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

Talk:About

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please take your questions about Wikitravel Shared to the Travellers' pub. This page was used in the very startup of the site and should not be used anymore, at least not for general issues. All information added to this page from may 2006 and onwards has been moved to the pub.


So, I think we have a lot to discuss about this site. Some things I think that need to be addressed:

  1. Image license. en:User:Jpatokal requested that we have a default license of cc-by-sa "all", meaning (I guess) that all works must be triple-licensed. That sounds complicated to me and I'm not sure what value it has for Wikitravel.
  2. Organization. How should we organize images? Should we use the main namespace to have "image galleries", or should we use categories? How would that all work? Is a geographical hierarchy appropriate (I think yes).
  3. Language. What language(s) should we use to organize Wikitravel Shared? I'd like to say that any Wikitravel language can be used. Any problems with that? Should we encourage the use of English? Esperanto? | Sona?

I'd like to get the shared repository off the ground a bit -- give it a week or so -- before linking to it prominently from the other wikis. Sound good? --Evan 17:02, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

Image license[edit]

I agree on the license issue, tripple-licensing sounds complicated. Why not simply any license that complies with the Wikitravel license-policies?
Triple-licensing works fine om commons.wikimedia.org. Wikitravel is one of the reasons they do it and I have gotten several pictures from there. Why should they not be able to use our images with CC-2.X? --Elgaard 21:48, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
And oh yes, the main value of the dual/triple license is that, in case we ever upgrade or launch WT versions with CC 2.0 or newer, all Shared images are automatically usable there too. (My understanding is that CC 2.0 also upgrades to all 2.x, so it's just two licenses.) Jpatokal 05:58, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)

Organization[edit]

As for organization; what about using the main namespace for galleries and using RDF to make navigation easier? Adestro 17:18, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

Organization should definitely be done in categories, since this allows classifying images into multiple groups, not just one rigid hierarchy. Obviously the geographical hierarchy is the most important one though and should be created first. Jpatokal 05:56, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)
I agree with Jpatokal here. Categories are the preferred solution rather than RDF. Riggwelter 17:14, 29 Jan 2006 (EST)
I agree with them, too. Because the geographical hierarchy is the idea to which we get used the most.Shoestring 06:13, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)
I'd like to use something more flexible than categories, like en:Wikitravel:RDF Expedition/Tags. --Evan 22:41, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)
The problem with tags is that they aren't browsable, which is absolutely critical, while categories are. Of course you could hack in something like the isIn template to create catalogues... but why reinvent the
Come to think of it, why do you think categories aren't flexible enough? It's entirely possible to place one image in many categories. Jpatokal 11:41, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
I think categories are fine for marking categories, but they're brutally abused on e.g. Wikipedia because they're the only form of semantic markup available. We have a nicely tuned geographical markup system; why not use it?
We just don't use categories on any other Wikitravel version. I'm not seeing the compelling reason to make an exception here.
Let's do this: can we start off with geographic organization with breadcrumbs, like we have now on the other Wikitravel versions? For other "categories" (subject of the picture, say) we make a template Template:Tag, which will start off life just as [[Category:{{{1}}}]], but when the tag system is more functional, will change to something more like en:Template:Tag. For other things that should be marked up with more precise RDF (image type, location type, development stage, etc; see the en:Wikitravel:RDF Expedition for examples), we use that. Sound fair? --Evan 13:33, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

I must admit I am not fully convinced yet. To me, categories do sound like an easier way to do things...the entire RDF idea sounds a bit too advanced for computer illiterates, such as myself, not to forget the fact that the choice of key words for an article are bound to be rather subjective. Categories sounds more objective - but I am happy to change my mind if I get more hands-on advice and examples. Riggwelter 14:20, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

It's pretty easy. All that computer illiterates have to do is add templates like {{isIn|Sweden}} or {{Tag|Dog}}. --Evan 11:07, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)

No, it's not easy, and I object loudly to this. Now you have to add the isIn and you have to manually add the images to the pages, which defeats the whole point. The wonder of categories is that they're self-organizing: just add Category:Foo, and the hierarchy creates itself. Jpatokal 11:38, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)

I think you're confused about how magical categories are. Hierarchies are created because you define relationships; the category feature does not figure out geographical relationships automatically. So there is no real difference in effort between adding [[Category:Mississippi]] to Oxford (Mississippi) or adding {{isIn|Mississippi}} to it, except that the latter has fewer letters, and you have to hit 'shift' for the squiggly brackets on US-101 keyboards.
You're talking about theory and how things could be. I'm bitching about what the user sees right now. Jpatokal 13:04, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
My main problem with categories is how poorly relationships are handled. The picture Image:Chipata Market Beans.JPG has qualitatively different relationships to the the ideas "Chipata", "market", "beans", "GFDL" and "CC-BY-SA-ALL", yet MediaWiki defines them all as "categories". I think that's a bad idea. We don't have to do it that way, and we have a means for expressing relationships in a more precise way.
As to the automating links from containing place to contained place, and from places to images: fair point. Can you live with the current system if links between containing and contained places is automatic, and if galleries are generated automatically? --Evan 12:15, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
Yes. Jpatokal 13:04, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
Great! So, I realized on the way home in traffic today that a) I don't actually want to re-write all that kind of software and b) we can have it both ways. If we define some semantic templates (that is, a template for each kind of relationship we can think of between an image and a category or a category and another category), and add both RDF and Category declarations, we get the Category behaviour (hierarchy, galleries) in addition to the semantic markup. I think we have at least 3 relationships of image to category: Template:Location for the location an image represents ("Chipata"), Template:License for the license for the image ("GFDL"), and Template:Tag for other subjects ("beans", "market"). For a relationship between categories and categories, all I can think of right now is Template:IsIn for part-whole geographical relationships.
Anyways, categories are enabled now that I finally got religion. I'd prefer that we wrap categories in templates, but if that doesn't work right, then... it doesn't work. I'll try to move the geo stuff I did last night to more categories-orientation. --Evan 19:54, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
Grrreat! The only problem seems to be in the caching: eg. when I added Malaysia to Southeast Asia, it didn't show up, even with a shift-reload, until I edited and resaved the page. Jpatokal 22:40, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)
Yeah, I noticed. I'll try and get that going today; it shouldn't be too hard. --Evan 09:30, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)
It turned out to be a lot of work, but I got it going. Let me know if you see any more caching issues. --Evan 14:36, 11 Feb 2006 (EST)

Eh...great guys, you have managed to make me even more confused...:

  1. May we now use categories on all Wikitravel versions?
  2. Is it activated on all Wikitravel versions? Cannot be - I cannot get it to work on sv:.
  3. One of the main reasons I want to use categories is that I want to put the meta articles in some sort of relation to eachother...like a main category "Wikitravel" and all the articles in the "Wikitravel:" namespace in that main category.
  4. We need some really good meta articles on how to handle this...here on Wikitravel Shared. May I suggest that whoever writes that article call it Wikitravel Shared:Organization and puts ALL the relevant information about RDF, breadcrumb navigation, categories, etc etc, in the SAME article...so one does not have to jump from topic to topic? Riggwelter 02:32, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)
Categories are just turned on for shared. I'll try and write something soon. --Evan 09:30, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)
I think we also need a few templates for types of places: Template:Country, Template:City, Template:Province, Template:State, Template:Territory, Template:Continent. --Evan 14:36, 11 Feb 2006 (EST)

Language[edit]

And I would propose English as the main(and only...) language, since it's the language most people know. --Adestro 17:18, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

I would suggest English as the default language, but it's OK to upload files with descriptions in other languages if you don't speak English. Jpatokal 05:56, 22 Jan 2006 (EST)
I think it's better to use English as an essential language, then you put another language additionally, if you think it necessary. English is a current de facto lingua franca, and we can not negligible the utility of English. On the other hand, there's some cases that we want to put the explanation of another language (such as Japanese, for example) for all the (Japanese) natives can understand what it describes. Shoestring 06:19, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)
English (mandatory) + language version (optional) seems to be the most reasonable/feasible solution. Or maybe we could put some of those ideas about automatic translation into practice here first... - Rmx 21:17, 4 March 2006 (EST)

Symbol[edit]

May I suggest that the Wikitravel logotype is adjusted to indicate that this is a shared part of WT? For example, the blue "arrow" around the globe could be red instead. Riggwelter 04:16, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

There will soon be a new skin, se here. /81.235.0.244 08:39, 14 Jan 2006 (EST)
Looks nice. I still think that the new skin must be slightly different from main WT f/e the symbol in a different colour. Riggwelter 08:58, 15 Jan 2006 (EST)
I agree with Riggwelter and have proposed something similar here. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 23:12, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Display[edit]

I would like to suggest that it is necessary to display all the images with view (gallery) style at each category. Otherwise we have to click them and check what's inside...it's very much pain in the neck. Shoestring 06:26, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)

I think that makes a lot of sense. --Evan 13:37, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

File name[edit]

I think it is better to make some protocols for putting file names. If we have a view styled display with simple and unified file names (such as "Name, City (town) or Region where it belongs, Country (or Domain Code)" etc.), we can easily find out what we need from each pile. I don’t want to click and magnify the images one by one to read the appended explanation for identifying where it is.Shoestring 06:26, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)

..., Well, I noticed the fact that if we can classify our image data well by using solid categories, we don't necessarily put country name (city name may as well) on each file. But we also assume the case that another person will put categories (or modify them to the better ones). If it does, it would be better to put detailed (but longer) name on each file. At present, I have no idea which one is better.Shoestring 07:18, 30 Jan 2006 (EST)

Templates[edit]

I think we need templates for some issues, for example copyright issues (PD/CC, etc). Riggwelter 06:40, 2 Feb 2006 (EST)

Two templates created: Template:PD and Template:CC. The templates should be applied to each uploaded file like: {{PD}} and {{CC}}. Riggwelter 07:09, 9 Feb 2006 (EST)

Wikitravel Shared - Meta[edit]

Do we need special pages on Wikitravel Shared with their own namespace,, for example Wikitravel Shared:How to upload files? I think we do, rather then to find the information on some other (language) Wikitravel site. Riggwelter 06:40, 2 Feb 2006 (EST)

I agree. --Evan 13:36, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
Some sort of embryo of an meta article list started here: Wikitravel Shared:Namespace index. Go edit! Riggwelter 14:39, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)
Jpatokal and myself seem to have different point of views on which meta pages we need and which we do not need. A general discussion is needed. Personally, I think we should have our own set of basic meta articles instead of linking to en:. The Help page could of course, contain a main link to en:, where more specific info can be found, but many meta articles could , with some adjustments, be used on Shared. This would also give Shared the feeling of being a complete site (although not standalone) with its own set of guidelines, of course quite similar to the guidelines on main Wikitravel. After all - at the moment, Shared supplies information for the various WT language projects, but it would be great if ppl saw it as a nice resource for other sites too...and then a complete set of guidelines would come in handy. Riggwelter 09:44, 7 March 2006 (EST)
OK, now I think we're getting at the crux of the issue. I don't view Wikitravel Shared as a "complete site", because it's not -- you can't come over here and get much in the way of useful travel information, it's just a data repository for all our actual travel guides. I also don't see it as our mission to start competing with Wikimedia Commons or Flickr or whatever, both of which already do support CC images. After all, Wikitravel is a project to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide, not to (for example) provide a vacation photo gallery service. Jpatokal 03:52, 8 March 2006 (EST)
The other option is of course to link to all the corresponding meta pages on en: and only have Shared-specific meta pages on "here". That, however, could be seen as a disadvantage for contributors more interested in working on Shared only, even though they probably are quite few, at the moment...but we do not know what happens in the future, so it would be nice to be prepared. Your opinion? Riggwelter 03:23, 8 March 2006 (EST)
I don't see how, even in theory, that would be a disadvantage — surely they can still pop over to en-Wikitravel to read a page, even if they for some odd reason are more interested in working on Shared only? Jpatokal 03:52, 8 March 2006 (EST)

File size limits?[edit]

Could the 100k limit be pushed to some more reasonable number -- and is there another upper bound? I was trying to upload a few 3MB pictures, but it kept crapping out on me with "File name empty" or some equally bizarre error. Jpatokal 23:44, 4 Feb 2006 (EST)

I agree with Jpatokal here. Alright, 3MB pics are perhaps a bit too big, but...say 500k? Riggwelter 09:45, 7 March 2006 (EST)

Ready to rawk?[edit]

So... is it time to make this 'official' and start promoting it across all Wikitravel versions? And in fact, would it be too radical a proposal to suggest that all existing images, from all language versions, be migrated here and all local uploads redirected into Shared? Jpatokal 11:59, 15 Feb 2006 (EST)

I've ever thought it is already official. I already adapted our Wikitravel article: how to upload images. But at the moment the two versions upload to the German Wikitravel and upload to Shared Wikitravel are described. And I've transfered all my images to Shared Wikitravel. But maybe some users will have a problem - it's only in English. -- Der Fussi 01:58, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
Not sure about the level of technical wizardry needed, but it should not be impossible to transparently redirect all uploads into Shared, and then forward the user to the localized Image page (which will automagically fetch the image from Shared). Jpatokal 02:08, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
It is not impossible but I'm not sure it's necessary. A map with Japanese subtitles is only going to be really useful for ja:, and an electrical diagram with a German key will only be useful for de:. --Evan 11:19, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
But is there any harm to it? It'll still take up the same number of bits on the hard disk. The only rather hypothetical downside I can see if if some map or whatever is translated into 70 different languages and they all end up in Category:Foo, but even in this case it's just a matter of organization. Jpatokal 11:40, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)
How about the idea that the images putting some kind of tugs (such as {{shared}}) on it can only redirect to Shared? Then we can control transferring the images about which we should and which we should not. Gathering all (or most of all) the scenery images at one sight will be very much fascinating for us, because we can choose what we need from the more enriched collection. On the other hand, uploading the images at each local language site should be guaranteed. If uploading the images will be explained only in English (i.e. uploading only on Wikitravel Shared) and every user has to put an English explanation when they want to upload, some users (such as we Japanese people) will very much hesitate uploading itself, and it will cause some stagnancy of the development of local language editions.Shoestring 05:08, 18 Feb 2006 (EST)
Swedish Wikitravel have started work on a template to be put on each file description page. We aim to put all our files on Shared (with english file names...) and link directly to the article. However, the template is put on the swedish file description page, and by clicking on the template, more information, for example other files, can be found - on Shared. Riggwelter 09:58, 7 March 2006 (EST)
I am on en:Wikitravel quite a lot and new Shred existed, but found it difficult to find a link here. Shouldn't there be a page about it and a link on :en? -- DanielC 14:51, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

Food hierarchy[edit]

I'd suggest creating a category hierarchy for food: Category:Food at the base, and then Category:Cuisine of X for each type of food (initially X=country should be enough). Evan, can you delete Category:Vietnamese cuisine? Jpatokal 03:58, 22 Feb 2006 (EST)

Yes, it's deleted. --Evan 12:21, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Picture-ranking system[edit]

We need some sort of a picture-ranking system. If You look at Category:Stockholm, there are a lot of pictures acting only as placeholders until better pics of the object is uploaded. Such as this and this, as well as this. What's your opinion? What levels should the system have? /Adestro 15:45, 23 February 2006 (EST)

Internal links?[edit]

If I want to link from sv: to en:, I type [[:en:Wikitravel:Articlename]]. If I link from en: to sv:, I type [[:sv:Wikitravel:Articlename]]. How do I link to Wikitravel Shared, using the same setup? Do I put "sh:"? Riggwelter 04:53, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Use :shared, i.e. [[:shared:Category:Africa|Africans!]]. Pictures are linked automaticly, no matter what syntax-language you use(Image, Bild, etc.). I supose you are going to add "Media related to <object> are available on Wikitravel Shared"-lines or something similiar? /Adestro 05:57, 24 February 2006 (EST)
Maybe we should make that work the same as interlanguage links. --Evan 12:16, 24 February 2006 (EST)
I like it the way it is now. Since Shared isn't any language-version but a common media storage it should have a different syntax. Could confuse newcomers otherwise. My opinion... /Adestro 14:00, 24 February 2006 (EST)
I assume Evan refers to the creation of an abbreviation of "shared", f.e. "sh:". This is a good idea and I agree. It would definitely help. Yes, Adestro, it was all about the translation of sv:Special:Allmessages. Riggwelter 09:13, 25 February 2006 (EST)

Admins[edit]

I think it makes sense that administrators on any other language version of Wikitravel should also be admins on Shared. Sound OK? --Evan 12:22, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Sounds reasonable, I agree. /Adestro 13:59, 24 February 2006 (EST)
It makes sense. The local admins have a closer contact to the users (license-problems ...), if any problem occurs. Do we have a VFD-section here, or should we use the local VFD-page?-- Der Fussi 03:21, 25 February 2006 (EST)
I concur. Riggwelter 09:06, 25 February 2006 (EST)
OK, so, there's no way to make this automatic yet, but it's updated. All the people I saw on Special:Listusers that had names like admins on other Wikitravel wikis were added as admins. As a side note, database messages are turned on for this wiki, so admins can edit the messages (see Special:Allmessages). --Evan 14:23, 25 April 2006 (EDT)
I just tried to edit MediaWiki:License (to remove that problematic apostrophe in "Don't") and it wouldn't let me. - TVerBeek 12:40, 2 June 2006 (EDT)
I'm not yet an Admin here. Did you skip pt: on purpose? 8-) Ricardo (Rmx) 23:08, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Seed categories[edit]

So, I've been messing around with a big database of cities, countries and states/counties/provinces/etc. called UN/LOCODE (see http://www.unece.org/cefact/locode/ for more details). I like the database because a) it's free for anyone to use b) it has hierarchy information c) it contains lat/long information for a number of cities and d) it covers just about the right cities for Wikitravel. Because it's primarily an encoding for trade and business, it focuses on cities that have airports, train stations, roads, or bus lines. So it's a little more comprehensive than the en:Wikitravel:Wikitravel:World cities with 100K population or more.

There are a couple of downsides. First, it uses the "local" name of each place, in Romanized form, so en:Athens is "Athínai" and en:Rome is "Roma". It's probably more fair to use local names for our multi-lingual shared wiki, but we haven't really talked about it.

Second, there are some big countries, like en:Spain or en:Italy, that never bothered to submit sub-national division information. So all the cities in Spain are isIn Spain. That'll be kind of a hassle.

Anyways, I've got a candidate list of possible seed categories available at http://wikitravel.org/~evan/locode_v1.txt . The file is organized into lines, hierarchically; each line is a breadcrumb menu, more or less. I'll be working over the next few days on a) making a test wiki with these categories for review and b) making disambiguation and "redirection" work, whatever they mean for Mediawiki categories.

Input welcome. --Evan 01:30, 3 March 2006 (EST) 01:29, 3 March 2006 (EST)

I'm going to provide such a list of Myanmar and Cambodia with provinces and cities. So you can replace these parts. I think I'll do it tomorrow -- Der Fussi 05:57, 3 March 2006 (EST)
I've just uploaded a list of Myanmar and Cambodia. So you can replace these sections. You can find it here -- Der Fussi 11:38, 5 March 2006 (EST)
Sounds very interesting. One of sv: users are very keen on RDF and the IsIn work, and this may be of considerable help to us. Riggwelter 10:02, 7 March 2006 (EST)

Special:Upload and location tags[edit]

Special:Upload on all language versions should have big, visible links to Wikitravel Shared.

On Shared itself, the Special:Upload page should describe the use of the location tag. In fact, better yet, it should have a "Where is this picture" inputbox that will automatically add the correct tag. Jpatokal 23:50, 4 March 2006 (EST)

Good idea, Jpatokal. Will do that ASAP. Riggwelter 10:06, 7 March 2006 (EST)
I'll see what I can do about adding a location box... and a license box, too. --Evan 10:13, 8 March 2006 (EST)
Meanwhile, check out the template created by Ravikiran r, it's quite helpful too. Ricardo (Rmx) 12:54, 14 October 2006 (EDT)

Navigation[edit]

Since the pages in the main namespace are so unused on this wiki, I changed the "random page" function in the navigation box to give either a random image or a random category. Comments? Problems? --Evan 14:25, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

Variants

Actions

In other languages