text:
Wikivoyage talk:Listings

Hotels that are also attractions
There are hotels (like Taj Mahal Palace in Mumbai and The Raffles in Singapore) that are also attractions by themselves. Should those hotels be listed at "See", "Sleep" or both? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should follow The traveller comes first. If an attraction at a palace is likely to attract visitors who are not hotel guests, it could deserve a listing on its own. A regular hotel bar mostly frequented by hotel guests, would not merit a listing. /Yvwv (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yvwv I think I should rephrase my question. If there are hotels that attract visitors other than hotel guests, should they be listed the in both "See" (for architecture, history etc.) and "Sleep" (for bookings, price etc.)? Basically, I want to avoid listing the same thing in both sections, especially the landmark hotels. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: I have looked at the Riverside district of Singapore to see whether the city's landmark hotel, the Raffles, is listed at both "See" and "Sleep". Turns out, the Raffles is listed only at "Sleep", meaning dual listings are entirely discouraged. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Many of these, including both the TM Palace & Raffles are also listed at Grand old hotels; those two even have photos.
 * I'd be inclined to add a listing for the Long Bar at Raffles under Drink. Some travellers like the idea of having a Singapore Sling in the bar where it was invented.
 * In all but such exceptional cases, I'd say hotels should get only one listing, under Sleep. Some should also be mentioned under See, but that can be done in text rather than a listing. Pashley (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree completely. Mention it as a sight, with a link to the Sleep section or the relevant subsection in Sleep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Or to the listing itself. The name parameter gets coded so that it can be linked ( "Grand Hotel" ). That breaks if the name changes, which might be a problem (we should probably have a bot checking such breakage). I think the name needn't be changed when owners change, even if they want to call the hotel "Sleepwell Raffles" or whatever. If the owner change changes the hotel so that it's no more the same, then the See listing needs to be amended or deleted anyway ("Raffles, once an attraction, was bought by Sleepwell in 2093 and not to be recognised any more"). –LPfi (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even better if we use Wikidata code (e.g. Raffles Hotel yields Raffles Hotel). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically more failsafe, but obscure. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with small food chains
How should restaurants/fast food chains with a relatively small number of locations mostly within a small region (so they wouldn't be disqualified per WV:Boring) but spread out across multiple cities (e.g. Surf Taco, with most of its locations on the Jersey Shore) be treated? Should each location have a listing with essentially the same content? Should a general description of the brand be included in the article about the smallest region that contains the majority of its locations? JsfasdF252 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 * It's totally fine to mention it, but my questions would be how good is the food and how many locations are there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The example I mentioned has about 15 locations, and the food quality has seemed to be decreased since its inception, but it still seems to be more highly-rated than Taco Bell, especially the original location. JsfasdF252 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say the original location of almost any fast food chain or chain restaurant is likely to deserve a full listing. The others seem like they might not be worthy of more than a mention at the beginning of the "Eat" section of the article for each town they're in. However, if they're a Jersey-only chain, they might merit a mention at New Jersey with a link to their website and a short description there that also mentions that most of the locations are on the Shore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like mentioning local chains in regional or state-level articles, because you want people to know that this isn't something you can find anywhere.
 * Within individual cities, I'd consider the locations of a small restaurant chain (e.g., 10 locations) just like any other restaurant. If this is the best (or only) fast food in town, or has some other unique quality that would make me choose it if it weren't a chain, or if I didn't happen to know it was a chain, it should be listed individually despite being a chain.  For a more medium-sized chain (e.g., 100 locations in the US), I'd probably lean slightly against adding individual listings, but I'd be open to them.  For a large chain (e.g., 1,000 locations – for comparison, in the US, KFC has 4K locations, Wendy's has 6K, Taco Bell has 7K, McDonalds has 13K), I think they are all Boring unless and until proven otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed example
I removed this from Listings:
 * This listing for Joggins Fossil Cliffs is a good example of how it should look.

The link is to an old version of Amherst (Nova Scotia). The current version does not mention the cliffs, and we now have an article on Joggins which does.

Do we need an example here? If so, can someone please find one? Pashley (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 * I agree that the example in question is out of date and needs another replacement. Maybe Forteau? SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Around template

 * See also above, discussed in the Pub in December. –LPfi (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Since there's no template dedicated to nearby destinations/attractions (under the "Nearby" section in some cities), should we create Template:Around for such listings with ? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do we need it? If there is a nearby do listing, then list it in Nearby as do. That will make it obvious it is nearby, not in the destination itself, for those seeing the listing. Those who see the marker on the map will notice that it is an outlier, and if they don't, what's the problem? –LPfi (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to have a dedicated template that will let people list nearby destinations separately from the See and Do listings and although the relative distance of the markers may show you which one is outlier, this is not always the case. I had previously discussed on the use of separate colour to identify nearby listings. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume that is in the thread I linked above. I still don't see the need. If a reader, looking at the map, doesn't see that a listing is "nearby" (as it is about as close to the city centre or the majority of markers as some non-nearby listings), what's the problem? Would it be solved by greying out the area outside the destinations (with a very light grey at "nearby" destinations)? –LPfi (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Commons link for listings?
The listing template's Wikidata parameter enable links to the Wikidata item and the Wikipedia article (in English). What about adding a link to the Commons category?

There is a discussion on Commons on (Places to go subcategories for parks, and From Hill To Shore said that that's the role of Wikivoyage. However, we don't have an easy-to-use link to Commons. Wouldn't the listing link be the natural way to handle this? We still probably wouldn't list every lake and nice rest spot of the park, but at least "official" sights, campgrounds etc. would probably be worth listings in park articles.

–LPfi (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 * In theory, I like the idea, but I'm reluctant to add more icons to listings. The Commons Category should be available from the Wikidata page; is that sufficient? Powers (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the Wikidata page scares off most readers. Only technically minded and those used to Wikidata from before will scroll down to the link. Those who don't know Wikidata will not know that there are interesting links at the bottom of the page. Even if they do scroll down, they won't know that the link points to photos. –LPfi (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This – plus, the only thing that indicates that there's a Commons gallery is if the user knows that galleries are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 * . This would be a great way to have image galleries without having image galleries directly (as per WV:IP). Otherwise, I agree with what you said. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 05:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support If we are bothered about clutter on the page, I would be happy if the Commons Icon was only shown when there isn't a Wikipedia page. Wikidata pages often have two links to commons: the "Commons category" one midway down the page, and a "Multilingual Sites" one at the bottom of the page - normally they point to the same page, but occasionally there is an actual Commons Gallery page which the bottom link points to. I think that we should use the bottom link, as this works better in the case of a much photographed building - 20 photos in a gallery is more useful than 2000 spread over a category and sub-categories. AlasdairW (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Does somebody oppose or should it soon be time to implement this? I think easy access to images of a point of interest would be a big bonus, I think this is true even if there is a Wikipedia article, and I suppose it is a bit simpler to implement a non-conditional link. If we think there would be too many icons, I think the Wikidata one is the least important one for most readers. It is important for editors, but you can find it by clicking "edit" (the Wikidata id is visible both in the wikitext and in the listing editor)). –LPfi (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Exceptions for rental listings
I wrote much of Dumaguete and consider having that section fully justified. Earlier in the article we have:

About once a month I answer someone's question on Facebook with a link to this section.

However, that section obviously violates the rules as currently stated at Listings, so it seems worth asking for other opinions or comments. My opinion is that if anything needs to change, it is the rule statement. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

IP editors adding chain restaurants en masse
Looks like IP users have been swamping articles such as Quezon City/Cubao with WV:BORING locations. It's an absolute nuisance having returned editing here after months save for posting about issue with mobile WV, and this could be a widespread problem Places that got little to no listing info are likely to suffer from this. Often the listings have little to no info. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 * If a chain restaurant is the only one in town, maybe it should be listed, but not otherwise. Are there specific restaurant names we should look for? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP added a list of names -- no addresses, coordinates, descriptions, hours -- just "Taco Bell, Wendy's, KFC...." That sort of edit provides no useful information to travellers and should be reverted on sight. Ground Zero (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed – those listings are practically meaningless. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I notice in Quezon City that the description for Diliman and Katipunan says that it includes Commonwealth, but there is also a Commonwealth and Fairview district. Should Commonwealth be removed from the former? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Autogeneration of the 'see/do' sections in regions (prototype)
Guys, I had the greatest idea........... :) I'm considering spawning some prototype code (as an alternative of the GPT approach), that would crawl region's sub-articles (i.e. mostly cities/parks/...) and find all the see/do listings there. Then it'd sort the listings acc. to the respective wikipedia article # of views, and could put the top 9 into the region. Even though for many regions (such as Jutland) this would IMO be very beneficial, I don't plan any immediate integration into WV. But if you see some better way to rank the listings (based on the data we can get from WP/WD - without crawling google etc.), please comment. We'll see what comes out of this... -- andree 07:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I have two concerns: (1) It's really sometimes easiest to find listings in alphabetical order; (2) What happens when an article divides listings into different subsections by area within a city that doesn't need separate district articles? Interesting idea, though. I'll note that Siena already divides sights into three subsections, in order of prominence and importance, and then has informative 3rd-order subsections in the "Secondary sights" section. The sights on the Piazza del Campo are not listed in alphabetical order, but it would be absurd not to list the Palazzo Pubblico first, and the Fonte Gaia is not a building. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully even in this complex case, the most interesting listings would be the most viewed ones, no? The question is, if 'Piazza del Campo' could be put in the article as a (maybe somehow hidden) listing (Piazza del Campo==3991 views, Palazzo Pubblico==1723, Fonte Gaia==464 on WP) and then put into the region instead. As I said, right now I'd just try a prototype (with whatever reasonable 'metric' we can come up with) and we would see if it makes sense even, or garbage will come out of it :) -- andree 13:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This would be a cool feature to trial, especially for region articles with completely empty sections (i.e. Featured collaboration). SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think it would have a reasonable chance to find a few of the most important sights (or whatever). I wouldn't use 7+2, though, as probably some of the chosen ones have many views from irrelevant reasons – I am not convinced any metrics wouldn't miss some top ones (they may even be missing from the city and park articles) and include some strange choices. I am not sure whether I'd want a bit fewer, to encourage manual additions, or a bit more, to encourage manual removals, but I'm sure I'd want to encourage manual editing of the results. Still, for the worst regions articles, any addition is probably an improvement. –LPfi (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely encourage you to try it, so we can see what it comes up with, though without causing it to automatically edit in articlespace. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting idea. If it is possible, it would be good to use the number of views over a year or a longer period to avoid the ranking being skewed by places being in the news. If a celebrity is filmed touring a small museum then it may be the most viewed article in the region this week, but it probably won't make much difference over a year. AlasdairW (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, looks like there may be spikes sometimes :-) -- andree 06:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It can happen when an article is featured, too. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 10:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now put together some code that did this, put the output into Jutland, North Jutland, Lolland-Falster and Siena (province) (ATM sorted by number of views, not alphabetically). If you have some other areas that you know well, that we could try this on, write it down - I can put the results e.g. into the respective Talk page, and we'll see if it works reasonably. On Jutland, it seems to have found approx. what I'd expect - in Siena province, most of the sights are in Siena, so not that useful. Would it make sense to only include first one/two sentence(s) of the 'source listings'? -- andree 17:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Andree, that looks good to me except that it has included the wikidata #, which puts the site on the map. This makes the map very crowded. Can the program leave out the wikidata #?
 * Our format for See and Do listings in region articles is to write in prose, rather than in bullet editing lists, but if this is a way of filling up the empty sections of region articles quickly, I think we can overlook that. Ground Zero (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything is possible :-) But TBH, the map is for me personally the most interesting part - without this, I had to use wanderlog + tripadvisor + google maps (e.g. search 'sights' in a map view) for all searching of POIs, when I was planning a roadtrip (around Denmark). Finding of the most interesting things would be so much easier with the above (basically it found the stuff I found via multi-hour research)... So for me personally at least, it'd be great - I understand the clutter objection, but IMO it's worth it. Maybe we could instead try to invent/suggest some improvements to kartographer to make it better (lower opacity of those markers, or something). -- andree 18:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a change in policy. Region article template says: "points of interest (such as those mentioned in "See" sections) should not usually have markers in region articles but should be linked to the bottom-level article where they have full listings." Unless this policy is changed after a consensus is reached, I am opposed to further use of an autogeneration program that violates this policy. Using the coding as-is means a lot of clean-up work to remove the Wikidata tags. Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A status quo solution to this would be to just put the code through ChatGPT and ask it to remove the markers (you might need to be specific in your input). I'm going to test this out on North Jutland. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's what I got for North Jutland: For those exploring North Jutland, there are several remarkable attractions to discover. One such wonder is the Råbjerg Mile, which stands as one of Europe's largest migrating dunes, steadily advancing about 15 metres eastward each year, creating new habitats for plants and animals on its western side. Moving on, the Rubjerg Knude offers a captivating experience. This former lighthouse perches 60 metres above sea level within towering sand dunes. In 2019, it underwent a daring 70-metre inland relocation to escape the fate of buildings succumbing to sand pressure and cliff falls. If you're intrigued by history, don't miss Lindholm Hoeje, an ancient Viking graveyard, along with its accompanying museum.
 * For a unique geographical encounter, visit Grenen, the northernmost point in Denmark, where the Baltic Sea meets the North Sea in a breathtaking natural spectacle. Art and design enthusiasts will appreciate the Utzon Centre, a cultural hub in Aalborg showcasing art, architecture, and design. Additionally, it sheds light on the works of Jørgen Utzon and offers a delightful dining experience.
 * While in Aalborg, you can also explore the Budolfi Church, a prominent Lutheran cathedral. For a modern art fix, there's the KUNSTEN Museum of Modern Art Aalborg. Animal lovers will enjoy Aalborg Zoo with its diverse collection of zoo animals, including giraffes, elephants, and big cats. The zoo's highlight is the savanna enclosure where African animals roam freely. And if you're a nature enthusiast, venture to Lille Vildmose, the largest raised bog in Western Europe, known for its wildlife exhibition centre, small cafe, restaurant, and exceptional bird-watching opportunities. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What was the query there? You entered the current POIs and asked GPT to generate a text around it? Sure, this looks nicer - but in the end, is it nicer to use? Without the map, you have to search the articles manually (to find where the POIs actually are), so for me - not really. But if that's the consensus and I'm the only 'opposed', no biggie, I'll think about another ways... If anyone wants some regions 'processed' in the meantime, ping me :) -- andree 05:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I entered " Can you remove the see listings from here and convert it to plain text in paragraph form? When I mean "in paragraph form", it should flow on to each other. Keep the attractions in bold and try to use British English (gave an example of Far West (New South Wales)). " -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not just removing the Wikidata tags, it is also adding links to relevant city articles for further details. I would prefer the autogenerated content was placed on the talk page and then used to create the normal format of region "See" section. AlasdairW (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The links area already there, actually... -- andree 05:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed the links. I think it also needs to say in the text what city the listing is in, so that I can read the section and see that city A has four attractions, but city B only has one (and for the benefit of anybody read a printout). AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 * It’s worth pausing for a moment to take in the importance of this experiment. We are on the verge of signing up our first AI contributor. Bots have long been used on WV for simple housekeeping but here is a dimension step. Even if this particular effort is judged a failure, there will be another and better, then another. My first impression is that this effort is already at the standard of a contributor who is gushy but possessed of a formidable work ethic that can churn out text 24 / 7. I suggest its contributions are live-posted with little delay, in need of “patrolling” and perhaps a warning similar to the “translate” box, and the rest of us weigh in as for any other page. Its User or Talk page could carry the meta-discussion about aspects it needs to improve on. (Already it's picked up the human vice of putting bold in every third sentence.) No doubt Wikipedia is at a similar stage of evolution and has experience to share.

 * North Jutland is a good test subject as its city pages are middling quality. Any of us could have built its region page given an hour or two, but we could only spare that time at the expense of some other equally deserving page. The present volume of contributions is not only insufficient to maintain WV as a viable relevant guide, it is too low by at least one order of magnitude. AI is therefore mission-critical. Page-building from scratch of places with scant content needs human input for the time being, lots of it, but AI can release us to do what we do best. We might even find time to travel. Grahamsands (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here I expect that the AI just changed the formatting, which should not be too error-prone (and errors like putting information in the wrong place should be easy to spot). It is different from the AI finding the info from other Wikivoyage pages (where it might mix up what's where), and very different from it finding the info from arbitrary sources (where bogus POIs might be convincingly described). What I am most concerned about is some not-too-careful user adding massive amounts of stuff, some of which is bogus. –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have converted North Jutland from the AI output to Wikivoyage style for region articles here (further improvements welcome ). It would be great if the AI could produce something closer to this, especially by not including the wikidata point. Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

backstreetacademy.com
Recently an user has added the above tour operator in few it:voy articles. I've seen that the same website is present on en:voy (added 9 years ago by an anonymous IP). I'd like to have a more extensive opinion to understand if it's good to keep it or not, according to Listings. Actually, according to my understanding, it has physical location in every Country it offers tours (i.e. allowed), but it also has a booking service and most likely resell the tours (i.e. not allowed) on the other side they sell activity available at a destination (i.e. allowed).

What's your opinion? Andyrom75 (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 * I would remove those links per Don't tout and Listings. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 11:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 * According to "they enable locals to offer authentic and unique activities" they should be removed as aggregator. We of course might want to do an exception as "a social enterprise, they work with many underprivileged people who either serve as hosts or facilitators", which means they might offer things that our readers want to do and which are hard to find in other ways. On the other hand, I would like to make sure that they indeed work in the way described and don't put too much money in their own pockets. Does anybody know? Also, we usually don't list one enterprise in many many city articles (nine as of now). Should they rather be in Aggregators or Responsible travel – if they indeed are responsible (see Volunteer travel for some caveats)? –LPfi (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ibaman, I've seen that in 2017 you rephrase their description in Yogyakarta article. What's your opinion about this tour operator? -- Andyrom75 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 * my opinion about the link's text: as it was, it was really out of line with WV:Tour, WV:Tone and Don't tout, with some Words to avoid, bad grammar choices, and needed copyedit, which I did. Ibaman (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

 * LPfi, I would exclude "Volunteer travel" because as per my understanding a tourist go there to have an "experience" not to "help them" (e.g. building an hospital, teach English, etc.), but I agree with you that this tour operator is in the thin border of: "Aggregators & Responsible travel". -- Andyrom75 (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't intend to include them in Volunteer travel, but some of the same caveats apply when a company talks about alleviating poverty by using their services. –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @LPfi, I think that every time we spend holidays in a poor area (eating, sleeping, visit,...), we "alleviate poverty", because in a way or another we bring and leave some money there. However, following the saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime", a Volunteer travel should be the one where we spend time to "teach them how to fish".
 * Maybe this tour operator use that description in a smart way and we are not able to state how our money will be divided between them; for sure it's not a no-profit organization. Andyrom75  (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is called a "social enterprise". Shouldn't those be non-profit? If not, then we should really remove them (unless we get real evidence they are doing a change to the better). –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I wasn't aware of Social enterprises. Interesting concept. In this case I would say that we could classify it that way. Andyrom75  (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] I now see for Cebu (at their site):
 * "When you're in the Philippines and looking for things to do in Cebu and the surrounding islands then we've got it all. From serving up the best Lecon in Cebu, making amplified bamboo speaker, perfecting the Filipino martial arts of Eskrima to exploring street food vendors that only locals have access to. :) We guarantee that in addition to her magnificent beaches and churches, Cebuanos has so much more to offer to travelers so come and let's discover the magic of Cebu through the backstreets of this beautiful island."
 * This does sound like any general tour organiser. Why wouldn't I have access to street food vendors? What have beaches and churches to do with the unprivileged locals? If they indeed do what they promise in the article, why not tell up front? How can they still offer "it all"? Do you want an unprivileged guide to the church instead of one who studied history and theology? You might, but not always. The description at their main page does talk about alleviating poverty and conserving heritage, but I don't feel like trusting them.
 * –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ibaman, changes aside, do you think this tour operator has all the policy requirements to be listed here in Wikivoyage? Andyrom75  (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * well, how could I best put it in words, the very substance of its posting makes me suspicious, thinking of ulterior motives and shady intentions behind a glossy presentation. Maybe I'm too paranoid, but honestly, this is what I'm feeling about this. Ibaman (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I understood clearly each other position, SHB2000 is in favor to delete each occurrence, while me, LPfi and Ibaman are in doubt.
 * In case like this, where only one person take a clear decision what is wiser to do: remove the occurrences or keep the status quo (although reached without a consensus)? -- Andyrom75  (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * From my quick glance, it's a for-profit middleman for booking tours with an added bonus of a translator/interpreter. The unsubstantiated claims of social impact are a nice gloss, but if these claims add up to enough to merit allowing an exception to existing policies, we need to be equally comfortable with Airbnb Experience (and others) listings with more verifiable social impacts. If that's a door we want to open, I think we need to consider a policy addressing "social enterprises". Gregsmi11 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gregsmi11, I've checked "Airbnb Experience". Excluding very few exceptions, it's a huge collection of solo guides that offer their services for any kind of activity. If previously I was in doubt, now I'm more inclined to eliminate all the occurrences of "social enterprises" without changing the policy.
 * On the other hand, could be useful to have a specific page that explain what is a "social enterprise" and maybe few examples that worth to be quoted. Andyrom75  (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we could have a paragraph (or a section) in Responsible travel, which also should refer to (or explain) the caveats. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I don't see any evidence of an actual social impact, which should be significant for us to make an exception. What's more, it seems there web page seems not to be honest, nor in line with our descriptions. I think they should be deleted, unless we find a good page of theirs and reliable third-party reports that explain their business and show that using their services indeed is a good way of responsible travel. –LPfi (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since there's almost a consensus on delete the occurrences, I can do it (on both en:voy & it:voy), while I'll let someone else to take care about for the description of the "social enterprise" in a page of the project. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Andyrom75  (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Price changes and typo fixes considered as breach of guidelines?
I am the owner of Discover Ishigaki tours from Ishigaki island Japan.

I tried to change our listed prices due to an actual price change and to fix a few Typos but for some reason I was declined due to Guidelines breach.

I followed the guidelines and even pretty much copied the way other businesses have listed themselves but I was denied.

Please teach me what I did wrong as the listing here is important to us and we would hate to see our customers disappointed when thy arrive and realize the price is different then our listing here. Discoverishigaki (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit for now. Rollbacks for such constructive edits aren't productive. SHB2000  (t | c | m) 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Digital platforms for guided tours
What is your experience for digital platforms for guided tours, and which opportunities are there to integrate them with Wikivoyage? The Stockholm City Museum just launched Historiska vandringar ("history walks"); an experimental platform for walking tours, with interactive maps and audioguides. It is free of charge, but copyrighted. Currently they have one tour for the history of Roma and Travellers in Stockholm. On Wikivoyage, we can make itineraries which paraphrase proprietary guidebooks, as long as they respect copyright and avoid plagiarism (see Haunted Stockholm tour). Should we allow links to these platforms, if they are free of charge, in English, and reasonably useful? If they are in foreign language, shall we use them as source material for Wikivoyage articles? /Yvwv (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Beamz, which I think has closed down, kept me sane through lockdowns. Professional guides provided live walking tours of their cities, for tips, and answered viewers questions submitted through the chat function. I quite enjoyed them. I think that Wikivoyage's concept of travel should be broad enough to include digital tours. They can also be a useful tool for trip planning -- I watch YouTube videos as part of my trip planning to supplement my research through Wikivoyage and travel blogs. I have stopped buying guidebooks. Ground Zero (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A Roma and Traveller tour would certainly make sense to have as a complement to Stockholm history tour in a manner similar to Jewish Stockholm tour; for copyright and originality the text should however be rewritten from scratch. Probably, a few other waypoints should be added; possibly a suggested detour to Villa Jularbo in Nacka, or the Roma site in Flaten. /Yvwv (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Zip codes in consulate listings
In the User talk:Anyone150 thread, User:Anyone150 gave a special reason for deviating from the usual practice of not including zip codes in U.S. addresses in listings for consulates:

"The zip codes were added should they only accept documents by mail/courier which can be the case."

If this is correct, it would be a good reason to change our guidelines on zip codes and agree that they can be included in listings for consulates and embassies in the U.S. Your opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) Anyone150 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , but make this worldwide (and not just for the US). Typically we don't include it because they tend to be obvious, but this is a clear instance in which they're needed. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 10:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * : Nobody should expect WV to provide guidance about consular policies. If a consulate wants mailed documents, a traveler should contact the consulate (or at least visit their web page) for  official  information (including full address to which documents can be mailed). Though it ostensibly sounds reasonable to include such info here, it's actually unreasonable and simply creates another detail that can quickly become outdates, either creating a maintenance headache or simply mis-informing a traveler. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Though it ostensibly sounds reasonable to include such info here, it's actually unreasonable and simply creates another detail that can quickly become outdates.." Just them moving to another address altogether outdates quickly is already maintenance headache. They do move, some more frequently then others. So it's already a maintenance headache for anyone editing it and a frustration for anyone who's relying on WV to give accurate and up to date information. Anyone150 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. postal (zip) codes are part of the addresses. I've included the two letter state code and five digit zip codes on several consulate listings as they can require documents to be sent to them by mail or by courier especially if the applicant lives (or is staying) further away from the consulate and cannot come in or being told to send it in. So everything is right there in front of the user. We can revert back to the older standards if the majority consensus decides to leave out the additional information as the users can also figure out by looking up the zip codes in the websites or on the USPS website.

 * Arguing that zip codes are part of addresses would seem to be an argument for including them in every U.S. address. Is that the argument you mean to make? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 * : per Mrkstvns, anyone sending documents to a consulate should verify its current address on the consulate's website. It would be foolish to rely on second-hand information from Wikivoyage or another website. Ground Zero (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose For most listings we should include the information that the reader would use to make first contact with the business, particularly if it is somewhere that I reader won't just pop into because they are passing. 30 years ago a guidebook would include a full postal address because people would write to the consulate saying "please send me a visa application form". Today the traveller will look at the consulate's website, email or phone before writing a letter. AlasdairW (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel neutral on this proposal. On the whole, I'd probably approve of adding zip codes to all addresses, because everyone adds them all the time except here, but only if it were less of an effort to make every address a full mailing address than to waste time telling people to stop doing that. So basically, I think the mistake was made a couple of decades ago, and we're stuck with it, but on the more limited question addressed in this thread, I'm neutral. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Listings


text:
Wikivoyage talk:List of common misspellings

Please use this page to discuss the way the spell checker (which is a "special" page that doesn't have its own talk page) works.

To discuss spellings, spelling policy, etc. please use Wikivoyage_talk:Spelling - thanks.

Discussion
several sections have been moved from here to Wikivoyage_talk:Spelling

Highlight/preview suggestion/question
Any way by which Wiki can highlight such common mistakes, by a diffrent color in the preview mode, so that it can be caught easily? (WT-en) Srijith 22:49, 9 Jan 2004 (EST)

Spelling Error Qualifiers (...)
I felt that the spelling list - as it stood - was rather uninformative about the reason for the mispelling appearing, so I added a note like: (american spelling). It appears to work only if the plain text is added, wikification does not appear to work. I hope this helps with spelling since I use New Zealand English and think the american spellings look wrong; so the explanatory note makes it clear why the spelling error has been detected. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:35, 8 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Don't check construct
There are a number of places where a word appears to be misspelled but isn't e.g. the name of a hotel called Acomodation Inn. This is its actual name, not a misspelling. We need a construct e.g. ... which can be put around the words so they don't appear in the list. --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 13:54, 10 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * Is the construct suggested above possible?
 * There needs to be an option to either use or else to ignore the construct when requesting the "Pages with misspellings" maintenance page.

 * Perhaps a spelling checker option that checked only plain text vs checking all text? Thus you could do a check that ignored all highlighted, italic, bolded, or linked text. This option would allw you to screen out the formal names by highlighting them in some way. Just a thought as a feature request. - (WT-en) Huttite 01:53, 25 Dec 2005 (EST)

Spell checker - moved or broken?
The "See the spell checker for pages which contain the following misspellings:" link no longer works.

Spell checker is also missing from Special:Specialpages.

 * This was part of MediaWiki 1.4 (circa-2004) but was omitted from subsequent versions of the software. It hasn't worked for a decade or so. K7L (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Purpose
I had never seen this page until the latest edit to it. What's its purpose, and how can it be of any use if no-one sees it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Back before you first joined us, Ikan Kekek, (but after the great spelling debate where, in return for using what Evan described as a quirky, unusual but nevertheless valid US spelling of traveller and travelling rather than traveler and traveling together with a date format of dd Mmm yyyy throughout our guides, he announced that he had made the executive decision to stick with US spelling for all articles that did not have an obvious connection to another variety of English) there was a spell checker (that was always a bit clunky) and produced a list of "Pages with misspellings" so that these pages could then be edited by hand. I seem to recollect that it was just one of the pages that have disappeared over the years from the "Special pages" option in the left hand, but that may just be a false memory on my part.

 * Nurg will remember more since he's been editing even longer than me... --118.93nzp (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

 * On re-reading my answer, I see that I didn't answer the second part of your question. The original intention was that the project page was originally for machine use and, since the machine is either broken or no longer runs, then it's original purpose is currently in suspension. The edit history is amusing though. As far as discussions on this page go, then this edit is always interesting since it gives some flavour of the way that Evan, living in a Francophone area at the time, was perhaps more open to alternative spellings than we are now. It also reminds me that the choice between using US and Commonwealth English for the default was a very close run thing - unfortunately I can't find the page where the great debate took place. Perhaps it's like those secret "heretic" gospels that the Vatican keeps safely under lock and key somewhere... --118.93nzp (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

American spellings
While Wikivoyage uses American spelling, the basis of what I'm guessing on how this spell checker is now supposed to function does not work given you have to enter the spelling into the search bar, then look to see which variety that country uses, then change it, except they are not misspellings and they should be removed. Also I'm not sure what the function of this page is.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikivoyage talk:List of Fields of Pursuit

I have little personal investment in this particular line of plunging forward, but it started because of a link on the talk page of Soccer in Europe. From there I went to Project:Other ways of seeing travel where I noticed that the Fields of Pursuit block was being left alone. Then I flipped flopped a bit and decided I'd go ahead and build the structure.

If you build it they will come? -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 22:16, 25 July 2006 (EDT)


text:
Wikivoyage talk:List of related projects

BootsNall
Kudos for the BnA link-- good idea. (WT-en) Majnoona

Travelopedia

 * It looks like a fake, they are trying to sell you stuff ... The wiki is only used to create links to commercial websites. --(WT-en) zeno 13:25, May 24, 2004 (EDT)
 * I removed the link, because the site is not available any more. --(WT-en) zeno 06:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

world66.com
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, or has been asked before, but I noticed that another collaborative travel project, world66.com, is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license. Does this means that all their content can be posted here and vice versa? I would be grateful if someone could clear that up. Ta. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 11:50, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * All our content could be posted there. I'm dubious about World66's content, since it was originally a GFDL site, and they switched over to by-sa without getting the consent of their contributors. If we copy any of their content here, and somebody reuses it, and one of their contributors who submitted under the GFDL sues our downstream reuser... well, I feel that we've done that reuser a disservice.

 * It's also worth noting that most of the images at World66 are downloaded from other Web sites through Google images, and aren't submitted by contributors.

 * So, in general, I'd be really wary about copying info from World 66 here. --(WT-en) Evan 14:38, 28 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * I am also suspicious of the 10,000 destinations claim. I had a look at a couple of New Zealand articles I know are here, they are listed on World66 but have no content. They may have 10,000 destinations in their database but how many of those destinations have real content?  At least Wikivoyage tell you how many real article exist and gives clear indications of article size and popularity. The World66 Top Destinations list also have no indication on how they are ranked, (or who is paying for the ranking). Finally, the image search serves copyrighted images, though it certainly provides a link to them. Interesting project. I wonder what will happen when they redistribute Wikivoyage content, which they must inevitably do if their destinations remain content poor. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:44, 4 Jan 2005 (EST)
 * ...So I registered on World66 ... I tried a few edits to see what I could and could not do. Mainly to bring the New Zealand content up to scratch. Compared to Wikivoyage I found World66 very frustrating to work with. Each destination appears to be a leaf on a destination tree, with a rigid structure that once created cannot be changed or even deleted, moved or otherwise modified. I also believe that it does not attribute copyright appropriately as I was able to claim as my own work, copy that had been submitted by anonymous contributors (me logged out). Anonymous contributors are not credited. There also appears to be a background proofing clique that is not apparent from the front of the website. I noticed that a large number of blank pages were seemingly created by people submitting things like internet cafes and the like. Thus an internet cafe creates an entry (to point to their website) and presto improves their pagerank - sounds like they have a spammer problem too - I wonder why - This would also be an answer to the 10,000 destination claim. -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:51, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)

Swept in from Project:Travellers' pub:

I came across this site http://www.world66.com, which is a commercial travel guide site which is user-editable (though probably not Wiki-based) and is licensed under Creative Commons. Yet all of the content seems to be different from WikiTravel. Most of the articles are large stubs with no listings, which were written up beforehand (i.e., not Wiki style). But there is one in place for practically every destination, so there are no conspicuous gaps like here. Interesting to see how this will develop, with World66 and Wikivoyage able to use each other's content. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 02:31, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * World66 was originally a GFDL commercial guide, but it flopped, and the content was spontaneously relicensed under CC. The legality of this maneuver is somewhat questionable...  also, they split each destinations in tons of tiny little stubs, making the thing much harder to read, navigate or print than Wikivoyage. See also Project:List of related projects for further discussion of this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:39, 20 Apr 2005 (EDT)

 * Wiktravel looks much better in my opinion... (WV-en) Felix

 * Having also contributed to World66, in my opinion, Wikivoyage is also much better to contribute to too.... -- (WT-en) Huttite 20:50, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Studyabroad.com Wiki
I've just stumbled upon the recently released StudyAbroad.com Wiki - It looks like a mixture of guide and travelogue, aimed at students currently or planning to study abroad. It also uses MediaWiki but there isn't even a copyright notice to it. (WT-en) Rmx 15:03, 8 Dec 2005 (EST)

other complementary web sites
Swept in from the Pub:

Greetings fellow travelers. Moments ago I stumbled upon http://43places.com/ . It helps people who are going to the same place discover each other. So do you see this site as a competitor to Wikivoyage, or do you think collaborative links in both directions would be a good thing? --(WT-en) DavidCary 15:32, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

Related Site Project: Wikiscuba
Swept in from the Pub:

(WT-en) I have started a wiki, http://www.wikiscuba.org, to describe scuba diving locations around the world. It was in part inspired by wikivoyage and I thought there could be some wikivoyagers interested in participating in the wikiscuba project as well. There is a discussion on Talk:Scuba diving between myself and Jpatokal. We initially disagreed as to whether this warranted an entirely different wiki, but I think we've come to the conclusion that a separate wiki with technical information about diving sites for divers might be preferable over the inclusion of more technical scuba information in wikivoyage. In any case, it would be great to have as much 'cross-talk' as possible. I'm sure there are travellers who would benefit from having links to scuba diving information when planning a trip and many divers planning a diving trip would like to find information about the local culture/attractions.

I guess at this point, what I'm fishing (no pun intended) for is any suggestion on how best we could make the dive location wiki interface with wikivoyage. Also if anyone is interested in participating in that project, leaving me a message on my talk page would be good. The database at wikiscuba was mostly a try to get acquainted with setting up the wiki. I wouldn't go and create accounts just yet.

Note that there's also another scuba diving wiki that is starting with general technical information about scuba diving (I didn't secure both the .org and .com domain names in the beginning, so ironically it's hosted at http://www.wikiscuba.com/wiki). Although that wiki is probably not interesting for most wikivoyagers, it might be of interest to people who use wikiscuba(.org). I'm in the process of discussing with the instigator of the wikiscuba(.com) project to see if he would be open to fusing both projects together.(WT-en) Charles 17:23, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * From what I read at the discussion page it looks like User:(WT-en) Jpatokal is still in favor of keeping scuba diving information here on Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:44, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * That would be correct. Of course I wish Charles the best of luck if he wishes to set up something entirely new, but I hate to see the wheel reinvented and the synergies to Wikivoyage seem, to me, pretty obvious. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:52, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * Thanks for correcting me. I'm not trying to take anything away from wikivoyage. I think divers who are preparing an actual dive want more specific information about specific dive sites (depth, water temp., typical visibility, etc.). I don't think this information should be included in wikivoyage. There have already been several discussions (about scuba diving, golf, etc.) and my feel is that detailed technical information shouldn't be on wikivoyage. In that sense, I don't think it's reinventing the wheel. Call me stubborn, but I still fail to see how detailed scuba information would fit in wikivoyage. I would love to see interaction and redirects between two wikis, of course. I think it would be beneficial to both. (WT-en) Charles 10:11, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)

Yes, similar to the thoughts you had on Scuba, I was thinking about how information for golfers could be slotted in. Personally, I would much rather these (and other) areas could be kept within WikiTravel to avoid duplication of effort, rather than as seperate sites (wikigolf, wikiscuba). However, I am worried about possible conflicts with the goals/non-goals of wikiTravel. I would like somewhere to read/write details about any particular golf I would be travelling to (even tinpot local courses), however it they would likely not be important enough to list in the Do section, and I am hesitant to create a Golfing in xxx section for every location with a golf course (which is pretty much everywhere). This was why I was starting and appending courses to the Golf section, intending possibly to split it up later when we had multiple course information for a particular region.(WT-en) Hkpatv 01:24, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

 * My feeling on the matter is that there is a place for more specific activities on Wikivoyage. For example, a general discussion of Bali might mention diving issues of interest to a general audience ("there will be a lot of divers here" or "if you ever wanted to learn to dive, there are a lot of good shops here"), but a more specific Diving in Lovina Beach would cover the more technical issues (depth, water temperature, things to see, etc.).

 * That said, I think there's more to say about scuba than would fit in a travel guide (equipment, safety, etc.) and there's definitely room in the world for a specific diving wiki. (Same goes for golf, surfing, offroad driving, or other targeted activities). So good luck on Wikiscuba (and wikigolf!) and let's make sure we keep lines of communication open. --(WT-en) Evan 10:58, 8 Feb 2006 (EST)

Search will find every occurance of "golf" or "scuba" on Wikivoyage and present each pagename. So if golf or scuba info is put on a subpage of the city page it is nearest too, for example San_Francisco/golf, that will display nicely in the Article title matches section of the Search results. Note that because there is a "golf" page in the (Main) namespace hitting ruturn (Go) takes you there instead of to Search results. So you must click Search instead of hitting return.

English teachers' Wiki
As of May 1, 2006, there is a new Wiki specifically for English teachers.

Their section on travel suggests contributing general travel information to Wikivoyage instead, putting only ESL-specific information on their new site.

TripAdvisor adds wiki
Swept in from the Pub:

While writing up this week's Wikipedia Signpost news roundup, I saw that high-profile travel website TripAdvisor has added a wiki called the "Inside Pages" to its site, allowing visitors to write articles about travel destinations and so forth ("TripAdvisor imitates Wikipedia"). They're doing beta testing on U.K. and California information right now; I don't see any obvious notice of the copyright/license terms for the info. Thought you might like to know, and I'd like to know what you think; it's possible we may write more about this in the Signpost next week. -- (WT-en) Catherine)

 * Hi Catherine, thanks for pointing this out. While it's an interesting development (and the sincerest form of flattery...), Evan and I think there are a couple of important points to keep in mind:
 * Their community features are poor, as well as their personal identity features, and thus the main motivators for people to contribute to a wiki are missing.
 * There doesn't seem to be any participation whatsoever by users in policy, style, or process. We also don't see clearly delineated goals. In other words, there's no feeling of community ownership of the site.
 * We think that our Creative Commons license gives contributors an idealistic goal for creating Open Content guides. TA leaves the license unspecified, and their reputation as a "roach motel" for user contributions suggests that they won't be making any changes along those lines in the near future. --(WT-en) Majnoona 10:49, 17 April 2006 (EDT)

Wikimapia
I just heard about Wikimapia. Seems like cross-purposes from Wikivoyage. Plus, I sort of like the interface and I sort of hate it. Thoughts? Should there be links between "us" and them, as in Wikipedia?--(WT-en) Justfred 17:11, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

 * Interface sucks -- and you can't edit a location, just the text associated with the location. Also, while it tends to be more comprehensive, it's actually less useful. Want to find a hotel?  Plan on clicking every school, grocery store, business, somebody's house, park, bridge, lake, etc until you find one.  There's a lot of entries for the city I live in (Fremont, California) and it isn't even useful to me. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:26, 2 October 2006 (EDT)

Airnav
Airnav lists information for general aviation pilots, with relevant airport information but also local restaurants, hotels, etc of interest to private pilots. If there's a way to link to them from airport codes, this might be useful; would be best to create a meta tag for this, somehow, I'd think.--(WT-en) Justfred 17:19, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

I've started to add airports in the format:

Harris Ranch (3O8)

airport name (code )

Codes prefixed with a K such as Santa Monica (KSMO) show the K.

If a meta were created it'd be a lot simpler; it could even be in the right-side nav links box {Airnav|KSMO} --(WT-en) justfred 23:30, 5 October 2006 (EDT)

 * I totally understand why you want to do this, but it sure looks like an violation of the current Project:External links policy to me. But let me ask you some questions about it.  First, given the airport code (which we absolutely should include in the text), is it hard for a pilot to lookup more information about the location?  Is it really that necessary to link to airnav as opposed to letting the pilot google it himself?  Just trying to understand more about you issue, thanks -- (WT-en) Colin 00:21, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

 * No, it wouldn't be that hard, but this seems to be the authoritative location for this information. I would think that a best-case would be an agreement with them.  But for the moment I think it would be better to leave it out; I'll go change the two I did.  However, there should be some format for airport codes, since they're very useful; perhaps a mini-template for that alone?--(WT-en) justfred 00:25, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

I've been considering this, and I think there should be some designator for the aiport code. These are ICAO ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO_airport_code ) codes, so it could be (ICAO:KLAX) which would make searching for them a lot easier. Unless there's a better way to code it; most readers don't care to see the "ICAO:". And I would think these would tend to be online, rather than article-wide - for example Los Angeles might have several suggested airports; many metro areas have multiples. This is in contrast to the familiar three-character IATA codes (LAX); in non-US the IATA and ICAO are very different.--(WT-en) justfred 12:38, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

 * It appears this is how it's already done, sometimes. (IATA:LAX, ICAO:KLAX).  Bob's your uncle.  Still makes me wonder what happens when we find some fine site to link all these to, or change them to a tag, how will a bot find all of them.--(WT-en) justfred 13:39, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

Wikevent
So, Wikevent is getting pretty close to being useful so I'm going to add it to this page. I'd love at some point to do interwiki links, especially considering that one of the motivations for starting Wikevent in the first place was to provide a way for Wikivoyage to link to events. -- (WT-en) Mark 04:05, 3 January 2007 (EST)

 * Mark's done some pretty amazing things with this and I too would like to see some interwiki work done in the future. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:05, 4 January 2007 (EST)

 * Two things: can we start Project:Cooperating with Wikevent? Also, please post the request for interwiki stuff on wts:technical requests. I'll especially need to know how the URLs are supposed to be formatted, and whether there should be links for other language versions. --(WT-en) Evan 12:49, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia fork, Citizendium
Archived from the Pub:

From Slashdot, 16 September: The wiki is not up yet, but there is a home page and several mailing lists.
 * "Larry Sanger, first editor-in-chief of Wikipedia, plans to fork the project. In Berlin he announced the start of Citizendium — the citizen's compendium. Main differences: no anonymous editing, and experts will rule the project. Members of Wikipedia were not amused."

How does this affect us? Methinks we need a tag at least. I want it mainly because I'm in China and, unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium isn't blocked here yet. (WT-en) Pashley 02:25, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

 * Citizendium also doesn't seem to have any articles yet. One possibility for the firewal problem is to have our "Wikipedia" interwiki link point to a local Special: page, which in turn redirects you to a Wikipedia mirror of your choice (or wikipedia, by default). --(WT-en) Evan 08:52, 18 September 2006 (EDT)

 * They've had a pilot project running for a while, opened for public viewing today. (WT-en) Pashley 16:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page (WT-en) Pashley 16:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

 * Citizendium doesn't appear to be an actual fork of Wikipedia... more like a tine, borrowing a little (at least for now), but otherwise starting almost from scratch(!). It may be a while before it's complete enough for us to assume that it even has articles for most Wikivoyage destinations; at present it has only 16 (seemingly random) articles in their geography category that correspond to ours.  Between the lack of common content, and CZ's lack of content overall so far, I think we should treat them as distinct resources, to be linked to separately.  (BTW, the fact that their "experts" began editing the article for the UK with an argument over whether the article should instead be called "Great Britain" is not a good omen, methinks.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Have they changed their strategy then? When it was launched it was supposed to be a "progressive fork". — (WT-en) Ravikiran 23:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Change of strategy. Apparently the prevailing opinion was that expert authors would be more eager to write their own articles rather than proofread existing Wikipedia articles.  Of course the WP articles are still available for cribbing if any CZ author chooses, and many CZ articles had already been based on WP articles when this course-change was made, but that won't be the default. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Given that Citizendium is now clearly distinct from Wikipedia, and will probably grow to have articles worth linking to, in the interest of fairness I've created Project:Cooperating with Citizendium. The details about how to link back and forth still need to be worked out. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

TravGuide
I received the following email today:
 * Hi, Denis,
 * I think you mentioned on wikivoyage some time ago that you have some info and reviews about hotels, restaurant, etc. that you were not encouraged to enter on wikivoyage.
 * Anyway, just let you know that we just released a site, TravGuide.org, which is travel wiki specifically for reviews and guides. You may want to enter data over there, and we certainly appreciate your support.
 * Thanks.
 * Jay Fang
 * TravGuide.org

The project forked some of Wikivoyage guides some time ago, and licensed some restaurant reviews from [chefmoz.org ChefMoz project].

I am not very sympathetic with the project, still some important observations: I feel like I've noticed something else, but don't remember now. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:48, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
 * they allow video--it really help to tell on travel activities, for example
 * they intentionally allow reviews on restaurants and hotels as well as summarizing description
 * they provide space for deals from businesses -- at least it gives space for providers to submit exactly what they have instead of spamming listings

Wikiversity brainstorming
Swept in from the pub:

There is an article at wikiversity about cheap independant travel. Its about thinking cooperatively about the cheapest methods. Please add links from wikivoyage to this wikiversity page

 * Seems like a good project, but the page is somewhat bare right now and I think we have enough on our plates writing for this site. Just my thoughts --(WT-en) Matt Talk 22:12, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Hitchhiking.org
Perhaps hitchhiking.org may be added ?

Librilang.org
I have a project I would like to submit. It is a wiki-based project which aims to translate works in the public-domain in other languages, using collaboration; you can find it here: http://www.librilang.org Does this qualify as a fellow-traveller project? If so, I will add an entry! Thanks --(WT-en) ChrisHughes 11:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Since no-one has objected, I will add this to the list. --(WT-en) ChrisHughes 08:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Wikimmigrant
Swept in from the Pub:

I wanted to ask the Wikivoyage community for a little help with a wiki that I'm trying to get launched - Wikimmigrant. I'm hoping that Wikimmigrant can complement Wikivoyage by providing detailed immigration/visa rules and regulations for every nation on Earth and, possibly one day - Mars. A detailed account of explaining the application process and visa fees for every nation is obviously going to fall way outside the scope of Wikivoyage's goals to provide relevant travel information, but for those of us in the world that want to up and go to Poland, Canada, Singapore, Mongolia, or India from the comfort (or discomfort - that's why Wikimmigrant will help explain obtaining refugee status in different countries) of our native lands, we should have a way to access that information in a central place.

Yes, there are expat websites that can give a person information and guidance on obtaining a work or residence permit for Country A, but, as we know with travel information, information can change quickly. So, if the parliament of Country A changes it's immigration laws, then the MediaWiki software will allow anyone with that knowledge to update Wikimmigrant and that information would be instantaneously available to the world, which is not true for many expat websites.

Anyhow, I could specifically use help developing policies, templates, and articles. I'd especially appreciate any help from someone with knowledge of CSS to design a spiffy main page. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 21:42, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Does this need a "co-operating with ..." page? Mention in an index? (WT-en) Pashley 09:58, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Hitchwiki redux
It begins to look as though Hitchwiki may be viable -- not automatically true for all of the "projects" listed here -- and it clearly complements, rather than duplicates, our goals and articles for Wikivoyage. Is it time for us to pay it due respect by adding it to the "Other sites" list than can show up on the left-hand side of the page? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:54, 28 December 2008 (EST)

partnership with TripAdvisor?
Swept in from pub:

I wonder whether we (or WikivoyagePress? Or IB?) ever considered any kind of partnership with TripAdvisor?

The idea is straight simple: they have much more(?) experts with local knowledge, tons of (very unstruсtured) content--while Wikivoyage has bullet-proof community guidelines and tons of organized content. Business reasons and politics aside, such a partnership would seem very logical.

Yes, it's a flame bait--but I'm still serious :-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:38, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Would be a nice concept being able to freeload on tripadvisor, but they own the copyright to all the user contributions over there, and they would never allow those to be freely licensed. It's their bread and butter. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 10:54, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I had a look at their "terms & conditions" text. Looks like their licensing is utterly incompatible with ours.

 * The content and information on this Website ... as well as the infrastructure ... is proprietary to us. You agree not to otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell or re-sell any information, software, products, or services obtained from or through this Website. Additionally, you agree not to:

 * (i) use this Website or its contents for any commercial purpose;
 * (ii) access, monitor or copy any content or information of this Website using any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means or any manual process for any purpose without our express written permission;
 * (v) deep-link to any portion of this Website for any purpose without our express written permission; or
 * (vi) "frame", "mirror" or otherwise incorporate any part of this Website into any other website without our prior written authorization.
 * (vii) attempt to modify, translate, adapt, edit, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer any software programs used by TripAdvisor in connection with the Website or the services
 * (vii) attempt to modify, translate, adapt, edit, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer any software programs used by TripAdvisor in connection with the Website or the services

 * Also, on the "about us" page "TripAdvisor® Media Network provides travel suppliers with graphical advertising opportunities and a cost-per-click marketing platform." That may be where IB is heading, but it does not match our current policies.

 * I cannot see that such a partnership would be either possible or desirable. (WT-en) Pashley

Currently they have some number of articles (attached to destination) which are awful in content and duplication. We could provide texts for that section, and simplify cross-site user authorization so that users authorized at TA could easily contribute to the articles. The rest at AT could remain as it is now (to begin with). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:20, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

 * I think I've said elsewhere a few times that I wouldn't trust WT's Sleep and Eat sections, I always go to tripadvisor for accommodation, and local reviews for eat. We all know that outside of the fifedoms, most of the accommodation and restaurant entries are entered by vested interests. The WT content is usually great for attractions and logistic info. As far as cooperating with tripadvisor, they are free to take our content anytime they like.  They could do it right now, if they wanted to.  I doubt IB hold any bargaining chips for a partnership.  If they did, I think it would be a good thing.  I'm not sure what we can do to improve the situation with eat and sleep listing within the wiki framework, but we could have start by being a little tougher on vested interests.  Tripadvisor at least start with a policy of not allowing business owners to write their own reviews.  We do pretty much the opposite--(WT-en) inas 05:32, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

 * If we can't trust our Sleep and Eat (as you say), and if we can't resist pressure from apartment agencies and hotels in some articles, maybe it's time to revisit our "welcome business owners" policy? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:05, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Yes, seems to do little to assist with good contributions, rather perpetuating the attitude taken by some business owners that they have a right to place their advert on wikivoyage. Much to the detriment of the site, IMO.  The source of a strong consensus for that article in the first place also seems to not be apparent.  --(WT-en) inas 14:45, 3 November 2009 (EST)

 * It's a very long established policy with over two years of practice holding it up. I'd still be happy to relook it, though. We didn't have the problems with business owners back then that we do today—I'd wager at least half of contributions from non-regular users are coming from business owners and their employees... And I should say that I'm not at all pessimistic about our ability to judge who's who—I can practically smell them on recentchanges. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:45, 3 November 2009 (EST)

What is the purpose of this article?
Don't get it at all. Is it intended to be a list of other travel guides? Or just Wiki travel guides? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:38, 17 January 2010 (EST)

As i understand it: just wiki travel guides. Not strictly sticking to the "referenced by others" as wikipedia. This page of course is about somehow related projects.

I feel that nobody administrating/moderating is reading these. (12:26gmt, 16-03-2011)

Mobile counterpart
Why the mobile counterpart's "m.wikivoyage.org" content differs from the original Wikivoyage? How its content is created? Why here there is no reference anywhere to this counterpart? Or is it a different site? Who hosts both sites? (a contributor - 11:47am 7-Mar-2011)

WikiOverland, the encyclopedia of overland travel
It was suggested I move this discussion here from Talk:Country Article Template

I would like to start a discussion with regards to linking to WikiOverland from within wikiTravel country pages. First, what is WikiOverland? It's new community wiki specifically for people traveling across multiple countries with vehicles (commonly called traveling Overland. The people are called Overlanders, who are Overlanding).

It's designed to supplement wikiTravel with the very detailed information needed by travelers with a vehicle.

It currently includes things like customs paperwork and fees, the process at the border, extending a stay, exiting with a vehicle, vehicle insurance, up-to-date gasoline prices (in any currency and unit the reader chooses), gasoline frequency and quality, camping, roads, checkpoints, bribery, vehicle shipping, maps, navigation, vehicle maintenance, buying and selling vehicles and much, much more. It uses the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license for content.

WikiOverland has a page for every country, much like wikiTravel. WikiOverland currently links to wikiTravel for each country.

By linking here WikiOverland does not need to worry about all the standard travel information available here and can focus on specializing in the huge amounts of detailed information required by those traveling with vehicles.

I believe it makes sense for wikiTravel to link to wikiOverland in the "by-car" sub sections, as wikiOverland is designed to be extraordinarily specific with regards to traveling with a vehicle - exactly the information those sections are supposed to include.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the idea.

Thanks (WT-en) Dangrec 19:47, 29 November 2011 (EST)

 * I think the new site definitely deserves a mention on this page, the List of related projects. You might want to drop a note at Project:Fellow traveller Expedition, which is usually where we have discussed collaboration with other projects.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:35, 30 November 2011 (EST)

 * Thanks. I've created a discussion at Project:Fellow traveller Expedition -(WT-en) Dangrec 13:39, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Adding WikiOverland to the list of related projects, and linking to it

 * Swept in from the pub.

I've added a note to Talk: List of Related projects about adding WikiOverland, the encyclopedia of overland travel to the list of related projects and linking to it from appropriate articles. Please have a look and add your thoughts. Thanks (WT-en) Dangrec 22:14, 29 November 2011 (EST)

 * Per Project:External links it wouldn't make sense to link from within articles, but in the past these sorts of integrations have been handled via interwiki links (see for example Project:Links to Wikipedia). However, it looks like WikiOverland is still in the very early stages -  shows 27 articles so far, and there don't seem to be any contributions prior to 25-November - so it probably makes sense to wait a bit longer before considering a significant integration.  Hopefully that seems reasonable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 23:48, 29 November 2011 (EST)

 * Thanks for the reply Ryan. I noticed the external links policy on Project:External_links, specifically the part that says:

 * "We should avoid links to other travel guides, to ensure we have travel information in Wikivoyage, not linked from Wikivoyage."

 * In the case of WikiOverland, I'm not sure this is very applicable. WikiOverland contains an extremely detailed amount of information for people traveling with vehicles - so much so I honestly don't think WikiTravel would ever want to include this level of detail (for example - I show up at the border of Peru with my Canadian-plated vehicle, the information I'd like to know is 1. What paperwork do I need? 2. What is the process? 3. How much will it cost? 4. Do I need to buy insurance? 5. How much does that cost? etc. etc. etc.).. I don't think wikiTravel aims to include this level of detail, does it?
 * The fact that WikiTravel has sections like Get in-> By car and Get around -> By car show that these are areas of interest for travelers reading WikiTravel, but they are severely lacking or non-existent for many countries. It's clear the value of wikiTravel in these specific areas could be improved today by linking to WikiOverland, but including the information into wikiTravel would be a huge undertaking.

 * You also mention that WikiOverland is in it's early stages - and you are 100% correct. Note, however, that a lack of articles does not mean a lack of useful information. One of the goals of WikiOverland is to include only the information that people traveling with Vehciles need, and can't readily find elsewhere in guide books or online. (For example, WikiOverland will never include information on languages spoken, visa requirements, currencies, airports, etc.) Because of this goal to be to-the-point and up-to-date, I anticipate WikiOverland will never contain more than around 150 articles. With respect to age, you can see from the public logs we've been building it up Since May 2011.
 * Thanks again. -(WT-en) Dangrec 00:47, 30 November 2011 (EST)

 * Sorry, I looked at the recent changes on your site for the past 30 days, but forgot to also change the number of revisions displayed, which is where the 25-November date came from. That said, given the vast amount of work it takes to prevent Wikivoyage from becoming a nest of external links I think it will be an uphill battle to find a way to include links from WikiOverland from within Wikivoyage articles (see the discussions on Project:External links for history), so my personal opinion is that interwiki links make the most sense, but preferably when WikiOverland has gotten a bit larger.  Hopefully others can provide their opinions - Wikivoyage tends to be extremely conservative when it comes to external links, but consensus drives the decision making so it would be good to get additional opinions. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:11, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Wikitravel
From the department of questions that nobody imagined having to ask: is there a need for a policy on links to Wikitravel? (WV-en) Gorilla Jones (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2012 (CEST)
 * We have a more general policy on links to other travel guides... we don't do it because we want the info here. External links favours primary sources. K7L (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Travellerspoint
This site seems to have quite a lot of wiki travel articles, similar to ours, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. Worth a look and perhaps co-operation? --Nick (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * They certainly already seem to be aware of us . —Ruud 17:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 * I guess a good question to ask would be, how active or well-known a community is this? They are a competitor, after all. Who stands to gain more from a cooperation - them or us? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Travellerspoint, Part II
This group is doing work very similar to us. Have we reached out to ask if they are interesting in collaborating yet? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Their terms of use are not extremely restrictive, however I would say restrictive enough to prevent much collaboration.
 * My amateur take would be that unless they also adopt a creative commons license then any such collaboration would be difficult. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is CC BY SA  Travel Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 * It seems articles have the creative commons logo at the botton of each, but there is no reference to creative commons in the terms of use.
 * Is the presence of a logo (and nothing else) sufficient? (I really don't know the answer) Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The example page at least now has the text "Except where otherwise noted, content of this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License" by the logo. Has it been added later? --LPfi (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm all for collaboration here! It may not score as high on Alexa, but it's got a lot of convenient information. I'm thinking about WikiTravel, too - which ranks much higher than WikVoyage. Any ideas? Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Please read Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. That's a website which has engaged in frivolous and vexatious litigation against our volunteers in the past, so does not represent a possible collaboration partner. Sorry. K7L (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see. A wondered for a while what this Wikivoyage-Wikitravel oxymoron is about. Well, then they should just dump it, huh... Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Building a free/open (Wikimedia/OSM style) community for reviews
Hi Wikivoyagers,

I wanted to let you know about a project that I'm working on: https://lib.reviews/. As the front page notes, the goal is to build a free, open, non-profit community dedicated to reviewing anything -- including restaurants, tourist attractions, and the like. I think this could become a natural complement to the information provided on Wikivoyage.

Reviews are inherently subjective, but we will support the notion of teams (similar to WikiProjects) that have defined standards and rules. So you could have a team "Paris Vegetarians", for example, to identify the best vegetarian restaurants in Paris, France, with membership rules like "You must have visited a restaurant three times to write a review". There will be other features to mitigate against abuse.

As with Wikimedia, support for many languages is important. The software is already fully localized into German, and you can translate all content (try changing the language on the front page and notice how some content is now German). If you want to help with localization into a new language, we can already get started on that right away (we're not on translatewiki.net yet, but I'll look into making that happen).

The license for reviews is CC-BY-SA, and for metadata CC-0 -- identical to Wikivoyage and Wikidata, respectively. Right now we identify things to review by URL (e.g., a restaurant's official website); over time I hope to build adapters for OpenStreetMap, Wikidata, and so on.

At this point, you can write reviews, and you'll soon be able to start teams. Contributors and collaborators of any background are welcome, as long as you're willing to deal with bugs/rough edges/missing core features. Until I'm confident in anti-spam measures, an invite-code is required -- you can email me through my user page, or follow the instructions on the front page.

I hope this project will fill a void in the free culture ecosystem. Happy to answer questions here directly, and hope to see some of you get involved. :-) --Eloquence (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Interesting experiment! Not easy but I hope you will be able to design a system that works... be sure to let us know your findings after like a year! I just sent you an email requesting an invite :-) Syced (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Looks like a great initiative. I'm excited for the possibility of downloading reviews for offline use, complementing the Wikivoyage ZIM. Carlelliss (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Useful site
See here How can we incorporate this info here? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting tool! I think Wikivoyage already has a lot of this data in prose? The rest depends where the traveller comes from, which we can not tell as we are intended to be usable as a book too. I don't really think it would be a great idea to link to them either, per our external links policy. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But yeah, quite a nice tool! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 * It is indeed quite a nice tool & the site is not infested with advertising. I think we should link to it somewhere.
 * He says there will be an app "probably open source" for it & an API. We should track developments & when they reach a good point, look at integrating the app with WV apps, adding WV links to their app, and/or using the Basetrip API here. Pashley (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

 * There's a really good argument to be made that linking this site somewhere is in the interest of travelers and that for that reason, we should make an exception to our usual policy on external links. But where would you suggest linking it, other than in an app? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the infoboxes? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean for each country? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. It would only be relevant for country-level data, of course (you don't need a passport to get into Indianapolis). So maybe a line that says "Passport info" and a link to this site by way of a template. If the site changes its architecture or goes down, then it can be easily removed by a bot and it will be excluded from print versions. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. What does everyone else think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we decide to link to the site, the infobox or Understand would be the best places to put that link. Normally we want to have the information here rather than in some other guide, but that would mean a lot of writing (even without including all the embassies). ϒpsilon (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible integration
Email from the author I don't think this is confidential, so I am reproducing what the founder of the site sent to me:
 * I have a question though - it says "The rest depends where the traveller comes from" which is not quite true - if you remove the "From" thing you get this (the same minus the comparisons), for example for France - https://www.thebasetrip.com/en/france-travel-information

 * There is also a pending (not online yet!) blog post which should maybe clear some doubts about monetization/ads etc. - https://www.thebasetrip.com/en/blog/unexpected-launch

In case we decide to go forward, I think this is relevant. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 * If they charge or press people for contributions or subscriptions, I don't think it would be Wiki-like to link them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we should only link to and promote free culture and knowledge. The entire idea that Evan and Maj had was that we could all get together and share knowledge for our mutual benefit. What a beautiful thing. Some amount of "can you please give your time or money so we can stay afloat" is fair--that happens here as well. But real monetization or locking down the site to be proprietary is unacceptable. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A relevant Humble Book Bundle
See here This may seem a little tout-y but I don't have a horse in this race. This is relevant for us as those interested in travel but also because Humble Bundles have given a lot of money to the Wikimedia Foundation (and you can often choose that as a charity but it appears not in this instance). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


text:
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

heathfieldestatenewforest dot co dot uk/
Repeated touting and edit warring.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 * hi Im the owner of Heathfield Estate. Im sorry about the touting but i have no idea what im doing here. I saw the Twin Cottage under Splurge on this page https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/New_Forest and thought it would be ok to add our place. Would the following work under the rules here? Any and all suggestions welcomed. Thanks:
 * Heathfield Estate, ☏ +44 7740983047. Lyndhurst Road, Bransgore, Accommodating 2-12 guests, our offering includes the 4-bedroom Heathfield Coach House which can sleep up to 8 people and the 2-bedroom Magnolia Cottage which can sleep up to 4 people. The Coach House has a living room with a wood-burning fireplace, a fully equipped kitchen and its own garden terrace with a barbecue. Magnolia Cottage has a living / dining area, a fully equipped kitchen and its own garden terrace with a barbecue. Paheydon (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, i have now read on the wikivoyage guidelines and will follow the template at https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Listings. Can you please remove this from the blacklist. Thanks Paheydon (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi. Your place looks very nice, but we just need to be mindful not to see Wikivoyage as free advertising. WV is primarily written for tourists and other travellers by travellers (and often locals). We're giving up our time for free, so messing round with touts is quite annoying. I've actually removed the Twin Cottage listing too now you've pointed it out.
 * Regarding your business, thanks for confirming you've read some of our guidelines. Did you also read Listings, as well as WV:Welcome, business owners and WV:Don't tout? After you've read those, please could you add your proposed listing to Talk:New Forest (without external links; we can add those to the finished version in-article). If it looks as though it respects our guidelines and policies, I'll add it to the article and unblacklist your website.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, i have read all the links that you provided and put a proposed listing in Talk:New Forest for your review. thanks for your time. Paheydon (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @ThunderingTyphoons!, just wanted to make sure you saw my proposed listing per above? Im looking forward for it being added and getting unblacklisted. thanks! Paheydon (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you mean the listing above, it's really obviously out of compliance with Wikivoyage guidelines. How could you have read them and still written "our"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ikan Kekek
 * No. I wrote the following at: Talk:New Forest as @ThunderingTyphoons! requested which i believe follows all your guidelines now.
 * Heathfield Estate, Lyndhurst Road, Bransgore, BH23 8LA ☏ +44 7740 983047, concierge@heathfieldestate.co.uk. This property has 2 properties available and both have Digital TVs with Netflix, Prime & Disney+, free Wi-Fi, and a hot tub is available to use. The Coach House has 4 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms to sleep 8 people (£499-749 per night) while the Cottage has 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms to sleep 4 people (£249-349 per night). Paheydon (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been really busy and forgot to do this. I have now unblacklisted the url and added a slightly modified version of the listing to New Forest.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Paheydon (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

www dot letsexplorewestsumatra dot com
The usual - added by a block-evading spammer in the Padang article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 * How was the IP able to add it on Special:Diff/4889269 and Special:Diff/4889265. -- SHB2000  (t | c | m) 11:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They didn't add any URL, just the host/domain. They didn't get a working link, but copying and pasting the hostname to the address bar, anybody could reach the site. –LPfi (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains (do see Ikan's talk page for what I ended up doing) SHB2000  (t | c | m) 21:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist