Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub

Welcome to the pub

Shortcuts:
WV:Pub
WV:TP

The travellers' pub is for general discussion on Wikivoyage, and 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 Ongoing vandalism.
• If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the MediaWiki software, please post that on Phabricator instead.
• If you want to celebrate a significant contribution to Wikivoyage by yourself or others, hold a party at Celebrate a contribution.
• Discuss issues related to more than one language version of Wikivoyage in the Wikivoyage Lounge on Meta.
• Anything that is Nigeria-related is now meant to go in the Nigeria café instead. Anything that is Kosovo or Albania related is now meant to go in the Kosovo and Albania café instead. This includes announcements, initiatives, celebrations, and issues with certain articles.

You can review old Pub discussions in the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archives.

Pull up a chair and join in the conversation!

Click here to start a new thread

Does WV need a policy for descriptions of living people?

Wikivoyage is a travel guide and not intended to be a collection of biographies. Still, travel topics and itineraries might mention important individuals, such as explorers, artists, monarchs, and politicians. Wikivoyage:What is an article? discourages from creating an article for a living celebrity, as these are more difficult to finish than articles for Christopher Columbus, Frank Lloyd Wright or Astrid Lindgren. Articles such as Presidents of the United States and Monarchy of the United Kingdom describe living individuals who have not concluded their careers, and they are certainly controversial. When writing Jewish Stockholm tour, Stockholm environmentalist tour and Nordic monarchies, a couple of famous living people came to mind, but I found it advisable to mention them as briefly as possible. Which general principles should we follow? /Yvwv (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like foundation:BLP encourages us to have a formal policy, even if there isn't much to say. Project:Don't be evil, maybe?

We already have Wikivoyage:Photographs of identifiable people and Wikivoyage:Image policy#People in photos, which discourage photos of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a policy for the same reason. //shb (t | c | m) 11:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is largely not that relevant to a travel guide, but it is actually common to have "Maps of the Stars" or tours of celebrity homes in the Los Angeles region, which to me is completely crazy and behavior that should not be encouraged. Considering Whatamidoing's point about the WMF encouraging this kind of documentation, I think having a guideline/policy is wise. Good thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I would absolutely oppose any article for a tour that takes people to the homes of celebrities who would rather be private in their own homes. If this kind of tour existed in New York, New Yorkers would be up in arms about it and pressing the City Council to pass a law about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The page and section about photos say very little, mostly discouraging photos of yourself, which isn't what this is about. says a lot more and should probably be followed also regarding locally uploaded pictures. None of those three says anything about text about people (other than that captions shouldn't be defamatory).

I think we probably shouldn't write a policy unless there are real issues. We have no reason to write about most people, and it seems common sense, like what Yvwv showed above, works reasonably well. Writing a policy opens up for loopholes and wikilawyering.

–LPfi (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if our "BLP policy" could be a section in our existing Wikivoyage:Be fair policy. Basically, a few principles about avoiding mentioning individuals, and especially avoiding saying anything contentious or unfairly invading their privacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In the past I have opposed a suggestion to create an itinerary based on the travels of a living individual.

A more common situation is where a listing mentions something about the people that work in the hotel or restaurant. "Friendly owners" or "poor service from the waiters" is ok, but referring to staff by name needs more care. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

It's surely OK when the name of the Chef de Cuisine or Pastry Chef are printed on menus or are well-known chefs the restaurant promotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Can an artist's personal life be separated from their work? At least, death is useful to conclude a life story. As Georg Riedel past away one year ago, he deserves to be described in the Jewish Stockholm tour. Aleksander Wolodarski is another person appropriate to mention, but as he is well and alive (and to some degree a divisive character in Swedish architecture) the description of him in the same article is very brief. The Harry Potter tourism barely mentions the author, and that might be good as it is. /Yvwv (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to note the name of a celebrity chef ("Thomas Keller's restaurant, The French Laundry"), or even a relatively public non-celebrity ("The restaurant owner, Mary Smith, is also the long-time mayor of this small town" or "Olly Owner is happy to pack a picnic upon request").

However, as an extension of Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews, we don't really want "Chris Celebrity is pretentious and their restaurant is overpriced" or "Wendy Waitress is unfriendly and slow". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we should avoid "Wendy Waitress is unfriendly", but "Some staff are unfriendly" is ok. It is important to report negative aspects of a place if either it is balanced by "excellent cooking and wonderful bread" or it is the only place in town. It becomes more difficult with one person businesses. AlasdairW (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage should not be interested in people: that is the province of Wikipedia. Wikivoyage is however interested in places associated with people and to this end should be cautious about their privacy. If however the individual concerned invites members of the public to their homes or businesses (for example Donald Trump has a website for Mar-a-Lago) then it is no longer Wikivoyage's role to protect his privacy: if he publicises his home, then it is incumbent on him to look after his own privacy. In contrast, Joe Biden does not appear to advertise his home, so neither should Wikivoyage (even if a search on the internet will reveal Joe Biden's properties).Martinvl (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Does something like this feel about right?

----

As a general rule, Wikivoyage is interested in places, not people. Occasionally, providing a fair description will involve mentioning a specific person. In such cases, these principles apply to protect living people:

• Avoid contentious matter about living people to the maximum extent possible, to show respect for human dignity and personal privacy. Publishing personal information that is tangential to the needs of the article, trivial, ephemeral, or constitutes a negative review is unfair. For example, if a restaurant owner promotes dubious beliefs to customers, then omit the listing completely rather than writing about the owner's beliefs.
• Avoid whole articles focused on living people, such as an itinerary to see the private homes of celebrities. It is fair to have an itinerary focused on Taylor Swift's concert tours; it is not fair to have an article focused on her homes.
• Individual listings that name a living public figure are acceptable so long as the content is not contentious. However, you should avoid naming living people when a general description is adequate. For example, write "The owner is happy to talk about local history" instead of "Harry Historian, the owner, is happy to talk about local history", even though you would name the celebrity chef Thomas Keller as the owner of the restaurant The French Laundry.

----

What should be changed, added, omitted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for offering a rough draft! The one part that sticks out to me as problematic is the part about "dubious beliefs," which gives an opening to intolerant atheists to complain about a bismillah or cross in a restaurant. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about political beliefs, and specifically about an anti-masking restaurant I read about during the pandemic, but you're right: That needs to be re-worded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Still a good start, I'd say. //shb (t | c | m) 12:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that businesses should be removed because of beliefs of the owner or personnel; that the owner touts antivacc or flat-earth theories might be entertaining rather than a reason to avoid them. One might tell that they might raise controversial topics. For dangerous practices, such as not using masks when needed, that would be treated like them using contaminated water or whatever. Yes, sometimes that warrants removing the listing in line with no bad reviews, but that has little to do with privacy.

For a Finnish business, it was suggested that the listings be removed because of bigotry, in effect a boycott by Wikivoyage. I am not sure about to what extent to do that, but I assume we might tell something about the owner in that case, if we leave the choice whether to use their services to our readers. I would oppose individual editors removing listings because of views that don't conform with their own, but they may of course choose not to add them.

–LPfi (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there might be a spectrum of issues, but some types of (e.g.,) bigotry are not compatible with Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first. Inclusion constitutes a recommendation, at least when there are other alternatives. If we list a restaurant, it should be because travellers are welcome. If the restaurant's listing would need to have a disclaimer along the lines of "BTW, only white people are allowed to eat here" or "People whom the owner thinks look Jewish/Muslim/Black/gay/trans will be refused service", then that restaurant shouldn't be included in Wikivoyage at all. Listed restaurants should normally be open to all of the general public.

On the other end of the spectrum, if the owner cheerfully accepts all customers, but he privately belongs to a racist organization, then that's not really relevant to the travellers' experience, so we needn't mention that. Travellers who want to patronize only businesses owned by people who share the same politics/religion/race/sexual orientation should look elsewhere for that information.

Somewhere in the middle is factual information that travellers may interpret in opposite ways. For example, if a given deli in New York City is kosher, it'd be worth noting that in the description. Most travellers won't care. Some travellers will prefer it (either for religious reasons or because kosher meat is considered more ethical than conventional meat). Some travellers will reject it. But knowing that it might appeal (or not) to different travellers is not the same as different travellers not being allowed to eat at the deli. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I see no problem in describing a restaurant in terms of the religious beliefs that it portrays provided that it is done in a neutral manner - for example , "The XYZ resaurant is a kosher/halal/vegetarian establishment". The reader can then make up their ow mind about patronising the establishment - after all Wikivoyage has many articles about various places of worship. Martinvl (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the general point is that we want "XYZ is a kosher/halal/vegetarian restaurant" but not "The owner of XYZ is a Jew/Muslim/vegetarian person". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree here. //shb (t | c | m) 06:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Suggested rewrite of the first point (Changes in bold):

"Avoid contentious matter about living people to the maximum extent possible, to show respect for human dignity and personal privacy. Publishing personal information that is tangential to the needs of the article, trivial, ephemeral, or constitutes a negative review is unfair. For example, if a restaurant owner promotes particular beliefs to customers, then omit the listing completely rather than writing about the owner's beliefs. If however the establishment itself caters for certain beliefs and/or ethics, it is reasonable, or maybe even desireable, to add those beliefs/ethics to the description in a neutral manner - such as including the words "kosher/halal/vegetarian" to the establishment's description." Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest that the second point be extended as follows (additions in bold):

Avoid whole articles focused on living people, such as an itinerary to see the private homes of celebrities. It is fair to have an itinerary focused on Taylor Swift's concert tours; it is not fair to have an article focused on her homes. However, if the celebrity concerend advertises their home to the general public (for example Mar-a-Lago, home of Donald Trump or Blenheim Palace, home of the Duke of Marlborough) , then it is perfectly in order to mention the home in an article and ideally to include a web address the description or article.

Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I think all this discussion of beliefs and politics is bad and not something about which we want policies. Also, bad reviews are by no means inherently unfair, and I'm mystified by how anyone could think that's the case; it's just that Wikivoyage chooses with some exceptions to simply refrain from listing businesses, rather than stating that they are bad. I also don't see why we would need to add a policy that establishments that discriminate against people based for example on their ethnicity, appearance or national origin, such as a historic restaurant in Düsseldorf that refused admission to East Asians early in the pandemic, be delisted, because we already do that based on preexisting policies. Right now, I think that based on the drafts circulated in this thread, we risk approving a new policy that is worse than none. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It might be best to try the smallest possible addition. After all, it's usually easier to get a policy expanded later if we really need it, than to get it shortened later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a shorter version:

----

As a general rule, Wikivoyage is interested in places, not people. Occasionally, providing a fair description will involve mentioning a specific person. In such cases, these principles apply to protect living people:

• Avoid contentious matter about living people to the maximum extent possible, to show respect for human dignity and personal privacy. Individual listings that name a living public figure are acceptable so long as the content is not contentious.
• Avoid whole articles focused on living people, such as an itinerary to see the private homes of celebrities.

----

We could also soften "the maximum extent possible". It's always "possible" to avoid mentioning anyone's name, but it's not always "reasonable" to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What about the article on U.S. presidents? We don't avoid contentious facts about living current and former presidents; we just agree on what should be in the blurbs about them based on the existing Wikivoyage:Be fair guidelines. I still fail to see how adding at least your first proposed guideline will improve anything. Also, are we creating a solution for a nonexistent problem? Can you cite a previous example of an article that had unnecessarily contentious facts about living people that we were not able to deal with by using existing guidelines? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States is not a "whole article focused on living people"; it is a whole article focused on mostly long-dead people with just five living US Presidents being mentioned (and mostly in a "public museum" way, not a "current private home" way). This would therefore be acceptable as a case of "Individual listings that name a living public figure" that "show respect for human dignity and personal privacy".

The existing problem to be solved is: The Board of Directors for the WIkimedia Foundation said that every project needs to have an official, written BLP policy. They said this about 16 years ago, so we're running a bit behind schedule, but we should have something. Their resolution encourages "special attention to the principles of neutrality", so I think putting a few sentences inside our version of the "NPOV" policy would be appropriate. We could even create a WV:BLP shortcut to it, so the Wikipedia folks can find it easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

My problem is not with your second proposed provision, which is fine, but your first, and that's what my last reply addressed. If it stated that when living people have to be mentioned, we must be fair and come to a consensus about anything contentious, I'd be happy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you think of any contentious or derogatory information a travel guide – especially one that does not cite external sources – needs to include? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I already gave you an example! And what about when we fairly describe countries as dictatorships? We've sometimes had users object and try to whitewash articles, and in such cases, we are armed with Wikivoyage:Be fair, not some ridiculous claim that anything "contentious" is bad and must be avoided, which would have played into their hands. Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a site that tries to be neutral. We expressly don't have an NPOV policy, but instead a policy that requires fairness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we can fairly describe a country as being a dictatorship. Do we need to describe an individual living person as a dictator, when doing so would be contentious (e.g., produce disputes and disagreements on wiki)? I just checked every article containing the words "a dictator" and "the dictator"; none of them refer to living people.

If your prior example was "What about the article on U.S. presidents?", I've already answered that question. I don't see anything privacy-invading in Presidents of the United States, and I don't see anything contentious about any living person in there, either. The contents are not universally approved by the campaign team, but nobody actually disputes or "contends" over the facts (e.g., that Clinton was involved in a sex scandal, or that Trump is technically a convicted felon). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't had the misfortune of speaking with a Trumper lately, consider yourself lucky. There are tens of millions of hard-core Trumpers in the U.S. who don't accept basic scientific facts and advance all kinds of conspiracy nonsense as truth. I dealt with a cabbie in New Rochelle yesterday who gratuitously started talking about politics. He claimed Biden already had cancer 4 years ago, and "they" covered it up, that claims of fossil fuels causing global warming are "bullshit" and that if the Democrats had been elected last year, we'd all be driving electric cars already, among other things. So I very much contest your confident assertion that statements of fact about Trump, Biden, Obama, etc. are not "contentious". We need to remove that word from consideration as something Wikivoyage cannot be. Do you remember years ago when there was someone who spent a couple of weeks or more trying to whitewash descriptions of Cuba by claiming that it was really a democracy, their elections are really free and fair, and the Communists have never been dictators or oppressed anyone there? Or the ones that claimed that China is a democracy and it was the U.S. (pre-Trump) that was really oppressive (the latter of which of course has never been completely false, but that was entirely beside the point in a travel guide as well as being pure whataboutism that disproves nothing). We've had all kinds of politically motivated contentions against facts. That's why our standard is Wikivoyage:Be fair, not "Wikivoyage/Avoid saying anything anyone could argue with", which is what "contentious" means or would mean in the hands of anyone who wants to use a travel guide to grind an axe, rather than to improve a resource for travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan. I was brought up in South Africa during the Apartheid era. Had Wikivoyage been around at that time, would we have deleted everything about South Africa on grounds that almost every establishment was required by law to practice racial discrimination? I do not think that would not have been appropriate. However I think that it would have been appropriate to include a section on how to navigate the country's racial policies. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Related: several of the brief bios of Presidents of the United States editorialize big time Purplebackpack89 15:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

And you've suggested edits. Continue doing so as appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

As for the overarching issue at hand, I would suggest focusing on places, not people, and more specifically focus on officially listed or designated places. Homes are designated on registers of historic places either after people have died, or with their consent if alive. Official libraries and museums are one of those two ways as well. And there's a reasonable argument for just leaving Trump and his four living predecessors, with the possible exceptions of the Clinton, Bush and Obama Libraries. Purplebackpack89 16:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

FYI: Highway 89 Revisited

https://www.altaonline.com/dispatches/a64895127/us-highway-89-road-trip-west/

If you, like me, are a sucker for purple prose, the American Southwest, and big photographs, you will like this. I also think that this is the kind of direction this site should move in the future, as I mentioned in the above thread about Paris, travelogue writing that has a personal dimension and that we used to have with Wikitravel Extra and personal blogs could provide really meaningful educational content that isn't really captured with the current lcoation-and-listing style that we have for most of the writing here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. A travel guide cannot be a personal blog. There's a reason that personal blogs are on other sites. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage and the Nearby articles map

How do you use the Nearby feature (mainly the one in the Wikipedia app)?

It still shows all kinds of articles such as cemeteries, schools, train stations, etc that aren't relevant to a traveler so I wonder why nobody seems to have any issues with it and why there seems to be little involvement of wikivoyage users with that map despite that it could be so useful for vacations / exploring places / wikivoyage-things. Maybe people here use something else or have some tricks to make the Nearby map useful in realworld scenarios or there is some related discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it's just something that a lot of us have forgotten since it's a feature not talked about often. //shb (t | c | m) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I just tried it and it worked without issues, but I'd be open to changes if it has flaws. It's one of those features that perhaps readers of the site use more than editors. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I forgot it existed, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Have you tried it in a real-world scenario or just for testing at home?

I'm asking because there is no engagement with phab:T360197 and this feature seems like it has a huge potential – in particular for wikivoyage-related things like vacations – where some changes seem needed in most cases to make it truly useful for real-world applications.

See meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Filters for types of items shown on the Wikipedia app Nearby places map. I can't use this feature for exploring places except when it's some remote area with barely any articles at all on the map.

Lastly, I don't know why this is a widely forgotten feature on wikivoyage – it seems like THE wikivoyage feature, e.g. the feature in the Wikipedia app by which most people would learn about and use wikivoyage for the first time. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's because you can't really use it on desktop, where most editing occurs. Wikivoyage on mobile, where this feature most comes in handy, is shit to deal with, so a lot of us simply forgot it existed. //shb (t | c | m) 23:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It's available in the mobile app. Since the map there is much more advanced and useful than the desktop version where one doesn't even have a map or input box for entering a location, I was referring to the Nearby feature in the mobile app. (By the way I think I read somewhere a proposal for a Wikivoyage mobile app.) Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage doesn't have a mobile app as of yet, unfortunately. :( //shb (t | c | m) 00:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to at I read somewhere a proposal for a Wikivoyage mobile app. With It's available in the mobile app I was referring to the Wikipedia app which I named in my prior comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "train stations...aren't relevant to a traveler", and I happen to have a fondness for visiting old cemeteries. Perhaps we need filters, but it may be difficult to figure out what to include or exclude. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This is so that users can configure it. Train stations obviously are very relevant to many travelers. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice feature, but is there a way to integrate it into WV, or one has to use the WP app? I was actually thinking to invent something similar - basically grab the nearaby articles, get all listings from them, and show that on a map, ideally sorted by WP views. I think WV cannot just show WP articles, otherwise there'd be no point in maintaining the listings... -- andree 11:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

but is there a way to integrate it into WV this is also what this thread is about: there is Special:Nearby but it's not as advanced as the map in the mobile app by far and importantly one can't even enter a location (see Wish:Enable entering a specific location on Wikipedia's & Wikivoyage's Nearby page). It doesn't show a map but just a list of articles which isn't really very useful. Moreover, the version in Wikivoyage only shows pages in WV and the version in Wikipedia only shows articles in WP but I think it should show both (and if they are about the same place then the dot when tapping on it could give you the choice which to open). ideally sorted by WP views I'll edit phab:T360197 to add pageviews as another thing to use at For being able to exclude low-importance articles, the article importance ratings of relevant WikiProjects would be used and one idea I got from this is to not just filter them this way but display them differently based on rating and/or pageviews where for example those with relatively many pageviews being larger or separately colored dots on the map. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I think just considering articles isn't enough for WV, and neither is just adding WP stuff (many of the articles often are either just in the local language version and not covered on en:, or to significant degree matches Wikivoyage:Listings#Boring_places, war events places, etc.); also esp. the remote places sometimes have 10 listings, and e.g. just one is on WP... Thus some kind of hybrid operation would be needed IMO, to be able to find the "best listings nearby".

As for the map, you can show that on via the respective button at the bottom on the dynamic map -- andree 18:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the region. In many cases such as big cities there are articles for most of the most notable sightseeing spots and things like parks for example. The map wouldn't be there to show completely all places the user may possibly be interested in and that's not something to expect from it. (Wikivoyage could move the map closer toward that however.) It's not necessarily about 'finding the best listings nearby' but also e.g. 'learning more from Wikipedia about that interesting place you're currently at' and 'finding some neat place that happens to be near where you're at' and 'finding some interesting places nearby to consider visiting'.

-

I'm not entirely sure what you mean – I suggested that both Wikipedia articles of the user's language is combined with Wikivoyage listings. Yes, ideally it would be possible to in addition also add articles of the region's native language. A special feature that could be made available in the app is machine translation via MinT so it's not gibberish but somewhat understandable to an app user not speaking the language of the region visiting.

The map is not showing Wikivoyage + Wikipedia items. First of all it only works when visiting the WV page of a place and then opening its map. This for example doesn't work when you're visiting a region for which there is no WV page. When clicking "Show nearby articles", it shows just very articles, not all articles in Wikipedia and I don't know why that is. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I just tested this while in Wikimania Nairobi. The nearby page only shows Nairobi and Wikimania 2025 Nairobi Guidebook. In my opinion, this functionality should draw a bigger radius because it's not very useful at the moment. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Global ban for Chealer

Hello, this message is to notify that Chealer has been nominated for a global ban at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. You are receiving this notification as required per the global ban policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, //shb (t | c | m) 11:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

FTR for some added context, this is the user that we indef blocked last month for the blatant disrespect of our links to Wikipedia policy and later engaged in empty threats and such. //shb (t | c | m) 23:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

New talk archive discussion template proposal

Following discussion in Wikivoyage:Mobile_version I've proposed Template:ArchivedDiscussions for use on talk pages for archive links. This works exactly the same on desktop as it currently does but improves visibility on mobile by providing a direct link (rather than hiding it under the general "more information about this page")

You can see it in action on Talk:London.

If we're happy with this we'll (or I'll!) need to apply it to the remaining 133 pages and use it for future archiving. Thoughts? Jdlrobson (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

For comparison purposes:

• https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:London (new template on desktop)
• https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:London (new template on mobile)
• https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Barcelona (old template on desktop)
• https://en.m.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Talk:Barcelona (old template on mobile)

You're looking for the light blue box with a title like "Archives". Jon, I think it's an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I concur with WhatamIdoing – cheers, Jdlrobson :). //shb (t | c | m) 09:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

U4C call for non-voting candidates

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) has recently put out a call for people interested in becoming a non-voting member. Through last year's annual review, the community approved appointment of up to 4 non-voting members, and the U4C has now created a place and process for volunteers to express their interest. If you know of anyone who might be interested please point them out way. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask us (or ask me here). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, the purpose of non-voting members is to fill gaps in the voting members' skills. Is there a list anywhere of known gaps? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Not really. There are the 3 regional seats currently vacant, Latin America and Caribbean, Central and East Europe (CEE), and Sub-Saharan Africa. There are also some clear patterns including 7 of the 8 whose main project is a Wikipedia (and the 8th being Wikidata) which is why I posted here and languages spoken. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Template for sections of a larger route

I made a proposal here to introduce a template for sections of longer routes, in order to better organise these sections, collect (and use) structured data, as well as introduce new functionality, such as a direct link to a text section from dynamic maps, or the other way around.

I would love to get some feedback on it! Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

As an update to this, I made a template here Module:SectionInfo/sandbox as well as here Module:RouteSection/sandbox.

Usage examples:

Distance: 21.9 km, duration: 6:30 hr, ascent: 1010 m

21.9 km

6:30 hr

1010 m

Let me know if you have some feedback to share!

Edit, updated the old template as well to show a few options.Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't like it. It takes up too much space, and there's nothing better about the template vs just typing it by hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as WhatamIdoing. This adds some slight ease of information, but other than that I don't see a lot of benefit to introducing this. Especially not considering how space-inefficient this template is as it sits. Were it significantly smaller, I would be more likely to be in favour. Also: Does all this need to be done through Wikidata and OSM when most websites and promotional material for hiking routes provide this same information already? Can't it just be copied over from that and thereby simplify this template significantly?

LF Zuiderzeeroute
Amsterdam → Hoorn

↔ 53 km (33 mi)

⏲ 3:30

↕ 10 m (11 yd)

I do generally welcome efforts to make information more easy to find at a glimpse, and this template could potentially help, were it smaller. Based on LF Zuiderzeeroute (admittedly a cycling route), I've made a little mock-up of how I think a template with this information should be: As little text as possible, conveyed as intuitively and as non-invasive as possible. Something this size could be aligned above or below a dynamic map (which I understand from the discussion you linked, it should interact with to some extent?), whilst not taking the attention away from the article itself.
― Wauteurz (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I like Wauteurz's suggestion – it's not very intrusive and presents important information needed without taking up excessive space. //shb (t | c | m) 22:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

That's really cool! I would even use that bottom stats line for simple listings of trails. Gerode (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much to both of you for the feedback.

You're absolutely right, the current version is far too bulky. And thank you for creating that mock-up!

> Also: Does all this need to be done through Wikidata and OSM when most websites and promotional material for hiking routes provide this same information already?

My thought process was this:

I first noticed that hiking itineraries were formatted inconsistently. A template seemed like a good way to standardise part of the itineraries themselves, as well as the section stats. While working on that, I learned that to display hiking trails on dynamic maps using the mapshapes template, the trail sections (from OpenStreetMap) need to be linked to Wikidata items.

That got me thinking. Could we get some additional benefits from structuring the information? Creating these sections in Wikidata provides a way to link geodata with section stats. We could compute section stats from the geodata, or use the linking to create clickable trail sections.

The alternative, as you mentioned, would be to copy the information from official websites. I could create GPX files, manually split them into sections, and write out the stats, but this wouldn't give me a direct way of linking a section on a map to a section in text. The geodata and section stats would be separate. This runs somewhat counter to the Wikimedia model of using centralised, structured data. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, I get the reasoning. My main worry is that we're a quite small lot of editors on this project, and only few have the capability to maintain a template that calls and calculates data from elsewhere, let alone do the configuration to make this template work for the trail (section) they want to write about. The last thing I would want is that a template gets abandoned because no-one can maintain it. If there isn't one yet, a manual overwrite might be a useful addition, so that the template can also be used by manually inserting the data it displays.
― Wauteurz (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That’s a very valid point about maintainability. I should have mentioned this earlier, but the template already supports manual data entry to address that exact issue.

You can see a demonstration here: User:Bluecoordinationfine/SectionInfo test. This way, any editor can use it without needing to use Wikidata from the get go, similarly to Markers/Listings. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Very nice! One last little gripe: I see you can switch between whether metric or imperial units are used. Would it be possible to add a conversion between the two so that you can see distances and such in both notations? No metric trail is safe from people used to thinking in imperial measurements and vice versa, after all. Either via mouseover text or in parentheses like {{convert}} should work fine for that.
― Wauteurz (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

I've made a few changes, which can be found here in Module:RouteSection/sandbox, I've added the tests in User:Bluecoordinationfine/RouteSection test. The changes are:

1. I've renamed it to RouteSection. This name is more versatile since the module can be used for any type of route (hiking, cycling, etc.).

2. Parameters are now passed through directly, so you can use templates {{m|123}} for values such as distance.

3. I've added a |convert=yes/no switch. This controls whether data pulled from Wikidata is automatically formatted with the {{convert}} template.

4. Data entered into the template takes precedence over data from Wikidata, similar to Markers and Listings.

5. I've changed the presentation to be a single line as the output.

I'll look into tables next to see if I can make the output similar to the mockup. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Instead of a |convert=yes switch (I decide for all readers whether they see both), you might consider a [convert] button (each reader decides whether to click the button and see the other option). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! My main concern is that a clickable button would be problematic for people using screen readers, as it hides information by default.

The current approach, where the editor decides to show both values, is also more consistent with established wiki practice. Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I've added a small test here: Lapplandsleden Bluecoordinationfine (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage in Burmese and Cebuano

I am requesting on adding the languages Burmese and Cebuano to Wikivoyage.

1. If Shan is added, why not Burmese?
2. Cebuano is my native language. I'm requesting adding this on Wikivoyage without fiddling with preferences

HtialilwW (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

We can't do that here, sorry. You'll need to develop the project in the Incubator first and if LangCom think it's developed to a satisfactory standard, they will approve the project. //shb (t | c | m) 08:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@HtialilwW, there is a minimum number of long-term contributors to start a new project. I don't remember how many it is (maybe just five?) but your first task will be finding people who would love to contribute in these languages (for years, not just as a one-time project). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Can someone help out at Talk:Puerto de la Cruz?

The last thread on that page is about a single car rental agency listing, which I consider touting because it's but one of various car rental agencies, none of which probably need to be listed, but I'd prefer not to make a unilateral decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Allowing patrollers to use supressredirect

Some input at Wikivoyage talk:Recent changes patrol would be appreciated. //shb (t | c | m) 08:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Tyrol regionalisation

We have a long-standing problem with incomplete regionalisation of this article. Comments would be helpful in this discussion. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Abuse filters that should be updated to support temporary accounts

Hello, everyone. Temporary accounts are going to be implemented to all wikis by next month, so I am suggesting some changes to this project's abuse filters (as done with enwiki and enwiktionary):

• Filters that use ip_in_ranges should use user_unnamed_ip instead of user_name.
• user_age == 0 (and currently user_type == "ip") should be replaced with user_type != "named" to only target unregistered users, not just anonymous users.

Thank you. Codename Noreste (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please explain what it means that temporary accounts are going to be implemented, and why. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Both of the following links (to MediaWiki) can answer your response: mw:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts, as well as mw:Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts/For developers#Updating AbuseFilter filters. Codename Noreste (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, this will hide IP addresses from public view? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much; these have already been implemented on several wikis so far – that means that any filter that relies on user IPs will stop working after temporary accounts are enabled. I'll take a look at some of our filters to see which ones need updates. //shb (t | c | m) 22:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Done – I believe I've covered every filter that's still enabled. //shb (t | c | m) 23:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that, SHB.

There is also more information at mw:Help:Temporary accounts.

From the POV of the ordinary editor, the difference is that, when you look at Special:RecentChanges, it currently says something like:

• (diff | hist) London 11:36 +392 192.0.2.13 talk (→Eat: Updated listing for The Restaurant)
• (diff | hist) London 11:36 +392 2001:DB8:2499:4093:010A:4042:0421:0024 talk (→Eat: Updated listing for The Restaurant)

(the two styles of IP address, IPv4 and IPv6, are in bold) and in the future it will say something like:

• (diff | hist) London 11:36 +392 ~2025-12345-6 talk (→Eat: Updated listing for The Restaurant)

The purpose of the tilde at the start is to avoid conflicts with other/existing accounts. (Very few registered accounts start with ~20, and I believe we got a global username block on creating any new ones about two years ago.) The purpose of putting the year at the start is that the temporary accounts reset after (currently) 90 days, so a couple of years from now, the temp account will be long dead and there will be no point in trying to leave a note on the temp account's talk page. It's not relevant at this stage, but in the future, including the year means you should be able to tell, at a glance, which temp accounts are worth trying to communicate with. I believe that the rest of the number is random (rather than consecutive), separated as needed in groups of five digits because four digits looks like the formatting for a credit card number, and my middle-aged eyes struggle with those six-digit security codes (why are they always in such tiny type?), which leaves groups of five digits in the middle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I want to add: This transition is going to take a little work. We'll probably discover some tools that need fixing, and we'll probably need to think about changing a few things. But the privacy considerations are IMO worth it (seriously, why should an IP address used 20 years ago still be public in the history pages?), and I think that this wiki will be okay. I expect the English Wikipedia to struggle, especially if the team goes through with their plan for a sudden 100% transition, but I think that we're going to be fine. We get about 30 IP/temp account edits per day, and most of them are good/unreverted contributions. We can handle this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that Brendan has reused IP addresses every so often over a period of years, and it's surely useful to see that an IP address has previously been blocked for block evasion. It's not helpful if we can't see that anymore, though the duck test still usually works. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my experience on jawikibooks and srwiki (both of which have temp accounts enabled), I've still been able to see the IP address, just that it requires extra steps (though I do block the temporary account and not the IP). //shb (t | c | m) 21:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding from the page linked earlier in the thread is that we will still be able to see the IP addresses, they just won't be visible to the general public. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The IP addresses for temporary accounts will be stored for the usual 90-day checkuser-style limit. If there is a rational, common sense reason to retain that information longer, then it can be recorded in a secure non-public place (e.g., the CheckUsers' secure wiki), just like it can be done now.

Please keep in mind that they log every time you access an IP address for a temp account. This will allow them to identify any abuse (e.g., an editor who needlessly checks every single IP address, or to figure out who posted other editors' IP addresses on other websites). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

My academic article on teaching with Wikivoyage

I have finished the draft (still doing minor c/e fixes and like). I'd appreciate your thoughts: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mOR7w19Dd8CrElZcoeFkDxGCCOi12kff6qe1WQa8JCM/edit?tab=t.0 In few days or so I intend to submit it to an academic journal (there are several straddling the fields of education + tourism and hospitality) for peer review. Thank you for all the help over the years with my students (also, note: new semester starts soon, expect new crop of students editing about Korea and China from late September onward; I'll provide a list of their chosen articles to watchlist in a month or two, as usual). Piotrus (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting, will give this a read. //shb (t | c | m) 11:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Just finished reading it – I don't have much else to say other than that it's very well-researched and is a great read. Nice work, Piotrus. //shb (t | c | m) 11:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Pashley (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I have given the article a quick read-through. May I suggest one minor addition - the article Requested_articles is an additional source of suggested topics - the student might find one there that they had never thought of. As an example, I saw a request for the Taizé Community there. This is a monastic establishment in the middle of rural France that attracts many young people and is named after the village where it is located. The first section of the talk page is interesting as it shows a debate about the scope of the article (should it include the village or just the community?".Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Martinvl Thanks - I did not know about that page, I'll add it to the relevant resources soon! Piotrus (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Piotrus, thanks for sending us this link! I'm enjoying reading the paper so far. I'm wondering if you'd like any proofreading suggestions such as eliminating the semicolon in the following sentence: "The next section will review the academic consensus on pedagogical benefits of writing for Wikipedia, an assignment that was developed over a decade ago and has since been used by thousands of educators (Vetter, McDowell & Stewart, 2019; Konieczny 2021; Evenstein Sigalov & Konieczny, 2025); as a building block for the discussion on how such an activity can be adopted to the tourism and hospitality context, both on Wikipedia as well as on Wikivoyage website." Maybe I should stop reading until you let me know, because I saw a couple of other places where I'd suggest small edits, and I'll forget about all such instances if I read through the article, and won't want to read it again just to proofread. I'll add that so far, it looks quite well-written, with nothing major I'd suggest changing, but I'm only in the 2nd section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek By all means, all suggestions, minor and major, are welcome. Piotrus (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @MarianaSenkiv as she also uses Wikivoyage (in Ukrainian) to teach tourism students. Piotrus, you might have met her as both of you were at Wikimania Katowice. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I've worked as an editor for journal papers. In the passage above I'd delete the semicolon & change "adopted" to "adapted". Pashley (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I found one substantive issue, strikes me as an error but it's arguably just oversimplification.

Wikivoyage is ... It was launched in 2006 as a volunteer-driven fork of the commercial Wikitravel site, ...

Wikitravel was started in 2003 & became commercial in 2006. Wikivoyage in German & Italian was started about then, but the fork of English WV & becoming a Wikimedia site happened around 2012; see Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage_and_Wikitravel for details. Pashley (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, Pashley. //shb (t | c | m) 21:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the above date is correct. I'm pretty sure the German and Italian wikis forked in 2006, so arguably that's when Wikivoyage was first forked by volunteers. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's arguable. That was definitely when Wikivoyage started. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pashley @SHB2000 Hmmm, my summary is a simplification, since the detailed history of Wikitravel/Wikivoyage is effectively trivia and not really relevant for us. Wikipedia article about Wikivoyage says "The project began when editors at the German and then Italian versions of decided in September 2006 to move their editing activities and then current content to a new site..." and then English version followed suit c. 2012/2013. Infobox states: "First version (German language) December 10, 2006. English-language version January 15, 2013". So I am not sure what is wrong here? But I am happy to consider suggestions for rewording. Piotrus (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Lithuania

I’m pleased to report that Lithuania now has all pages at high-grade usable or better. I wonder if this can be pushed to their tourist agencies, in a way that promotes readership and local contributions, without a tidal wave of touting? There isn’t an obvious event or anniversary to hook it on.

To the best of my knowledge this is only the second substantial country to reach this level. Ireland (north and south) did so in the Covid years and is therefore now on a refresher cycle. Several others (beyond small islands and micronations) from a brief look seem well-developed but with gaps and out-of-date info. Is anywhere else getting close, just needs a final push? Grahamsands (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, congratulations! WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Well done Graham and to everyone else who helped work on all of the Lithuania articles. Gizza ^(roam) 02:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Flags

It is my understanding that Wikivoyage does not decorate articles with flags. User:Martinvl has begun adding flags to English county articles, for example here. Before they continue this work, I would like to ask the community whether we want to do this in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I can see a point in adding flags to destinations where travellers are likely to see them often. However I think that you will only see most English County flags if you look at the council offices. You are unlikely to see them on road signs directing you to the county. We may want a discussion about including them in country articles, and maybe other cases where it may be helpful for a traveller to recognise them. AlasdairW (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

In the last few years, I have seen an increase in the number of people who put their county flag on their car’s rear windscreen. I agree that there is a great variation in how much different county flags are displayed. The Cornish flag is used quite widely - go into any supermarket and look at the packaging Ginsters Cornish pasties. You will see the flag there. Another flag that is very common is the Welsh flag. May I suggest as acimpromise that if it is worth describing the flag and its origins in the “Understand” section, then it can depicted, otherwise not. Martinvl (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What you [Alasdair] say is exactly my thoughts on this too. //shb (t | c | m) 23:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I cannot imagine circumstances in which a traveller really needs to know what a subnational flag looks like, or a national flag either. I think they violate the principle of Minimal use of images:

Don't get overexcited adding images to articles. Travellers may be using Wikivoyage from networks with low bandwidth, or with a cost for every MB used. Several travellers may be sharing the one poor mobile data connection. A traveller using the Wi-Fi on a bus or train may only have a few MB of free data allowance for a long journey. Minimal use of images ... means enough images to illustrate the text and show some of the highlights but not so many as to overwhelm the text and turn the article into a photo gallery.

Those with an interest in flags can easily find then on the Wikipedia article linked on every page. Similarly, travellers are unlikely to need to know a jurisdictions coat of arms, or motto, or the name of the sitting mayor, or which party controls the council. Ground Zero (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree there – there may be a point for including it in country articles and (debatably) 1st-level subdivisions (probs wouldn't add any myself, though), but English counties are 2nd-level subdivisions where flags are seldom used. //shb (t | c | m) 01:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

We used to have flags in the country articles, in the banners next to the name, and if I remember correctly, in the infoboxes before we had banners. I thought we should had kept them - having one flag is a different thing than turning the article into a photo gallery. Not sure if we need flags and blazons for cities and regions, although French Wikivoyage has them in such articles too (e.g. fr:New York) . --Ypsilon (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Flag images might possibly have some travel value at the country level (because a traveler will likely see them often), but below the country level, flag images are just noise. I would also dislike seeing the "Related Pages" thumbnails picking up flag images when some genuinely interesting photos would better represent a destination. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I really don't think they're useful on country pages. In countries where the flag is flown often, all travelers will see it and understand whose flag it is very quickly, whereas in countries where the flag is rarely flown, they certainly won't need to know what it looks like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I also wonder if we need a locator map for every single first-level division of a country. For example, we have locator maps in West Bengal, Maharashtra, etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Those are more useful than flags but probably not essential because of the existence of multi-state region articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah if we absolutely had to pick between either flags or locator maps, I would pick locator maps which actually does have its benefits. //shb (t | c | m) shb (t | c | m) 05:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Further to my earlier suggestion, I have given the matter some thought and it may be useful to include a flag or other emblem in the "Culture" sub-section is that flag or emblem is described in that sub-section. Martinvl (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Are flags really what we want to compromise our "Minimal use of images" policy for? Ground Zero (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I have made a few minor changes to the page on Wales. Are these changes appropriate? Meanwhile, I will delete the flags from those pages where I cannot find a cultural use such as I found for Wales. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Images and flags and discussions about flags are more appropriate to Wikipedia than Wikivoyage. I suggest they be removed from all topics (not just those where Martinvl has added them). Mrkstvns (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Flags are mostly decorative but can occasionally be useful, particularly in places where you don't know the language. National (i.e. sovereign state) flags should definitely be included in entries and subnational ones (Irish counties, U. S. states, cities, etc.) are sometimes helpful and sometimes a thing you would just never see. Flags of people groups or political movements could be very useful for understanding things like "I am in a territory run by Hizbollah/Zapatistas/Naxalites" or "I am in a place that has a lot of Sikh nationalism". I would like to think that anyone visiting the sort of place where these markers are important would have the sense to already know this or just not visit at all, but that's not always true, so letting someone know with a simple visual "this means you're in Somaliland and this means you're in Puntland" could genuinely help someone. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There is always room for exceptions. If the presence of particular flags indicates a threat to anyone in particular and is not simply a normal flag in a particular area, it might make sense to show an image of it in the "Stay safe" section. But that's the only exception I can think of off-hand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Flags in places where you don't speak the language can maybe tell you where you are going. It's a bit unlikely that you will be on the border of X and Y and not know it but also know what the flags of X and Y look like, but I could imagine the scenario where being in a transit hub and just knowing "I need to go to that flag" or communicating via it could be useful. Otherwise, they are decoration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think knowing what countries' flags look like is the best way to avoid accidentally straying across borders. I also feel like you're straying toward Captain Obvious territory. We don't need to spoon-feed everything to our readers, do we? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that simply showing "this is what Gabon's flag is" is spoon-feeding. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It's more that no-one has really been able to identify the usefulness of images of national flags to travellers beyond general knowledge. Adding another image to country articles, which are usually fairly long, doesn't seem warranted. Ground Zero (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: I noticed that you removed the image of the Flag of Cornwall and the image of St Piran from the article Cornwall. I checked the history of the article and I noticed that in January of last year you split the article into three - West Cornwall, North Cornwall and South Cornwall and that the images you removed today were in the article at that time.

I have lived in the UK for over 40 years and from my observations, the three areas where flags are very much in evidence as part of the local culture are Cornwall, Wales and to a lesser extent, Scotland. While I have no problem with most of the images of flags being removed, I think that there is a very strong case for at least those of Cornwall and Wales being retained.

I did a straw poll using Wikimedia Commons categories: Commons:Category:Photographs of flags of Cornwall, Commons:category:Photographs of the national flag of Wales and Commons:Category:Photographs of flags of England. A count of the number of images for the different counties (Cornwall:56, London:17, Devon:7) will confirm what I have written while Scotland had 288 photographs. No other county matched these totals.

I request therefore that you restore the images in the article Cornwall that you removed. Martinvl (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the comments above. A straw poll of Wikimedia Commons images matters less than the consensus of the Wikivoyage community. There just isn't support for maintaining flags in general. I removed three images from the Cornwall article: the flag, a painting of St Piran, and the Cornwall tartan. This was an example of Wikivoyage trying to be a poor imitation of Wikipedia. Wikivoyage could try to provide a comprehensive introduction to the history and culture and politics of places, or it could try to be an effective travel guide. St Piran and the Cornwall tartan are not relevant to travellers. Travellers will see the flag of Cornwall frequently in Cornwall, unless things have changed since I was there a few years ago. Wikivoyage does not need to explain things that are obvious.Ground Zero (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Cornwall is a unique Celtic region compared to the rest of England, which is Germanic. So, at list the flag can be kept to represent the unique region. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Cornwall's cultural uniqueness and its flag are explained in the text. Ground Zero (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

... and the image complements the text. Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think a good photo of the flag flying can be added to country and region articles Understand section where the flag is commonly used. Most counties in England don't have photos on Commons that meet this criteria - Cornwall is one of the few exceptions. Simple flags can be effectively described in text, but it is harder to describe non-geometric ones like the one for Wales. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how this is travel-related, and warrants an exception to the Minimal use of images policy. It really is just general knowledge, which is something that Wikipedia is more suited to, isn't it? Ground Zero (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Cornwall, Wales and Scotland are often referred to as the “Celtic Fringe” and the increased display of flags is part of those areas asserting their identity and culture (which is part of the reason that they attract visitors). One of the reasons for minimal image use is the constraint on bandwidth. Wiki travel pages transmit images in PNG format which is highly compressible when there are large areas of mono-colours (as is the case with flags). Martinvl (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

SVGs are smaller. File:Flag of Cornwall.svg is 211 bytes – the same size as this comment (including the sig). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You are probably right that in this case the SVG is smaller than the corresponding PNG. It is my understanding, though I am open to correction, that when a Wikimedia page is being sent to a user, Wikimedia converts all image files to PNG format. If the user clicks on that image, it is retransmitted in its original format. In either case, the data that is sent to the user to reconstruct a flag image is small compared to the amount that is sent to reconstruct a JPG image. Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It is my experience in Cornwall and Scotland that no-one visiting will not see the flag frequently during their visit. It's obvious. Ground Zero (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If a family is going to visit Cornwall by car, a good game to keep the children quiet is to ask who will be first to spot a Cornish flag. This article will brief the parent in advance that this is something worth doing. Martinvl (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There are dozens of sites for flag fans. Wikivoyage shouldn't be one of them. Ground Zero (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, there are dozens of books on flags, but why would a parent travelling to Port Isaac invite their children to look out for the Cornish flag while those travelling to Bognor would not invite their children to look out for the West Sussex flag? It is far more likely that the parent would have picked up this gem of information from a travel guide rather than from a book on flags. Martinvl (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You could add links to a flag page for kids to Travelling with children, instead of decorating articles widely for the sake of a child's car trip game? There are many car trip games for children, but they do not belong in region or country articles. It is too specific. Ground Zero (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It would be make more sense to have images of famous sights which have a flag hoisted on it. For example, the Sydney Harbour Bridge usually has the Australian flag, NSW state flag and Aboriginal flag raised. That is how travellers will most likely experience seeing flags on their trips. Adding an image of a generic flag without any context is meaningless, with the exception of possibly the national flag on the country page, because it is good to get familiar with the flag of the country you're travelling to if you see it in airports, etc. Gizza ^(roam) 01:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If you see it in the airport, you'll get familiar with it right away, so why do we need to give you a preview? No problem with pictures of famous sights that include flags, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The Australian national flag and Aboriginal flag on Sydney Harbour Bridge

A good idea to illustrate two concepts in one image, but one should make sure that both are well illustrated. The image on the right does not really illustrate the Aboriginal fag very well (unless you double click on it!). Martinvl (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that we need to get back to basics: the main reason given for not displaying flags is that we want to limit the amount of data that is delivered to the user who might have a low bandwidth connection. In my opinion, this is not a reason not to display flags but it is a good reason to limit the total number of images displayed. I therefore suggest that no special rules apply to flags, but rather that we limit the number of images in the "Understand" section to one and if an image of a flag gives a better understanding of the topic image than any other image, so be it. Martinvl (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Replace a photo of a place that helps me decide whether I want to go there with a flag I can see on Wikipedia and a hundred other websites? No, thanks.

An important reason for not displaying flags is that it is general knowledge, and not directly travel related. The only connection to practical travel information that's been offered has been "a parent travelling to Port Isaac inviting their children to look out for the Cornish flag". Put it in Travelling with children, not here.

Ground Zero (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary. May I suggest the caption for the Cornish flag as follows: "The frequency with which the Cornish flag is displayed is an indication of their unique cultural heritage". Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I prefer to stick with travel information. It's what Wikivoyage does best. Leave flags to Wikipedia, Flagpedia.net, Flags of the world, etc. And many cultural groups display flags. That is not unique to the Cornish. Ground Zero (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's not unique to the Cornish, but when it is unusual for an area, I think it's appropriate for us to include a flag. That can be done subtly, with a photo of a place that "just happens" to display the flag, or it can be done in the ==Understand== section, with a paragraph that says you'll see this flag around a lot, or we could take a tip from LGBT travel and put the flag in the banner, but I don't see any logic in saying that only country articles can ever have images of flags. Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first says that "Regions, price classifications, etc., are based on the convenience and expectations of travellers, not bureaucratic fiat (administrative districts, formal star ratings and so on)", and I think that the same principle applies here. Exactly like we don't always follow the exact legal border of 'a city' in deciding what belongs in (or out) of a given article, we should also not always follow the exact legal definition of 'a country' in deciding which articles should show or say something about a flag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

A flag can indeed add a splash of colour to a picture of a building or a landscape. But a picture of a flag as a flag is just background information. Country flags are particularly obvious, and therefore unnecessary. Any flag that is commonly flown, like that of Cornwall, is obvious. Any traveller will see it. A flag that isn't commonly flown in a place is a curiosity or trivia question, not essential information for a travller. Ground Zero (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

There's rarely any important reason to show a thumbnail of a country's flag, so I'm not seeing that as a strong argument for showing regional flags. As always, I agree with Ground Zero on this topic, and I'm surprised by how much support there is for using a picture of a flag as one of the few thumbnails allowed as illustrative and informative images per this site's Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images guidelines, which exist not only for technical reasons but as part of Wikivoyage's house style. We've had previous discussions about different guides' styles in regard to whether or how many photos to use and came up with our current policy, which is designed to help people determine where they want to travel and what they want to see while they're there, without making our articles image galleries. I wouldn't exclude that some highly eccentric person might choose where to travel based on a flag, but that would be very weird behavior, indeed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Bavarian flag pattern, with a pretzel

Bavarian flag pattern on a train

If "Any traveller will see it", then I think that argues in favor of mentioning it. We'd hardly say "Oh, right, any traveller to Anaheim will see Disney stuff, so no need to include any of that. That's Captain Obvious territory!"

I'm not sure that a flat photo/drawing of a flag is usually the right approach, but I wouldn't want to exclude it absolutely. I'd rather see things like images that "just happen" to include it. For example Bavaria#Regions says that blue and white are the national colors. The "Bavarian heaven" diamond pattern is very common in the region. I see no reason not to choose a photo that includes that, and to call out the flag's existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Coming back to the start of this discussion, it is about one user posting flags (flat photos/drawings) on a bunch of articles all at once: Berkshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Wilshire, Somerset, Warwickshire, Wales, Kent, Essex, Leicestershire, and Dorset. I am not arguing that flags should be banned. I am arguing that they should not be included unless there is a valid travel reason to do so. Including them as a matter of course is cluttering up articles with non-travel-related images to please flag fans. Ground Zero (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Call me eccentric, but when I travel I do take note of heraldic sysmbols, though I do not base my travelling around such symbols. I do however photograph interesting ones when I come across them. Here is a selection that I have loaded onto Commons. most of which are Valued Images:

• 
  Drinking fountain in Florence showing the Florentine coat of arms
• 
  National Trust plaque at the ntrance to the park
• 
  Market place, Chichester showing Henry VII's arms
• 
  Lyme Regis coat of arms on teh Guildhall
• 
  Coat of arms of teh Dutch city of Nijmegen
• 
  Entrance to Marseillan in Frnech and in Occitan
• 
  AUstralian Naval Ensign at half-mast
• 
  Dutch provincial shields above the entrance to Cape Town Castle.

The only one of these images that might be useful in Wikivoyage is the one showing the entrance to the French town of Marseillan which, under French Law doubles up at a 50 km/h speed limit (this is already covered in the article Driving in Europe. It might be a useful addition to the article Occitanie as it shows the Occitan colours of maroon and gold. That article is however already overloaded with images, so I will let someone else put it in.

On a more serious note however, a traveller to Northern Ireland should be aware of the symbols used by the different communities, if only so that they spot trouble arising and steer clear of such trouble. Martinvl (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Nice photos! I don't think it's eccentric to photograph flags. I agree on Northern Ireland, and those kinds of situations are exceptions in which flags may belong in the "Stay safe" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

New article on footwear

As shoes might be the most critical equipment on a journey, footwear now has an article on its own. Please contribute from your experiences. /Yvwv (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I added some bits, but the one about feet-related taboos in the Middle East is not something I have experienced, so if anyone else wants to correct me, that would be great. Thanks for starting the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

When do I get to translate articles?

It’s been a week (maybe 2) and I still don’t have the ability to translate English articles to Esperanto. When do I get it. HtialilwW (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Did someone tell you that you'd get that ability in a couple of weeks? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

No. I just assumed, but when do I actually get it? HtialilwW (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to translate articles, you have to do it yourself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Although it would be nice if we did, we don't have an official translation tool the same way Wikipedia does. Special:Translate won't work for anyone on this site. //shb (t | c | m) 03:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

But when I click ‘languages’ in the top right it has some languages. How do you connect your article? HtialilwW (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

That's done on Wikidata. //shb (t | c | m) 04:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

How? HtialilwW (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

1. Start an article on Project X (e.g. footwear was recently started here).
2. Go to the relevant Wikidata item if it exists (in this case, d:Q161928)
3. Edit the relevant site links typically along the right hand side of the page (in this case, Wikivoyage)
4. Choose the appropriate language code (in this case, en and in the case of anything written in Esperanto, eo)
5. Once you add the name of the newly-written article, it will be saved at Wikidata and show up across all relevant Wikimedia Foundation projects.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. HtialilwW (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Amire80, has your team looked into enabling content translation for Wikioyages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)