The center for all Wikitravel images!

Wikitravel Shared:Travellers' pub

From Wikitravel Shared
Revision as of 09:26, 11 May 2007 by Upamanyuwikitravelshared (talk | contribs) (ToC all white: @peter, thanks)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Travellers' pub - your watering hole on Wikitravel

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 technical requests page instead.

Please add new questions at the bottom of the page and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) to it, but otherwise plunge forward!


Wikitours - a non-goal?

Both Spanish and French Wikitravel have recently started an initiative called Wikitours. Wikitours are basically a space where travellers can relate their trips in connection with a given destination, but differently from our itineraries, they do not necessarily contain any practical information. The result is apparently a collection of travel journals and/or essays, which are two of our non-goals. Given that those "tours" can also contain very individual impressions, they leave little room for collaborative edits from other users. I believe that there might be a demand for this kind of space in all language versions of Wikitravel, but the question is: is Wikitravel the right place for that? --Ricardo (Rmx) 15:37, 11 September 2006 (EDT)

The question had been answered here Unsigned comment by (talkcontribs) .
I concur. Wikitours should be a completely seperate wiki project. I don't think this should be any part of Wikitravel because 1. it is a non-goal and 2. it's a very slippery slope. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 23:46, 11 September 2006 (EDT)
I think the problem with Wikitours is the following: User X writes "I went here and there, I did this and that, I thought this and that about my experience, after I went to this other place and ate a certain food, slept in Hotel BlaBlaBla." Now what can another user edit about that? It's User X's story, so it becomes prohibitive to add to it or edit it because the article would then be collaborative, a fictional story told in the first person as if it were true. I also think that to encourage people to write subjective opinions in first person could invite abuse by owners of restaurants, etc. who want to advertise their businesses. Furthermore, since every Wikitour would be a personal story by a certain user, it would lead to the creation of several versions of each tour, without a logical way to organize and order the information. Overall, I think the idea of having a place to express whatever subjective opinion falls far outside of the ideals given by the founders of Wikitravel exactly because this idea is by its very nature non-collaborative. To me, we aren't trying to create a collection of personal reviews, but a collaborative and comprehensive guide. The way to say "this restaurant, etc. is terrible" is to remove it from the list or give specific information as to what should be avoided. That way we can arrive at a consensus through editing and discussing it. Otherwise, the site just becomes a big list of opinions, and it's then up to the reader to decide for himself which opinions are most reliable. Texugo 07:42 12 sep 2006 (EDT
Well I think the idea of making Wikitours is a good idea because im my opinion, Wikitravel lacks a place to write their personal feeling and opinion, they can even not say "don't go there". People contribution in English can do that on World66 -that's what Evan said on April 20th- but in French and in Spanish we have no place for that.
So of course the "Wikitours" pages might be a little biased, but a template at the top of each of these pages the Wikitours articles claims that the article do not aim to be unbiased and links to the Wikitravel regular page.
For these reasons I think we should keep Wikitours. Julien 08:24, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
I would fully support the creation of a completely separate wiki project or something that we could link to, but I agree exactly with what Sapphire said above. Wikitravel just isn't the place for it. Texugo 08:51, 12 September 2006 (EDT).
Well, if you really want to create a new wiki for that, I will help you too. But Wikitours should remain a brother project of wikitravel. Julien 09:08, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
And by the way, the way to say "don't go there" is to omit it. Obviously we're not going to list all 250,000 restaurants, motels, and hotels in New York or Tokyo. We're here to tell where is GOOD to go, what's recommended. If you think the place sucks, delete it or start a discussion about it.Texugo 09:14, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
In my opinion omitting an hotel or a restaurant is not enough in some cases. I think sometimes we should clearly write that wikitravellers should avoid a particular place, for example if a place is famous for being dangerous or if a restaurant in known for dirty. Julien 10:24, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
Julien: the features to do this will be in all Wikitravel languages, not just English. I really think that travel journals are probably not a good use of the wiki format. Can I suggest the following: maybe you could keep doing Wikitours until we get the new functionality on World66 going (this is a matter of weeks, not months, by the way). Then, make some decisions about whether to keep it or migrate the content to the new area on W66. --Evan 16:48, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
I think it is perfectly fine to say "don't go there", and to be explicit about reasons — overpriced, noisy, bedbugs, whatever — provided you are a bit objective. You say "Music in disco X is extremely loud, offensive to some ears", not "the place is unbearable", because it might appeal to some. See en:Zhuhai#Non-Chinese_food "Indian Restaurant" for something I wrote that says "Do not go..." and that I think is quite legitimate. Pashley 02:11, 8 October 2006 (EDT)

-Just a quick follow-up note: if anyone is interested in being involved with the new personal travel side of World66, what we're calling "Crossroads," feel free to drop me a message. Maj 19:27, 19 October 2006 (EDT)

Seed categories

So, as mentioned before on Wikitravel Shared talk:About, I'd like to create some seed categories based on the UN/LOCODE coding system. It has about 40K cities, states, and countries listed, which will probably get us very close to a "full" geographical hierarchy.

I'd like to do this in the next couple of weeks, but we don't have a Wikitravel Shared:Script nominations page yet. Any feelings about this? --Evan 17:06, 12 September 2006 (EDT)

For interested parties, I've started uploading these to . Watching the recent changes there go by (you have to turn on the "show bots" to see the changes), I see a lot of bugs in the data still. The country names need to be changed to match the ones already in the DB. There should probably be a second argument to "IsIn" on shared to give the collation name (so that the disambiguator doesn't show up in category pages). I haven't figured out how to merge with existing articles, so I'm just skipping them for right now. And there are some other tricky things.
But I think there's some value in all this, and I'd love to hear some responses from people about it, here. It's going to be a while before the upload finishes, but I think you can get the gist now. --Evan 15:06, 15 September 2006 (EDT)
So, it took a couple of days, but this is done. I'd love to hear some feedback on the categories on . I think there are a lot of geographical categories now (>50,000!), which I think means we won't have to add a lot from now on, but also might mean it's a little harder to find things. There are some tricky bits still (some disambiguations, like "California (state)", are extraneous, and some of the country names, like Libya's, are over-official), but mostly I think it's close to done. Opinions solicited. --Evan 20:27, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
I had a look at the India category on review, and the results are somewhat weird. There is no reason for most of what's there to be at the top level. But it is not bad for a start. — Ravikiran r 09:44, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
Yes, I noticed the same thing with Canada. I think that's just due to errors in the UN/LOCODE file, and there's not much to do except recategorize by hand. However, I think the majority of stuff is correct. --Evan 14:04, 18 September 2006 (EDT)
Some of the category names in Myanmar and Cambodia are incorrect and old. Some month ago I provided a revised list to you. Did you use it? -- Der Fussi 04:53, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
No, it didn't go in for this run, good catch. I'll get it in when it goes into production, though. Thanks for the note. -- 11:39, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
I now understand why they are called "Seed categories". I think running this on production will be useful then. — Ravikiran r 05:18, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

Move policy pages to main namespace

So, we're starting to use shared: more and more for inter-wiki policy and coordination activities. My feeling is that this part of shared: is like a global Wikitravel: namespace for all Wikitravel wikis. It's Wikitravel's meta:].

Since the main topic here is the project, I don't think we need to have project-oriented pages in the "Wikitravel Shared:" namespace. Or, at least, not pages that have to do with the global project. Stuff about shared itself should probably go in that namespace -- a "meta meta" namespace -- and stuff about all Wikitravel versions should go in the main namespace.

One nice thing is that we're not really using the main namespace for anything else.

I'm moving expedition pages from en: today, and I'm going to put them in the main namespace. If there's a problem, I'm happy to move them out of it later. --Evan 11:34, 3 October 2006 (EDT)

I assume that you mean that we should not used the meta pages namespace like Wikitravel Shared:XYZ? If so, I am not sure that is the best way to do it...unless we categorize them in something like Category:Wikitravel Shared meta pages". In all, I am just keen to make sure that we can find meta pages without having to trip over other articles - not that it is a problem today, since we mainly have images and illustrations here. What do you reckon? Riggwelter 20:37, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

Technical requests time plan?

There is, at the moment, quite a few issues in Category:Open bug reports. To ask for a time plan when these issues should be cleared is to ask way too much, but it would be nice to have some sort of priority system so we know when an issue could be about to be sorted. Riggwelter 20:42, 15 October 2006 (EDT)

That sounds like a good idea. --Evan 07:09, 16 October 2006 (EDT)
The back log is rather long now...any ideas of when it may be reduced...? Riggwelter 16:23, 13 December 2006 (EST)

Tech stuff

It would be nice to have a page like Wikitravel Shared:Backbone with nice images and text regarding all the technical bits and bobs about Wikitravel - servers, bandwidth, location, etc. Riggwelter 05:11, 18 October 2006 (EDT)

Also, as a new contributor it would be reassuring to know that the whole majig is being backed up. Any details you can provide on redundancy and data backup strategies being employed would be very welcome! --Toasta 11:33, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Daylight Saving

I'm not sure if this point has been raised before, but should it be written on countries' pages whether they celebrate daylight saving or not? The page template appears to include a space for time zone, but not for DST. 17:36, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

  • The above was by me; I was previously around here as Water, but something seems to have happened to that account. Josi 17:39, 27 October 2006 (EDT)
You're using the wrong website. Use or You're account as "Water" is on that version. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 17:43, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

Image history

I someone uploads a new version of an existing image, is the older version automatically deleted or kept somewhere as part of the file's history? I'm asking this because there is an image on en: being voted for deletion as it violates privacy rights. That issue could be fixed by editing the image. On the other hand, if the older version is kept accessible to the public than I guess we'd still be disrespecting the policy, so it should be deleted altogether. Ricardo (Rmx) 09:58, 3 November 2006 (EST)

From what I understand about images. The older image will stick around, but is not accessable by the general public and the only way to revert to the older image would be if an admin clicked the 'Older version' button. -- 11:58, 3 November 2006 (EST)


Is there anything against the use of interlanguage links (or even interwikis to Wikipedia, W66) on our category pages? More than a few times I've looked for a shortcut to the actual travel guides from a category page but no one seems to have used any yet, although the feature is enabled on the Travelers' pub, Main page etc. Ricardo (Rmx) 15:30, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Is it OK to upload such types of pictures?

Look at that image. It was uploaded from Wikimedia Commons. And at the Commons the author of this image declares that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted". It looks exactly like copy-lefted, but actually it was totally copyrighted, i.e. not uploaded under the license of public domain nor cc-by-sa. And here is my question. Is it possible for us to upload such types of images on Shared? --Shoestring 09:52, 7 November 2006 (EST)

Just to clarify: Even when you publish something under cc-by-sa, you retain copyright. You are just licensing your work under some conditions. As such, there is no material difference between the licensing conditions for this image and releasing it under cc-by-sa. My understanding is that you can take the image and release it under cc-by-sa as long as you attribute the photo properly. — Ravikiran r 12:31, 7 November 2006 (EST)
Sorry for my incomplete question. I have no idea whether I can explain well with my English ability, though, what I wanted to ask and clarify was like below.
As you mentioned, there may be "no material difference between the licensing conditions for this image and releasing it under cc-by-sa", but I thought it would be better to take them as quite similar but different categories. Because, it seems that this author dare not to chose cc-by-sa but another one. And I think there might be some "meaning" for this author to stick to such license (such as terms and conditions are slightly different from cc-by-sa or like that, though I have no idea what really that "meaning" is). And if it would, I think we have to discuss whether we can surely accept such type(s) of license according to the basic license policy of Wikitravel.
As you know, currently Wikitravel clearly declares that only the two types of works --released by PD or cc-by-sa-- will be acceptable. And if such type(s) of license is (are) also acceptable, I wonder why we do not mention and clarify it on the policy. Otherwise it will cause some confusion among users when we operate such similar license(s) according to the basic policy.--Shoestring 10:07, 8 November 2006 (EST)
The problem with allowing freely worded licenses is that there is too much scope for dispute. I think the text in the image there is very close to the spirit of the CC Attribution (by) license, which is explicitly allowed, but that decision should be made by the author, not us. Jpatokal 10:52, 8 November 2006 (EST)
Though this image is currently accepted on Commons, it is clearly labeled and categorized als "Images requiring attribution". But here on Wikitravel there is no such label. I've categorized the image as requiring attribution, though as of yet there is no such category on WT. I think the concerns of User:Shoestring are quite valid and merit more attention. -- Túrelio 04:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Kate 17:02, 8 November 2006 (EST) Is there an area for 'favourites' so that you can store a list of cities and their links? ( I am a newby ) Thanks.

Yes and no. The easiest way to do it just to put links on your user page (User:Dowkm002). But it might be nice to have a list of favorites that show up in the nav bar on whatever page you're on. We don't have that yet... it would be nice, I think. --Evan 18:53, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Where is Chinese version?

Why no Chinese(zh) version in Wikitravel? -- 13:17, 19 November 2006 (EST)

The zh version needs help to take off. Check the Expeditions page and join the effort if you think you could help out. Thanks. Ricardo (Rmx) 20:53, 19 November 2006 (EST)

Portuguese portal

I'd like to let you know that I've created a draft Portuguese-language portal to Wikitravel Shared. This portal aims to raise awareness and increase the use of Shared by users of Portuguese Wikitravel to whom the English language can be a barrier.

The portal is basically a version of Shared's own main page with bits of Welcome, newcomers thrown in for extra clarity and helpfulness. In fact, it just directs people to the "continent" pages at Shared from where users can keep browsing in English, and also explains how to upload images to Shared and use its images on pt:

Whereas the draft portal was originally designed here at Wikitravel Shared, we are probably setting it up (after a few minor edits) as a Portuguese Wikitravel page, where everyone should fully understand and be able to freely edit it while being watched by other people who can figure out what they are doing. The plan is to link it directly from the navigation toolbar replacing the current link to Shared's main page. On the top end of the Portuguese portal/page, there will be an English-language box directing English readers to Shared's regular main page.

So I decided to raise this topic here because:

  • I think it's a cool idea that other language versions may want to use too;
  • It marginally affects Wikitravel Shared as:
    • We may see a very slight increase in the number of uploads, though uploads on pt: itself are still few and far between
    • Some of those uploads may be erroneously tagged with Portuguese location names, although the portal clearly warns users against it;
  • I'd like to welcome any comments you may want to make to improve our idea.

Thanks, Ricardo (Rmx) 17:10, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Ahead of our time design. Or at least we could have been. The switching layout technique I used for the single column Wikitravel design has been featured in A list apart. We coulda been first! -- Mark 01:52, 19 December 2006 (EST)

Images != Tech issues

I have to say I'm not very happy with the way technical discussions are now supposed to be taking place here on shared -- my gut feel is that they get ignored by people who don't log in regularly, and buried in slews of uploaded images for those who do. Would it make any sense to split images and techie stuff into separate sites, like Wikimedia's 'commons' vs 'meta'? Jpatokal 11:09, 11 January 2007 (EST)

I've been annoyed by the same problem in the past and I think this is a good idea. Maybe we could use the Review site, if database changes aren't very frequent for testing things like the TOC or the LOCODE bot test? -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 11:14, 11 January 2007 (EST)
I don't see the angle in having yet another shared site for all users. The whole point is to have just one central site, rather than a bundle of them. If you can't find tech requests, try filtering for the "Tech" namespace in Recent changes. I'd also like to make an RSS feed for tech issues for people who are interested, as well as a feed for the shared logbook. --Evan 11:32, 11 January 2007 (EST)
I was going to say the same thing about filtering search-- it's a neat tool. RSS feeds sound like a great idea too. Maj 15:23, 11 January 2007 (EST)
I think the problem is that there isn't discussions about tech issues other than the person alerts us about the issue and Evan. It would be nice to encourage more discussion from other users. If there's away to do that I think it would solve the problem. Maybe adding a note to MW:Recentchangestext saying: 'If you're interested in more recent discussion concerning technical issues please filter this page by displaying edits to the "Tech" namespace using. You can filter the recent changes page by using the menu below.' -- Andrew H.
I'm just not convinced that a wiki is the right way to handle the whole idea of reporting technical bugs and requesting features. Why not use something like Bugzilla or Scarab, which would then also provide the ability to do spiffy stuff like classify and prioritize bugs, send out notifications, attach patches etc? Jpatokal 23:36, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Image clutter

I believe there are loads of images uploaded on the different language versions of WT, as well as on Shared. Is there any easy-to-use tool available to:

  1. take stock of which images are uploaded on more than one site
  2. transfer images from any language version to Shared
  3. delete the image from the language version

I assume the last item, deletion, has to be done manually - but it would be handy to get rid of unnecessary copies of images. Riggwelter 03:27, 15 January 2007 (EST)

A lot of images are not compatible with the copyleft!

It's said ignorance is bliss, but I'm going to try and destroy that bliss because only the wise. I believe we are unable to upload images available are not under CC-by-SA 1.0.

We need to have a real discussion about this so everyone needs to read this and comment. Wikitravel is licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0 and this cannot be changed unless every single contributor agrees to the relicensing over their content. This causes a huge problem for us because if a guide/page is licensed under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, but then an image is licensed under CC-by-SA 2.5 and that image is used on a Wikitravel page (licensed under CC-by-SA 1.0) you are violating the copyleft! There's no way we can tip toe around this any longer. I've been watching a disregard for the copyleft for quite a while and I wasn't sure how to address it, so this is my attempt.

I do my best not use anything that is expressly available in the public domain or under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license, however, I may have erred. The reason I try so vigilantly is because if our content is not 100% public domain or CC-by-SA 1.0 then Wikitravel is not really "free"! It makes our content extremely hard to redistribute for others. As an example, if I take Wikitravel content and start publishing it and selling the end result I have to go through and note every single image that is available under a different license than the rest of the content and that will be a pain in the ass.

The other issue is people who upload their own images are legally licensing the image under CC-by-SA 1.0, but a lot of images are being uploaded from Flickr, Commons and other sources by people other than the copyright holder. The problem with this is that the image is still not available under CC-by-SA 1.0, even though it still has the "CC-by-SA" in its title.

The CC-by-SA 1.0 license states:

Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

Wikitravel does distribute images and we cannot distribute a CC-by-SA 2.0/2.5/ whatever image in Wikitravel unless it is a CC-by-SA 1.0 license.

Like I said everyone needs to think about this, comment, and help to find a solution, because this isn't just going to go away. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:45, 3 February 2007 (EST)

I agree this is a problem. I don't have the inclination to parse the licenses myself, but we need to figure this out. If it's not a a conflict to use 2.0+ images, there are a lot of images I've been skipping because of this restriction that I'd like to go back and add. (Flickr particularly.) If it is a problem, we need to go ahead and vfd a bunch of stuff (and replace it with appropriately licensed content). -- Jonboy 14:14, 3 February 2007 (EST)
Agree with Andrew and Jonboy above. I've always wondered about a couple of issues concerning our copyright behaviour:
  1. Image license - When you publish a 2.0+ image in a 1.0 page it becomes part of a derivative work that's being re-released under a different license, which is a violation of the original license's share-alike requirement. As for the attribution requirement, it is especially complicated with the print version of articles - images are printed without attribution altogether, as our "attribution footer", AFAIK, is not able to retrieve the credits info from the images shown. A possible solution would be to explicitly state the images' authors and differing license when it's mixed with cc-by-sa-1.0 material, but I don't know if that is actually feasible (technically and design-wise) and I guess it still leaves room for interpretation as to whether that's still a derivative work or not.
  2. Text credits - we are allowed to copy material from other cc-by (and cc-by-sa-1.0) sources as long as we credit the original authors. So far this has been done in a very weird way - by listing the authors at the article's talk page. It goes without saying that unless someone is very familiar with this policy and quite interested in finding out all the contributors, those names probably will be lost when someone copies our articles somewhere else (like site mirrors, for instance). We should probably find a solution for this too. Maybe adding an "additional credits" section to our (meaning all language versions) article templates or another field below the "summary" of an edit designed to add the additional credits to the footer of the page being modified. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 17:23, 5 February 2007 (EST)
Although I know a fair amount about legal stuff, I don't feel qualified to determine whether what we're doing is in compliance with the licensing, or how to fix it if we're not. It could easily be a case of being within the spirit of CC-By-SA-1.0, but not the letter of it. But I don't know. Isn't there someone at IB who can consult with an IP licensing expert and/or with the folks at Creative Commons to get a professional opinion on this? - TVerBeek 18:08, 5 February 2007 (EST)
Hi guys, I feel a finger pointing in my direction in this discussion. I've been working quite hard lately tracking down suitable images for articles that need illustrations and I've found quite a few good pictures on, for instance, flickr.
Now, I must say that I'm pretty shocked to hear that for instance CC-by-SA 2.0-images are not wanted here, and I am seriously trying to figure out how regular Wikitravel users such as myself are supposed to know that. The obvious assumption, for me at least, has been that licenses in the drop down menu on the upload page are compatible. If a particular license wasn't OK, I assumed it wouldn't be in the menu, or at least have a "PS: uploading anything under this license will risk the future of Wikitravel".
Still, wanting to be sure before uploading anything, I did check the CC "humanly readable" pages for CC-by-SA 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5, and they say the exact same things. I do apologize if I've made a mess by uploading the wrong images, but am also quite irritated with that a lot of my work lately seems to have been for nothing - and that this could have been avoided by some nice plain English such as "avoid everything unless it's PD or CC-by-SA 1.0". Jake73 14:47, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Hi Jake,
We're not pointing the finger at you, or at least that wasn't my intention, though I had noticed some of the images you were uploading were CC-by-SA 20/2.5. In fact, that actually got me thinking about this and I wanted to make sure everything is kosher, but further reading has indicated that its not kosher. You weren't the only person uploading non-CC-by-SA 1.0/public domain images. I do appreciate the number of NOAA and USAID images you've found and I've made use of them.
I agree with Jake that we need to change the wording of the disclaimers. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:42, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Is it not easier to change the license for Wikitravel, in such a way that all contributions on here should be compatible with CC-by-SA X.Y. all the way down to 1.0.? Especially if, as Jake73 points out, they seem to be completely similar. One way to start is of course to ask the people at CC what the difference between the different versions is. I don't think this is a major problem yet. We can make this a problem, or we can deal with the problem as we go along. The latter way of doing it seems best to me. Riggwelter 13:54, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Nah, we should sort this out ASAP so that more people aren't wasting time uploading images that will later have to be removed. I've heard Evan and some others say somewhere at some point that WT can't upgrade beyond 1.0, but can't remember the reasoning Cacahuate 05:03, 18 February 2007 (EST)
I'm interested in the reasoning why an upgrade would be kosher. I can't fathom how we would go about an upgrading unless we pull a stunt similar to World66 did a few years back, but I've expressed some dissatisfaction with the way they went about it. First off, it would mean that we would need to effectively delete a lot of articles if someone said "You cannot relicense my contributions" or a lot would have to be reverted to infantile and useless guides, at least that's my take.
Two, what if someone comes back five years down the line and sues everyone for relicensing his/her work under CC-by-SA 2.0/2.5/3.0 (non-existent) or CC-by-SA all/any later? I know I'm being paranoid, but I want to make sure we dotting our 'i's and crossing our 't's.
I'm not as involved in CC matters as some other community members so maybe different people have different takes, but the disclaimer: "A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however." [1] seems to castrate any movement toward a license change of the site... -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 13:08, 18 February 2007 (EST)
OK, so I'll be bold and ask... what the hell is the difference between the licenses? As someone said above, if you look at the short "everyman" descriptions, they all say the same thing. What new features in the newer licenses don't agree with the old ones and are potential problems? I would imagine that the newer licenses would be stricter not softer... in which case, there would be no complaints, right? — Cacahuate 18:37, 18 February 2007 (EST)

The loudest thing is the omission of a "any later clause", which is included in 2.0 and 2.5. That clause effectively allows someone to use works licensed under CC-by-SA 2.0 in a CC-by-SA 2.5 licensed work.

From 2.5 (See "Restrictions", Section "b"):

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan).

2.0 essentially has the same clause, but 1.0 reads:

You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, and You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier for, this License with every copy or phonorecord of each Derivative Work You distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform. -- Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 19:17, 18 February 2007 (EST)
So, this is my feeling about using other versions of CC by: as long as the author hasn't used any of the extra requirements added in 2.0 and 2.5, Attribution-licensed works are compatible with CC by-sa 1.0. This is my feeling about using other versions of CC by-sa: the actual stipulations between 1.0 and 2.0 and 2.5 are minimal. Although technically we can't use them, practically there's really no difference and little chance that upstream users will care. At some point we're going to upgrade from by-sa 1.0 to by-sa 2.x or maybe 3.x. Until that time, I don't know if it makes a lot of sense to worry about the difference in version numbers. --Evan 14:39, 20 February 2007 (EST)

As a rather new image uploader (who also took the newest CC license offered in the WT/S upload page-menu aka 2.5) I would like to see a sort of final/definitive/official conclusion/decree out of this discussion as it leaves images contributers somewhat uncertain. And regarding CC 3.0 that is already available, you might be interested in the heavy discussion on Commons.[2] -- Túrelio 05:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Links section only shows links to pages on Shared?

Why does the links section for an image only show the links to the pages on Shared that use the photo? Is it/will it be possible for it to list the pages from the various language versions that link to that image? That would be a super great feature... - Cacahuate 18:07, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Commons has it, I think, th mySQL is down on Commons so I can't be sure. It'd be good to make a formal tech request, though. -- Sapphire(Diskussion) • 18:32, 22 February 2007 (EST)
I don't see an example of that on Commons. Can you show me a page that has it? --Evan 07:54, 23 February 2007 (EST)
It's not a MediaWiki feature, but an external feature accessible under the "Check usage" tag that gets you pages like this. Jpatokal 08:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Tech:IWBNI Links at the bottom of image showed all language linksRavikiran r 09:19, 23 February 2007 (EST)

New Templates

Lage von München


Lage von Cincinnati


Andrew and I developed a new template to standardize how the quick facts about a city (or island etc.) are displayed. It works pretty much like the Quickbar for countries. As an additional feature it is possible to show the location of the city on a map of the country, just by entering the geographical coordinates we use in the geo-template anyway. (Examples on the right.)
It would be great if other language versions would use this template, too, because then this information could easily be copied from one Wikitravel to the other! --Flip666 writeme! • 14:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, because it would look a little awkward we couldn't provide an example on this page. See Template:QuickbarCity for an example. Feel free to ask us any questions about the template. One important feature to mention is that if you provide a value for the latitude and longitude, then a Geo template will automatically be included and should make other Geo template's in the article redundant. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 14:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Some examples how it looks:
--Flip666 writeme! • 14:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)


I know there already has been a discussion (can someone give me the link, I cannot find it) and I do not want to shout "Jehova", but... the Table of Contents still produces a lot of whitespace and this does not look good. Especially since we started to use QuickbarStadt on the German language version, we have more and more pages with this problem. Have a look at München and compare it to the Version in my Sandbox. The first impression is the most important impression. Yes, for now it is a hack. But I think there are options in the Wiki-software doing this (or something similar) in a regular way. Opinions? --Flip666 writeme! • 14:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Policy about images with identifiable persons?

Is there any policy on Wikitravel/Shared about images with clearly identifiable persons? This question came up when I found Image:Bahinni (Schwesterchen).JPG. I think this could be a good example, because this (nice) image obviously has no additional problems like nudity or derogatory depiction. At least in my country and probably in most others as well, making and publishing such a portrait-like image would require the explicit consent of the depicted person. On Commons, despite a general agreement there is still some discussion about that, as usual. So, what is required to publish such an image on WT/S? -- Túrelio 04:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately I think we have to delete this photos. See Wikitravel_Shared:Image_policy#People_in_photos. --Flip666 writeme! • 05:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
How about this image of Pier 39
Pier39 1757.jpg
that I've up-loaded a moment ago. Of course I didn't ask any of all the persons for consent. Is that acceptable? Otherwise please delete. -- Túrelio 11:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
We could just blur the faces. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that the image policy item when it concerns people in photo's must be reviewed and preferably scrapped. As a tourist, it is virtually impossible to visit any attraction and take a picture without catching other people in the image...and the idea of asking them for permission to publish the image on Wikitravel is not reasonable. I do not think we need to be quite so paranoid about people in images. We can see it as something worth working for, but to see it as a major obstacle for publishing a photograph - no. Riggwelter 19:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
This item is discussed here Riggwelter 05:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)


...consider the "face in the crowd" picture shown and discussed earlier. In both cases, the subjects are identifiable, but there's another common element: they are either on public land, or are freely visible from public land. When such a condition exists, a new twist comes into play: Fair Use. This is actually a fairly complicated legal term that refers to many things. In the context of this discussion, one of the definitions of fair use includes a condition in which a person cannot assume a degree of privacy because he's in public space, which means that he can be photographed (and cannot stop the process).

Another of the Fair Use definitions is the use of copyrighted materials on public display. For example, a statue in a public square, or a painting on a wall in a public building are both copyrighted by the artists that made them. However, because they are in public space, you are free to photograph them, and to license those photos for editorial use without being subject to copyright infringement. Take note: the use is editorial, which means you can license the photo to a newspaper, but not to a company for use in an ad. Seth1066 05:37, 27 April 2007


I think someone should make an article on cyprus, i've been there on vacation, wonderful place!

You're on the wrong wiki. Try the try the actual travel wiki. Wikitravel Shared is only for cross-language coordination and images. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 22:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

IsIn on Shared

I have been a little confused about what to put in the {{IsIn}} templates for articles. I'm pretty sure the geographical hierarchy on shared is different from that of the english site, but is there a way to look up what exactly the hierarchy is? Also, if a category does not exist for a corresponding article on en, what would be the best way to create it? --Peterfitzgerald 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify my question: The {{IsIn}} template is used on the english site to breadcrumb back to the next level of the geographic hierarchy ( e.g., Location "Ulan-Ude": {{IsIn|Buryatia}} ). Is this how I should use the tag on Shared? Or does the category "Buryatia" (and other categories for similarly new subdivisions in Russia) even exist on Shared? Should I just put country names in the IsIn template? --Peterfitzgerald 15:38, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Or should I just skip the {{IsIn}} template altogether and just use the location= section of the image credit template? --Peterfitzgerald 00:57, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
How pleasant my life is. Ta-ra, ta-ra. My bowels are elastic. Ra-ta-ta-ta-ra-ree. My juices flow within me. Ra-tee-ta-doo-da-da. --Peterfitzgerald 23:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Some images from World 66 are not compatible with the copyleft

Alright, so I've noticed a few people uploading images from W66 and I have to warn everyone uploading some images from World 66 (W66) is incompatible with the copyleft.

Why? Well, W66 uses a script to find a display images on the W66. This means that many images are in fact not licensed under CC ShareAlike 1.0. The script checks to see if a robot.txt forbids the use/display of the images and if there is not outright ban then the script displays the image on W66. See this W66 policy page for the details [3]. In short, W66 uses some copyrighted non-CC-by-SA 1.0 licensed images. So I recommend no one upload any images from W66 unless you are 175% sure that the image is compatible with our copyleft.

Also, if you've previously uploaded images from W66 please make sure those images are compatible with our copyleft. -- Sapphire(Talk) • 21:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No Rights Reserved, Copyrighted Materials

I noticed that there is not currently a way to upload copyrighted images for which the license holder has irrevocably released all rights. (see: template) As I understand, these images are for all intents and purposes identical to Public Domain images. Can I upload such images? Do we need a new licensing option in the pull-down menu? --Peterfitzgerald 12:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Aye, tis a shy pub, but I've no intentions of leaving her. --Peterfitzgerald 03:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

ToC all white

Hey guys, why's the ToC looking all white now? Upamanyu -- Write2me 11:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey Upamanyu, the discussion is here ;) --Peterfitzgerald 14:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
@Peter: Thanks. Upamanyu -- Write2me 05:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)