text:
Wikivoyage talk:Bug reports and feature requests

Streamlining bug reports
I'd really like to see our bug reports and feature requests streamlined a bit. I have a couple of thoughts:

 * 1) I could install a bug-tracking system like Bugzilla (popular but bletcherous UI), Mantis (not so popular but nice UI), or others TBD. This would give the "right" kind of interface, but it would require an additional login step for users.
 * 2) We could put one bug per page, and have Project:Bug reports just link to each page. This would organize them better, but leave things more flexible.
 * 3) We could use a template for a bug report, to organize the bug pages.
 * 4) Bug report pages could be sub-pages of Project:Bug reports, or even in their own namespace (like Bug:NumberOfArticles broken in pl:.
 * 5) We could use the Inputbox extension to make adding new bug reports and feature requests easier.

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions? --(WT-en) Evan 10:18, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I'd suggest going whole hog and setting up Mantis, which is fairly nice and has all the prioritization/status etc filtering which is critical to sorting out the wheat from the chaff. (Scarab is also OK, but the query functionality and whole stupid 'module' thing never works the way you expect.)  Wikipedia also uses Bugzilla, but as you say the interface is craptastic. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:44, 27 April 2006 (EDT)

Weird interlanguage links
The links to the inaccessible pages reported on Project:Bug_reports are messing the interlanguage bar. I understand that those pages (at least those on the then pseudo-domain pt:) now lead directly to the actual pages on the language versions. Can we say the bug has been solved? (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 22:48, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

I seem to be blocked from editing
Hi all, Please someone check if I have been blocked from editing either intentionally or by accident. I have been unable to log on and have not been able to edit for a week. I have had no notification of a problem, and IB have not been forthcoming on why I get gateway timeouts for attempts to edit or connect to non-article pages. My service provider promised to check if they are the problem but have not come back to me. This is seriously frustrating and annoying, as I have a lot of updates waiting to upload. I dont even expect this message to go through, but it is all I can do. Cheers, User:Pbsouthwood
 * If you can't log on at all, it's not a block (nor is there one on your account). You'll have to define "unable to log on" more precisely -- do you get an error message of any kind?  Or is it just a timeout, or no response, or what?  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:13, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

 * My IP address was blocked once by IB, but I was unable to even browse the site when that happened - emailing tech at wikivoyage.org (several times) and giving them my IP address and a description of the problem eventually got it resolved. Also, be aware that site functionality for many users has currently degraded to the point where edits take numerous attempts - I'm finding I generally have to reload pages several times due to timeouts - so that may also be part of the problem.  As LtPowers said, if you can provide any additional info it might make it easier to figure out the issue, and if you can't access the site then any of the admins here can probably act as an intermediary for you via email. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:19, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
 * I am editing from a friend's house for this edit, and I had absolutely no problem at all, very quick connection and everything seems to work as expected. I don't know who his ISP is though as it is a local network service. Anyway to get to the questions: Not able to log on means if I click the Log on/create account tab I get a timeout. The only error message I get is 504 gateway timeout. and I get that for most non article pages, and all edit attempts in the last few days. I have not been able to get into shared at all recently, but the problems at En have been more gradual in buildup, which doesn't make sense  to me at all. I have mailed the tech guy at IB (IBDick, I think he calls himself), but he has not so far managed to explain what the problem is or solve it. I have found out that the server refuses tracert requests as a policy, so that test didn't prove anything. I have been having the same trouble Ryan describes for months already. I have been unable to get onto anyone's talk page to leave a message or I would have done that already., and I don't have anyone's private email to bypass the problem. Its been a sort of "you cant get there from here" situation. I plan to try dial-up tomorrow if I get the time. that may also throw some light on the problem. Another friend accessed WT and could make edits using the same ISP that I use, so that doesn't look like the problem either, though the tech I spoke to at Telkomsa (my ISP) said he would get back to me after making some tests. me but did not. So it goes. If anyone wants to contact me by direct email, my address is on my user page. Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 12:51, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
 * I am also finding it is near impossible to load pages, preview or resolve an edit at this time, very frustrating. -- (WT-en) felix 12:09, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

I have made some small adjustments (set DNS to a more local branch) recommended by my ISP tech who thought they would solve the problem, but things have only improved marginally. I am now sometimes able to open an edit page. Perhaps 1 in 5 tries will open, and some of those will save, but still no success at all with shared. Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) Talk 11:42, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
 * You could try setting your DNS servers to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 (Google's open DNS servers) ...

 * I am also current experiencing serious access issues. It is no longer just the problem of frequent mind numbing lags and time outs I have experienced for the last year or so.That problem comes and goes, at times making editing a considerable challenge, other times only requiring backing up and re-loading the page or page edit a few times. This is why I occasional show two sequential identical edits, or sometimes go-offline leaving an unresolved edit sequence. The current problem however appears quite different. I have not been able to load any Wikivoyage page for an extended time since my last edit at 10:07, 14 August 2011. I use Safari for mac and Firefox for mac and of course tried both browsers multiple times and flushed the caches. Just prior to uploading this note I did manage to successfully load WT recent changes and the WT main page, then it went back to the error message again. I can however consistently load pages using a different IP (by proxy). As I can log in from a different IP, using the same browser/s I assume the IP is being blocked, albeit now intermittently. The error messages are presented as follows. Just prior to posting this using a mirror proxy I started getting successful page loads again using my regular. The messages below are the error message displayed on failed attempts, the error message is the same in both browsers:

 * The requested URL could not be retrieved

 * While trying to retrieve the URL: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?
 * The following error was encountered:
 * • Zero Sized Reply
 * Squid did not receive any data for this request.
 * Your cache administrator is root.

 * Generated Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:32:44 GMT by wikivoyage.org (squid/2.6.STABLE6)

 * ERROR

 * The requested URL could not be retrieved

 * While trying to retrieve the URL: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
 * The following error was encountered:

 * • Zero Sized Reply

 * Squid did not receive any data for this request.
 * Your cache administrator is root.

 * Generated Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:04:20 GMT by wikivoyage.org (squid/2.6.STABLE6)

 * Except for the date stamp the message is the same each time.

 * I hope the IB people are currently paying some attention to this page. Although I have been experiencing erratic page loads, occasional timeouts and other frustrations up to a few hours ago they were in the normal range of lousy server response to which I am accustomed, this latest issue is however an entirely new phenomena. To me it looks like a classic data base overload problem and most likely the Squid response is arising from giving up waiting for Apache to respond after a set period of time, most likely due to DB structural problems, possibly the /temp folder or memory cache or a load balancing issue. I am really quite sick of having my time wasted by persistent re-loading requirements and time-outs when editing here. What I find odd though is that whilst experiencing this problem I could come in through a different IP and access the WT server at the time without any issues. I am assuming therefore that the problematic server I was accessing from my own IP was the issue and the other (proxy) IP I was using was accessing a different server (or an unaffected mirror server). This latest event is further underlining my suspicions that IB need to do some serious housekeeping, really how old is the gear these guys are using, have they purloined the stuff from a museum collection somewhere. Maybe others here have some ideas on this. To add some clarity to the matter I could not get in from an Indonesian IP but could get in from a Dutch IP. -- (WT-en) felix 18:36, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I don't know if anyone from IB followed up with Peter after the emails that went out. In any rate, I left a message at our current IB liaison's talk page current IB liaison's talk page. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:05, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Thanks Peter, I get "User account "IBobi" is not registered." when I go to that commons.wikimedia.org address. I manage to load this page OK today so maybe that particular server issue was transient. Hopefully though IB can see there are (ongoing) problems that really do need to be addressed. -- (WT-en) felix 04:40, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I guess Peter meant to link IBobi's Shared talk page but linked to Commons instead, apperantly out of a mistake.
 * On another note, I've got the very same message Felix explained above yesterday night, around midnight GMT, and gave up but now I seem to be accessing and editing seamlessly. The details on the problem and how to get around it are far too technical for me, though. – (WT-en) Vidimian 06:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 * For what it's worth, I'm seeing the same behavior intermittently. I emailed tech at wikivoyage dot org with a screenshot last night, but I'm not optimistic about a response.  At this point I would lay odds that the database is in need of standard TLC, but who knows if that will ever happen. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:36, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Hi -- I pinged Dick on this just to be on the safe side. Hopefully he'll be able to take a look at this over the next few days. In the future, you can contact me via my posted email address, or Dick/Tech as you see fit.--(WT-en) IBobi 16:16, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Hi (WT-en) IBobi, from my perspective today things seem to be back to their old cluncky ways again with no more squid ink blackouts. Thanks for your note above. -- (WT-en) felix 06:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I was now able to log in again, but have been experiencing the same problems over the past few days, including earlier this evening. It seems the troubles come and go, sometimes not allowing me to do anything (including logging in or seeing recent changes, which gives me the same "Zero Sized Reply"), at other times I can see recent pages but still not log in or edit. In any case, it's working now but was still broken a few hours ago so I'm not sure it's fixed. (WT-en) Justme 19:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Back to extended periods of failed page loads, failed edit uploads or zero server responses, happening again yesterday thru early this morning, working OK at this moment. -- (WT-en) felix 12:28, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

So I understand this, the error that led to this thread has been resolved and we are "back to the usual site sluggishness"? If this is a bug that needs to be addressed, please report it here: http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Top_bugs --(WT-en) IBobi 14:01, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Sometimes page request times are good however for a lot of the time timeouts and slow page loads are a very disappointing aspect of editing on this site. Edits are occasionally lost in the muddle of it or alternatively require lots of back paging to retrieve, this is also frustrating as loading those pages is difficult as well. I often find the site unusable for hours at a time and on many occasions these problems have persisted for days or even weeks. Maybe there are conflicts with my ISPs caches, maybe it is a dysfunctional mirror server. It seems we do not all suffer from the same problem at the same time. Just incase it should be of interest I do check using a different computer and I have alternative browsers installed. I use only up to date OS and browser versions. Thanks for taking and interest iBobi. -- cheers (WT-en) felix 18:09, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Hey felix, looks like rather than your being blocked, this is a symptom of an overall site issue that we will be working to resolve as we upgrade Mediawiki and address existing tech requests and bugs. Hang in there, because the site is going to be in better shape over the next couple of months.--(WT-en) IBobi 19:24, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
 * I have not suggested that I am being blocked, it appears to be bad server behaviour or related issues, good to hear that there is something being done to address the problems.-- cheers (WT-en) felix 20:00, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Preferences Reseting?
Last week my user preferences for recent changes and date format reset. Today the same thing happened again, and my editor preferences also changed. Has anyone else seen anything similar? If my account has been hacked that seems like an odd thing for someone to change, so I think it's more likely that something is amiss with the Wikivoyage servers. -- (WT-en) wrh2 12:20, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Exactly the same happened to me, twice.--(WT-en) burmesedays 20:25, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Thanks, good to know I don't have to worry about whether my account was hacked. My snarkier side would say something about reporting this as a bug on shared: if I thought there was better than a one-in-fifty chance of anything being done, but luckily that side of my personality is kept in check. -- (WT-en) wrh2 22:12, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

 * If you make the report and put in as many details of exact behavior as your can (include your browser type & version), I'll raise it with Tech. Please ping me on my page or via email at paul.obrien at internetbrands dot com when you've done this, okay?--(WT-en) IBobi 15:21, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 * While your efforts have definitely resulted in more responsiveness, there are still a ton of high priority open bugs, including the longstanding performance problems. Given that reality, reporting an issue with user preferences that is impossible to reproduce reliably is probably not a good use of either of our available resources right now. -- (WT-en) wrh2 15:40, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Yes and no. A number of those bugs will hopefully resolve when the Mediawiki upgrade is done, which is currently being specced out. If the preference resets are something we can resolve in the meantime, it's probably worth reporting. If we cannot reproduce the error, it is of course less likely we can address it.--(WT-en) IBobi 18:11, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

 * I can image "speccing out" would take two or three days or even a week, but 3 months and no end in sight? It's getting pretty ridiculous. What is wrong with your tech people? (WT-en) texugo 00:30, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Chances are they've never worked with MediaWiki before. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:42, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

 * My preferences decided to reset themselves again today.

 * Really sick of having to reset my preferences every time I login. Since when does "speccing out" a project, involve breaking what is already running?  Wikivoyage sucks at the moment.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:06, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Search broken?
The last couple of days, I've noticed that the search isn't working properly. If you search for a page (clicking Search, rather than Go), you get a message that says
 * There was a problem with the wiki search. This is probably temporary; try again in a few moments, or you can search the wiki through an external search service:

followed by a Google search box. It happens even if you search for a page we definitely have, like New York City. It seems to be happening only here on en: as far as I can tell, and I have no idea how long it's been going on. Anyone else noticed this? (WT-en) texugo 01:48, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I remember seeing that even on Wikipedia years ago. Looks like our search engine is down.  Time for a bug report.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:57, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Working for me. Anyone still having problems?--(WT-en) IBobi 15:15, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Typing "New York" in the search box and clicking the "search" button takes me to the error page (WT-en) texugo mentions. -- (WT-en) wrh2 15:43, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Still broken for me too. (WT-en) IBobi, are you clicking the "Search" button? The "Go" button works fine (if we have the page), but the Search button doesn't. (WT-en) texugo 23:27, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

 * I see it. I'll get tech on it & keep you updated. Thanks guys.--(WT-en) IBobi 17:37, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Should be okay now. Let me know if you see this again.--(WT-en) IBobi 17:46, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

 * No change as far as I can tell. Every search takes me to the error page with the google search box. (WT-en) texugo 00:27, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

 * This worked for me shortly after IBobi posted his message, but it is broken again now. -- (WT-en) wrh2 01:02, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Looking back into this to 1. Fix it, and 2. Figure out why it keeps breaking.--(WT-en) IBobi 14:22, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

 * Back up now, and being monitored to determine what the longterm issue is with stability.--(WT-en) IBobi 14:41, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

Special:Import
Special:Import gives me "No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." How do we change this? I want to upload important policy and policy talk pages from wts that I saved. --Peter Talk 22:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you have to ask at . --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right, if you create a bug in the "Site requests" component, or just follow this link, you should be able to add the wikis that you wish to import from. Which wikis did you have in mind? The  helpful  one  20:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have done this here . --Peter Talk 16:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cached "Maintenance reports"
Several of the Maintenance reports on Special:SpecialPages are showing older cached data. Has the updating of the reports been turned off or are they being updated on a schedule? I apologize if I missed a discussion on this. - Xltel (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

<-- --
Template:IsPartOf appears to have a problem. The template is invisible if you look at the page in the usual way in a web browser, but if you use the PDF option ("Print/export: Download as PDF" from the left menu), then the template displays at " <-- -- ". Something isn't working properly. Does anyone know what the error is? --Stefan2 (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * HTML comment which wasn't closed properly in the template itself? isIn was correct, but isPartOf and Dans (fr:) both had the error. K7L (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Make bug reports where?
Prices aren't showing up in "do" templated listings but when I tried to report this at Bug reports I get a soft re-direct to a non-existent page. -- A l i c e ✉ 06:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a software issue, that would be at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org. --Rschen7754 06:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's "price" not "prices"; the extension is not at fault this time. If the bug reports page doesn't mention Bugzilla, perhaps it should be changed to match the "report a bug" in the sitenotice? K7L (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too late - what a ninny I am, I've just reported it as Bug 42891! -- A l i c e ✉ 07:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Destinations of the month icon glitch
Hi. I picked the Paris article at random, and on Ubuntu Firefox 17 and Chromium-browser both show a red Prev... link near the top right next to its coordinates.

The div "dotm_icon" has a div inside it which links to the missing icon :  Previous destination of the month This image exists at http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/File:Favicon yellow-black.svg with a tag to move it to Commons. Maybe that yellow 'v' checkmark icon won't be meaningful as the wikivoyage icon evolves. -- Skierpage (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I missed the section -- Skierpage (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes not displaying new edits
This may be a time-sensitive issue that will be fixed by the time some of you read this, but right now (5:40AM UTC, 11 Dec) recent edits aren't displaying at Special:Recent changes, my watchlist, my contributions, or on the "View History" page of pages I've just edited (although the changes have been made and are displayed in the page). The last edit displayed in recent edits is (My time is set to U.S. EST...UTC-5...so it was made at 4:27AM UTC 11 Dec): There's also a line in the "Recent changes options" box right below "Show/hide minor edits | Show/hide bots..." that reads "Show new changes starting from 00:32, 11 December 2012" (Again, time is UTC-5) which can be clicked, although no changes are displayed (but the options, sidebar, etc load) when clicked.
 * (Upload log); 23:27 . . This, that and the other (Talk | contribs) uploaded "File:Azadi1.jpg" (Transferred from wts.wikivoyage-old.org: see original upload log above)

Over on my watchlist, the following line is displayed below the "Mark all pages visited" button: Below are the last 250 changes in the last 168 hours, as of 11 December 2012, 00:42. (5:42AM UTC, 11 Dec). While the most recent edit displayed was made at 23:00 10 Dec (4:00 UTC, 11 Dec), despite the fact that I have just edited a couple pages and the page is set to display my edits in the watchlist. What's going on? AHeneen (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The database servers are currently experiencing abnormally high lag, and are in the process of catching up right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

New Roadmap?
Much to my delight, almost all of our outstanding feature requests (and bugs, naturally) were solved simply by migrating to WMF servers! Life is just so sunny over here. This means, though, that we need to reboot our thinking about how to move forward. I'm proposing that we do that at Roadmap. I have a lot of ideas, although they will probably have to wait until things calm down a bit here. --Peter Talk 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New tools

 * Swept from the Pub

Wondering if we should add a few new tools for editors? I suggest these two anyway.

WikEd
WikEd color codes mediawiki markup depending on what it is. Users can add it on Wikipedia under "preferences". Should we add it here?
 * Support
 * I find it makes it a lot easier to edit. Travel Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible. Some Wikipedians and others on the sister projects find editing without WikEd painful; may as well make them comfortable. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose

We don't really have a ton of MediaWiki markup, not to the level of Wikipedia at least. I'm not sure how useful it would be, but it wouldn't do much harm either. LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments

✅ - I've enabled this gadget. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 21:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle
Twinkle is a tool that one can use to welcome new users. It may not be as good as doing each personally but does make it much faster which may be important for all the new editors joining.
 * Support

 * Oppose

 * Comments
 * Twinkle does a lot more than welcome new users; if you set it up right, it will warn editors, nominate pages for deletion, provide a form of rollback, etc. --Rschen7754 06:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Erik Moeller on the list setting this up may be a little more complicated than I hoped. It looks like we will need someone who is good with IT to get it up and running. Travel Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you want a simplified version of Twinkle installed for you personally, you can copy the code from m:User:Rschen7754/global.js - also there is a script that crosses out links to blocked editors, and a Wikidata script (this one only works on Wikipedia, unfortunately). --Rschen7754 08:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't really have the infrastructure in place to make full use of Twinkle, and I would strongly oppose using it to "welcome" new users. LtPowers (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor features: Search/replace, etc.
When I use the classic (non-visual) editor in Wikipedia, my screen shows a lot of features, including fields for searching and replacing, which I don't see in the Wikivoyage editor. In both WP and WV, I have checked the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" and "Enable wizards for links, formatting, tables, citations, and the search and replace function" boxes in Preferences|Edit, but that seems to have no effect on whether I see Search/Replace fields in my editor window (in WP or WV). How can I get Search/Replace in the Wikivoyage editor? Peter Chastain (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template?
What's up with the templates inserting a completely useless contents block on the left side of every topic? In some cases it produces astoundingly ugly and unusable page layouts (especially for countries and regions). Did somebody do this on purpose? Mrkstvns (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you're experiencing. Is this when you're editing or reading?  What pages do you see this on? What do you mean by "topic"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When reading. I see it on every page on the site: Cities, regions, countries, parks, travel topics, etc.
 * Gray box with links to all the sections.
 * Pagebanner
 * [+] Understand
 * [+] Get in
 * [+] Get around
 * .... Mrkstvns (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bug, see T359446 on Phabricator. -- Alexander (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see it now. That box is the "Table of Contents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could possibly reinsert that temporary fix you made sometime back? -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 12:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SHB2000, I've temporary patched Template:Pagebanner. Please, ping me as a reminder when the bug has been solved. Andyrom75  (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Andyrom! SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Andyrom75, the bug report says the patch was riding this week's deployment train, so it should be fixed now. (You'll need to double-check that it actually did get fixed; all I can confirm is that the deployment train has been here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing, thanks for the ping. The server-side changes has been been reverted, so I've done the same with my temporary patch.
 * Now it seems that the previous behavior has been restored. Andyrom75  (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vigilance, Andyrom! -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Where did the table of contents go?
I'm using Vector 2022 skin. I vaguely recalled clicking on the hide button which made the table of contents on the left-hand side disappear. But I can't re-enable it. I already tried "Preferences" -> "Misc" tab and the options in "Table of contents". I do notice that in MediaWiki, there is a button beside the page title to re-enable the "Contents" section but that doesn't seem to be an option here. And oddly enough, talk pages show the table of contents. OhanaUnited<b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could this be related to above? —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ? SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @SHB2000, @Mx. Granger, @OhanaUnited, I confirm that this is related to the temporary patch I've applied on.
 * Once the bug T359446 will be solved, the patch could be removed and the normal behavior will be restored.
 * Sorry for the temporary inconvenience. Andyrom75  (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's understandable. Hopefully the bug should be fixed sooner than later. -- SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 09:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming. —The preceding comment was added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs)
 * @OhanaUnited, please check if now the "Table of contents" can be shown. -- Andyrom75 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it reappeared. Thanks. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 05:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't save edits on listings
I was shown the following message repeatedly: "Error: An unknown error has been encountered while attempting to save the listing, please try again: spamblacklist". I guess it's a case of false positive by an automatic filter. Delist me please.--Hnishy63 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Ah, now it's okay. Can't figure out how it works.--Hnishy63 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Bug reports 1.3.10

So, I'm trying to make it easier to submit bug reports and note the bugs as fixed. I archived all the "old" bug reports to an archives page. When we move to MediaWiki version 1.4.x or whatever, I'd like to archive this page and then start a fresh one (like Project:Bug reports 1.4.x) and change the Project:bug reports redirect. This is kind of how the Project:logbook works right now.

I think I copied over most of the unfixed bugs from the older page, but if not, please either feel free to copy them over or make a note here and I'll copy it over. --(WT-en) Evan 16:59, 8 Oct 2004 (EDT)

 * I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better if Project:Bug reports is the article, and Project:Bug reports 1.3.5 is redir to it. (or Project:Bug reports 1.3.10 now).
 * Otherwise:
 * Should we now start new Project:Bug reports 1.3.10 from scratch?
 * We have plenty of double redirects of type Project:Old bug reports → Project:Bug reports → Project:Bug reports 1.3.5. So either:
 * we live with that
 * we fix it to have Project:Old bug reports → Project:Bug reports 1.3.5, and update all of them on every upgrade.
 * Especially that most bugs probably will not disappear between releases, so bug reports would have to be copied to new pages. So I would suggest just moving resolved bugs (eg. by new upgrades) to appropriate archives, leaving rest of them. -- (WT-en) JanSlupski 14:30, 10 Feb 2005 (EST)

Thumbnail generation broken
[Moved from Travellers' pub by (WT-en) Hypatia 18:26, 16 Dec 2004 (EST)]

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

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

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

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

Skin bugs
Swept in from Pub

Some Wikivoyage features have been unusuable for me for about a month now, with enough effect to drive me away. I was hoping it was a temporary bug, but it hasn't gone away. When I logged back in it put my skin preferences at monobook, which I dislike in my first preference of browser, Opera. Okay, I clicked change preferences. It won't take. I want to go back to "Classic" (if that's disabled, how about removing it as an option?); I tried a couple others without luck. I wondered if the problem were browser specific (though it always worked fine for me before), so I tried with Foxfire and IE, with no better results. So I'm stuck with the taskbars not working, doing nothing when I click -- has it been decided to go to JavaScript only or something? Is there a way I can get around it? I've been VERY frustrated. -- Hoping to start contributing again some day, (WT-en) Infrogmation 17:17, 18 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Ok, so here's what I understand happened. Wikivoyage's Wikimedia software was consuming too much CPU at the old ISP.  Evan tried a bunch of strategies to improve matters.  In desparation, he turned off all personalizations and other features which cause your browser to talk to the server more that once per page (sort of).   Then Wikivoyage got kicked off the old ISP and Evan set it up again at the new ISP.  I suspect Evan will reenable stuff at some point, or at least try to.  But first he needs to finish being on his honeymoon with Maj which should be around the 10th of next month.   So considerable patience is needed right now... -- (WT-en) Colin 18:16, 18 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Thanks for the info. I'll check back 2nd week in January then. Cheers, -- (WT-en) Infrogmation 21:20, 18 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Sorry for the problems. I'll try to get rid of the skin preferences when I get back. --(WT-en) Evan 22:49, 18 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * Why get rid of them? I prefer Classic too, and having a non-default skin makes it immediately obvious if I've been logged out. -(WT-en) phma 10:44, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * We had to ditch the different skins to keep the site running. I'd like to make skins available on the client side; there are some tricks to doing it, so that everyone get the same HTML, but cookies make chosen CSS file different. I realize this is somewhat inconvenient for people who are used to customizing their MediaWiki environment. All I can say is: please wait till I'm back in MTL and have time to work on this. --(WT-en) Evan 19:53, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * ARRGH it's still b40ken~!! The task bar etc DOES NOT WORK FOR ME. I click on links and nothing happens. I keep changing my preferences and nothing happens. I am upset and frustrated. I do a good amount of editing on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I wish to be contributing to the Wikivoyage project as well. Please let's have an interface with a usability at least as good as Wikipedia had a couple of years ago. Is that not possible? Exasperated, -- (WT-en) Infrogmation 16:15, 9 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * So, a couple of things. First, it's extremely important to realize that the main change to Wikivoyage has been to make the interface exactly the same for all users. So, everyone's using the Monobook skin, and everyone gets served exactly the same HTML. This is for performance reasons; our outage in November came about because we were spending too many cycles running PHP scripts. Right now, we don't run a lot of PHP at all.

 * Second, there are still some bugs in the process. For example, even though everyone's user preferences (for display stuff) are the same, The user preferences page will still show you controls as if you could change the preferences. Also, some items on the task bar that should only be shown if you're logged in (move, watch) or if you're an admin (delete, protect) are or are not shown at the wrong times. (This doesn't mean that those functions are available or unavailable; just that the tabs are shown wrong.)

 * I think there are some other problems: they're listed on Project:Bug reports 1.3.5. It's important to me that good contributors have a comfortable environment to work in. I hope you can understand that this is going to take some time, and that perhaps you'll have to do without some customizations that you're used to.

 * As to usability: which browser are you using, that Wikivoyage is so broken on? I've used it on IE and Mozilla on Windows, Mac, and Linux, and it works, albeit with the above problems. I did use it on IE with a really old version of Windows, and I got 404 errors with some links. Is that what's happening for you? --(WT-en) Evan 19:53, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)

 * The worst is none of the "navigation" task bar links work in Opera. Is there any way to use html there? Why not? It'd be nice if I could still use Wikivoyage from the computors I prefer (which have my scanner, images etc) and in the browser/s I prefer that seem to work fine for whatever else I do regularly on line. If you're not going to allow custom "skins" or similar preferences anymore, please remove the link to them. Or should I just keep logging in every day, changing my preferences back to how I like them a couple of times, and watch it not work? -- (WT-en) Infrogmation 16:33, 2 Feb 2005 (EST)

Things are still broken, apparently. I took some pix here in New Orleans, but as the "Upload file" is one of the links that does absolutely nothing from my home computor now, I guess I can't share them. Any possibility of making some of those links html compatable, like they are in the skins I can pick but not get? -- (WT-en) Infrogmation 00:11, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

 * The upload page is valid XHTML; see the W3 validator for details. However, the CSS in monobook is really hacked-up and broken. It's got all kinds of browser-compatibility issues, and it doesn't validate at all. No wonder Opera chokes on it! I'll see what I can do to fix the CSS. --(WT-en) Evan 15:10, 26 Mar 2005 (EST)

My sidebars do not appear at all. It only happens at home, when I use my Firefox browser (no matter if logged in or not). It works fine with IE and if I use wikivoyage from somewhere else (like the library). It is only like this for two or three days now. What is wrong? Can I do something about it?? Please help!!! (WV-en) Fluglotse2000

Image layouts
Swept in from Pub

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

 * I see nothing wrong on Mozilla, Firebird, or Safari using monobook skins. Which browser and skin are you using?  Maybe do a reload too... -- (WT-en) Colin 14:46, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * IE 6.0.2800.1106... and "Cologne Blue". Have reloaded (Ctrl - F5) and cleared cache - no difference. --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 15:02, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)
 * Update - when I logout the screen is fine - it's only when I login that I see the problem. I've tried playing around with the preferences but no joy. --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 16:49, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * Okay. I tried it on my work PC and it happens for IE 6 on XP if my browser is wide enough to attempt to put both maps side-by-side.  But if I switch my preference to monobook, it gets all better.  (Select preferences, select skin, then select monobook).

 * I looked at the history of the France article. Stuff worked before User:(WT-en) Bijee converted the page from raw HTML into the new syntax for sticking a picture in.  So I'm guessing it's an incompatibility between the Cologne Blue skin and the HTML emitted by the new syntax.  At this point I'm beyond my depth other than to say "use monobook instead." -- (WT-en) Colin 20:05, 4 Nov 2004 (EST)

 * I checked it with computed styles bookmarklet in mozilla. And thinks problem is "Cologne Blue" does not have "clear: right" in the style of the floating DIV

 * "monobook"

HTML > BODY.ns-0 > DIV#globalWrapper > DIV#column-content > DIV#content > DIV#bodyContent > DIV.thumb tright clear: right float: right

 * "Cologne Blue"

HTML > BODY > DIV#content > DIV#article > DIV.thumb tright float: right

 * Rearranged the position of image as work arround (most time). Please check France now. No style clear right is sometimes good and too bad in many other times. So we need to fix Cologne Blue skin. -(WT-en) Bijee 00:45, 8 Nov 2004 (EST)

Wikimedia 1.3.5 bugs and features
Swept in from Pub

Bugs → Project:Bug reports 1.3.5 Categories → Project:Categories

Features

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

Not enabled

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

Is there a problem saving preferences?
Swept in from Pub

For some unkown reason, the Views links (About..Watch) which were tabs on the top of the page :) yesterday decide to move to a list at the left of the page :(. I have attempted to change my settings nnn times, and it keeps reverting, e.g. ignoring checkbox changes, style remains MonoBlock. After a few hours, my Personal tools looks like I am still logged in, but I am not, my edits are labelled with my IP and I have to log in to edit Prefs. I use opera 7, have refreshed the page from the server (avoiding the cache) nnn times, and deleted the 3 wikivoyage cookies. Haven't had any other skin other than a grey kinda thing I'm looking at. Getting very :(((( --(WT-en) Richard 2005 jan 20

 * Yes it is broken. Evan says he will work on this. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:14, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)

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

title: Wikivoyage talk:Bug reports 1.3.10


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Bug reports 1.4.7

Should this be version 1.4.4, not 1.4.7? -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:15, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

 * At this point it should be 1.4.11, actually. --(WT-en) Evan 10:06, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Bug reports 1.4.7


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Business listings reliability Expedition

Too harsh?
I was a bit surprised to see this response to my queries. Was I too hard on a new contributor? (See also my comment on a different page, here. I don't want to drive new users away.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:58, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Patrolling edits and trying to work with users who ignore edit summaries, Template:Style tags, and user talk page messages is something that tries everyone's patience, so while your comments did seem a bit harsh to me (example: "All right, VLC, it's time to stop editing and start responding"), they're also very understandable. I think the larger issues to be dealt with here are 1) how can we make it easier for users to contribute constructively and 2) how can we increase the pool of patrollers and editors in order to make it less tedious/frustrating for the small group of people who currently do that job.  Sadly, while I think a lot of people probably have some good ideas on both of these issues, to get anything significant done will likely take someone who knows the site and community well and is willing to spearhead an effort to make possibly major and contentious changes, and I'm not sure if anyone currently has the stomach and willpower to push such an effort. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:48, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Now I'm curious—what are you thinking of, Ryan? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:00, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

 * Off the top of my head, here are a few items that would be great to open up to greater scrutiny, but it's tough to imagine any of them getting very far without someone devoting a huge amount of thought and patience to seeing through:
 * I think a majority of our documentation / policy pages are in need of refactoring and consolidation. Many long-time users have difficulty finding basic guidelines, the naming is often counter-intuitive, we combine "howto" pages with policy pages (example: Project:External links has both guidance on formatting and policies about what is appropriate).  My girlfriend has commented on several occasions that she is "scared" to contribute here, which (to me) means the messaging and guidance provided is insufficient.  The efforts at categorizing existing documentation was a minimal start in the right direction, but much, much more is needed and it will take a huge effort from knowledgeable contributors to get anything done.
 * Beyond the occasional talk page welcome message and rare barnstars we aren't doing much to build community. As a result, it seems like many contributors show up for a day and then lose interest due to a lack of a sense that their contributions are valuable.
 * IB is an impediment - as an example, upgrading Mediawiki would give us improved talk page notifications, and fixing cache issues and listing editor problems would be a huge help for new users. Even enabling simple things like CAPTCHA on shared: would be huge, but the process of getting them to do so is more painful than minor surgery.
 * Integration with shared: and other language versions is clunky at best, and it seems that most regulars contributors review shared: intermittently, if at all. I don't know what the solution to this issue would be, but it's a shame that the language versions really don't work together more.
 * The current "consensus-building" process is daunting for anyone new as well as many longtime users and generally leads to frustration due to the massive status-quo bias - back in the day at least (WT-en) Evan could sort of play the benevolent dictator role, but since his departure it's often very difficult for someone to declare "OK, we've discussed this enough, and there seems to be enough agreement on X to do Y". As a result, we've got dozens if not hundreds of suggestions that lead absolutely nowhere, despite days or weeks of discussion.  Even VFDs tend to drag on for months, which goes to show that something is out-of-whack.
 * The organizational structure/region templates could use some revisiting. We do a decent job at the country and city level, but with a few rare exceptions we do a very poor job on mid-level regions and on guiding users down the hierarchy in a useful way.
 * The list goes on, and I'm sure others have many more areas of concern, but it would be a significant amount of work to address any one of these points, particularly without support on the software side from IB. Getting back to the original point, I think LtPowers was justified in getting frustrated, but the current structure and setup of the site doesn't lend itself well to new users like Visitloraincounty who have good local knowledge but poor knowledge of Wikivoyage. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 00:54, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

businesses self-adding listings
(unindent) Very much agree with Ryan on #5, take "should we allow businesses to self-add listings" as one of the examples that we can't agree even on fundamental principles of this project. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Should we discuss this here? Because businesses self-add listings, I would never trust hotel listings. I would also be a bit skeptical of restaurant listings in Wikivoyage for two reasons - touting and differences in taste (witness the chains people list in some American towns where there are other, good eateries). I would at least cross-check the listed establishments at websites that have non-self-interested posters with track records or/and rating systems (e.g., for food, websites like Chowhound for certain areas and perhaps Tripadvisor for hotels).

 * But I think it will be essentially impossible for us to prevent all listings from being added by businesses, so the best we are likely to do is draw a hard line on touting, which also has the salutary effect of tending to cause inveterate touters to either give up or eventually be blocked or blacklisted. But while all the detouting and reverting we do does some good, I don't think it makes this site reliable, and I see that as a major problem with this whole project. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:33, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I believe that the original point of allowing businesses to self-add listings was that nobody else bothered, and you can't have a travel guide without places to stay and eat. Wikivoyage was never intended to be a review site like Trip Advisor (which has serious issues of its own) for example. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:44, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * That's somewhat true for hotels, less so for restaurants (I added a bunch of listings in various New York City guides, from my perspective as a diner). But let me ask you: Would you consider such listings reliable, if you were consulting a Wikivoyage guide for a place you haven't been to yet? I wouldn't and would tell any friend of mine in particular to ignore hotel listings on Wikivoyage almost entirely. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Good God no! Of course I would not :) - with, it must be said, the very notable exceptions of certain articles here which are run as personal fiefdoms. Like I said WT was never intended to be a hotel review site. What WT is very good at is organisational stuff, activities and attractions. To be frank, no travel guides I have ever used are much cop at hotels. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 06:36, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

I always believed Wikivoyage should be ultimately better than TripAdvisor in reliably recommending the best restaurant and hotels. Among other things, TripAdvisor forces a reader to read too much reviews per hotel/restaurant while we can summarize what's most important for making choice in a single paragraph.

As for "you won't rely on Wikivoyage listing except when created by myself"--maybe we simply don't try hard enough to make Wikivoyage listings trustworthy--but we should actually? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I think we do try, but I know that I lack enough information to edit the content of most hotel listings knowledgeably and haven't traveled to enough places to know all the listed restaurants. My feeling is that a large majority of the hotel listings were inserted by self-interested people, and probably a majority of the "Eat" and "Drink" listings, overall on this site, are as well. I would also delete some restaurant listings based on my own taste if I didn't feel that would violate the spirit of this guide. Caveat emptor! (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 15:50, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * We can't always blame the touts. Anyone who goes to the trouble of writing a listing is undoubtedly "self-interested". Ordinary travellers who want to tell the world about their favourite restaurant or hotel tend to do so with a gushing positivity that generally comes out as fluffy marketing copy (or perhaps worse still, in the style of printed travel guides). People just write that way because they dont know any better. Most people are bad at being unbiased, particularly when they are only considering the single best in town, affordable, must try!! restaurant or hotel they remember from their travels. Are we expecting too much by wanting fair and informative writing from the casual contributor? Are the "50 rooms with aircon and pool. Close to attractions" one line listings any more or less useful than promotional guff? - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 21:13, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * When have we ever asked for unbiased writing? We ask writers to be fair, not be neutral.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:45, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I didn't think we did and I don't think I suggested that we did either. The crux of the arguments being made here is that many (most?) listings are perceived as untrustworthy because they were written by people who have a self interest in promoting that business (owners and customers alike). Matters of personal taste aside, what one sees as lively writing another takes as unreliable. It's rare to see a listing that is indeed, 'fair'. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 22:20, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

 * On the bright side, new (not self-interested) people might be more likely to remove or correct an (originally self-interested) listing, than to add a whole new one. I don't trust any listings fully, also in printed guides, but I love to use them as a starting point and many people do. As far as taste goes, I totally prefer the "printed travel guide style" (I'm thinking LP) over "50 rooms with aircon and pool. Close to attractions". =) (WT-en) Justme 04:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

OK, let's start with a simple thing. Is there consensus that for every destination we should aim to list only restaurants and hotels which are the best for a traveller; this is what star acticles should only list in Sleep/Eat; our listings ultimately should be reliable and trustworthy; and we do bother to achieve that whenever possible?

Criteria of what is best, how to select them and how to describe hotels & restaurants to be discussed later. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I do not agree with those terms; as described at Project:Avoid negative reviews, sometimes it is actually desirable to list a non-recommended establishment. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:08, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Of course with the exception of what recommended to list per Project:Avoid negative reviews and other policies (are there any other actually?). Now you agree? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:24, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * That basically makes sense to me, and I thought that ultimate goal /was/ the consensus & policy :-) "The best" being a broad concept though, sometimes restaurants that aren't "very good" or are overpriced can be an addition still because they provide diversity in choice or a very convenient location. But that seems obvious. In small towns with few options I'd prefer to have /all/ listed with a short text of what to expect, rather than having only the 2 or 3 "best" options in the article. (WT-en) Justme 07:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I suppose with those caveats, the statements are trivially true. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:55, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * If there are enough people interested in this issue then it might make sense to start a "Reliability expedition" whose goal it would be to brainstorm and implement ways to make Wikivoyage listings more reliable. I don't think a prohibition on allowing businesses to list themselves on this site would be feasible, but perhaps something like a small icon that could be added by selected users to listings indicating "recommended/verified by X, Y and Z", thus providing some of the transparency of rating sites in a wiki-friendly format.  Whatever the eventual solution, an expedition might be the best way to discuss options and test out ideas without having the drawn-out process of attempting to change the fundamental openness of Wikivoyage to all contributors. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:24, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Ryan, just to better understand your point: how organizing an expedition can have an added value over a simple discussion thread, here in the Pub or in, let's say, Wikivoyage talk:Don't tout? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:54, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I guess it goes back to the point (far) above about how difficult it is to achieve consensus. I don't think a discussion on disallowing listings from business owners will ever get to a result that changes the status quo, but there might be more success with an expedition whose goal is to come up with ways to make listings on Wikivoyage more reliable.  An expedition would have the advantage of having a group of people interested in the issue and focused on a specific goal, and would also have a bit more leeway to experiment with potential solutions.  As it is, we have yet another good discussion that seems to be meandering around without any clear direction or potential solution, whereas a more focused expedition might be more productive. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:57, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

 * OK, who else would be interested to be part of such a "reliability expedition" (or, maybe more general, on improving reliability and quality of selection of our eat & sleep listings)? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I would be, sounds like a good idea. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 14:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I would also be willing to help get this going. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Me 4, this sounds like an excellent idea. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:14, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Made a smallest first step possible :-), here it is: Project:Business listings reliability Expedition. Please plunge forward in clarifying its goals and anything else. I never started an expedition, and a bit depressed by a blank paper syndrome about it. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:09, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Starting out
Per Denis' I took a stab at expanding this. It seems like there might be two good ways to get this going:

 * 1) Start gathering info about where things stand now - what documentation exists, what processes exist, etc.
 * 2) Start brainstorming possible improvements and ideas on this talk page.  Anything from redoing documentation to eliminating business contributions to adding "verified" badges to listings, etc.

To the second point, a couple ideas that occurred to me are making article status more prominent (perhaps revisiting Template:Title-icons and doing a bit more with those) and possibly implementing icons that could be added to listings such that a rollover would show users who "verified"/"endorsed" the listing and when they did so, for example:

The "verified"/"endorsed" icon would obviously benefit greatly from using a template, should probably use something other than a star, and ideally should change the image depending on the number and freshness of the people verifying/endorsing. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:49, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

 * That little verified icon is awful cool! I might call it an "approved" icon instead, and maybe use a check mark? We would need to restrict its use, though, perhaps to autoconfirmed users.

 * I think a small template that we could place either in a section, such as "sleep", or even at the top of the article (ideally in the header) that would show the article was reviewed and deemed reliable, and would show who reviewed it and when, could be very useful as well.

 * I also like the idea of adding title icons to guide and usable templates (I assume that would be the best way of doing it?). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:23, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I already thought of this "verified" listing idea, but I worked it out in a slightly different fashion (see ). However, your design is probably even better. The problem is who decides which listings would be endorsed, and how much of these listings we have. I'd say it should be limited to one per price category, else it'd lose its significance. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I was envisioning this less as "endorsed" as in "this is the best" and more as "the people or person shown in the alt tag have verified that this listing is accurate as of the dates shown". I think it would be undesirable to have to try to come to a consensus on a single choice for any given article, although if ten people choose to "verify" a listing then it might be a good indication that it's a place worth visiting.  Obviously some criteria would be needed as to who can "verify" a listing (must have been active for X months, have a user page, etc?) but that's probably a topic for discussion once the goals of this tool are established. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 16:12, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

(Re-indenting) To summarize where this discussion stands so far, there seem to be three proposals:

 * 1) Create some sort of "verified"/"endorsed"/"approved" icon for listings.
 * 2) Expand the use of title icons to include things like usable/guide status.  I'd also think docents, Wikivoyage Press books, and other indicators of quality articles might be good icon candidates.
 * 3) A small template that we could place either in a section, such as "sleep", or even at the top of the article (ideally in the header) that would show the article was reviewed and deemed reliable, and would show who reviewed it and when, could be very useful as well.

Any other suggestions? Is there enough interest to start figuring out details of the above three and to then see if there is enough support to actually start moving ahead with them? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:35, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
 * I think the list of three all have merit and are worth developing. For the listing icon, I would greatly prefer a verified category rather than trying to highlight the best. The latter is extremely subjective, the former is more of fact/quality check.
 * I really like the third idea. For example, recently I was delighted to hear that first time visitor to Nusa Lembongan used our guide and nothing else. Last year I had similar feedback about East Bali and its sub-articles.  That's extremely encouraging for a writer as well as providing credibility for future users.--(WT-en) burmesedays 09:13, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

 * On #1, I would clarify: in addition to "added by X" we need "this listing [originally added by X] was verified by Y on date Z"
 * And one more suggestion--hopefully won't duplicate anything from the above.
 * 4. What if we mark listings with "originally seemed to be added by business" and "originally seemed to be added by client"? Make no discrimination for some time, only to track how each type of source correlate with endorsements and non/validation later. For the cleaner experiment, we can even make no visual distinction--just add a template that expands into nothing when reading--but can only found when editing/diffing?
 * --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:40, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I've added sub-sections below for discussion each of the three items mentioned above. I'm a little concerned about the "originally added by business" idea as that seems subjective - per Ikan's comment below, we already remove or de-tout anything that is overt advertising, so further trying to discern whether someone is a real user or a business trying to be sneaky might be difficult to do with any accuracy.  For the "originally added by X", that's available in the article history - my hope would be that the "approved" icon would make it irrelevant who originally added the listing since we would now have other users giving their seal of approval. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:13, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

 * *Bump* While discussions of ashrams and DotM templates are obviously grabbing the most attention right now, comments and suggestions for moving this expedition forward would still be greatly appreciated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:05, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Approved icons
Following up from the above discussions, here are some issues that I think need to be resolved in order to move ahead with the above approved/endorsed template:

 * 1) Are we communicating that the users adding their names in this template have verified that the information in the listing is accurate, or that they are additionally saying that the information is accurate and they would recommend the business?
 * 2) What are the criteria for endorsing/approving a listing, and how is that enforced?
 * 3) What are the technical issues - icon, template, etc?

Regarding #1, I would suggest it means that the information is accurate and the person(s) listed would recommend the place.

Regarding #2, I would suggest the following:

 * Multiple listings can be approved - trying to choose just one or two would be really difficult.
 * Create a "Wikivoyage:Approvers" (someone please come up with a better name) page that describes what it means for a listing to be "approved" and includes criteria such as registered user, will not approve a business that you own or work for, will not approve more than X listings per article section, where I'd suggest "X" is 2-3. The user should then add their signature to the bottom of the page.  This ensures that users have read the guidelines, but is a fairly low barrier to entry for new users.
 * We include a comment with the "approved" template within listings such as.
 * Any "approval" that is over two years old should be removed. Users are welcome to update the "approval" date yearly if they so choose.
 * If a listing changes significantly - for example "under new ownership", etc - all approvals should be removed.
 * It might make sense to limit the number of approvals for any given business to 5 to avoid having things get out of hand. If someone else wants to "approve" a business with five approvals then they should remove the oldest one first.

Regarding #3, a "checkmark" icon has been suggested, and I might propose that we come up with a few versions that could reflect how many people "approved" an entry (1-2, 3-4, 5, etc). The template can be an inclusion in a listing tag of the form ✅.

Hopefully that's enough to get the discussion moving along... -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:13, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

 * While i general I agree with your proposals, I'm not sure if a Wikivoyage:Approvers would be a good idea. I think it's a high barrier of entry for new users who just want to quickly approve a listing. I'd say just having a certain amount of edits (like 10 or 20) should be sufficient. I even hope in the future we'd have a technical solution so that a user can approve a listing with just one or two mouse clicks. Also, what listings are we talking about here? It seems mostly applicable to Sleep listings, but what about restaurants, bars and nightclubs? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 07:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * My thought with the "approvers" page was just as a way to address concerns mentioned by others about gaming the system, but I'm open to any solution. As to what sort of listings, I would imagine anything that uses a listing tag could be a target for this icon, but I think initially that sleep, eat and drink listings should be the focus.  And I very much agree that in a perfect world this would be part of the listing editor, although I don't hold out much hope of IB making that happen. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:02, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Might I plug the "reviewers" label instead of approvers? I don't like the idea of the need for all listings to be approved, as that gives the impression that "superuser" opinions are necessary to allow a listing. What's really important is that someone has checked the listing to make sure that everything is factual, up to date, and in clean order—in short, reviewed. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:31, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I'm fine with "reviewer", but I'd suggest that for individual listings this tag also be used to (in a sense) endorse a business as in "this information is accurate and I would recommend it", which would introduce a way of demonstrating what are subjectively favorite businesses. The "reviewed" template suggestion below could then be used solely for indicating that an entire section contains factually accurate listing info. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:48, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Ah sorry, I was confused—mixing up the two suggestions. Please disregard my last comment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:23, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

On Approvers/Validators idea, reading on something similar here and remembering how Michelin Guide system of inspection works, I'm afraid we should have a closed-membership "club" of contributors eligible to "approve", where new members can join only when someone from existing members recommends him (basing on history of contributions, i.e. not necessarily to know him personally in real life). Otherwise the system can be gamed easily: business owner publishes recommendation, registers a fake user account, waits until account is eligible and "approves"/validates his own listing.

In other words, there should be some reliable evidence that a user allowed to validate is a traveller, and mostly interested in helping fellow travellers -- rather than a business owner/affiliate and/or interested in promoting businesses more than in helping travellers. Either one of the "club members" knows him personally--or his history of edits clearly indicates that interest. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:42, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

 * While I'd like to see some minimum requirements for allowing a user to approve/validate listings, I think ideally we should set that bar as low as possible (at least initially) to encourage people to participate. I don't think we can ever 100% ensure that people won't try to game the system, but it might be sufficient to just ask users to sign a page indicating that they agree to the approver/validator guidelines if those guidelines include comments to the effect that gaming the system will result in removal of listings.  That said, I've traditionally been on the side of being more inclusive of business owners, so additional opinions would be valuable. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 21:42, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Judging by more popular review sites, banning for such cheat quickly leads to blackmail: to remove a competitor from WT for long, just perform such a fake validation for a competitors listing. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:24, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Title icons
Some ideas for expanding use of title icons:

 * Add an icon for articles with docents. Currently the left-nav link is more-or-less invisible.
 * Add an icon for guide articles.
 * I'd also suggest tweaking the display slightly to make the icons more eye-catching - suggestions for doing so are welcome.
 * Re-work Template:Title-icons to make it more flexible, so for example Template:Startopic could automatically add the icon without the need for an additional.

Additional ideas/comments? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:13, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Reviewed templates
Per Peter's comment above, it would be helpful to have a unobtrusive template that could be added to article sections or full articles indicating when the article/section was last reviewed for accuracy, and who did so. Currently articles that are used for Wikivoyage Press books get reviewed fairly often, but a user reading the article would have no idea that an extensive review had been recently done. The issues to resolve with such a template are similar to those for the approved icon:

 * 1) What does this template mean?  This template should indicate that someone verified every phone number, URL, price, description, etc for a section?  That all listed businesses are still open?  Something else?
 * 2) What are the criteria for users to use this template, and how is that enforced?
 * 3) What are the technical issues?  What does the template look like?

For #1, those who review articles for Wikivoyage Press are probably best qualified to say what their current criteria are and we can then build from there.

For #2, I'd suggest something similar to the Wikivoyage:Approvers process, where we have a page that outlines requirements and ask people to sign it before using this template. What those requirements are is up for discussion.

For #3, I'm sure there are lots of suggestions :)

-- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:13, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

 * This template should indicate that an article has had a thorough review by an experienced editor to make sure all listings details are accurate and up-to-date.
 * We could do this via a user group, although I don't know how we would restrict the addition of a template to a group. I can't think of good criteria for determining who can and cannot be an approver, but similar to Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it!
 * I have given it a go at Template:Reviewed. --Peter Talk 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Bump, bump. I thought there was a lot of interest in this Expedition and its goals, but things went silent post-migration somehow. Anyone care to comment on Template talk:Reviewed? --Peter Talk 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Who posted the listing
I would like to argue that any listing using "we" or "our" should be not edited but summarily deleted, as obviously self-interested and, therefore, unreliable. Like any other rule, this would be subject to exceptions on a case-by-case basis, but I think that whenever it's obvious a listing was posted by a self-interested person, whether because it's 100% obvious it's touting ("well-appointed rooms," et al.) or because "we" or "our" was used, unless other, non-interested people can vouch for the place, it should not be listed - and I mean probably never listed. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 23:05, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

 * What's wrong reliability-wise in a listing saying "We had a dinner here and liked is so much that returned here twice during our week-long stay. We definitely enjoyed their T-bone steaks and cheesecakes."? Yes, we should edit first-person pronouns, but otherwise it's very likely a first-hand real-experience reviews--the only better thing in terms of customer-experience reliability could be only a summary of several real-experience first-hand reviews. Why remove them altogether? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:20, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

 * You misunderstand. I'm talking about "We offer luxurious, well-appointed rooms," not "We had a great dinner" or "We liked this hotel." (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 17:54, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I think it's fine to remove listings for this reason, but it should also be just as OK to keep it after detouting. While touts do come across as infuriating little dissemblers, most are just totally clueless. The owner of the Welcome Manor Inn in Bronzeville is a really cool guy who runs a great business. The listing he originally added, though, looked like this —it now looks like one of the better listings in the article. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:29, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * now looks like one of the better listings in the article
 * You mean "one of the best-written" rather than "I tried many alternatives in the area, and this hotel is definitely the best in its price range", right? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:20, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I mean, there are quality of services and quality of description. In my belief, we should focus on former here--and only after succeeding with that, aim on the latter. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:30, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I even think business owners placing their own businesses are an asset to Wikivoyage. I get plenty of spammy/touty hotel listings in the Bangkok district pages, but after de-touting they make fine additions to the articles. I don't see why we should delete these listings while they are useful additions in general. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 23:56, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Most of my early edits here involved adding business listings, and I am sure I cocked them up big time :). I am of the same view as Peter that most business owners are clueless rather than deliberate abusers. There are of course notable exceptions to that.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Here's the problem: Unless someone without financial interest in a business can vouch for its being a good one, there is good reason to distrust self-interested listings, even if detouted in style by a subsequent editor. What is your solution in the very numerous cases that an administrator has no knowledge of the establishment other than an obviously self-interested listing? I can detout, but I still don't trust the detouted listing if I am personally unfamiliar with the establishment. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:14, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * There is no fool-proof solution, which is why we do not seek to be review site. Contact details and prices can often be verified by a website, but we cannot go any further than that, nor should we pretend that we ever could.--(WT-en) burmesedays 03:05, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * So what is this expedition about? Purely reliability of contact information and pricing, not descriptions in any sense? If so, is there very much to discuss? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:10, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * A tiny percentage of business listings could be verified in the manner Ryan proposes I guess. However, there is no site-wide solution I can think of other than attempting to ban a business listing made by anyone with an interest in that business. Aside from the impossibility of policing that, there will never be consensus reached for such a draconian action. --(WT-en) burmesedays 04:29, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * So is your proposal to essentially give up, close the discussion, and go on to something else there's more consensus on? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 04:39, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * :=). Nope. I would be delighted if a practical solution was found.
 * Going back to your original suggestion about first person writing, it is already a reason for deletion which any editor has the discretion to enforce. I agree with Peter on that point.--(WT-en) burmesedays 04:51, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * It seems like right now, the touting policy is enforced either by: (1) deleting the listing more or less for good and all, (2) detouting it, or (3) deleting it with instructions and a chance for the offender to detout the listing him-/herself; and that which of these three reactions is taken is purely at the discretion of the editor, with no general case on which of these approaches one would normally take. I, too, have varied between these different reactions, depending on how bad the touting was and how much time I felt like taking to edit someone else's touty listing. My proposal above, though, was to establish a rule that the general case would be to simply delete touty listings and keep them deleted, with the two other types of reactions I list above constituting exceptions to the rule.
 * Is this worth discussing? (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 05:06, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

 * (Re-indenting) I'd suggest that we allow some discretion - if the person patrolling a listing thinks it is worth de-touting then they should be permitted to do so, as should someone who chooses to simply revert it. If the listing is being deleted I would suggest a guideline that feedback is provided for the user in question, either via the edit summary ("please do not write promotional, first-person listings per Project:Don't tout") or a talk page message; repeat offenders could obviously be reverted without additional comment.  I don't disagree with Ikan that the reliability of a listing posted by a business owner is suspect, but it would be a shame to make Wikivoyage even more anti-business since business owners can often make valuable contributions if properly motivated. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 20:28, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

 * My actions are in fact along the lines you outline, but that's in keeping with policy here. If the policy were harsher, I would summarily delete and then not allow cleaned-up versions to be posted. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 06:20, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I'm in minority here, but I'm with you in proposing to remove business-added(?) reviews alltogether--rather than detout them. Because once we detout, we'll never know whether any single customer ever liked this place, or it's purely a product of its marketing. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:23, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

what will make us more reliable than Tripadvisor etc ratings?
I just realized that none from the above suggestions, even if successful, will make us more reliable or reputable than Tripadvisor's ratings on restaurants or hotels for a destination. And the truth is that I don't have any ideas how to change that. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:33, 29 November 2011 (EST)

 * I still think the starred listings is a good one.
 * A black star means this listing has been added or updated by an anonymous or single listing editor.
 * A orange star means this listing has been added or updated by a business owner or their employee/agent - this listing is likely accurate but negative aspects are likely omitted.
 * A green star means this listing has been added or updated by a registered wikivoyage user of standing, who has contributed to various articles and edited listings of various types.
 * Of course many listings will remain unstarred, but a WT user can feel free to add the stars to their own or other listings as appropriate. --(WT-en) Inas 17:24, 29 November 2011 (EST)

 * @(WT-en) Inas I like the idea behind the above, but wouldn't it be tough to implement? We don't always know who a business owner is, and technically it might be difficult to change status based on how many contributions someone makes.  Is there any particular objection to just using a system where there is some very simple criteria as to who can "star" an icon (as discussed in the sections above), and the color then just reflects how many people have starred the listing?

 * @(WT-en) DenisYurkin While the ideal solution would be to exceed Tripadvisor, I think the initial goal is just to improve the reliability of the Wikivoyage's content. Baby steps :) -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 12:30, 4 December 2011 (EST)

 * I think the tripadvisor comparison is a valid one. I use tripadvisor for accommodation reviews all the time - I find them valuable.  As you know tripadvisor doesn't permit reviews by business owners, but they do allow their comments.  When evaluating whether to trust a review you can see how many of their other reviews were voted as helpful.  So, in other words you build up trust in the review by building up trust in the reviewer.  Frankly, to me if a review is written by a one time anonymous editor, or a business owner, it is completely and utterly worthless to me - I may was well search on booking.com or expedia.  However, a review by written by a regular WT contributor  - even if they were the only person to star it - would be most worthwhile.  It wouldn't be hard to award a green star to a user after a few contributions - they are then entitled to green star reviews they know are legitimate.  Similarly, we give an orange star to the IPs or accounts of business interests, which they can use or have assigned to their listings.  While we maintain the community policy of allowing vested interests to contribute, it seems only reasonable that we at least let people know that one review was written by a traveller telling it as it is, and the other was written by a person whose only interest is in the promotion of it.  --(WT-en) Inas 17:15, 4 December 2011 (EST)

 * Your system sounds hard to implement I think. Wikivoyage is an open collaboration site. A listing could be added by a business owner, edited by a Wikivoyage veteran, then re-worded by an anonymous IP, after which another Wikivoyage veteran fixes his grammar. It is impossible to judge who "added" most to this listing or gave most weight to its wording. --(WT-en) Globe-trotter 02:16, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Archived
This expedition has been archived because it has not had any recent activity. If anyone wishes to reactivate it then please give notice in the Travellers' pub --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Business of Wikitravel

Moved from travellers' pub by (WT-en) Evan

Relationship to Wikimedia
Who is paying for the website? Just wondering why you guys didn't approach the Wikimedia Foundation first. Wikivoyage would make a wonderful addition to the Wikimedia family. Oh well, good luck. :) --(WT-en) Maveric149 16:07, 5 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * Mav: cool that you're here. Me and (WT-en) Maj are paying for it out of our own pocket right now. We're probably open to moving it to a Wikimedia thing -- we just didn't know it'd be welcome (dumb of us, I guess). We've had some other thoughts about how to finance it, but it's not a big deal for us yet -- maybe it will be if this growth continues! -- (WT-en) Evan 22:08, 5 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * I think the idea of this website it great and will quickly generate a lot of traffic and interest (although I won't have time to contribute due to my role in helping set-up the Foundation and Wikibooks - not to mention my daily edits to Wikipedia). We are having our first Wikimedia press release soon and are already going to mention the addition of Wikibooks and Wikiquote ; I see no reason why we couldn't also include Wikivoyage (if you decide to enter the Wikimedia family - I'll advocate for it). Some people may be a bit apprehensive because of your license but you have convinced me that the GNU FDL is totally inappropriate for your goals. Oh and http://wikivoyage.org, http://wikivoyage.com don't work and http://www.wikivoyage.com says "Now Is The Time..." --(WT-en) Maveric149 01:35, 6 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * You would be well advised to register these names before User:(WT-en) Maveric149 does. He has a history of registering names without consensus and holding them "until"... whatever he determines is appropriate, has been done.  Whatever route you take, you will probably not want Maveric149 to decide it for you.

 * Although I highly encourage going the Wikimedia route, you may also want to consider ibiblio. They host all kinds of interesting non-profit projects free of charge, while you maintain editorial control. You get all the services you need: web hosting, e-mail, MySQL, a whole slew of open source tools, and shell access. I notice that Fred Bauder has moved his fork of Wikipedia there, so I think something as cool as Wikivoyage would be welcomed. Hey, now that I think of it, maybe ibiblio could do the hosting and it could still be an official Wikimedia project. -- (WT-en) Stephen Gilbert 20:22, 16 Aug 2003 (PDT)

 * ibiblio is a far better option - for one thing, it would not come with all the baggage of "Wikimedia" including people who are, simply put, untrustworthy:

 * Control over the server is also important. So if they do decide to eventually enter the Wikimedia family, it would probably mean that they will be hosted from Wikimedia's servers. Of course, we can and should use Ibiblio as a mirror or even webserver for anon's (updated via RDF feeds, perhaps). --(WT-en) Maveric149

 * These servers are overloaded, fail often,

 * As of this writing, December 25, all the Wikipedias are down yet again. You should be making a long term plan to move away from mediawiki and work on a wikitext standard that other software could use.  The developers of metaweb are far more credible people as developers, including Danny Hillis etc., and no doubt they are using mediawiki only to figure out what's wrong with it, how to clone it, and replace it, once they have their requirements straight.  "Requirements" itself seems to be an alien word to the mediawiki crowd.

 * and their adminstrators apply hard security measures often, lying about their reasons for doing so. Their IP block list is full of false statements, assertions made only by one person without much validation, etc..

 * This group is becoming known as the Wikipedia Liars Club, especially for its "vile" (to quote The Cunctator) echo chamber habits.

 * You don't want these people in charge of who gets to read or edit Wikivoyage. Among other problems, you would eventually alienate some official person doing some official function or trying to correct some falsehood about some facility or destination or event, and that would potentially lead to legal hot water, since these people actually do sue.

 * That issue is outlined at Consumerium: "libel pit", and it will eventually destroy Wikipedia if the technical incompetence doesn't.

title: Wikivoyage talk:Business of Wikitravel