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

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel:Travellers' pub"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(Sharing images between different language editions of Wikitravel: Wiki Commons)
(== Bug ==)
Line 558: Line 558:
==Voting on Upgrade==
==Voting on Upgrade==
There is a somewhat dormant discussion on [[Wikitravel talk:Copyleft]] discussing the idea of changing the phrase '''Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0''' in the copyright notice to '''Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 or any later version'''.  This versioning change would keep us viable and compatible with other projects that may use the newer, non-draft versions of the license which would allow us to continue to share with others, as the current version is an obsolete '''draft'''.  Should we not open up a discussion and a vote about whether or not to migrate?  We'd probably have to leave all current articles in 1.0 only, but articles created after date xyz could be multi-licensed. -- [[User:Ram-Man|Ram-Man]] 11:29, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)
There is a somewhat dormant discussion on [[Wikitravel talk:Copyleft]] discussing the idea of changing the phrase '''Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0''' in the copyright notice to '''Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 or any later version'''.  This versioning change would keep us viable and compatible with other projects that may use the newer, non-draft versions of the license which would allow us to continue to share with others, as the current version is an obsolete '''draft'''.  Should we not open up a discussion and a vote about whether or not to migrate?  We'd probably have to leave all current articles in 1.0 only, but articles created after date xyz could be multi-licensed. -- [[User:Ram-Man|Ram-Man]] 11:29, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)
== Bug ==
There is a bug right now. Even when loggued in, it's written "My Page" instead of Yann. [[User:Yann|Yann]] 09:40, 26 Nov 2004 (EST)

Revision as of 14:44, 26 November 2004

The Travellers' pub is the place to ask questions when you're confused, lost, afraid, tired, annoyed, thoughtful, or helpful. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question, though, since that may save your time and others'. Also, if you have a question or suggestion about a particular article, try using talk pages to keep the discussion specific to that article.

If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the Mediawiki software, please post that on the Bug reports page instead.

Please add new questions at the bottom of the page, but otherwise plunge forward!


Keeping the Pub clean is a group effort. If we have too many conversations on this page, it gets too noisy and hard to read. If you see a conversation that could or should be moved to a talk page, please do so, and note the move here.

Stuff that's been moved:

Also, see the Travellers' pub archives for very old discussions.

Please sweep the pub

So, the TP has been getting kinda crowded and messy. I'd really appreciate if we could all make an effort to clean up a bit by moving discussions to places more appropriate or deleting discussions that have reached their conclusions. It's a tedious job, but like most, it's easier if we do it together. --Evan 16:44, 20 Apr 2004 (EDT)

I was about to nuke the New User Deluge section when I realized there's no logbook entry. Do you want want before it gets deleted?
Also, New User Deluge seemed more like conversation about events than a discussion about policy. Am I right to think that policy questions should be preserved, but discussions and chatter can be deleted outright once they are done? -- Colin 02:22, 5 May 2004 (EDT)
Alright, I've done a bit of sweeping here. I'm not exactly sure if I'm doing it right, so I'll stop for now and wait to see if anyone has any comments. I just blew away some discussion that haven't had contributions in over a month. For some of them, where it seemed the discussion may be important in the future, I archived them. There are others which still seem relevant or as if they could fit into the FAQ, but I'm not sure where to put them, so I've left them in the pub (even though they're quite old). --Dawnview 17:57, 6 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Illegal activities policy?

Should we have a policy about listing/promoting Illegal activities? Recently I have noticed a number of article contributions describing illegal or dangerous activities and related inappropriate subjects. Some of these contributions have been removed or changed by others, but we do not have a general policy on this area other than a Sex tourism policy. What is our standard? Where do we draw the line? -- Huttite 20:42, 7 May 2004 (EDT)

I did one of the edits Huttite is talking about -- I removed a reference to marijuana quality from Vancouver. Speaking as a law-abiding non-drug user, I think we should have a policy against mentioning drugs (and other activities) in places where they are illegal. But that is not why I removed the marijuana reference. I felt that saying Vancouver had good pot was a lot like saying it had blue skies -- it's subjective and irrelevant for most travellers.

Are there any illegal activities we do need to mention? When the speed limit was in the US was 55 mph, driving just 55 was unsafe in some areas, and would have been a good thing to mention. Are there any more serious examples of illegal activities that we need to mention? -- Colin 14:10, 8 May 2004 (EDT)
I'm wondering whether pointing out an illegal activity (by the way, isn't pot smoking decriminalized in Canada) is advocating or promoting it. I think there's a fine line to walk. Of course, putting travellers in jeopardy by telling them that it's just fine to do illegal things is wrong. --Evan 12:51, 22 May 2004 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that just simply pointing out an illegal activity is wrong, unless you don't mention that it's illegal (e.g. "Lots of people jaywalk in Taipei."). I agree with your statement: it's irresponsible to suggest that an illegal activity is OK, regardless of how 'accepted' it may be by the locals. If anything the articles should point out (and suggest not engaging in) illegal activities that carry penalties that are heavier than the 'typical' penalty, such as chewing gum in Singapore, smuggling drugs into Thailand, etc.. -- Sohcahtoa 08:43, 2004 May 23 (EDT)
I think there are a number of circumstances where there is a definite need to mention illegal activities. Case in point is hash / dope / opium smoking in Morocco's Rif Mountains and the hill tribes of Laos. Most backpackers in these regions aren't solely drug tourists, but it would be naive to suggest that they don't sample the local 'produce' ... which often plays a large part in regional culture and pratices. A straw poll I took of travellers in Morocco suggests that the majority try some hash at least once on their trip. When you consider that in the Rif mountains dope is the main cash crop and most locals smoke it, this isn't surprising. Given these realities, I think it's important that a travel guide stress that drug possession is illegal, recommend against consumption, but having said that also describe the drug's role in the region and give tips for staying safe. -- Allyak 08:17, Jul 30, 2004 (EDT)

Shotgun Approach To Sleep

Filling in sections like sleep is a hassle, takes time to research, and is also very helpful. We need more sleep entries. Lots more sleep entries. In the Bay Area where I live, few cities are even begun, and fewer have sleep entries.

So I have an idea: I could go through a selection of Well Known Motel and Hotel chains, find all the ones in my region (San Francisco Bay Area) and then add them to any cities in my area needing extra Sleep entries (creating the city article as needed). This would get a boatload of cities started, and each of them would have sleep entries. And it would be fast and efficient to do.

The bad news of this that I have no basis for judging any of them, and non-chain hotels and motels get the shaft, and that sucks.

So is it worth doing? Or a bad idea? -- Colin 02:59, 28 May 2004 (EDT)

It's a fantastic idea! I've long been an advocate of using on-line research to fill in the sleep listings to the extent possible. In my opinion, as discussed here It's absolutely valid to summarise (but not copy) reviews found on the web and elsewhere. eg:
  • Seaside Hotel, 123 charming lane. +01 555 555 5555. This cheapie gets mostly positive reviews for cleanlyness etc., although it's fair to point out that more than one review found online mentions that although the place is about 4 blocks from the sea there are a lot of buildings in between, and thus no view. starting at 39 Eur. singles
Key ideas to consider for a summary approach:
    • Clearly express that you are writing from a collection of reviews, not first-hand experience.
    • Use more than one source.
    • DO NOT COPY people's words; ideas however, are fair game.
Taking this approach it's possible to list places which aren't chains as well! -- Mark 03:47, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Maybe I need to clarify, maybe not. My suggestion is to go to a Major Chain's website, and crib a bunch of places in the Bay Area for that one chain. Then go to Major Chain #2's website, rinse and repeat. But your idea is nice in that it also picks up on the non-chains too. Hmm. Maybe one pass through the big chains, then once pass through search sites to pick up some extras and then multi-source the reviews? -- Colin 03:53, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Yes, exactly. The chains are easy, and from there we find small places that people seem to like to write about. While you're doing chain hotels in the U.S. I would recommend checking out [this chain of midrange boutique hotels.] -- Mark 04:04, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Okay, I'll start on it. Thanks for the hotel pointer, I'll be sure to include them. I'd like to generate a range of hotels.... I'm thinking Motel6 (cheapest), Best Western (medium), Marriot (more expensive). Anyone have any I need to add to the list, or better lists? -- Colin 04:08, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
I'd be careful with the price ranking. While it's true that in some smaller places like maybe Minot that Marriot, if they have a presence will be the top of the line, in other places like San Francisco or Chicago Mariott will probably have entries in the low mid range as well as low-splurge range, so it's worth checking out. Another cheapie chain is Day's Inn. for mid-range and splurge hotels there´s Hilton, and of course there's also a chain for the very top of the line. -- Mark 04:26, 28 May 2004 (EDT)
Here are some more, cheapie: Best Inns, midrange: Holiday Inn and splurge: Hotel Intercontinental. -- Mark 04:37, 28 May 2004 (EDT)

"Open Maps?"

There's an article on Slashdot about Open Maps. Considering this is one of our big problems on Wikitravel, I think it makes interesting reading. --Evan 18:59, 29 May 2004 (EDT)


Can anybody explain what's the story behind "The Wikitravel Mirror" with the ambingously similar address ? It seems to access the original database and makes deep links onto some pages. The ugly difference between the "mirror" and the original is an additional link collection and an advertising banner on each page. --Hansm 15:17, 2004 Jun 5 (EDT)

I don't know what it is, but comparing its content with some of my contributions it is certainly a good month out of date. Obviously we cannot complain about this site's use of wikitravel content, but I'm personally a bit miffed about the way it is masquarading as a mirror, when clearly it is a very poor mirror, if at all. Chris j wood 19:14, 5 Jun 2004 (EDT)
It looks as if the site's owner tries to make money with confused people that misstype the URL. Follwing the link "My Sites", you are lead to a list of so called "mirrors" that all work the same way: They are a partly outdated copy of free licensed sites, often with some advertising banners added. I think there is at least one point about that we could complain. The "mirror" pretents to be the original and deep links the real wikitravel when you click on the "edit" item. This is a very dirty way of "mirroring". Of course, in the footer there is a short remark that the pages base on, but that does not seem to be enough. For me, it were all right if it would just mirror the content and make obvious that the "edit", "discussion" etc. faetures are done on the original wikitravel site. -- Hansm 05:52, 2004 Jun 6 (EDT)
But unlike the other "mirrors" we dealt with before, this one gives proper credit. There's no "thou shalt not make money off the content" clause in the license. Nor is there a clause "you must be up to date". I really don't see any angle from which you could stop this guy. Hell, they even redirect the "Edit" links to, which is the way it should be. Of course I agree what he's doing is immoral - linking to "directories" as "" is as scummy as they come. -- Nils
* It is definitely misleading. On "Wikitravel is a project ..." and "So far we have 2350 destination" On : "The project was begun in July of 2003 by the two founders, Evan and Maj." Together it is a false claim that, they "" are the project started by Evan and Maj.
* It is not a mirror if they alter it
* They violate the license: "Article text and images licensed under a Creative Commons License.". This must mean that their ads are not under CC.
Anyway, I think we should start calling "wikitravel" "" instead. E.g. in the logo, and on the main page.
-- elgaard 10:09, 2004 Oct 8 (EDT)

World wide emergency numbers

May be useful to incorporate this information into the various country pages. -- Nils

Site Guides

When I get some more time (I have a PhD to write.... oh the guilt that I'm even on here....!) I'd like to add quite a bit to the Egypt, Israel and Jordan parts of Wikitravel - parts of the world I'm particularly familar with and fond of. To my mind, part of providing a good travel guide might involve putting up some moderately detailed guides to the various sites within a location. For example, rather than just listing the Temple of Luxor as a site to See in Luxor, it would be great to add some explanation as to history, excavation, a guide to the various components of the temple, what to look out for, etc etc. as a separate article to which users could link. Others might want to do the same for, say, Angkor Wat, Macchu Picchu, the British Museum, etc etc. Problem is, providing additional detail will almost certainly blow out the desirable size of an article. My basic question is: What is the scope for providing concise but detailed guides to various sites within Wikitravel? Any ideas / suggestions / discussion? Pjamescowie 13:21, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)

So, in general, I think we need to have Wikitravel:attraction listings in the page for the city they're in. But I do believe there are rare exceptions where we need to have a full article on an attraction. There's some info on this on Wikitravel:What is an article?, but we might want to be more specific. I think we already have an Angkor Wat article (although it has a more precise name, IIRC).
Anyways: yes, I totally think this is a good idea. --Evan 14:07, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Great! So should we start discussing some general guidelines / formatting for these site guides? In the spirit of independent travel that Wikitravel encourages, my idea would be to focus on those sites / attractions which are difficult to interpret without a local guide (of varying quality and price) and / or where on-site documentation is very thin on the ground.... (Egypt nearly everywhere is a prime example of this problem - I'm sure there are others!) Pjamescowie 14:25, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)

External links in listings

There's a discussion going on on Wikitravel talk:external links about changing the way we format attraction listings, restaurant listings, bar listings, accommodation listings, and the like. Although it may seem kind of trivial, making this change is going to change how our guides look a lot, as well as requiring a lot of work. So it'd be worth it to get your (yes you!) input on the idea before we go ahead with it. --Evan 15:40, 8 Jul 2004 (EDT)

Wikitravel Expedition? Travellers' Tips? - Health

Another thought: I've just been adding some Egypt-specific info regarding Stay Healthy on the Egypt page.... Was suddenly struck by the thought that a lot of general information could be unnecessarily duplicated in many parts of Wikitravel in the future..... Without taking away the need for country / location-specific health information, would people consider it a worthwhile idea providing general advice and relevant links for a number of common travel ailments - things like dehydration, heat / sunstroke, some of the more obvious diseases, etc......? This could be set up as a Wikitravel Expedition, I think... and we could link to the resulting information from within various other articles. It'd be great if we could get some contributors with a medical background to pitch in..... Although I think we might still have to include some warnings and caveats..... What do others think? Pjamescowie 08:17, 1 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I think this is a good idea. Someone has independently started Yellow fever and listed it under "Diseases" in Travel topics: perhaps this subheading could be replaced with "Health" and various other articles could be added. I should add a caveat to Yellow fever in fact. -- Hypatia 14:54, 19 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Uniting Wikitravel with Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wiktionary and Wikibooks?

I think that Wikitravel should be eaten by the Wikimedia foundation, which owns the Wiki projects mentioned above. (I couldn't find an earlier discussion about this.) It seems to me that all Wiki projects, and especially Wikitravel, should benefit from such a strong alliance. Personally I would have heard a lot earlier about Wikitravel if it was already listed under the other Wiki projects. I'm not sure if this is possible by the differences between by-sa and GFDL though. What do you guys think? Georg Muntingh, 2 Aug 2004

No - disagree strongly. One of the reason I came here was because it wasn't run by the Wikimedia foundation and hence was more international etc. Also cc-by-sa is superior to the GFDL and the wikimedia foundation loves fair use images which are not useable outside the US. Apologies if this sounds like a rant. Caroline 14:42, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)
1) Wikimedia is much more international than Wikitravel. Wikipedia exists in 100 languages, while Wikitravel exists in 5. 2) Both the Free Software Foundation and the Creative Commons projects are working on making the two licenses compatible to each other. 3) Only the English Wikipedia accepts fair use images.--Erik Möller
I dunno. Being "eaten" by Wikimedia doesn't really sound like the most positive experience.
I also think that it's good to have lots of different kinds of wikis hosted by lots of different organizations. A monoculture wouldn't necessarily be the healthiest wiki ecosystem. The SwitchWiki shows some tens of thousands of wikis on the Internet right now. I don't think Wikimedia should, or wants to, host and manage all those projects. --Evan 11:46, 3 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Okay, I see your points. Georg Muntingh 09:11, 4 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Actually, the number of wikis on SwitchWiki is on the order of thousands, not tens of thousands. It's right there on the page I linked to! Sloppy research on my part, but I think the point is still valid. --Evan 18:16, 19 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Sharing images between different language editions of Wikitravel

I was looking to link the photo from the french language article on St Petersburg to the equivalent english language article, but this does not work. It appears that the different language versions have completely seperate sets of images.

One solution is obviously to download the image from the french version, and upload it to the english version. But this is both cumbersome, and it destroys the audit trail. Indeed a strict interpretation of the Wikitravel:Image policy suggests that I need the permission of the original photographer to do this.

Given that photographs are not generally linguistically specific, but other kinds of images like maps are, it would seem much better to have some sort of link mechanism that maintains only one copy of the image on the server. Any thoughts on the best way of going about this. -- Chris j wood 09:49, 13 Aug 2004 (EDT)

With the start of the German wikitravel I also think that it is pretty redundant to upload the same picture (without any text on it) to different language versions. Is there any known way to share pictures? How does Wikipedia handle this?
Wikipedia has Wiki Commons. Guaka 18:06, 18 Nov 2004 (EST)

David's planning a trip

I'm planning a trip, and naturally the first place I turn to is Wikitravel.

Feel free to ask me to take photos of specific locations in Oklahoma or near my upcoming Europe trip.

--DavidCary 01:49, 21 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Shark Attack!

On a few articles I've worked on, I've been somewhat concerned about hazardous fauna. For example, in Fremont, I didn't mention a great hike to the top of a nearby peak because I didn't really feel like adding commentary regarding the care and non-feeding of Mountain Lions. Or in the Eastern Sierra, one could mention the Lions, and also Black Bears and Rattlesnakes. In Banff and Alaska, the Grizzly Bear merits special attention.

Okay, the world is a dangerous place. So what? We have a section Stay safe in our templates to deal with these issues. But in the case of both Lions and Grizzlies, it would be helpful to do more than just say "watch out when hiking!" (For Lions, it's best to fight back, for Grizzlies, not so much) We could point to Wikipedia, but they only discuss being safe around the Lions, but not the Bears. We could include a small diatribe here in the text, but do we really want to have the same issues discussed in many articles? (The Lions are pervasive in the western half of the US and Canada. The Grizzlies are pervasive from Montana north).

It's almost as if we need a series of articles in a Stay Safe heirarchy. This could include dangerous fauna, hazards common to many places (driving in the desert issues; hiking near glaciers; tornados). But it would also really suck to try to maintain this stuff which is only peripherally related to our real purposes in life.

Any ideas or opinions about how to handle this? -- Colin 15:22, 24 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I don't think there is any reason to cover it any more than superficially. To cover it accurately can often be very difficult. Generally there is very little consensus other than give them lots of space and don't feed them. Wikitravel does not exist in a vacuum, and much of this information can vary depending on local conditions. Most of these dangers have information available locally about them, so pointing people to that information is the best in my opinion. (IE "Be sure to stop at the ranger station and find out about hiking in cougar territory.") Where a danger is common for a region add a little bit about it in the Cope section is probably appropriate (I plan on adding a Black Bear comment to British Columbia.) You can then link back to it in your article. -- Webgeer 18:36, Sep 30, 2004 (EDT)
A black bear comment? I'd be more concerned with the Grizzlies and Cougars in BC. Black bears do more property damage though. -- Colin 20:18, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)
You're much more likely to encouter a black bear than a Grizzly (orders of magnitude more likely). Except in very exceptional circumstances cougars encouters are unheard of (Cougars are not really shouldn't be something you worry about unless there is a cougar that is behaving strangely in the area). Black bears should not be dismissed. A black bear can run faster than you, is stronger than you and is perfectly capable of killing you. In BC from 1978 to 1996 10 people were killed and 78 injured by black bears, 4 were killed and 34 were injured by Grizzlies, while 3 people were killed by cougars in that time period (for comparison 13 people were killed by moose, 36 people were killed by horses). This really shouldn't be over blown. These are really small hazards in the scheme of things. Almost all of the dangerous bear encounters happened in the back country. For most casual hikers, much more dangerous is going hiking without proper resources, getting lost, mosquitos, etc. I live in North Vancouver on the edge of popular hiking mountains. In the summer the search and rescue team goes in a couple of times a week to rescue people who got lost, got cought in the forest at nightfall, were injured (often doing something foolheardy), unprepared for a weather change, or other similar happening. There is probably on average 2 or 3 deaths a year in the area. As far back as I can remember none of these were as a result of an encounter with wildlife. -- Webgeer 02:10, Oct 1, 2004 (EDT)
I totally agree that traffic accidents are a far more serious source of danger. Really this came about by me thinking "there's this great hike in the hills near Fremont." And there is are two sources of danger doing that, one of which can kill. And I do think it overblown to add a warning about Mountain Lions to the Fremont article, but a simple one line reference with a link to a different article seems okay to me. And yeah, driving is the most likely way for any traveller to die, I think. But that's true everywhere (but should be emphasized anyway.) So this is more about making short references in articles to dangers one may not have considered. (Mountain Lions don't like to be seen; so not everyone knows Vancouver Island has the highest concentration of them in North America). Anyway, I think I'll try and make a sample in my sandbox to play with, and we'll see what people think. -- Colin 02:54, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)


Does Wikitravel support template boxes that could be imported into multiple articles? So something like {{shark}} in the content would magically turn into a right-aligned floating box on dealing with Jaws. Jpatokal 06:14, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Yes it does. See any stub. -phma 12:12, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Okay, so more seriously... does it make sense to have a page like "Dangerous Fauna" and then have a section per danger? I really don't like the idea of one article for each little annoyance. I'd prefer to make it country or continent specific though. So how about Dangerous Fauna of North America? Then, in a Stay Safe section, we could just add something like:

Dangerous fauna in this area include Lions, Grizzly Bears, and Hippies

-- Colin 20:26, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

So I wrote one possibility up in my Sandbox as an example User:Cjensen/sandbox/Dangerous fauna of North America and I'm interested in feedback of all kinds. -- Colin 03:52, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Fauna is only dangerous if you don't respect its behaviour and habitat. A mention in the Stay Safe section sounds good but you could also put it in the Respect. For example: Some areas of New Zealand have problems with seals on (and off) the beaches. They will attack and bite people. But people can do the seals more harm by picking up their pups and taking them home because the pups look lonely or lost on the beach where they live. What's the more dangerous fauna - seal or human? Also I think Wildlife is a better term for WikiTravel's writing style. -- Huttite 08:24, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)
I agree that Wildlife is way better than fauna in matching our style, Would dropping dangerous from the page title help make it useful for non-dangerous animal info? -Colin 23:17, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Internet café

If I go to an Internet café, will I be able to plug my laptop in and ssh to my home computer? -phma 00:35, 26 Sep 2004 (EDT)

This is a computer question isn't it? It all depends on how you have your machine at home set up. If you have a router set up to accept calls to your machine from outside then this should be fine. It also depends on what outbound traffic the internet cafe allows. What you should do is from your home PC ssh to a box somewhere far away and then from this box try and ssh back onto your box. Doing this you should be able to prove that your machine is accepting connections.
It's an Internet café question. I know I can ssh from outside, but I've done it only at someone's home or at work. I don't know if Internet cafés let port 22 through, or (should I leave my laptop at home) they have ssh clients there so that I can ssh from their computer and bring up my Kmail on their screen. -phma 09:35, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)
My observation has been that very few internet cafés allow laptop use these days, probably because they don't want to take the chance of having a possibly virus infected unknown machine on their internal network, and also don't want to be bothered to set up a firewalled laptop network.
If you are carrying around a laptop anyhow there are a lot of options for wireless these days, including a lot of free ones.
Meanwhile if that doesn't work, you can usually download Putty from internet café machines, or if all else fails there's a java SSH implimentation called mindterm which you can install on your home machine, assuming you are running an httpd. -- Mark 09:42, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)
I don't have wireless on my laptop. Why would I need to download Putty? Don't they have openssh installed? I can't count on Java being available, though in a café they may have Colombia ;) and can a Java ssh implementation access the X server? Maybe the best solution is to find a geek in the host country who either lets me plug my laptop into his network or lets me ssh into it. -phma 05:38, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)
You should not count on being allowed to put your laptop on a wired net. Do not count on getting X to work. Even if you managed to install an X-server on a PC in the internet cafe, the connection to an internet cafe would probably be too slow.
  • Install a webmail-server on your home computer. I use the one in usermin.
  • Ssh home with mindterm or putty and use a textbased mail client. (like Mutt or Vm, Gnus).
  • If you want access to your server, the most reliable way is the command interface in usermin because it only requires a browser with SSL.
  • You could bring a Knoppix CD. From Knoppix you can start a local Kmail and get you mail with POP3 or IMAP. But i doubt an internet cafe would let you boot their computer. OTOH a CD does not take up much space.
  • You can get a cheap 11Mbit wireless PCMCIA card
-- elgaard 07:31, 2004 Sep 30 (EDT)
Great advice Elgaard! I usually do all of the above... but seriously get the Wireless card. Depending on where you are going you are likely to save money, as there are lots of free wireless places these days. -- Mark 04:35, 1 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Extend Quick Facts Concept to Cities / Districts / Regions?

I'm not sure whether anyone has proposed this before BUT what would people think if we were to include a Quick Facts-type template, currently used only at Country level, to Cities and Regions? Reason being: there are some useful facts that we could summarise quite neatly within a small reference box that would relate to information elsewhere in the page..... Such as the local area telephone code, for example, that would inform all the telephone / fax numbers subsequently used throughout the page. Maybe some other basic facts could be included, such as population of city / metropolitan area, nearest large neighbouring towns / cities, etc. Comments / ideas / suggestions? Pjamescowie 02:14, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I like that idea, but I think it should be limited to important information. I like including telephone area/city code, metropolitain population, maybe a couple of other things (I think Latitude and Longitude would be good). I'm not crazy about including specific municipal population (travellers don't know/care about municipal boundaries) nearest neighbours (best left to the discussion part) or some other things. -- Webgeer 15:06, Sep 28, 2004 (EDT)
I think it's a good idea, but I'd prefer to use simple, Mediawiki table layout rather than fancy HTML+CSS styling. And I'd like to figure out a way not to make it the first part of the guides, since having the quickboxes there for countries is so offputting for potential contributors. Would that be reasonable? --Evan 15:26, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)
Hi Evan. Could you go into a bit more detail re what you said about "having the quickboxes there for countries is so offputting for potential contributors"....? Have you had some feedback on these? Do you mean 'first part of the text in the edit view' or 'first part of the text in the presentation view'? Pjamescowie 16:21, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

As the bare minimum, I like what Lonely Planet does in their guides, which is to put a little telephone symbol ☎ (easily emplaced by the power of Unicode!) at the start of each article for different cities / towns / regions, accompanied by the relevant area code.... This feature alone could save us a lot of typing, editing, memory / page size, confusing detail, and (above all) complicated, time-consuming updates when area codes change (as they inevitably do....) But I do also think we could extend this model with some other very basic facts..... Whadya reckon?

Actually, I've just noticed that in some of their most recent editions, each city / town / location / region in Lonely Planet is preceded by an inconspicuous (but very practical) little entry that summarises area code and population, e.g. (for Turkey):

☎ 0252 · pop 25,000

Why not emulate this practice (we can develop our own little widget / format, maybe using the &#x2706 symbol, if it's big enough in our default font) and build on it? Pjamescowie 17:02, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)


Can you make a template? Rspga49 (talk) 16:06 September 28, 2004 (EDT)

For what? There are already article templates. Do you mean in the Mediawiki sense? --Evan 16:51, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Yes, I do mean in the Mediawiki sense. Rspga49 16:41 October 17, 2004 (EDT)

Cities vs metropolitan areas

Renamed discussion from Problem with London page hierarchy (Hypatia 05:30, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT))

Don't know whether anyone else has noted this as yet, but there is a problem with the hierarchy of London pages.... The various outer London districts and suburbs have not been integrated within the "breadcrumb" hierarchy that would be ideal and which has been used in such cities as Sydney and San Francisco.... Central London districts seem OK however. Fixing this inconsistency is going to mean a bit of page moving and reorganisation BUT better sooner (i.e. now), rather than later, right? Anyone got any objections? Any suggestions about how best to approach this? Pjamescowie 02:19, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I think we use sub-pages only for districts (neighborhoods) within a city. For suburbs (individual cities close to but not part of a big city), make them their own top-level article. If you need to group them together into a big article, consider a region article like Greater London. --Evan 13:36, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)
I still think this is problematic with Sydney -- the inhabitants don't really have any concept of Sydney/Greater Sydney, and with a very few exceptions (Richmond and Windsor for example, and some of the very oldest suburbs like Parramatta -- but not its immediate surrounds) the suburbs were created when the city grew outwards, rather than being absorbed by the city. If we use the strictest administrative divisions we'll confuse travellers because "Sydney attractions" like the harbour, and Bondi, and the beaches, for example, would be "near" Sydney, not in it. Anyway, I've brought this up (extensively) on Talk:Sydney. I have a feeling other Australian cities, particularly Melbourne, have exactly the same problem. To Australians they're one unit, and definitely cities not regions, to the Wikitravel guidelines they're a bunch of cities near each other with a very small "real" Sydney" (which actually only includes about a third of what you'd think of as the "famous" Sydney sights, in particular, the Bridge is arguable) and "real" Melbourne in the centre. -- Hypatia 03:20, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)
OK, I sort of bowed to (became convinced by) the argument that Sydney should be a region article, so people might want to have a look at the 'proposal' section of Talk:Sydney -- Hypatia 05:39, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

It looks like Los Angeles has a similar problem: I don't know LA very well, but it looks like their districts are enormous. If the policy really is we prefer different parts of a large metropolitian area like London, Sydney or Los Angeles to be written up as cities, not districts, I think this needs to be spelt out somewhere -- Hypatia 05:30, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

I think you need to look at a map, and look at Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy. I think we have a pretty decent breakdown of the area. And, no, this isn't a hard-and-fast rule. It's just that we tend towards consensus in hierarchies, otherwise they don't get stable. We had problems with Southern California since people were writing articles that considered Los Angeles to be everything east of Phoenix and north of Tijuana. Tending towards legal and traditional boundaries makes it easier for everyone to work together. --Evan 17:27, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Hmm, it still leaves me irreconciably confused about what to do with Sydney. It's either a city of hundreds of square kilometres with a few very large districts, a city of hundreds of square kilometres with hundreds of small districts, or a bunch of cities. The last doesn't fit the "traditional boundaries" test, and the first two are both incompatible with the way you view districts. Hence why I keep trying to draw people out on this question.
But noone seems to bite.
I'd like to do a lot of work on Sydney, but the existing districts are clearly inadequate (they have holes) and also much too large to be districts according to the Wikitravel definition. However, thinking of Sydney as thirty separate cities, with the Bridge, the Harbour, the Opera House etc etc becoming "day trips out of Sydney" and Sydney becoming "a very small city with very few residents located somewhat to the south of Sydney Harbour" (that's the legal boundary of the City of Sydney) is also weird. Hence why I am trying to draw people out on existing decisions. -- Hypatia 18:01, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

City Theme Pages

What would people think if we compiled a few "theme" pages for truly major cities, that would summarise the otherwise dispersed sights and activities relevant to that theme for travellers.....? I'm thinking London, for example, could be well-served by a "Literary London" page, summarising details of famous writers' residences, literary museums, significant libraries, specialist bookstores, significant literary locations, literary tours, etc etc. All of which London has a massive amount. Everything from Chaucer and Shakespeare through to Dickens and on to Monica Ali (Brick Lane). The same could be done for musicians, artists, inventors, etc. if there was sufficient interest. Other 'world' cities like Paris, Berlin, Rome, Cairo and New York could also benefit. Comments / suggestions? Pjamescowie 16:50, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I think that's a rocking idea. I'm really excited about it. I think doing specialist guides to destinations is an important way to see travel. Goth Los Angeles, Texas for rockhounds, etc. My main concern is managing the balance between the "general" guides and the theme guides. What would go on Literary London that wouldn't go on London? And vice versa? If you don't mind the possibility of going down some wrong paths at first (and, hey, isn't that the fun part?), maybe we should start Literary London and see where it goes.
Actually, I take that back -- maybe it'd be easier to tackle a less daunting city at first, to see how it works. What about, say... Literary Dublin? --Evan 17:08, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Glad you like the idea. I don't mind tackling London first - lots of scope, and the city I know best in this respect. (Dublin is also an excellent suggestion however!) In terms of balance, I think you will find some considerable overlap between the standard city pages and the theme pages, the only difference being that the theme pages will consolidate on one page all / most of the items of interest to that particular theme, which otherwise would be dispersed throughout the various standard pages and therefore significantly more difficult to track down. Literary London, for example, will draw significantly on the pages for the City, Southwark, Bloomsbury, the West End, etc etc, selecting out the relevant detail and providing more detailed content. We'll need to ensure that basic return links exist back to these areas so that literary travellers, for example, can also find a place to eat, sleep, get a drink, etc. Sound OK? Pjamescowie 17:27, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Literary London sounds like a classic case of an itinerary to me... Jpatokal 22:21, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)


Should we have articles about malaria, yellow fever, and other diseases that travelers might encounter? -phma 01:05, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Sure, preferably by using the warning box approach as suggested for dangerous fauna. Jpatokal 05:15, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)
The warning box doesn't make sense. Brazil has a list of countries where if you come from them you have to be immunized against yellow fever, and a list of states and regions where if you go it's recommended that you get immunized, but not required. Other countries have their own lists. -phma 22:51, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Would something like User:Cjensen/sandbox/Dangerous fauna of North America work? If we implement multiple types of warnings, it'd be nice to make them stylistically similar. For both animals and disease it'd be nice to be able to occasionally go into depth without cluttering pages with it. -Colin 23:12, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Agreed with Cjensen. And the warning box should just say that this destination is considered at risk from yellow fever and tell you what you should do about it. How about a small warning box that can be easily included into any page, which links to a more in-depth treatment of the topic? (Or Wikipedia, for that matter.) Jpatokal 02:32, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Links from Wikipedia

One simple way to increase Wikitravel's ranking in the web world: if you write a good non-stub Wikitravel article, then link it in from the corresponding Wikipedia page (I use [ Wikitravel: X] under "External links"). This is relevant content — travel guides cover the same topic, but serve different audiences — and I've never had a link removed yet, and when the link propagates out to Wikipedia's many mirrors we get excellent linkage. And, as a courtesy, be sure to add a reciprocal [[WikiPedia:X]] to the Wikitravel article as well. Jpatokal 05:15, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)

You can make an interwiki link [[WikiTravel:X]]. It'll appear in the text, not with the interlanguage links. -phma 10:07, 4 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Since that was written, a template called {{wikitravel}} has been added (by Wikipedia user Patricknoddy) to Wikipedia which creates a much more eye-catching link. However that template assumes that the Wikipedia and Wikitravel articles have identical names, and our different goals, granularity and disambiguation standards mean this isn't always the case. So I've just created a derivative template which allows you to specify the Wikitravel article name. To use it, enter:
{{wikitravelbyname|Wikitravel article name}}
- Chris j wood 10:06, 17 Oct 2004 (EDT)
FYI: The Wikitravel template is now listed under Templates for deletion, for the regrettably correct reason that Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project and should not get the Wikimedia-style boxes used by Wikiquote etc. External links are welcome though. Jpatokal 00:34, 18 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Maybe. There is hardly a consensus for deletion there yet; hopefully common sense will prevail and we will either get to keep the templates as they are, or change them to generate simple external links. But it is probably wise not to use the templates any further until the Wikipedia consensus is determined. -- Chris j wood 11:51, 18 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Upgrade delayed is upgrade denied

Unfortunately, I had to delay the 1.3 upgrade and German and Swedish launch today. It'll happen Thursday at 4AM UTC instead. Everyone's patience is appreciated. --Evan 00:53, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)

It got finished, but I got my dates screwed up in the logbook. From now on, I'm not scheduling upgrades for 00:00 in my local timezone! --Evan 06:07, 7 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Image for External Links?

I like the way that Wikipedia signifies that a link is an external link through the use of an appropriate image. I think that it would be a good idea to do the same thing here. Does it only irritate me when I get sent to an external site? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

That will happen on thursday after the upgrade, in those listings where people have been using the "number" format. It's been a pretty hot topic on Wikitravel talk:External links/Links in listings for some time. -- Mark 11:51, 5 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Wikimedia 1.3.5 bugs and features

Bugs → Wikitravel:Bug reports 1.3.5 Categories → Wikitravel talk:Categories


  • Links and Wiki markup within image descriptions is now supported (see Off the beaten track in Japan for an example)
  • Attribution. The list of people who've worked on a page is now at the bottom of the page. You can set your real name in the user preferences and that's what'll appear for attribution. This should help people re-using the content to comply with our license. --Evan 14:59, 7 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Underlining of links can be turned off in preferences -- elgaard 09:42, 2004 Oct 8 (EDT)

Not enabled

  • User JavaScript and CSS. These cause two extra hits per page on the database and on the Web server. Relatively few users use the feature, but everyone has to pay for it. I'm going to try to figure out a way to set this up as a user preference, but for now, it's going to be disabled on Wikitravel servers. --Evan 15:48, 7 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Database messages. This is a hugely lossy feature unless you have specialized server software. It's off for now, at least. Changes to the language files have to go through me, unfortunately. --Evan 15:48, 7 Oct 2004 (EDT)
  • Editing single sections of an article — could this be enabled? It's quite slow and difficult to edit long articles (like the Pub!) right now. Jpatokal 12:53, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)
    • That's a user preference -- you can turn it on or off with the Special:Preferences page. It's turned on by default for not-logged-in users. --Evan 13:44, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT) 13:43, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Formating multiple picture

  • I am trying to get several pictures nicely organized onto the Kruger National Park article, but it seems I need to know more about html to tackle that one. Any suggestions are appreciated. Kruger National Park Jens 08 Oct 2004

<div style="float:right; margin-left:15px; margin-right:15px; width:267px; text-align:center"> image image image ... </div> Jpatokal 12:53, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Unused images

There are currently 61 unused images. Time for a clean-up ? --Nzpcmad 03:13, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

According to Wikitravel:Deletion policy, anything on Special:Unused Images should be added to Wikitravel:Votes for deletion
There seems to be a few bugs on that page though, many of the .wav file uploads listed there are broken links -- Hypatia 05:15, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
I get an error on that link. There are some files (such as SVG source files for maps) that aren't used as images but shouldn't be deleted. -phma 18:17, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Sorry, page is at Special:Unusedimages -- Hypatia 09:18, 21 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Pages by contributor

Is there any way of displaying the list of pages that a user has contributed? I often find that someone who makes a mistake in one page replicates this in many and it would be extremely useful if I could simply access them all. --Nzpcmad 03:26, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Yes, this is how I kill spam from a single source. If you go to the User:foo page, somewhere there is a link (in the default skin, it's on the left side in a bar labeled toolbox) you can click labeled User Contributions. This takes you to a page with all contribs. For example, Jpatokal's contribs are [1]. -- Colin 03:31, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)
OK - excellent. Many thanks --Nzpcmad 03:54, 9 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Prices online vary

Here is some travel information that does not belong in any of the WikiTravel article types but might be useful when trying to get the best prices of air tickets and rental cars.

I guess it's common knowledge that car rental and airline ticket prices online vary depending on which website one uses and which country one chooses as residence, and also which country one claims to be online in. Leaving aside the legality or otherwise of these bizarre business practices, here are some examples I've recorded today.

Alitalia same flight, same times, same days, same cheapest economy

  • GBP 121 website
  • GBP 145+ Alitalia web site

Hertz car rental Ford Fiesta 1.2 or similar for 5 days

  • GBP 123.50 EUR 178.99 mileage limited to 700 km code: COI1IT
  does not require prepayment, but Avis reserves right to demand certain proofs
  • GBP 134.03 EUR 194.34 unlimited mileage
  this rate requires prepayment, and cannot be cancelled
  • GBP 134.80 EUR 195.46 unlimited mileage
  this rate requires prepayment, and cannot be cancelled
  • GBP 144.14 EUR 209.00 unlimited mileage
  this rate requires prepayment, and cannot be cancelled
  • GBP 149.09 EUR 216.18 unlimited mileage
   card will not be billed until pickup, cancellation possible for EUR 30 fee
  • GBP 169.08 EUR 245.17 unlimited mileage
  this rate requires prepayment, and cannot be cancelled
  If one wants to pay at pickup the rate is EUR 253.98, cancel fee was unclear

Hertz appears to base its rates on both where you are located and your country of residence. All the above are for a UK resident except the Italian Hertz where Italian residence was tested. I applied a conversion rate of 1 GBP = 1.45 EUR. Deleting browser cookies *and* restart of browser was necessary between each of these tests.

Now I've used Hertz many times, and they're Ok if you keep your wits about you, and I do like their online cancellation feature (when permitted) very useful when reserving first with Hertz then hunting for a better price. -Wikibob | Talk 20:20, 2004 Oct 14 (EDT)

Dump available ?

Old stuff:

Where are database dumps avaliable ? This is specially important as SQL queries are disabled. With a dump, SQL queries can done at home on my own computer. Yann 09:05, 26 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I've created wik2dict and like to have Wikitravel in the dict format now :) It would be nice if the dump uses the same format as the Wikipedia SQL dump. Otherwise I need to hack some more. Guaka 13:56, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Yes, old question, but no answer. So I'd like to pose the question again: Would it be possible to make SQL dumps available somewhere? That way I can hack wik2dict so that I have Wikitravel as a dict on my laptop. Guaka 12:37, 19 Oct 2004 (EDT)

See also Wikitravel:Offline Reader Expedition Guaka 06:28, 11 Nov 2004 (EST)

Disambiguation lists

Can someone explain to me which of Wikitravel:Links to disambiguating pages or Wikitravel:Disambiguation page index we should update when we create a disambiguation page? Both? The latter seems really out of date. I know it's there so that there's extra data about disambiguated names without a disambiguation page, and about the "famous" locations without disambiguators, but having the second list of disambiguation pages as well just seems like a maintainence problem. -- Hypatia 03:57, 25 Oct 2004 (EDT)

This sounds like a good use of categories for me... just add Category:Disambiguation to each page and you have a self-maintaining list. Same goes for the list of itineraries. Jpatokal 04:27, 25 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Bot for inter-language links

In the Wikitravel:Script nominations, I have asked for running a bot that completes inter-language links (see there for details). It would be nice if some admin could give his vote pro or contra. It is already announced for almost one week and if I get green light, I want to run it in the next days. -- Hansm 07:23, 2004 Oct 27 (EDT)

I'm not an admin, but I think it's a great idea! Jpatokal 11:00, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Folks, it's getting serious! I have started the InterLangBot now. It will run for about 1 day if nobody stops it (see the bot's user page for details). Please keep looking on it and if you see some wired editing of the bot, don't hesitate to stop it. In this case, a description of the error on the bot's talk page would be heighly appreciated. -- Hansm 03:54, 2004 Oct 29 (EDT)

Top URLs

Trivial request, but would it be possible to exclude *.js, *.css, *.phtml, *.ico , *.txt from the Webalizer Top URLs listing, and maybe increase Top 30 to Top 50 or 100? It would be very interesting to see what the most popular content pages are. Jpatokal 03:34, 29 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Thumbnail generation broken

I tried to upload a picture to Mamalapuram... the picture's there, but the thumbnail generation fails, giving an error message

Warning: stat(): Stat failed for /home/virtual/site30/fst/var/www/html/en/upload/thumb/b/b7/180px-Mamallapuram_bas_relief.jpg (errno=2 - No such file or directory) in /home/virtual/site30/fst/var/www/html/en/includes/Image.php on line 246

Warning: unlink(/home/virtual/site30/fst/var/www/html/en/upload/thumb/b/b7/180px-Mamallapuram_bas_relief.jpg): No such file or directory in /home/virtual/site30/fst/var/www/html/en/includes/Image.php on line 249

This has been reported on Wikitravel:Bug reports 1.3.5. -- Hypatia 13:37, 1 Nov 2004 (EST)

Guidebooks (Reference to)

I have been editing the article about France and I mentionned the name of guidebooks I thought would be useful for the traveler. This has started a few comments, so before continuing I would like to know what is the policy about recommending other sources of information than wikitravel. IMHO on line guides are still a little cumbersome to carry in one's pocket so recommending good maps, good books or other local good sources of info might help. AnTeaX 07:22, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

Your mistake is in thinking that Wikitravel is an "on-line guide." It's not: our goals include creating printable guides, not just Web pages. The policy for recommending other sources of information is kind of loose, but the basic idea is: if the information should be in Wikitravel anyways, don't recommend another source. This isn't anti-competitiveness, but rather keeping ourselves from being lazy. If we lean on external sources, we won't finish the job we're supposed to do. --Evan 12:11, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)
I think we need to be careful not to dogmatically reject what is generally a commonsensical and commonly-practiced good thing.
User:AnTeaX was not putting in links to other on-line guides in the form of "for more listings, see http://www.on-line...", but rather recommending specific print guides, with no web links to them. There's nothing online-centric about that.
As for this specific instance, yes mentioning Lonely Planet or Michelin is kind of pointless -- is there a single reader who has not already heard of them? But there are many sources of travel information that practically speaking can not or should not be "appropriated" into Wikitravel. There are travel guides that cover limited areas, specific types of travelers, or specific itineraries. There are travelogues which contain practical factual information as well as historical and cultural context. And there are maps, an area in which I frankly think it will be very difficult for Wikitravel to ever match commercial publishers.
A policy of "if the information should be in Wikitravel anyways, don't recommend another source" sounds extremely restrictive, anti-competitive, and most importantly, detrimental. When writing a hypothetical Bicycling in China Wikitravel itinerary, putting in a recommendation for Roger Grigsby's "China by Bike", rather than going out and spending $20 on the latest edition and rewriting portions of it (being careful to avoid the appearance of plagiarism) and entering that in Wikitravel, doesn't sound lazy to me. And writing an article, for example, about trekking in Laos without even recommending an LP or Nelles atlas borders on willful negligence. -- Paul Richter 21:51, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)
Anti-competitive doesn't have much to do with it -- it's a legal concept, and not one that applies to our actions here. (Not linking to other guides is not the same as using our market power to dictate terms to the other guides!) As for your other points, I think they have some validity on the subject of particularly respected guides that partially overlap with us, and on the subject of material that covers stuff outside our goals. But pointing to our direct competitors I don't like...
Just as sometimes there's a non-primary but singular and respected website on a topic (for some cities there is an unofficial but brilliant nightlife guide on the web, for example), for some things there's a singular and respected printed source. Like the Michelin guides for Eat in France (this topic came in from Talk:France). And sometimes there's sources that don't fully overlap with Wikitravel's goals (I think atlases and maps would be in that category for the foreseeable future and maybe forever). I don't see any problem about pointing those out.
But as for other travel guides... I'm not such a fan of saying "see the Lonely Planet guide for cheap eats in this city/country..." because firstly that's true for almost every destination we currently have; and secondly because the Lonely Planet guide also covers Sleep, and See, and Do, and Understand... I don't see the point of doing all this work on a travel guide that isn't Lonely Planet if we keep referring people to Lonely Planet. (Lonely Planet used as an example here.) As a reader, I think it would be very frustrating to go to a Wikitravel page and be told I ought to buy a Lonely Planet. (Yes, it's frustrating if there's no information there too, but I think being explicitly referred to a competitor would sour me more on Wikitravel.)
I think I like the phrase "start as we mean to go on": define what a Wikitravel article should contain, and aim straight for that. Hypatia 22:19, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

wiki quickbar

Do we have any special wiki tag/Template to clean up pre-existing HTML quickbar on country pages

Otherwise I am ready to write a template like (It is used at )

~ Bijee 16:47, 2 Nov 2004 (EST)

I made Template:Country Quickbar and here is a sample of usage User:Bijee/India, if needed pl. suggest improvements. -Bijee 20:00, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)

Great source of maps

I just wanted to point everyone's attention to the University of Texas Library's map collection. They have a huge collection of maps, that according to the FAQ are in the public domain. (Maps that are still copyrighted are marked accordingly). Although the collection includes some of the CIA maps we already include on WikiTravel, they also have other maps that include province borders, major roads and railway links (e.g. for Iran) as well as maps showing ethnic, political and industrial information. These are a definite improvement on the maps we have now.

Allyak 09:56, Nov 3, 2004 (EST)

They are good and better than most of our maps, but they are in JPG and GIF format, not Wikitravel std PNG. So I thing we can provide an external link to that map page ~ Bijee 12:10, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
We have links to that collection in the Wikitravel:Mapmaking Expedition, q.v. --Evan 13:36, 3 Nov 2004 (EST)
Regarding the GIF maps, these can be simply resaved as PNG and then uploaded without any loss in quality or considerable increase in filesize. JPEG maps are a different story, though. Some maps (such as topographical maps) have the colour depth of photos and therefore lend themselves to JPEG compression. It seems a shame to only link to these maps, rather than use them inline on the site, simply because the image isn't in the WikiTravel standard format for maps. Saving the maps as PNG or JPEG is simple a matter of which format compresses better. Although PNG's GIF-like compression method usually works better with maps because of their reduced colour depth, many of the Univ of Texas JPEG maps compress better in their native format. -- Allyak 14:40, Nov 10, 2004 (EST)

Image layouts

What's up with the image layouts. Look e.g. at France and South Korea. The images overlay the menu on the left. --Nzpcmad 13:47, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)

I see nothing wrong on Mozilla, Firebird, or Safari using monobook skins. Which browser and skin are you using? Maybe do a reload too... -- Colin 14:46, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
IE 6.0.2800.1106... and "Cologne Blue". Have reloaded (Ctrl - F5) and cleared cache - no difference. --Nzpcmad 15:02, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
Update - when I logout the screen is fine - it's only when I login that I see the problem. I've tried playing around with the preferences but no joy. --Nzpcmad 16:49, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
Okay. I tried it on my work PC and it happens for IE 6 on XP if my browser is wide enough to attempt to put both maps side-by-side. But if I switch my preference to monobook, it gets all better. (Select preferences, select skin, then select monobook).
I looked at the history of the France article. Stuff worked before User:Bijee converted the page from raw HTML into the new syntax for sticking a picture in. So I'm guessing it's an incompatibility between the Cologne Blue skin and the HTML emitted by the new syntax. At this point I'm beyond my depth other than to say "use monobook instead." -- Colin 20:05, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
I checked it with computed styles bookmarklet in mozilla. And thinks problem is "Cologne Blue" does not have "clear: right" in the style of the floating DIV
HTML > BODY.ns-0 > DIV#globalWrapper > DIV#column-content > DIV#content > DIV#bodyContent > DIV.thumb tright
clear: right
float: right
"Cologne Blue"
HTML > BODY > DIV#content > DIV#article > DIV.thumb tright
float: right
Rearranged the position of image as work arround (most time). Please check France now. No style clear right is sometimes good and too bad in many other times. So we need to fix Cologne Blue skin. -Bijee 00:45, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)

Recommended / further reading / destination travel books and publications

OK, so I'm not sure whether this has been suggested / discussed previously, BUT, what about adding an additional section to destination articles (towards the end, near External links) in which contributors could list books and publications relevant to understanding / appreciating a destination, with the intention of making a traveller's experience of a city all the richer? Note: not travel guides, but rather quality titles that explore the history, culture and atmosphere of a country or city, or are representative of its literary heritage (Naguib Mahfouz in Cairo, for example....) This could even be extended to music typical of a destination.... What do others think? Pjamescowie 14:31, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)

I like the idea, but I might be the wrong person to ask, as I can't even seem to muster the abhorance for "other guides" which my collegues here mostly seem to share. As for my own writing I've sometimes used references to the CD collection behind a given bar to try to impart something to the reader about the atmosphere there. It feels very right to me to give travellers a musical context for the places we tell them about. As my art-history professor liked to say, history, art-history, and anthropology all provide contexts for understanding the other. So I think by all means yes. -- Mark 14:45, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)
I love the idea. What about Read? Or a sub-section of Understand? --Evan 23:33, 6 Nov 2004 (EST)

Glad you both like the idea.... Read would be good, but wouldn't allow for the musical side of things.... Maybe we could have Listen as well? (though this might be getting slightly too sectionalised...!) A sub-section(s) of Understand could work, for sure, though I had visualised a section at the end of an article, alonsgide the External links.... This could be just my preconception, however, and is probably influenced by Wikipedia practice.... We can afford to be different! Any more thoughts? Pjamescowie 03:28, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)

I'd be inclined to not make it a entire section up there with Understand, Sleep, Do, etc. Somehow, those just seem more fundamental to what I want to use wikitravel for than finding out about cultural research I could do. (It's useful yes, but not as useful as finding somewhere to sleep...)
My suggestion is to either make it a subsection of Understand or possibly rename External links to Other resources (or similar), and have External links, Read, Listen as part of that. -- Hypatia 08:06, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)

Pushing attractions up

As far as I can tell (by pounding on Special:Recentpages), we have a lot fewer complete/good region articles than we do complete/good city articles.

I know from working on New South Wales and Central West (New South Wales) some of the reasons why this is: mainly, it can be very hard to write general enough info for some of the sections. (For example: New South Wales is enormous, and there's heaps of border cities you can drive in through -- yikes, makes Get in tough! Also, a bunch of sections -- especially Drink and Eat essentially read "see Sydney where 85% of the population of the entire state and about 95% of the restaurants live!")

But there is one concrete thing that people could work on to improve some of the region articles: taking the premier See and Do attractions from the listed cities and pushing them up to the region article (the style guide recommends simply "Attraction X in City 1" as the listing, so it's quite easy). You can do this for any region article that's got two or three city articles with a decent attraction listing. At the moment very very few region articles have a See or Do section at all. -- Hypatia 16:38, 7 Nov 2004 (EST)

A Question (hotel chains etc)

Hi there! I am fairly new to Wikitravel, but have been using Wikipedia for quite some time. I have been mostly editing my home city of Salt Lake City and really enjoy the fact that I can add things I could never add to Wikipedia:Salt Lake City, Utah, although they both have their purpose. As a member of the travel industry, I was wondering if there is a place for articles about such topics as various hotel chains (for example Holiday Inn or Ramada) or various parts of travel, other than specific locations? Thanks, hope to hear back!! --SLC Punk! 17:25, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)

Hi. There is a place for that kind of thing, it's Travel topics. With regard to reviewing chains or providers, it seems like the current procedure is to put them in one comparison article, so we have Discount airlines in Europe for example, rather than separate articles for Ryanair, Easyjet, BMI Baby... So I imagine you could do the same thing with Hotel chains, or if you really want to review a lot of them you could do separate Hotel chains in the USA and Hotel chains in Europe or even Budget hotel chains in the USA and Luxurious hotel chains in the USA articles etc etc etc... -- Hypatia 18:13, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)
I agree. We very rarely have articles about an individual business or chain, but rather treat a group of businesses or organizations as a whole, for comparison. --Evan 21:04, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)

Hey, thanks for the info! I really appreciate the info, as well as the awesome site! --SLC Punk! 21:28, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)

Voting on Upgrade

There is a somewhat dormant discussion on Wikitravel talk:Copyleft discussing the idea of changing the phrase Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 in the copyright notice to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 or any later version. This versioning change would keep us viable and compatible with other projects that may use the newer, non-draft versions of the license which would allow us to continue to share with others, as the current version is an obsolete draft. Should we not open up a discussion and a vote about whether or not to migrate? We'd probably have to leave all current articles in 1.0 only, but articles created after date xyz could be multi-licensed. -- Ram-Man 11:29, 17 Nov 2004 (EST)



There is a bug right now. Even when loggued in, it's written "My Page" instead of Yann. Yann 09:40, 26 Nov 2004 (EST)