YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel talk:Using discussion pages

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

So, talk pages can really benefit from having the table of contents going, especially for long and disparate arguments.

I'd like to suggest using a section header:

==These are two cities==

These are actually two cities. --Somebody

    No they're not. --SomebodyElse

         Yes they are. --Somebody

to separate this stuff out, instead of the four-dash horizontal rules. This is also how the "Post a comment" feature works, so it'd be nice to be synched up. Any objections? --Evan 14:35, 21 Dec 2003 (PST)

Missing link to Other languages[edit]

There is a missing link for a City I am working on in the left column Other languages. How can I add this missing link ? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBHS Cambodia‎ (talkcontribs)

Depending on the language you add [[Country code:Cityname]] to the buttom of the page, eg: [[fr:Cambodge]]. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 22:47, 15 December 2010 (EST)


I am a newer to wikitravel. I like the style of WikiTravel. I know that Wiki is a part of so-called web 2.0. Therefore, I am not sure that whether I can read any new item in wikiTravel through RSS viewer. If yes, what is RSS URL for wikiTravel. Thanks!

You can find the RSS for changes to Wikitravel here:
Enjoy, --Evan 10:34, 17 Feb 2006 (EST)

A Free Overnight Option From Tokyo to Sapporo for Japan Rail Pass Holders[edit]

sorry I am new too. I read wiki about Sapporo and need to know this free overnight option because I plan to visit Sapporo in July. Would somebody explain to me how to get there "free overnight" from Tokyo to Sapporo in detail by using Japan Rail Pass? I got the timetable from Iko's place website, two express trains only run until midnight. Thaks for your help.


avatars/userpics for easier scanning?[edit]

I wonder why we haven't implement placing avatars (small pictures) next to user's comment in talk pages--similar to Livejournal's comments page: [1], or I believe it can make pages read much easier. Personally it takes extra effort to distinguish which phrase belong to which person, and where one comment ends and another starts.

It could look something like this: (assuming there's photos or user-chosen avatars instead of these pics--and of course we should allow only square, equal-sized images)

St. Basil2.jpg
I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User1
I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User2
Saddleback Pier.JPG
I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User3
St. Basil2.jpg
I'm a Docent for Russia and Moscow where I live now, and for Altai where I was born and lived until age of 17. I can also help a bit on St. Petersburg as have many friends there, and being there myself several times. --User1

I think we can implement it with a template call like {{user|DenisYurkin}} which can be invoked as a default signature. --DenisYurkin 04:23, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I definitely support this idea. It would make reading long discussions a lot easier. Texugo 06:05, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
Support. If we can get the layout to work properly. --Jonboy 15:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Do you mean we already have some problems, or you foresee some? What kind of problems, specifically? --DenisYurkin 18:40, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I would love avatars. To me it just adds personality and can tell you about said person. I'd love that...for talk pages and on the users' page of course only. That would be funzies!!!! Keep smiling, Edmontonenthusiast 15:03, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Heinous signatures work too → – cacahuate talk 20:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I know what you mean ;) although I don't think they work with unlinked words plus avatars add more. Keep smiling, ee
It is possible, but doubtfully desirable. And you didn't finish that sentence, avatars add more.... ?? – cacahuate talk 22:08, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure that this is something that should necessarily be encouraged. They don't actually add content to the page, and for pages with lots of contributors, it would slow page load (the client has to load and render all of those images) and it might be extra work on the server transcluding templates, resizing images, sending out the extra stuff etc. (although I don't know a lot about the servers so I won't use that as an argument). Having said that, if people really wanted to do this, they could just do it, creating a template in their own userspace and transcluding it every time they make an edit in a discussion. Personally, I like the idea of using distinctive signatures better, it's more in line with the way discussions work here. JYolkowski 22:20, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Agreed on all points... I'm not coming out in full opposition quite yet, but I don't see a lot of added value, and it takes up a lot of space, and kinda distracts from the conversation. Custom signatures work well on Wikipedia, I'm in favor of those – cacahuate talk 22:29, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
Actually, what about if we just used an avatar in our user pages, not talk pages? It'd just be in one page, so itd be easier and it's possibly different than the picutre of yourself. Keep smiling, ee talk 13:47, 13 November 2008 (EST).
I'm gonna give you a do-over... think that one through again, and then I won't hold it against you when you want to delete it and start thinking before asking :) – cacahuate talk 04:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Talk notification suggestion[edit]

Swept in from the pub:

I wonder if it wouldn't be productive to make a new user's first talk page notification somehow more obvious than just the little red dot. If you are a long time contributor, you've probably experienced many cases where a new user is contributing things which fall outside of our guidelines-- you revert their changes, they continue to add them, you leave a message on their talk page but they seem to never notice it. New users may not realize that we are an interactive community that works in real time, and may even be frustrated at seeing their contributions disappear, not having realized that an explanation was already given them. Anyone have any thoughts? Texugo 11:56, 30 November 2008 (EST)

Oh yes! I know this one firsthand and we should do something. After the first one it should just bee the nice red dot. That blatant thing should also say that there is a red dot. edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:08, 1 December 2008 (EST).
I agree, this would be a really good idea. In the meantime (I'm assuming this isn't something that could get done right away as I assume it would require a software change), maybe we could add something to MediaWiki:Welcomecreation explaining what the red dot means? JYolkowski 18:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)
Good idea. Why don't we do what Wikipedia does, with that big, bold message at the top of the page? Doesn't get much more obvious than that. PerryPlanet Talk 12:04, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Support. A full-width one-liner that is like confirmation of operation in GMail definitely attracts attention and serves the purpose. --DenisYurkin 10:25, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Yah! edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 12:21, 3 December 2008 (EST).

I like the subtle red dot. Here are my steps for contacting users.
(1) Welcome or post message on the talk page - including anonymous talk pages.
(2) If the user is editing one page and you have reverted the edit more than once, add a note to the article talk page, especially if there is no talk page yet, telling everyone why the user's edit was reverted, with a link to the user's tak page.
(3) E-mail the user if they have enabled e-mail.
(4) Insert HTML comments in the page telling the user (and any other editor) to read their talk page. (View the source code of the Main Page for an example of how to use comments.)
(5) If the user persists in editing again, Insert a message directly on the article page telling the user to read their talk page. (This could be done with a vandalism template if need be).
(6) Keep reverting edits until the user pays attention or gets bored and stops.
(7) Ask an administrator to protect the affected pages, if this can be predicted , or,
(8) At last resort even block the user for a few minutes to an hour or so, so you can catch up with cleaning up their changes - serious vandalism only - as users sometimes will lose their temper and do stupid things as a reaction to being blocked.
- If they have not noticed by now they are either a bot or are ignoring you deliberately. In the case of spammers there is also the spam blacklist to cut the edit off at the knees, as it were. -- Huttite 06:15, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Page discussions[edit]

swept from pub:

I'm seeing a quite a few discussions recently on additions/reversions taking place on user's talk pages. I think the regulars here (and others) should make an effort to make sure those conversations are moved to the appropriate article talk page. It allows all intersted people to contribute and it makes a record of the discussion for later reference, which is lost if the discussion is elsewhere. --inas 04:22, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

Just to clarify, I typically put a note on a user's talk page when an edited is removed more than once in accordance with some policy, solely so they get the blinking talk page notification. If an edit falls into some grey policy area then I would usually discuss on the talk page. I think that's the correct approach - thoughts? -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:35, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

It is best to keep conversations in the most relevant place, but lets be careful not to police others' discussions. If the discussion is on someone else's talk page, ask first if it's ok to move it before doing so, and then remember to leave a pointer to the page where the discussion was moved. --Peter Talk 21:18, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

template for inviting to discussion[edit]

Swept in from the pub & Template talk:QuestionOnYourEdit:

I frequently leave a question on article's Talk page challenging/asking questions on a recent edit of other user. In many cases I also leave a question on the user's talk page inviting him to discussion on the article's Talk.

I'd like to create a template for such invitations to discuss. What name would be best for such template? Maybe someone have a good text in hand for such a template. And--maybe any objections? --DenisYurkin 13:12, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I plunged forward: now you can use Template:QuestionOnYourEdit: {{subst:QuestionOnYourEdit|articlename}}. Any comments would be appreciated. --DenisYurkin 06:23, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Yeah, I object on the grounds that any questions should be more personalized and we shouldn't use templates to interact with other users with the exception of a welcome message, which should be standard. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 13:04, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Me too – cacahuate talk 18:52, 3 January 2008 (EST)
I always place every bit of specifics of my question in article's talk page, and appeal to user's talk page only to make sure he won't miss the comment and to invite to discuss right there in the article's talk page. Am I only one practicing this pattern? --DenisYurkin 14:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)
I think you are. For the most part, it's much easier to solicit a response from the user directly. If, however, it's an issue that requires greater community participation, then I'd mention it on the talk page, appropriate policy page, or travellers' pub. We also have to assume all users are new to wikis, so questioning an edit or explaining policy on their talk page is much more preferential than a new user receiving a message with the perceived message of: 'Hey, go to this page, because I don't like your edit and want to ask a question.' -- Sapphire(Talk) • 16:03, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Well, I have my reasons for preferring to discuss in the article's talk page:

  1. I can't be 100% sure I'm right in the comments I leave. When I leave a comment only on user's talk page, there's much less chances anyone else will verify whether I'm following the community policy and consensus.
  2. It is quite typical that I challenge edit of an experienced wikitraveller (or he challenges mine), in some cases on the edge of WT policies. Placing discussion on article's talk page, I also ask for opinions from other wikitravellers.

Yes, there are simple cases when a newby posts an extlink or an apartment listing which doesn't meet our policy--in that cases I feel confident enough that any other pair of experienced WT eyes will say just the same as I did. I don't aim the above template for these cases--only for the former kind above. --DenisYurkin 11:49, 11 January 2008 (EST)

DenisYurkin, the template as it is written now doesn't really do anything for your second point, you need something like a 'request for participation in a discussion' for that. Your first point makes sense to me - if an edit is obviously gratuitous, one can revert it but marginal cases are probably better discussed on the article talk page because the user's talk page is useful only in the here and now. I don't see why a template, similar to the {{Template:Districts discussion}} can't be used here. I would rewrite it a bit "Hi Axolotl. I have a question about something you contributed to potrezbie and started a discusion in Talk:potrezbie. If you can, please take a look at the Talk:potrezbie page and leave you comments. Thanks!" But, I'm easy with the idea whatever the final text is. --Wandering 15:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the suggestion on improving, I edited text in the template.
PS. I'm not sure I understood what exactly you called my first point, and what my second point. --DenisYurkin 19:19, 19 January 2008 (EST)
First point: I can't be 100% sure I'm right in the comments I leave. (I agree that almost everything is better discussed on the article talk page rather than on a user page.) Second Point: Placing discussion on article's talk page, I also ask for opinions from other wikitravellers.
(which, on reflection, I think I misunderstood and confused with your invitations to discuss the redistricting of Barcelona. Sorry!) --Wandering 22:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)
OK, I mentioned these two points as a response to proposal from Sapphire and cacahuate to comment on user talk pages most of the time. For the second point, the template also helps when someone edits an article and I am not entirely agree that the edit makes the article better. In such cases I normally leave a question on article's talk page before trying to change back anything in the article. So why do you think that it doesn't really do anything for second point? --DenisYurkin 06:46, 21 January 2008 (EST)
So why do you think that it doesn't really do anything for second point? It does. Like I said: I think I misunderstood and confused with your invitations to discuss the redistricting of Barcelona. Sorry--Wandering 13:00, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Archiving the contents of user talk pages[edit]


Have a look at this history:

and this discussion:

I think the idea that someone can remove all content from their user talk page and put it in an archive, especially when the content is not even a month old, is absurd. What is your opinion about this? Ikan Kekek 02:22, 27 February 2012 (EST)

Why do you feel it is absurd? Obviously, the archive ought to be linked from the talk page, but as long as that is done, I don't see the problem. LtPowers 13:03, 27 February 2012 (EST)
First, I didn't see a link. Second, there has to be a minimum amount of time before it makes sense to archive discussion, especially when the discussion consisted of two posts by others telling the user in question not to tout. Do you really think it makes sense to archive discussion in user talk pages that's less than a month old? Ikan Kekek 14:05, 27 February 2012 (EST)
Plenty of policy discussions about this, without much consensus, but with a fairly strict status quo practice of letting users do almost whatever they want with their own userspace. Guidance for users is at Wikitravel:Using_talk_pages#Etiquette, but etiquette is not something policed. We do have a consensus to remove content from non-contributing users talk pages, and remove some extreme content (especially hate speech, promotion of illegal activities like prostitution, or threats). But we have not been able to build a consensus to police users' removal of good faith comments by other Wikitravellers (I think we should). For archiving, though, I think we shouldn't get too much in the business of policing userspace.
FWIW, I would support adding a note to the etiquette section, noting that it's best to wait until the page has grown long before archiving, and that such archives be clearly linked from the user's main talk page, so that everything is easy to find. --Peter Talk 17:55, 28 February 2012 (EST)
I have added this note. --Peter Talk 21:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Revisiting this topic with two suggested policy changes:

A) It is not OK to remove comments on discussion pages that were made in good faith, including those made to user talk pages, with one exception: comments may be removed by their author if no one has yet responded to them.

B) Archives may not be orphaned. I.e., they must be linked on the page from which the content was archived.

Do either of these seem reasonable? --Peter Talk 21:48, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Both of those sound reasonable to me. Ikan Kekek 23:10, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
I'm mildly uncomfortable with adding "must archive" rules for user talk pages, but I don't have a good suggestion for an alternative. Wikipedia's policy on the matter is:
"Archiving one's own user talk page is optional; some users simply blank the page, as the history is kept available for future reference, but this is not considered the best practice (as it makes things more difficult to find and link)"
Is there a way to word this guideline so that archiving of user talk pages is not a hard-and-fast rule, but something that is strongly suggested and may be required in cases where there is concern that deleting discussions may lead to confusion or additional work for other editors (example: as came up with User:Edmontonenthusiast some time ago)? -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:30, 30 June 2012 (EDT)