"Wikitravel has a speed and convenience the books' publishers can only envy." Time Europe

Wikitravel Shared:Travellers' pub/Pub cellar January 2, 2007

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search

Open proxies[edit]

Wikimedia has a ban against open proxies. Wikitravel is subject to more and more spammers using such servers. Should we adopt a similar attitude and policy? I think so. What do you think? Riggwelter 14:09, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

No. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 15:01, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
I hardly think we have out-of-control spam problems... we shouldn't consider such harsh measures unless we're unable to keep up with the spam, which hasn't even come close to being a problem yet – cacahuate talk 04:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Is there a big spam problem on :sv? If so, admins from other language versions could check sv:Special:Recentchanges from time to time. I know there definitely is not enough of a problem on :en, :ru, or :es to justify anything beyond casual reverts and an occasional update to the local spam blacklist. Which raises another question, does the local spam blacklist on :en only apply to :en? Are there separate version local spam blacklists? --Peter Talk 04:24, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
No, we do not have out-of-control spam problems on any language version, and certainly not on sv:. The reason I asked was that it is better to be safe than sorry, and it is good to discuss such issues. As for the local spam blacklist: it is language-unique. I usually check the versions on en: and shared: and copy them to sv:. Riggwelter 18:33, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to revisit this, because the English-language Wikitravel is really starting to have problems with open proxies -- not so much because of spam, but rather, deliberate vandalism. There are periods when a quarter of the edits are either vandalism or cleanups, and much of the vandalism is coming from open-proxy addresses. How much worse must it get before we decide this is an "out-of-control" problem? And meanwhile, why not block open proxies? Do they have a practical benefit that I'm completely missing? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)
Well, I definitely wouldn't characterize the :en problem as out of control, but I've come around on this issue for the second reason—there is little reason not to block open proxies, but the advantages are clearly there. As I understand it, this would decrease somewhat Wikitravel contributions, as people using open proxies for other reasons (like trolling rival sites?), would find our site less convenient. But the ratio of good faith editors to trolls in the pool of open proxy users is very skewed compared to any other pool of contributors, and I'm guessing that it's a pretty small pool anyway. --Peter Talk 11:22, 27 November 2007 (EST)
During the autumn of 2007, the admins on sv: have noticed that the spam increases and that spammers using open proxies create new pages and fill them with spam. We have also noticed that spam has been added to sv: by spammers apparently following the interwiki links from other language versions. In short: spam from open proxies are slowly but steady becoming somewhat of a nuisance. I do not see any reason not to block spammers or vandals on a long basis - if the spamming/vandalism continues from the same address when the block ends, they will get blocked again. Blocking someone is not to be regarded as some sort of punishment, but a way to protect Wikitravel and our serious users. Riggwelter 06:48, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia link to Wikitravel articles on fr:[edit]

Yeah, this discussion may belong over there, but my french isn't good enough. The template to link to WT articles {{wikitravel|Boston}} looks great when installed at WP, but comes up with a "bad article" message at Wikitravel when the link is clicked. Anyone have insight on this? OldPine 08:17, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

It seems that two parameters are needed for the template. I checked wikipedia:fr:États et territoires de l'Inde article on French Wikipedia and found {{Wikitravel|les États et territoires de l'Inde|%C3%89tats_et_territoires_de_l%27Inde}}. The first parameter is used to show place name on the article and the second parameter is used as a part of URL. Can you try {{wikitravel|Boston|Boston}}? -- Tatata 14:48, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
Yep. That works--and even makes sense. Thanks!OldPine 08:25, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Category navigation[edit]

It would be very helpful if there were some way to know whether a city/town/region category contained any files.

To illustrate, I wanted to see if we had any good images of Category:Papua New Guinea, but any actual files would be contained in one of the country's 417 sub-categories for individual cities/towns/regions. Obviously I'm not going to go through these categories one-by-one, so I don't actually have a way to know whether there are any images of the country.

Is there some method that I am unaware of? Would it be feasible to have an indicator of how many files are contained within a given category and its sub-categories, without having to actually go through them to find them? --Peter Talk 00:00, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, this is a major problem. You can try a search like [1], which will show all pics with "Japan" in the description, but that's not going to pull up a really nice pic of Tokyo that doesn't have the word "Japan" anywhere.
I think we also need to start thinking about other categories than just geographical, eg. it's very difficult to find pictures of "Japanese food" if you don't put them in the top level (which is what I've been doing, but which is already messy). Jpatokal 01:41, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
Though the tags feature is incomplete, I would like to use tagging which is unrelated to and has no influences on current geographical categories; serach with tags/keywords and get thumbnails as a result like Flickr[2]. -- Tatata 02:54, 5 September 2007 (EDT)
I think Jpatokal has a point when he refers to the possibility of using the category system in a more extensive way. When Shared was started, I tried this in Category:Sweden where you may find sub-categories such as "Buildings and structures in Sweden", etc. I would be highly interested if we would create a similar category tree for every country. Riggwelter 08:09, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Administrative rights[edit]

I have begun to check the administrative rights of the admins here. Admins who haven't contributed to Shared for more than three months will have their administrative rights revoked as per Administrators#Ending administrator privileges. Admins on other language versions are normally admins on Shared too, so if you are an admin and do not have admin rights here, please contact me. Riggwelter 04:41, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm opposed to this. I don't believe Shared should be so strict or restrictive when it comes to matters relating to admin status. First off, no one has to go through a nomination process on here, so why do we follow the rules other language versions have installed about revoking the admin status when we didn't follow the rules to give someone admin status? Plus, it's going to be a huge pain-on-the-ass for someone who hasn't logged in for three months, but comes back to fight off spam or vandalism then discover they don't have admin status anymore. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 20:29, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Sapphire 100%. I can see it maybe if a user hasn't contributed to any version in three months, but I don't think Shared should be evaluated separately like that. Texugo 19:38, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
Sysops on other language versions should be sysops here... if they lose rights on the non-shared language version(s) that granted them admin rights in the first place, then they should be revoked here too. It seems the only person that was affected by this so far was already de-sysopped on their original language version for the same reason, so I don't oppose that particular decision. – cacahuate talk 00:19, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
The reason noone (hm, possibly except me...) has gone through a nomination process is because it was an easy way to get admins when Shared was launched. Evan needed admin help at the time and those of us who were admins at our "local" language versions were therefor automatically given administrative rights. Since then, Wikitravel has undergone several major changes, and Shared is gradually being converted to the common platform where common issues are to be ventilated. Personally, I mean that Shared therefor needs to be treated as any other language version. However, your opinion on this is needed. The reason I de-admined the user in question was based on the very fact that he already had been de-admined on his "home" version plus that no contributions had been made here since october last year... and of course I followed our policy as indicated. Riggwelter 09:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Alright, so let's change the policy to something like this:

Administrative status will be revoked in the following instances:

  • Your administrator status is revoked on a the language version that was the cause of your becoming an admin on Shared.
  • You ask to no longer have admin status on Shared.
  • Abuse of your admin status.

I have no problem de-sysoping of Steffen M., but I will have a problem with say de-sysoping me, because I am busy on other language versions that I don't log in and edit shared every three months. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd prefer to extend the term here rather than just remove the three months rule. But, probably, it is good for the reason of the rule, a security risk, to make it possible without the nomination process here for an ex-admin revoked for reason of three months disappearance to apply to bureaucrat for a sysop privilege, if the user have a good reason for disappearance and have the will to work here. I think that taking long vacations to travel around or being busy with janitorial work on other language versions is a good reason. However I also think that an unused privilege should be taken over by nominating a new admin. -- Tatata 23:26, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I think Sapphire's policy makes perfect sense. Gorilla Jones 00:37, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
I do not like the idea of treating Shared any different from any other language version. Wikitravel should not have different policies for different areas of the same site. Riggwelter 04:20, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Problem adding template to image[edit]

I uploaded 3 images today, all using the Flickr credit template. Image:Ban Saladan pier, Ko Lanta.jpg and Image:Long boat, Ko Lanta.jpg are fine, Image:Bungalows, Ko Lanta.jpg does not seem to be retaining the template or location information. Hypatia 02:43, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Fixed now, I added the template info in one edit at a time. Hypatia 02:50, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

Double category in different languages?[edit]

Why do we have Category:Nordrhein-Westfalen and Category:North Rhine-Westphalia ? "Nordrhein-Westfalen" simply is German for "North Rhine-Westphalia". If there is no rule that cat names should be in English, we might retain only the German one, as it is far more populated than the other one. The problem is not restricted to this state, but exists also with cities like Düsseldorf (Category:Düsseldorf and Category:Duesseldorf) and Münster (Category:Münster (Nordrhein-Westfalen) and Category:Muenster). -- Túrelio 16:08, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I suspect that for those duplicates, one was created manually and the second was created automatically by Evan's bot. I would suggest choosing one set (I would prefer the German names with correct accents) and deleting the others. Jpatokal 23:23, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
I added a See also: link to Category:Düsseldorf and Category:Duesseldorf. How about hiding one as a subcategory of the other with not using {{IsIn}} but using [[Category:]]? Duesseldorf helps me a little bit since I need to use MS-IME to type in ü or any other accented letters with my Japanese keyboard... ;-) -- Tatata 01:24, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Creative Commons International[edit]

Can we use images licensed under Creative Commons International (CCi) on Wikitravel articles? (e.g. Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Germany, Attribution-Share Alike 2.1 Japan, etc.)

If we can, I'd like to add some licensing templates for images uploaded already and will add them to MediaWiki:Licenses. In addition, I'd like to create Babel style template for dual licensed images like this; I mean tag {{dual-gfdl|cc-by-sa-2.1-jp|cc-by-sa-2.5}} for it.

If not, we cannot keep the images like this [3]... -- Tatata 02:42, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

My understanding is that CC international licenses are identical to the English licenses in content, the international versions are just tailored to the local jurisdiction. So yes, I'm fairly sure we can use them, and I think licensing templates with a Babel-style system sounds good.
The CCi licenses are fairly rare though, and there are lots of them, so they should probably not be listed in the Specia:Upload pulldown. Jpatokal 00:45, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your advice. I created cc-by-sa-2.0-de, cc-by-sa-2.1-jp and babel style template for dual licensing, and didn't add them to pull down list. -- Tatata 05:07, 5 November 2007 (EST)
So does this mean you're going to create like 300 templates? I misread what you were originally saying above, is it not possible to add all of that as additional parameters to existing templates? Meaning if you add |de after any template then it will insert "Germany" in the text and the german flag at the right? I don't know that much about adding parameters but that, I think, would be superior to having ssoooo many int'l licenses individually – cacahuate talk 01:03, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Since I don't want to see 300 templates if they are not necessary, I agree to drop a plan to add them to pull down list, to avoid encouraging people to upload such images. But when such images are uploaded in the future, I think we have to create some templates to show correct license (version, elements, coutry). I didn't think of "|de". It's a nice idea, but it must be difficult for me... ;-) -- Tatata 04:45, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Pages coming up blank??[edit]

I don't know what is happening, but I've moved 2 pages and created another, and they keep coming up blank despite having a lot of info in all of them... what is going on? I'm dumbfounded. – cacahuate talk 15:29, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I presume you're referring to Tech:ALL uploads go direct to shared? and Tech:Uploads on all WT's point direct to Shared?? Dunno what was up with those, but creating User:Jpatokal/Test just worked fine for me... Jpatokal 00:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
Yep. Are they blank when you click on them? They seemed to have messed up during my moving of them, and so I tried a brand new tech request at Tech:ALL uploads go direct to shared? which also comes up blank, despite showing +4,366 in recentchanges when I created it. Still dumbfounded. Unless it's the question marks, but we've got other tech requests with them in the title and no problem, so... what then? – cacahuate talk 03:08, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, they're blank for me, and yes, I also see the +4,366 in RC. I'd wager a fair amount that this is related to the question marks, there's a previous bug related to this, along with a comment from Evan saying that this is "really hard". Jpatokal 04:28, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
...and yup, the ? is the problem: I can "rescue" the page content by manually plugging the %3F into the index.php/action=edit form, like this. Jpatokal 04:30, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
Cool, thanks! – cacahuate talk 03:07, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

Images from Wikipedia/Commons with Template:Copyrighted free use or Template:Attribution[edit]

Some people took those images tagged {{copyrighted free use}}[4] or {{attribution}}[5] from Wikipedia/Commons and uploaded them to Wikitravel with {{PD-creator}}[6] or {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}[7]. I think we may use those image on Wikitravel, BUT I believe it is bad behavior from a licensing point of view to tag those images with {{PD-creator}} or {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}. And I also believe it is not good behavior to create new licensing templates for those images without a consensus of Wikitravel community.

So I'd like to suggest that we create Template:copyrighted/Template:attribution and use them officially ; the latter was created already, maybe without a consensus.

Until we reach a consensus, I have to add them to VFD page... -- Tatata 02:52, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed that the images are OK, they're PD in all but name. I think we should create a Template:Copyrighted for these. They're fairly rare, though, so no need to add it to the upload list box. Jpatokal 04:37, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for your advice. I created "Template:Copyrighted free use" intead of "Template:copyrighted", since I also thought those images were rare and the name "Template:copyrighted" was unclear. I didn't add templates to pull down list. -- Tatata 00:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)

"Won't fix" / "Won't implement" categories for bug reports and feature requests[edit]

There are some bug reports like this one this one and feature requests like this one that, for technical reasons or community rejection, will never be implemented. How about creating Template:Won't fix bugs ({{wontfixbug}}) and Template:Rejected feature requests ({{rejectedrequest}}), so they can be removed from cluttering the Open categories? Jpatokal 05:01, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Peter Talk 02:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
I've suggested a possible fix for (at least part of) the Tech:Can't process edit message issue, so that one shouldn't be tagged can't/won't fix just yet. ~ 203.189.134.3 06:00, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, that's a valid bug, I meant to link to Tech:Special:Popularpages no longer updated. Jpatokal 11:39, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Top Feature Requests[edit]

I really like the top bugs votes page—I think that voting is very appropriate for demonstrating priorities as seen by the wikitravel community. Should we create a similar page for feature requests? I realize that we already have something sort of like this in the Roadmap, but that page reflects (I think) the real priorities of IB's tech team, rather than simply demonstrating what we collectively view as most urgent. --Peter Talk 02:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I think we could just do the same thing on Roadmap as on DotM: one section up top for stuff that's agreed on, another for suggestions and discussion. Jpatokal 11:44, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Template for cross-uploading to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

For anybody else who uploads Shared images to Commons, I created this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikitravel. If anybody knows the appropriate Interwiki markup, feel free to jump in. On a related note, can I use the Wikitravel Shared logo in Commons? Padraic 15:21, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Though I didn't know the creator of the logo (not the creator of compass star), I've uploaded it to Shared before. Isn't the lack of copyright information problem for uploading to Commons? -- Tatata 22:07, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
If it's just a normal part of Wikitravel, then it is covered by CC-BY-SA 1.0. I know Wikipedia has a different copyright for its logos, is why I ask. Padraic 10:29, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
User:Mark owns the copyright, and has licensed it for use under a CC-by-SA license (not sure which actually, but most likely 1.0). The only wrinkle is that the name Wikitravel is trademarked, and Internet Brands owns that trademark. I'm no expert in trademarks, but I'm pretty sure that does not prevent you from displaying it on Wikimedia. There was a discussion here about the ownership of the logo for anyone interested. --Peter 16:29, 1 November 2007 (EDT)
As per en:Wikitravel:Trademark_policy, you're explicitly allowed to use WT trademarks "for the purpose of identifying or referencing this website and/or to provide a link to this website". Jpatokal 23:59, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Moving images[edit]

This is kind of a basic question, but is there any way to move an image? For example, if you have misnamed it. I get a "this is a special page and cannot be moved" when I try to use the move tab at the top. --Peter Talk 17:28, 16 December 2007 (EST)

The answer is "nope". I don't know why, that's just the way it is; the only way is to delete the mis-peeled version and reupload under the correct name. Jpatokal 02:29, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Moving images II[edit]

The move of an image from any Wikimedia project to the shared site Wikimedia Commons is assisted by this tool. I assume that there are loads of images on the different language versions of Wikitravel, which should be transferred to Shared. Such an operation would be much easier with the help of a corresponding tool. We should approach Internet Brands about this. Comments? Riggwelter 06:08, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Request added here. Riggwelter 08:00, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Report a bug[edit]

To make it easier for our users to report a bug, I have added a link ("Report a bug") in the navigation sidebar. The link takes you directly to the template for bug reports. Riggwelter 06:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Travel mates[edit]

Since I can't find any way of contacting the creators of the page, I'll hope someone catches up on this and can forward to the creators/webmasters... or whatever I should call them:

What this wikitravel site could really use is a 'Backpacker page' or something like that; a community where people can get together and find travel partners to wherever they are going. More specifically, using my own situation as an example, I want to go from Stockholm to Macedonia this summer, and am looking for someone who is traveling the same or a similar route by car or truck... just about anything will do, as long as it can be a means for cutting costs.

A community for travelers such as me could be very useful, all the ones I have found on the web are more regionally based.

And if or when the webmasters read this, please let me know if you plan to create the kind of feature I am talking about!! Response is appreciated :) 217.209.79.39 13:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Such a feature would not be in compliance with Wikitravel's goals for the travel guides... but I think you will find exactly what you're looking for in our sister-site Wikitravel Extra. It is a site for sharing personal experience and opinions about travel, destinations, and travel services meant to compliment the consensus travel guides on Wikitravel. Here you can ask questions specific to your trip, find travel partners, tell your stories and share photos from the road or when you get back. Good luck! Riggwelter 16:11, 26 December 2007 (EST)

OpenID link spamming?[edit]

User:Ruud Koot on en: has created User:Ruud Koot2 and User:Ruud Koot3 (now deleted) and used URLs from the same site. Is this just another way of spamming links and is it effective? What's the proper way of dealing with it? --OldPine 16:44, 1 January 2008 (EST)

There is, per se, no ban against the usage of marionettes. Personally, I cannot see why someone would need to use a second user name... Anyway: I'd contact the user in question, ask him which user name he prefers to use and then block the two other names. At the same time, he would of course be informed about the Wikitravel view on spamming. Riggwelter 08:03, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Variants

Actions

In other languages