bodies of water if one has a suitable boat, but that doesn't necessarily justify an article on the Pacific ocean, unless it is part of a cruising guide, and that is a whole new can of worms. Maybe someday there will be people who want to start a travel guide for boat cruising, and I don't see that it would go against the basic princples and purpose of this project. However, the destinations would generally be on land, and most of the boating specific articles would be itineraries and travel topics. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with IK. What is an article? is sufficient, and the BoW policy has only led to confusion and arguments. I think it is working against us, not for us. —Peter Talk 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unsure. After reading through the BoW Talk page, I'm not sure what to make of this policy and how it fits in with What is an article? (or if the policy is even consistent within itself and how we deal with BoW in practice). I'd prefer that any description of how BoW should be handled is integrated with the What is an article? policy so all issues relating to what is or is not an article are in one place. -Shaund 04:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I feel like I'm reading a completely different page than the rest of you. The way I see it: we constantly get questions about how to incorporate bodies of water into the travel guide. The answer is that "it depends on the body of water and the surrounding land areas". Lake Tahoe is a land region and a legitimate travel destination; The Great Lakes are a large extra-hierarchical region; the Erie Canal is an itinerary; Lake Okeechobee is an attraction. These varied ways of handling bodies of water are covered thoroughly on this page, and the volume and level of detail is far too great to wedge it all into "What is an article?" LtPowers 17:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your examples are well picked, but we could say the same thing about tracts of land. Some merit an article and some don't. So what is covered in the body of water policy that necessitates actually having a separate policy about bodies of water? Ikan Kekek 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
On land, places are places; almost any named place can get an article unless it's just an attraction. Bodies of water, on the other hand, only get an article if they define a region (in which case the article is really about the surrounding land), or have a natural itinerary associated. This has proven confusing in the past, and I think having a separate page clarifying this is not out of line, and it keeps wiaa from getting too unwieldy. It's not really a "separate" policy, just supplemental. LtPowers 22:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't really agree with your first sentence. There have been quite a few cases of articles about places that were neither merely attractions nor purely privately owned that were merged with other articles about larger towns nearby or larger regions, because it was judged that this was more beneficial to readers/travelers. Edited to add that I have found the supplemental policy confusing, not clarifying, and I don't think I'm the only one who's found it confusing, especially as it never seems to actually be applied in VfD decisions. I speak from experience. I've suggested for articles to be deleted on this basis, and that has never happened when I have requested it.Ikan Kekek 23:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should measure this guideline by the number of deletions it engenders. That's not it's point. LtPowers 00:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If a policy is never enforced, oughtn't we think about whether it really exists, and abolish it? I get that you don't agree, but please explain to me why and how this specific policy (supplemental policy, whatever) is useful, because I really don't get it. I don't see how it adds anything that isn't already, in practice, in the other policies and guidelines. Ikan Kekek 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that a lack of deletions means that this policy is not "enforced", because there's no command within the policy to delete anything. It is not Wikitravel:Deletion policy, nor is it a subpage of that policy. It talks about how bodies of water should be incorporated into the guide, not which bodies of water we should delete. LtPowers 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
(re-indent) The answer that "it depends on [feature name] and the surrounding land areas" applies to other potential desitnations as well. Khao San Road is a street but also a legitimate district, Route 66 is a valid itinerary, and many streets are listed as attractions or Buy listings -- but we don't have a specific "street" policy. It's similar for mountains: Mount Baker is a legit destination guide, the Rockies are a large extra-hierarchical region, Grouse Mountain is an attraction, and I'm sure someone could write a good itinerary involving mountains. Again, we don't have a specific policy on how to handle mountains (that I'm aware of, anyway).
As Ikan says, doesn't this really come down to our existing policies and guidelines for What is an article?
  • We don't write articles about streets, mountains, BoW, amusement parks unless they meet some exception criteria (e.g., you can sleep there, it represents a district or region, it's remote, it's complex, etc.)
  • Roads and BoW can be the topic of an itinerary if the article meets the criteria for an itinerary
  • Otherwise list as an attraction in the place it's located
  • If it's important enough, create a redirect page for the street, mountain, BoW, amusement park to the place it's located
-Shaund 04:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider a different approach to the problem: The basic unit we work with is a destination where the traveller stays for some time, typically over several days, and uses accommodation at the destination, and eats there and does something to justify the visit. This generally implies what we would call a "city" (regardless of how small a village, if it has a tavern with rooms for hire, it pretty much qualifies if there is something worth going there to do and someone wants to write about it). The other levels in the geographical hierarchy are just bigger and bigger collections of "cities", grouped by political and geographical association. Parks are given honorary city status when you can get accomodation and food in them, Disneyworld and the like are given honorary city status because they are sufficiently notable, and usually bigger than a small city. One of the unwritten criteria is that the destination/city/honorary city is at a fixed geographical position, and is there permanently, which eliminates trains and cruise ships, but we do allow temporary and mobile accommodation at a fixed site dedicated to that function (tents, mobile homes,caravans, trailers, boats). We don't split a city unless the article become cumbersome, which is why we don't have articles for streets or resorts. If we use these criteria to decide whether an article is valid, is the BoW policy relevant? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we keep the BoW policy, we need to re-assess the principal guidance right at the top of the article: We don't write destination guide articles about bodies of water. We do place information about bodies of water elsewhere in the guide, and redirect the traveller to that information. That's totally out of step with our practices, and with common sense. That line has led to vfds about destination articles that clearly pass wiaa. It could even be modified to We don't write articles about bodies of water just for the heck of it—we only write them if they make sense as a travel destination. Then the rest of the policy would just be helpful guidance for figuring out how to work in information about bodies of water that don't make sense as destination guides (smaller attractions like, say, Brant Lake in the Chestertown article), itineraries such as X river, travel topics such as Cruising in X, or transport information belonging in a get in/get around section. Wiaa would contain the criteria regarding... what is an article, while BoW would help editors with cases that don't meet those criteria. --Peter Talk 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
As we're all aware, our practice on bodies of water has been in flux and under discussion for some time; certainly this page could do with some revision. It seems to me that bodies of water are more often contested than other geographic features, but if we can come up with an encompassing guideline that covers mountains and other features, so be it. And if we can find a way to incorporate this guidance into wiaa, maybe I can accept that. But I don't want to lose this guidance entirely, because it's useful to have something to point to when asked "How can I write about the Volga River in TRAVELSITENAME?" LtPowers 18:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
We have four categories of article:
  • Destinations - Nutshell: A destination is a geographical location where the traveller stays for some time, typically over several days, uses accommodation facilities provided at the destination, eats there and engages in activities which are the purpose of the visit. The definitive destination is the city, but destination types include regions, national parks, and districts of exceptionally large cities. Note: Regions include continents, continental sections, countries, states, provinces etc. Cities may be split into districts if the article becomes cumbersome. General guidance as in "What is an article".
  • Itineraries - Nutshell: An itinerary is a guide for traveling along a specific route through several destinations or attractions, giving suggestions of where to stop, what to see, how to prepare, etc. If you think of our destination guides as dots on a map, an itinerary describes a line that connects those dots.
  • Travel topics - Nutshell: Travel topics are articles that deal with a specific topic that is too large or detailed to go in a specific travel guide destination page, or travel tips that are so general that they apply to nearly all destinations and don't need to be in each specific travel guide. Note: A huge range of possibilities exist and I don't think it will be possible to set hard and fast rules.
  • Phrasebooks - Nutshell: Phrasebooks are intended to define just enough of the language so that an English-speaking traveller can "get by" in an area where that language is spoken. Note: I think this one is fairly straightforward, though I have never worked on one, so if someone claims otherwise I won't argue.
I think that this approach to defining an article is potentially clearer than the current one which starts at the top and subdivides, as there is no obvious reason why it should stop at city level. When starting at city level and moving up is easier to draw a line as we only have one planet and the next step down is continents.
BoW could logically be merged into "Where you can stick it", with a redirect. The statement that we dont write articleas about bodies of water can be left out, as there will be guidance about where we do write about them. Mountains and other fringe items should also go there • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Peter: I agree with your thinking and salute you for your clarity. By the way, I have worked on the Malay language phrasebook and agree with your description of what a phrasebook is. (Except for phrasebooks for languages hardly anyone speaks, but I digress.:-) Ikan Kekek 07:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I can make no claim to that description, I took it from the existing policy page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions?[edit]

Do we have sufficient discussion on this one? There is a proposal to base our definition of a destination article based on the fundamental unit of a "city" and aggregations thereof, thus getting around the bodies of water problem. Other article classes appear to be sufficiently defined as mentioned above. Is it time to formulate the policy as described?

I think the discussion is coming along well. I like the four category breakdown between Destinations / Itineraries / Travel Topics / Phrasebooks and I'm generally OK with the discussion. I'm not sure I like us saying the city is the fundamental destination unit (I'm also not sure what it means). I'd prefer the second sentence to be more general Destination types include cities, regions, national parks, and districts of exceptionally large cities. A couple of comments/questions about what I think are loose-ends are:
  • Will there be policy or guideline pages for each of the four types of articles?
  • What happens to the "Geographical hierarchy" article? Will it be linked to Destination article guideline/policy?
  • I'm not convinced the BoW problem is solved. They can be handled in a number of ways -- destination, itinerary, redirect, attraction within a destination -- whereas "Where do I stick it" is designed to answer where do I stick a listing within a destination article. My thoughts were to include a revamped and shorter BoW commentary (along with mountains, highways, etc.) in with the Exceptions part of the Geographical hierarchy. -Shaund 06:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a short description of the proposed change, which would be more like the description starting with "We have four categories of article"
  • We dont have to say that the city is the fundamental destination unit, It could be described more generally, but the idea is to specify that we dont have articles for destinations smaller than a city, (albeit a very small city, which some of us would call a village) unless the city article and the city itself are so large that there is consensus to split it into districts. Since there are no bodies of water which are cities as such, (Ok, I accept some aggregations of moored boats may be an edge case), there is no way to have a body of water as a destination article. A region with the same name as a body of water is a different matter.
  • Lets see how your revamp of BoW looks. I take your point on the current scope of Where do I stick it, but It should be mentioned there as people will look there - it is a logical place to go.
  • I think the geographical hierarchy should be linked to and from the destination article guideline/policy, or could be merged with it if they are not too big. They are really parts of the same thing. The G.H is part of the policy for destination articles.
  • The other three article classes will need their own guidance, probably in serarate pages. The existing policies/guidelines appear to be good enough.
I will put together a more formal proposed policy page and link this to it.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
First, and more importantly to me, I don't think we should describe the "city" as the fundamental destination unit. It would make more sense to use the word "community," because "city," "town" and "village" all have specific legal meanings in certain jurisdictions, and also because neighborhoods within large cities can be considered to constitute communities. That said, there will always be appropriate articles about destinations that are not fixed communities, such as parks where no-one lives permanently, uninhabited islands (especially those distant from other landmasses), and perhaps some of the most important resorts. Second, I continue to disagree that "there is no way to have a body of water as a destination article." Quite apart from your point about moored houseboats, which constitute a community in several places (one notable example being Srinagar, where the community on the lake could be a district article if we ever made a considered decision to districtify Srinagar), it is usually possible to sleep on the banks of lakes, whether there is considered to be a "region with the same name as a body of water" or not. I'll look forward to reading your proposed policy page. Ikan Kekek 13:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point and agree with it in principle. There should be a better word than "city" for this purpose, but community does not imply the availability of vital features qualifying for destination article status. We need a word that implies a fixed geographical location, places to sleep and eat available for the use of travellers, general freedom of access and movement to the public, etc. A bit of research reveals that there may not actually be an English word that expresses the meaning we need. Maybe we just define a destination with enough words to cover the meaning for the guide, and throw in town, village and hamlet as alternative base level destinations. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a requiring a place to sleep lets in hotels, resorts and campsites as destination articles. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I have written a first draft for Destinations, and one for What our travel guide articles may be. (not a great title, suggest improvements) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
These would be better as subpages of this page (e.g., WMF Migration/New policies/Destinations). Regarding "What our travel guide articles may be.", isn't that what "What is an article?" is for? They cover the same ground, don't they? LtPowers 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I see I edited at the same time as Peter, below... I also see now that "Destinations" is a modified version of WIAA. As such, if we're going to move most of the content of WIAA to Destinations (which makes sense in parallel with the existing Itineraries, Phrasebooks, and Travel Topics articles), can't we just call "What our travel guide articles may be" "What is an article?" instead? LtPowers 18:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You are probably right about the page name/subpage name. It would all have to be reorganised a bit if/when accepted, so if you want to change it go right ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about the draft articles you have written. How do they fit into the policy organization? Do they duplicate content from other articles (especially What our travel guide articles may be. vs en:What is an article?)?
Also, I hope we can avoid being too strict in defining the types of destination articles we allow. Our urban coverage of the world is quite good, as is our coverage of politically defined national/subnational parks, but our coverage of less populated areas is usually downright bad. The relatively few examples we have of good coverage of non-urban destinations are sorts of rural agglomerations, like mine about Rural Montgomery County or Burmesedays' "bottom-level-region" articles about sections of Bali that don't warrant further subdivision. In short, I think we need to allow ourselves creativity on dealing with the sorts of destinations we haven't quite got down yet. --Peter Talk 18:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that "What is an article?" could be changed to basically specify the classes of article we allow in main space, and maybe change the name so it isn't a question. Then each class of article gets a page of policy and guidance.
Sure, suggest improvements, change the draft, that's what it is there for. I have no personal attachment to the words. I just think a more clear specification of a destination is needed if a destination is to remain the basis of the geographical hierarchy articles. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. I also have some moderate objections to this language: "The basic destination in our travel guide is the city. We use this term to include urban areas ranging from hamlets, through villages, towns and cities of all sizes." I stand to be corrected if there are exceptions, but my understanding is that hamlets and villages are by definition not urban areas. How is this as a substitute?
"The most common article topic in this guide is a population center of some kind, whether it is a city, town, village, hamlet, or a district within a huge city. The key point is that it must have a fixed geographical location, and you must be able enter and move around sufficiently to do whatever you go there to do, sleep there in accommodation provided for travellers, buy necessities at retail outlets, and eat at restaurants, diners, kiosks, or the like."
One of the changes I made was to take out the word "freely." You cannot move around Pyongyang freely, but I wouldn't think of suggesting the Pyongyang article should, therefore, be deleted. Which brings me to this language: "If you have to pay an entrance fee, or access is resticted it is not a city, and different rules apply." How many countries require a fee to enter? Quite a few. How many restrict access? Quite a few. And access to some cities, such as Mecca and Medinah, is restricted not by nationality nor primarily by perceived risk of unauthorized labor or overstaying one's visa, but to adherents to a single religion. Would we lose anything by deleting this sentence? Ikan Kekek 02:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan Kekek, the point of doing this as a group is that other people will spot the mistakes and correct them. I like your option for population centres, but should it not refer in some way to destination, to distinguish it from travel topics? Very good points on access and freedom of movement too. Please make changes to the draft as you think fit. My draft is stimulating constructive suggestions, which is what I was hoping for. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, the article is about a destination. I'm not sure I understand the issue here, though. Travel topics are broader than merely covering one destination. If you feel it's important to use the word "destination" in my proposed new language, I'll insert it. Have a look in a few minutes or later, after I insert new language. Ikan Kekek 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I just edited your draft on Destinations, specifically focusing on what can get its own destination article: [1]. See what you think. Ikan Kekek 03:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I slightly edited this one, too: [2]. I would propose shortening the title of the article to "Types of articles on [Website Name]." I was unable to edit the title. Ikan Kekek 03:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also looks good. You couldnt change the title because it is the file name. I have put a list at the top of the page for proposed name improvements and put your suggestion there. I think it is better than mine, but also think a better one than yours may come up. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

I still have some rather serious concerns that it has yet to be spelled out how these new draft policies will impact (or duplicate?) existing policies and practices. "Destinations" seems to duplicate a lot of "Geographical hierarchy." I also disagree fundamentally that a destination guide should be about "a population centre of some kind," as that would severely limit our ability to deal effectively with thinly populated rural areas. "What our travel guide articles may be" seems to duplicate/alter the wiaa policy. Why not just propose changes to wiaa? That would be a lot less opaque and easier to comment on. --Peter Talk 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an attempt to clarify an ambiguous policy that seemed to be questioned fairly often. I am not strongly attached to them. If there are better solutions, propose, get consensus and make them policy. Your point about thinly populated rural areas is valid, and I had not thought of it. Much as I would like to participate, I may be off line for most of the next two and a half months, so If I dont comment, that's why. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I understand the intent here, though the way it was executed is a little odd. Currently, en:wiaa refers only to destination guides. In truth, though, the answer to the question "What is an article?" is "It could be a destination guide, a travel topic, an itinerary, or a phrasebook." I believe the intent here is to rejigger wiaa into a meta-policy page that explains the four types of articles and provides links to the policy pages that describe each of them. Once we have that, then the content that is currently in wiaa would need to be moved to a "Destinations" article. I don't think "Destinations" duplicates en:Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy any more than wiaa does currently. LtPowers 19:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that sounds fine to me. But, I think the starting point should be wiaa copied exactly, and then changes applied, so it's easier to understand what's changing! --Peter Talk 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. Perhaps even a move would be in order. LtPowers 03:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Back to those bodies of water[edit]

This discussion got complex enough where I simply got lost, so here's some refocusing in short paragraphs, if only for my benefit ;)

I have made some relatively minor changes to Project:What is an article? [3] and more importantly Project:Bodies of water [4] that I hope are both not too radical as to draw controversy, but also significant to bring them in line with our practices and rough consensus here. --Peter Talk 00:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the changes to "Bodies of water." If I'd change anything at all, it would be to mention water sports a little more. I have yet to visit Lake Tahoe, for example, but I understand that people do swim on the lake in the summer and don't merely ski near the lake in the winter.
I have no great objections to "What is an article," either, but I do have a few comments.
"Sleeping isn't all that travelers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections: content regarding what and where to eat, how to have some fun in the evening, stuff to do, things to see, etc. If you can't think of anything to put in these standard sections, it's likely that the article won't meet the criteria established in this policy."
Oddly, I cannot login to the password-protected pages and when I try to create an account, I get the feedback that "Ikan Kekek" is "already in use." So for the time being, it looks like I can't edit such pages, myself. But I do have some suggested edits:
"Sleeping isn't all that travelers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections: content regarding what and where to eat, how to have some fun in the evening, stuff to do, things to see, etc. If you know there really is no place to find food, nothing to do, and nothing to see at a location, it's likely that the article won't meet the criteria established in this policy."
My reason for this slight edit is that someone might start an article with only location info and sleep info, because that's all they know in specifics, not because there actually is nothing to eat, do or see there. Ikan Kekek 03:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion; I forgot what password I was using on this site! I will try making the edits. If you don't like them, please change them back. Ikan Kekek 03:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I made some edits to [5]. Ikan Kekek 03:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Living people[edit]

Discussion moved to voy:Wikivoyage talk:Living persons --Peter Talk 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia#Different subject[edit]

width={{{w}}}px height={{{h}}}px bgcolor={{color

Different subject Links from Wikitravel articles to Wikipedia articles which have a different subject conflict with the Wikitravel:External links guidelines. They are generally considered "secondary sources" and therefore should be avoided.

The traveller may not be on-line when they read a Wikitravel article, so a link to Wikipedia (or anywhere else) won't be of much use to them. Wikitravel articles should be as complete as possible in and of themselves. Essential information about a topic should be included in the Wikitravel article.

To make a link to a Wikipedia article that will appear in-line, put a colon in front of the "WikiPedia", like this: WikiPedia:Article title on Wikipedia. Note that this type of link is not permitted in the Main namespace. }}|


Proposal[edit]

To change the policy on External links to different subjects to allow Wikimedia Foundation project links (probably mostly to Wikipedia, but possibly also to others):

  1. To allow the use of {{further}} or {{see also}} type links to WMF articles which are larger than would be appropriate in the travel guide, provided that a suitable summary is included in the travel guide article.
  2. To allow the use of in-line links to WMF articles or sections where inclusion of encyclopaedic information which is relevant to the travel guide article is inappropriate for direct inclusion.
  3. To develop a policy and guidelines for the scope of WMF links appropriate in the travel guide. This may vary for the different article types.

Motivation[edit]

  1. We are constrained to write articles on travel topics within a fairly narrow band which specifically excludes "attractions". Some attractions are sufficiently complex to justify a major encyclopaedic article on WP, but still do not qualify for a travel guide article. It is a disservice to the traveller not to link to the encyclopaedic article if we can not provide the information in the travel guide. It would not make sense to me to basically rewrite several Wikipedia articles inside a single destination article, or fail to provide the information on a technicality. Links to matters of interest for a destination such as the local ecology/wildlife and geology could be added for the eco-travellers amongst us - something that is missing at present. There are a large variety of attractions that are better described in detail in an encyclopaedia.
  2. This will allow information on living people to be referred to without the need for inline citations.
  3. We are not in competition with Wikipedia, Some material of value to the traveller is best presented in an encyclopaedic format, and this does not belong in the travel guide. Similarly there are articles on Wikipedia which is constantly being challenged for original research, which is travel related and should logically be transferred to the new travel site. A greater freedom to link between the projects will be useful to the traveller, helpful to the travel guide writer, and foster a spirit of co-operation between the projects. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

London Westminster travel guide attractions:

London Bloomsbury travel guide attractions:

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay local geology:

Scuba diving Stay healthy:

Discussion[edit]

I think that links to Wikipedia articles are a good idea, but they should generally go to the left column. It has a lot of space and clearly distinguishes between the core travel content and auxiliary information. For example, we could place "See also" under all other toolbars, so that it does not conceal more important stuff.

It is tempting, though, to allow in-line Wikipedia links in the Understand section, where less known historical characters or geographical terms may be used. Personally, I would suggest to try this and enforce the policy in case excessive links to Wikipedia render our texts incomprehensible. Atsirlin 15:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement about the left-column links to Wikipedia. The problem Peter is trying to solve, though, is what to do with valuable links to Wikipedia topics that are relevant only to a small section of one of our pages. Our left-column links apply to entire articles. LtPowers 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that Peter has a good idea. The example he gives of Westminster Abbey is good - the Westminster travel guide has a single paragraph on the Abbey, the Wikipedia article has several pages of history - the sort of stuff that would be good to read before visiting. In this case the Abbey's website also gives the history, but with many attractions this is not the case. I think that links to Wikipedia should be allowed for places in See and Do, but should come after the link to the primary website. However we do risk the danger of too many links being added - I don't want to see every hotel entry linking to the Wikipedia entry for the hotel chain. So Wikipedia articles should only be linked to when they are specific to the place in the travel guide. We may also want to restrict the links to Wikipedia articles that are more than a couple of paragraphs long and are more than 3 months old, to stop Wikipedia articles being created just to be linked to.AlasdairW 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I was originally thinking that no links to about businesses should be allowed, but in some cases they might be useful to the traveller. Almost always not, but there should be a policy which describes what we want rather than shading around it by describing what we don't want. That way it is easier to understand, and less likely to lead to strife. Usefulness to the traveller must be the touchstone. Usefulness to an industry or business does not even reach the starting blocks. Starting from that, how do we word a policy?
For a start, the linked article (or section) must have
a) reliable, relevant information related to the subject where the link is
b) clearly useful to the traveller
c) too much to put in the travel guide.
d) The information does not have to be NPOV, but must be fair and must not be business POV.
e) Where the link is to a section, the rest of the article must not be or include a significant amount of material that can be construed to be POV of a business which is likely to profit by the exposure. (this one needs work) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
[unindent] Hold it, I don't get this: "I was originally thinking that no links to businesses should be allowed." Links to business sites are fine when they're primary links, such as a link to a hotel's website in a "Sleep" listing for that hotel. Where else are you contemplating a business link? Ikan Kekek 02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek, I am referring to WP links here. No conflict with primary link policy as exists. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call links to Wikipedia "links to businesses." Ikan Kekek 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You are quite correct. I should have written "links about businesses", which is what I meant. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I get it now, and we are in full agreement. Wikipedia links or other inter-wiki links should be about "See" or "Do" attractions for which primary links are insufficient, for instance, and some aspects of history that could be mentioned in "Understand." Wikipedia links about "Sleep," "Eat," and "Drink" links that are not also important attractions per se (such as the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec and the Raffles in Singapore), or indeed such links to "Do" listings that are mainly commercial (e.g., tours) should be expressly prohibited. The only tricky (though doable) part would be phrasing. Ikan Kekek 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. The policy should probably also include information on when a link is appropriate -- e.g., attractions and Understand sections, but like AlasdairW said above, I don't want to see links to hotel chains.
One question too -- are we only considering links to Wikipedia for this policy? I'm not sure since points a) - e) seem very general. - Shaund 15:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of any appropriate Wikimedia Foundation project in general, but Wikipedia in specific, as I can't think of any examples for other WMF projects offhand. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I still see a lot more harm than good to in-article links to WP. I love WP and hope that people do look for information there about subjects that they want to research, but I'm also pretty confident that they don't need much more help to find it! On the other hand, I find that non-tech-savvy folks have a tremendous amount of difficulty differentiating our project from Wikipedia, both when I show them the site, and when I try to explain in words what it is. (It shouldn't be too hard: "what Wikipedia is to encyclopedias, Wikivoyage is to travel guides," but somehow that needs repeating a dozen times.) Linking to WP articles just like we link to our own would further muddle things for people who are discovering what we are about.
My second worry is just that linking topics can encourage laziness. To really provide a value added service to mankind, we can't ride on the coattails of our bigger, older cousin—that's why we also disallow copy-pasting any significant amount of text from WP, despite it being OK per the copyleft—we need to encourage people to write. And to write for our purposes, which drive us to a significantly different format. --Peter Talk 18:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
We will be part of the WMF. It seems churlish to shun them.
There are things we can do on WP which we can't do on the free travel guide and vice versa that are complimentary. If we link directly following an agreed policy, the user gets directly to the place the travel guide writer identifies as appropriate. If we can make the link an open in new tab/window, then the user gets back to the travel guide where they left without losing their place. Overall a more user friendly system to my mind. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Who's shunning anyone? Even on WT, we gave a prominent left-column link to Wikipedia. Like Peter, I'm not clear on why this is needed. I guess I'd like to see a mockup of what an article would look like with these links to Wikipedia. LtPowers 20:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a special policy topic (read:separate page from external links policy) related to in-line links to other Wikimedia projects. I don't have much to add other than to say that links to WP are very useful in cases like Westminster Abbey above. An example of linking to a WM project other than Wikipedia would be linking to appropriate books (per our read/books policy & old enough to not be under copyright) on Wikisource. Examples I could think of would be The Travels of Marco Polo for China & Asia pages [6], Heart of Darkness for the DRC [7]. Additionally, there may be a few books on wikibooks that could be useful to an article, mainly history and languages (for phrasebook pages). I'm not sure of the advantages of linking to history books on wikibooks (only European, NZ, & US history books are complete) vs. articles on wikipedia, but both Wikibooks and Wikisource content can be downloaded as a PDF to take on a Kindle, iPad, or other e-reader (just expand the print/export options in the left colummn)!! Very useful for travelers who use those devices. In fact I think that would be a good feature for Wikivoyage to add! I'm not 100% sure about this, but a link to Commons (in left column, not in-line) would be useful to browse photos/media for a destination. This wouldn't for for all destinations (like "United States"), but for off-the-beaten-path ones this could be useful. It would be like heading over to Flickr and searching for "Cape Town" or "Kakadu National Park" and doing some armchair traveling/fantasizing (:D). AHeneen 21:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with AHeneen. It makes much more sense to me to interlink different Wikimedia sites as appropriate, rather than discouraging links, and it's collegial toward what will be our sister sites. It's of course true that there are places where there is no WiFi and no cell phone signal, where links won't be accessible, and therefore, making all articles worth printing verbatim remains an important goal for the travel guide. However, in many, many places, and increasingly, websites will be accessible to travelers, and well-chosen links do not have to be mere signs of laziness, but instead, excellent citations/places to read more. I believe online referencing and links are the wave of the future, and that the move to Wikimedia should provide an impetus for an intelligent overhaul of our links policy. Ikan Kekek 02:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the other WMF projects also do not have in-article links to articles on other WMF projects too—links are kept at the bottom external links section. I'm pretty sure the reason for that is simply that it's confusing. Readers are used to navigating a single wiki via wikilinks, and are not expecting to be bounced around to other sites. --Peter Talk 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Occasionally, interwiki links to Wiktionary are found in Wikipedia mainspace prose, but I believe WP prefers to avoid them where possible. Commons very frequently links to en:wikipedia in image descriptions. But you're right that interwiki links are rare outside of the external links section and talk pages. LtPowers 15:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me then suggest a clarifying solution: Footnotes. Inter-wiki links should be footnotes, rather than inline links. But the fact that other wikis aren't using very many inter-wiki links within articles (whether inline or as footnotes) doesn't mean we shouldn't. We can be the pioneers. After all, aren't we the travel wiki? :-) Ikan Kekek 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, links to Wiktionary are entirely acceptable and not discouraged in MP main space, as there are large numbers of words used which need definition but are not appropriate for a full article. A new WP policy for linking to the travel guide will have to be developed when the site is up, and it would be helpful to have our side in order.
Footnotes could be an effective way of handling inter-WMF links, and possibly other links. How do you propose linking from text to the footnotes? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I would propose that footnotes work the same way they do in Wikipedia: You click the footnote, it takes you to a footnote section at the bottom of the page, and then you can click the inter-wiki link from there. So it would be a section at the bottom of the page, just one linked directly from the body of the page. Ikan Kekek 18:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be acceptable to me, but I am open to other suggestions. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to other suggestions, too. Ikan Kekek 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes might be a good idea in some cases. I think the link to the article covering the same destination on Wikipedia should be in the column at left (just like at WT). A link to the category on Wikimedia Commons could also go in the left column. One option would be to use a different color for links to other wikis. This would be hard to do as I can't really think of colors that would go well without being too colorful/flashy and go well with blue. Using different shades of blue might not be enough for readers that aren't paying much attention, don't perceive subtle differences in color well (like elderly) or when accessing WV on a device with low color contrast (like a cheap cell phone or ereader) or in bright sunlight. Another option would be to put small images (like the email envelope or phone # phone on WT listings) of the Wikipedia, etc. logos next to the link. My preferred option for

Note: I'll probably move this to a different page later (like new tech features or new styling) since the following kind of goes off on a tangent. But my preferred method is part of changes to some of the templates we use, where listing templates would add the option to link to a Wikipedia page. This would mainly apply to the see/do sections. I think the templates for see/do/eat/sleep could get a makeover to make them look sleeker (if all the info is present, this could be a couple lines of text on a computer, much worse on a smartphone) by using images and hiding some of the information from being displayed. Let me give an example before explaining. For Westminster Abbey, the listing on WT Westminster begins ([6]=website):

  • Westminster Abbey, (tube: Westminster), ☎ +44 20 7654 4900 (info@westminster-abbey.org [email envelope], fax: +44 20 7654 4894), [6]

My idea would be for a listing that would look like this:

  • Westminster Abby ([tube] Westminster, [Bus] ?, [Wikipedia], [Website], [phone], [email envelope], address [Open Street Maps])

In this format, the brackets would all be small images: Tube logo, a bus symbol, Wikipedia's "W" logo, some sort of symbol that would be used for official websites(replacing the [1] arrow only in templated listings, not elsewhere in article), the (existing) phone symbol, the e-mail envelope, & OpenStreetMap logo. The only text that would show is the mass transit stop & address. When you click the phone or email images the phone #/email address would be displayed to the right of the image. The info would also be displayed by hovering the mouse over the image (on computers). It would be really great for our site's functionality if clicking on those images when using a device like a smartphone (either through the "mobile" site or an official app) would bring up a small overlaying window with the phone number (or email) and ask "Call [ph. #]?" or "Email [email address]". The Wikipedia logo would serve as a link to the corresponding WP page...opening in a new tab on a computer. On a smartphone/tablet, this would bring up a prompt (Visit [name] on Wikipedia? "Go" "Cancel") just in case it is pressed accidentally (due to charges/limits for data service on mobile networks)and then bring it up in a new window. There would be different mass transit icons for bus, (light) rail, & metro/subway. In some locations, the icons would be changed to reflect those of the official mass transit lines...like for Westminster Abbey, in London, the Tube...but ONLY if those images are not protected by copyright or otherwise permitted to be used freely (I think this was done with some of the routebox navigation). The bracketed number followed by an arrow is rather dull and, for those who might not be used to wikis, not intuitive that this means a website. So, a new website icon could be created for use in listing templates (it wouldn't be used elsewhere on the page). Clicking this would open the website in a new window (smartphone/tablet users might be prompted "Visit [website url]?" "Go" "Cancel"...again, to prevent accidental clicks). Finally the address could be displayed a combination of description ("Corner of 1st Avenue and Main Street"), physical address (which could be hidden by an image [1234] or by "Address" and displayed by clicking or hovering over it), and coordinates (hidden under a logo...maybe use same as WP...and displayed when clicking/hovering on it, see WP WikiProject Geographical Coordinates for ideas on incorporating into WV). The address/coordinates can be used to link to a mapping service/website via an image/logo (OpenStreetMaps may be best, because of licensing, when compared to commercial services) on smartphones/tablets, clicking on the image would prompt the choice of service ("OpenStreetMaps" + what the device uses...handled on the phone OS side, like if you have two programs doing the same thing on an Android device, you click an address and a window pops up for you to choose which to use...this wouldn't be for WV to know/link to other services). If a part of information is not provided in the listing, then the icon is not displayed (eg. no phone #, no phone icon shown).

To put this in perspective, the current WT attractions listing template is:

  • <see name="" alt="" address="" directions="" phone="" email="" fax="" url="" hours="" price=""></see>

A new template might look like this:

  • * <see name="" alt="" bus="" metro="" lightrail="" Wikipedia="" url="" phone="" email="" address="" directions="" coordinates="" hours="" price=""></see>

For offline electronic use (which is a topic that needs to be brought up elsewhere), the information would be fully displayed except websites which can get messy when longer than http://website.com (could be "Link" underlined). Wikibooks & Wikisource allows pages to be downloaded as a PDF (to view on computer/tablet/phone or loaded on e-reader), which is something WV should get when we move to WMF, in which case websites would need to be displayed in case printed or needed to enter in an internet cafe. We could also see if WV could get an official phone/tablet app some developer could volunteer to create that could keep the same formatting as the online website, but allow downloads for offline use.

Outside of templated listings, there's only a couple other common places where inter-wiki links would be used/appropriate. Since regional/country-level pages don't use listing, but rather paragraphs of text, WP pages could be linked by adding a template after the name of an attraction/etc. So in the middle of a paragraph you would see "Westminster Abbey [W]" (where W is the Wikipedia "W" logo) which would be done by typing "Westminster Abbey {{Wikipedia:Westminster Abbey}}" a template that could be added to the toolbox you see when editing. Links to other WMF wikis could be done similarly. AHeneen 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you have given this some thought. I like your suggestions for the see/do templates, and suggest that the tourist information "i" icon may be the one for the url to the official website.
Colours can be problematic for accessability reasons, I have been running into this problem on WP.
Links in the left column can only be generic to the whole topic. There would be no way to indicate that the link is specific to a particular detail. In-line or footnotes can do this, as there is an indication of relevance inherent in the placing of the link in the text. Ideally a plain link would be internal to the travel guide. External links outside of WMF would generally not be allowed in the body text. Links to WP are the most likely to be wanted. They could be handled as footnotes with the usual superscript number in square brackets, and information in the references section at the end of the article which is standard WP procedure and the software and templates already exist, or alternatively a [WP] indication that the link is to WP. This has the advantage that attempted links to external sites would be more obvious.
I also like the idea of a dialog box to check that the user wants to open a new site, and suggest that it should default to new tab or new window so you can find your way back easily, by closing the new tab/window. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I also like the ideas for the See/Do templates and added usability for mobile phones. We already have lat and long tags (which are rarely used) so maybe those could help with the coordinates? I think I'd also prefer to display the phone number along with the address and name... it still seems pretty useful to me but I might be old-fashioned in this. As long as the information prints, I'll be happy.
I'm still not convinced about footnotes or in-line citations in Understand (or similar sections) though. Both seem (to me) to be heading down the path of verifying specific facts in our articles. Could we accomplish a similar thing by having a See also: [[Wikipedia article name]] for further information at the top of the section/sub-section (similar to the way WP calls out Main articles)? -Shaund 03:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. And I totally agree with you on phone numbers. It's very important to list them. Ikan Kekek 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Great proposal,AHeneenand elegantly worked out in detail. 100% support! --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I also agree. However, I'd also like a 'pier' option besides metro, lightrail and bus (for cities like Bangkok and Venice, which have extensive inner-city boat travel). Also, addresses and phone numbers should obviously stay. --Globe-trotter 14:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried that allowing in-article links to other WMF projects could lead to increased difficulty in managing the influx of brand-new WP contributors we are likely to get after moving to the WMF, and in helping them adjust to a different way of working on content. A predictable argument would be "well, if you can link the understand section to WP links, why can't you link to other external references, which might be better?" More to my main point, though, is that we are a far smaller project, and need to be able to stand on our own two feet. I think there may be ways to improve interproject navigation that doesn't entail extra in-article external links. --Peter Talk 18:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I think WP editors are much like WT/WV editors. Some are able to understand policies and consensus, others have to have the concept bludgeoned into their tiny brains. I think the potential gains outweigh the risk, which, though real, is much the same as touts, which we deal with all the time. The vast majority of Wikipedians are reasonable, civil, and constructive, and will not be a problem. They are able to recognise that they are expected to follow the local policies and that WP procedures dont apply everywhere. There will be some misunderstanding, a bit of quibbling, some efforts to change consensus, and a few persistant pests who will eventually be blocked. Then business as usual, (apart from the expected benifits of no IB involvement and better support). The answer to the predicted argument proposed above is simple: Wikimedia projects are all part of a single foundation, so we work together and support each other. Other external references are not. I think most Wikipedians will understand the point. I think we will have more trouble with non-WMF editors on this point, but still don't think it will be unmanageable.
  • Can you explain in more detail the other ways to improve interproject navigation without in-article links? It sounds like a very nice concept, but I have no idea of how it may be done, so can't comment on whether it would do what we are looking for.
  • I think you overestimate the numbers of Wikipedians flooding in. I hope I am wrong, because on average they should be more productive than the flood of touts and spammers we usually have to deal with, and which, no doubt, will follow us to WMF. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't link to WP in-article. It just adds to confusion, as readers will expect official links to a business or sight. Having two links (both to the sight official site and to WP) would be confusing, and contributors would just dump links to WP instead of adding relevant information about sights to Wikivoyage. --Globe-trotter 14:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions[edit]

Resolving shared/general policies[edit]

Most of our policies are language version-specific, but we do have some Shared policies that could possibly conflict with Wikivoyage's General policies? Off the top of my head, I think there are some differences in how new language versions are proposed, for example. I think we should identify any conflicts and address them. I'll look around, but I suspect that Wikivoyage veterans will be more familiar with points of conflict. --Peter Talk 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's start a list of things to resolve:

Interest in starting a new language version/Language version policy[edit]

On Wikitravel, we used separate pages of language expeditions for starting a new language version. Wikivoyage just has one page for all proposals. We could use the Interest in a new language page for proposing importing languages, since it only needs a list of support votes. We can use the separate Expedition pages for proposing a new language version from scratch, since these are longer and have more discussion. sumone10154(talk) 00:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


  • Also, Wikitravel required only 3 supports for a new version, but Wikivoyage requires 5. In my opinion, 3 should be enough for importing a language version that only needs patrolling, but maybe we should require 5 for new versions created from scratch. sumone10154(talk) 00:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence of a correlation between number of supporters for starting a lew language version and the development and long term success of the version? If not, both numbers look reasonable and I have no problem with accepting either. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that we should adopt the WV policy because: i) we are still at WikiVoyage; ii) the higher threshold saves us from the creation of unnecessary language versions. The recent discussion about the import showed that 5 out of 22 WT versions are completely dead, many others are moribund, while only 5 or 6 still have a group of own active contributors beyond the :en admins. I also think that the improvement of :en is more important than splitting into many different languages that will never reach similar status. Unfortunately, our experience at :ru questions the idea "let locals contribute in their own language for the sake of future English translations". Presently, I feel that the effort should be focused on :en, at least in the short term. Atsirlin 10:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to drop the extra layers of red tape that we have had on the old Shared and to simply adopt the process we used most recently on Wikivoyage. For now five still seems like a reasonable number to me. Once we move to the WMF, I would support raising that bar, if only to encourage more contributors to feel that they have a real stake in the work, and because our pool of potential contributors will likely become larger than it has been. --Peter Talk 18:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No legal threats[edit]

Moved to Voy:Wikivoyage talk:No real world threats

Chill-out room or "The Consulate"?[edit]

To help mitigate unnecessary future legal expenses and ructions, I suggest having a specific page exempted from this proposed No_real_world_threats policy where aggrieved parties can be directed to voice their concerns before they lose their cool/temper.
For someone feeling aggrieved (and especially when they may be new to our project) it doesn't necessarily pacify them if they are abruptly told "don't make threats!" More constructive to point them to a place where concerns can be ventilated and (hopefully) defused. --W. Frank 22:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. On Wikipedia (and in this mostly copy-pasted policy) the protocol is to allow users blocked for this reason to still edit their user talk page (and, actually, that's just how mediawiki works—blocked users can still edit their user talk page). Are you proposing having a different type of mediation page? That might make sense, although we should probably wait for a problem to arise before creating it? --Peter Talk 23:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be good if we could have a kind of "chill-out" room ready and waiting so that we don't have to move to the stage of blocking a (self)righteous user. It may be that we never have to use it but it would be good to have the "chill-out" room/page ready and on the watchlist of those of our members with good conciliatory and diplomatic skills.
My viewpoint is that of someone that has seen some good editors (and, more importantly, their contributions) lost (sometimes permanently) to Wikipedia - often for want of a few friendly and conciliatory words. I have several fire extinguishers ready (and a rope ladder) in my flat in Glasgow - even though I've never had to use them, Peter. --W. Frank 23:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi W. Frank, Are you proposing that on the chill out page people will be allowed to threaten each other? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 September 2012.
Not exactly, Peter (Southwood).
Incidentally, please call me "Frank" - I've modified my signature to make that more obvious...
Ultimately, the same rules (and sanctions for breaching them) would apply there too. But there would be an understanding that folks directed there would be handled sympathetically and patiently and with the utmost good faith assumed (and, possibly, naivety) in a more educational environment. A bit like the way a British "Bobby" handles an annoying but realistically harmless drunk uttering hyperbolic death threats, I suppose. That's why it's important that the chill out page is on the watchlist of our more mellow and far-sighted members. --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I get the picture, In principle a good idea, and possibly more likely to work here than on WP, where conflict resolution is a big problem at times. I think a different name is needed, that suggests to the person with the grievance that they will get a fair deal. Since this is a travel guide, maybe "The Consulate", or "The Embassy", would suggest a place where your problems would be handled by someone reasonably sympathetic and knowledgeable, and at the same time provide a little suggestion that civilised behaviour would be appropriate. To stretch the metaphor, volunteers for this could be called the diplomatic corps... • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I love the name, Peter!
I'd go for "The Consulate".
Much as I'd love to finally be a member of the corps diplomatique I fear I might be too lenient - after all I have been blocked on Wikipedia (En) for more than four years now (and with no opportunity to appeal the block since I was instantly blocked from even editing my own User/Talk page and IP blocked for good measure by an admin that does not answer my emails) - weak grin through clenched teeth. --W. Franke-mailtalk 22:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"The Consulate" sounds good, but doesn't the consulate serve to help with tasks other than diplomatic relations & disputes...tasks like visas, passports, & aiding citizens in trouble like medical evacuations, legal aid to imprisoned citizens, etc? I don't see how that relates to legal threats. I've looked for what an appropriate term in the diplomatic world is called. The best I could find is "mediation"...how does "Mediation Room" sound? Other related terms that don't sound as good IMO are "Peace negotiations", "The peace conference", or "Treaty room". AHeneen 07:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
All your suggestions are semantically more accurate, and a real life consulate does all those things as far as I know, but the point here is to give an impression to the user that the problem is being taken seriously, and some formality and civil behaviour is expected, with an option of getting tossed out on your butt by the marines for uncouth behaviour. Mediation room is a bit bland. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my feelings, Peter.
(Although we will need to bear in mind, especially after we move to WMF, that many who use our Travel Guide will not have English as a mother tongue and the nuances may be lost on them)
"The Consulate" as the name of this special article page is distinctive and not as po-faced as Mediation room or potentially dated as Chill-out Room W. Franke-mailtalk 08:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Most non-English home language contributors will have a reasonable idea of what a consulate is about if they have done any foreign travelling. (even if they haven't done any foreign travelling the concept of a consulate may be more familiar than mediation) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW are you in one of the old sandstone buildings? I liked Glasgow - lived there for nearly a year, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

--W. Franke-mailtalk 22:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, I've lived for more than 14 years now in a crumbling tenement built in 1857 (next door to Strathclyde Police HQ). I was born in Dresden in the last years of the war, though.

Non-free content[edit]

WMF Migration/New policies/Non-free content

Discussion swept to Talk:WMF_Migration/New_policies/Non-free_content

Cross-identification of accounts[edit]

Here's another: WMF Migration/New policies/Cross-identification of accounts.

Note that this is way more strict than what we have done in the past to cross-identify across language versions and Shared—in the past we have always just assumed good faith and dealt with complaints as they arose. No complaint ever arose. --Peter Talk 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks adequate and workable for identification. Also fairly clear. Nice work. Should there be an explanation of what record should be kept, and where, or is that inherent in the system? If so should that be explained? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I have a dry run up at WMF Migration/New policies/Cross-identification of accounts/Verify. While the relevant diffs are recorded there, we don't have control over what happens on other sites, and those links could go bad. For emails, I presume we shouldn't be making those public to protect users' personal information. Basically, responsibility falls on the admin who does the verifying. --Peter Talk 05:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Avoid long lists[edit]

The 7±2 rule comes up from time to time in discussion, but we don't actually have a policy about it -- it's referenced in Geographical hierarchy and Sleep listings, but not elsewhere. I'm pretty sure it applies beyond those two areas so I've taken a stab at consolidating it into one location. Let me know if I've captured everything / left stuff out / missed the point.

Draft policy: Avoid long lists

Cheers -Shaund 05:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to me. As far as I can tell, a good summation of existing policy and consensus. If no-one objects I think it can be moved into project space and linked in the policy outline and anywhere else that is relevant. Just one point I think you have missed: The 7±2 rule applies to destination articles, not necessarily to itineraries, phrasebooks (particularly!) and travel topics, where different rules may be more appropriate. I think this should be mentioned in the lead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we should adequately emphasise (perhaps even breaching our MoS -shock! horror! - by using red or green font) that Common sense should always apply (and the the travellers viewpoint comes first) rather than a zealot's application of this rule! --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments and changes! -Shaund 14:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Very good work! --Globe-trotter 14:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
We should stay off the red and green for accessibility reasons. I think they override the personal css settings, making it difficult for visually impaired to read. (Correct me if I am wrong on this. I get mixed up in these discussions on WP and only remember part of the explanation) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent point about deprecated HTML and accessibility. There are approved methods of using CSS for this, though: http://www.w3.org/community/cssacc/ W. Franke-mailtalk 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Our current MoS is very restrictive about article style in the interests of consistency, and as far as I know our recommended style is good for accessibility. Perhaps we should add a note somewhere that policy changes should take accessibilty into account. Maybe in The traveller comes first. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The policy is now live in Wikivoyage namespace and linked to the MoS. I copied this discussion over to the Talk page for reference. -Shaund 03:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Distinguish ourselves from WT[edit]

I propose that we slightly distinguish ourselves from WT by being less USA-centric.

Our primary rule is "The traveller comes first", so our default language for article creation should remain USA English since, now that many Chinese are learning that particular variety of English, it may have already achieved a plurality of use amongst the approximately 2.1 billion potential travellers in the world that have a working knowledge of English.

However, I believe that same primary rule means we should, by default, adopt the 24 hour clock in articles (rather than the AM PM system).

Even travellers from the USA will have to come to terms with the 24 hour clock system when they consult airline timetables in China, railway schedules in Malaysia and restaurant opening hours in Germany so we do them no disservice to be precise in our travel guide.

I believe that same primary rule of tcf also means that we should use post codes for those civilised countries such as Canada and Wales where they provide a useful degree of precision.

(Go to Google Maps and enter G2 4NB to see how useful post codes can be in some countries). W. Franke-mailtalk 14:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the optional inclusion of post codes where they are useful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Time should be in the system used in the country the article is about. If both systems are common in the country, perhaps we should standardise on 24 hr for that country as it is just a little clearer. I would consider arguments for a dual system, but think it would be a bit cluttered and unneccessary. It is not a difficult conversion - if you can't deal with am/pm vs 24 hr, you should probably stay home. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's try and have this discussion at the policy talk page [8]. As you'll see there, the previous discussions led us to decide which format to use based on what the traveler should expect to see. That wasn't always the case, so there are a lot of AM/PM remnants in countries where it probably should be 24:00. --Peter Talk 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)