text:
Wikivoyage talk:How to draw a map/Common map symbols

Great! One comment though. The "ranger station" symbol looks suspiciously like the "hostelling international" symbol. Have a look here. (WT-en) DhDh 22:34, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * Well, gosh. I actually took out a few that were aggregated as Image:servicesigns.svg, and I had to guess on what they were. I just kinda figured that was supposed to be a ranger station or something! I dunno if there's enough closeness to be a copyright violation. Ideas? Should we scrap it to be on the safe side? --(WT-en) Evan 22:37, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

 * It's not a Hostelling International© symbol, it's the universal hostel symbol. You can use, for example, the one (731) on this page without any fear of copyright violations, as all the images here (released by the Finnish Road Administration) are in the public domain. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:37, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)

WC
I don't think most Americans know what a "WC" is. Perhaps a more universal symbol would be appropriate? Perhaps the common MAN | WOMAN graphic? -- (WT-en) Beland 09:54, 2 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * It's not a term Australians use either. I figured it out in Europe because it was actually on toilet doors, but in the context of a map it would be harder. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 05:44, 10 Dec 2004 (EST)

Needed Symbols
This is a good start, but I think there are still a few more we need. Lets keep a running list of what we need here (feel free to add/delete from this list, discussion should go below the list):

 * Airport 673
 * Parking (differenitate between free and paid?) 521
 * Boating (kayaking, canoeing, fishing) 744

 * Signs above courtesy of the Finnish taxpayer (and all public domain). (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:22, 30 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * Obviously a good place to get these, but I think they still need to be standardized and put on our symbols page. -- (WT-en) Webgeer 12:48, Aug 30, 2004 (EDT)

 * Done and done. I created a different symbol for boating since the finnish one looked more specific to just fishing.  I have SVG files, but I haven't figured out how to upload them (the image upload page rejects the SVG extension). --(WT-en) Neil C 03:57, 31 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * Boat or ferry launch
 * Train station
 * Post office
 * Open market
 * Covered market
 * Dept. Store

I have thought that the following symbols for mapmakers would be also useful for tourists: --(WT-en) Tomwebbnz 01:03, 1 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Main Highways
 * Secondary Roads
 * Unsealed Roads
 * Motor Camps
 * Golf Courses
 * Ski Fields
 * Picnic Areas
 * Thermal Areas
 * Walkways
 * Historic Buildings
 * National Parks
 * Forest Parks
 * Mountains
 * Rivers
 * Schools
 * Toll Plazas

 * At least some of the things in this list might be better communicated using color rather than an icon. That said I did make a US highway icon for my map of Carbondale.  I guess I should upload a generic version to the symbols page.

 * Also, I'd really like to point out the usefulness of trying to align the icons with the sections of a Wikivoyage guide: Do & See, Eat, Drink, Sleep, etc. -- (WT-en) Mark 10:24, 2 Sep 2005 (EDT)

We need symbols which coorespond with the MOS
I've been trying to incorporate listings with the maps I've been making (see Paris or Kathmandu, and have run into a couple of problems, mainly that the symbols or icons that we have so far are often too detailed to work well on a map, and that they don't corespond well with the the template sections from our Project:Manual of style. What I would really like to have is specific consitant symbols for Eat, Drink, Do, See, and Sleep.  Preferably the icons for each of these would be really really simple, and could contain a number, so that we don't have to have the number sitting there next to the icon.  This would help a lot in tight spots with lots of listings.

I guess the Do and See icons could just be a little circle or a square, and Sleep could be shaped like a little house, but what about Eat listings. I'd like to hear some more opinions about this before I plunge forward with establishing these icons.

Of course we'll still need the existing symbols as well, and some more, like say, hospital. -- (WT-en) Mark 12:02, 3 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * I'd suggest keeping the numbers outside the symbols, as I think this will actually help in tight spots -- a symbol with a number in it requires more width and height to be legible. Look at Lonely Planet: they use solid squares, circles and triangles with the numbers laid out next to them, which means they can pack symbols tightly in one direction and leave the numbers out to the side. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:34, 10 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * My actual experience seems to differ with this. Check out the history of Image:Paris_1st.png.  To my eye the listing icons with the number inside look a lot nicer.  They certainly are easier to work with, but that's not necessarily the most important thing.

 * Of course I think my maps are better than Lonely Planet's anyhow. ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 05:48, 10 Dec 2004 (EST)

I think the number-in-the-generic-symbol approach works pretty well. I even managed to fit fairly legible numbers inside the "teepee" symbol for tent camping on Image:IsleRoyaleMap.png. I've also added some additional symbols and reorganized them all according to the MoS sections. (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:30, 20 March 2006 (EST)

I think we need a symbol for woods?

 * Green? (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:36, 28 January 2007 (EST)

What Are WikiTravellers' Thoughts On Driving Maps
One of the useful things that I have found when travelling to new places is picking up maps showing driving times between locations on a map - i.e. the driving times between towns and cities. Always helps me plan when I driving around a new part of a country. What are everyone's thoughts on this idea?? I thought it might help make WikiTravel based maps a truly great thing to have and I know that personally I would think that this type of travel map would be a BIG reason for me to refer to WikiTravel for map information... --(WT-en) Tomwebbnz 01:02, 1 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I suppose that they would be useful for those travellers who drive to places. Me, I'm mostly interested in producing street-level maps of a destination for use once you get there.  For the most part these are biased toward walking or use of public transportation, on the argument that many travellers arrive by other means than a car, and often find themselves carfree when exploring a destination. -- (WT-en) Mark 10:19, 2 Sep 2005 (EDT)

"See and Do" color error
Color for the "See and Do" symbol is erroneous, being the same as for "Buy." Can someone recommend one that's better? I'm using 0058aeff with reasonable success. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:45, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)

 * I've changed the page to suggest your color values. (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:09, 20 March 2006 (EST)

 * That reminds me. I'm going to have to upload new SVG versions with color and numbers.  I'll see about it tonight or tomorrow.

 * There's also a problem with the new first-aid icon: It's the red cross emblem (or actually since the background is dark it's a Swiss flag).  This will work OK for western countries but it's better to have something more universal.  When I was working on my new theme we came up with a green medical cross. -- (WT-en) Mark 11:33, 20 March 2006 (EST)

 * Good point, but it's only a red cross (or Swiss flag) if it's colored red. If left black or colored another color (yes, green is popular), that shape is an almost universally recognized symbol. (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 15:53, 21 March 2006 (EST)

 * Either way it's still a cross, which means it doesn't work in some countries. We had a pretty long discussion about this at the time that I first started using a red cross, which is why the green medical cross came to be. -- (WT-en) Mark 23:28, 21 March 2006 (EST)

 * Well, you'll have to pardon me for not immediately grasping why a green medical cross somehow isn't a cross. (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 00:24, 22 March 2006 (EST)

Medical Star

I was mistakenly calling it a cross. I think it was User:(WT-en) Cjensen who steered me towards this as a universally usable alternative. I was using a simple red cross like the one Red Cross emblem (of three now). -- (WT-en) Mark 04:07, 22 March 2006 (EST)

 * But but but it's got six points like the Star of David and is thus a symbol of Zionist conspiracies and oppression! And there's a cross hidden inside so the Crusaders are in on it too!  And worst of all they're adopting the Islamic motif of crescent and star!  <frothing at the mouth

 * If we're going to go all PC and start adopting unrecognizable symbols, then we might as well go whole hog and use the new ICRC-approved Red Crystal. However, it would seem to be more sensible to use a red cross, as it's the standard right across the world including many places that don't give a fig about the Christian connotations — including China, Japan, India and even in the world's largest Muslim country Indonesia.  I can only see the Red Crescent/Magen David Adom adopted in those countries where this is actually used, and even then I'm less than convinced that using the unfamiliar symbol on the map is much of a service to the traveller — even if they might need to recognize it to spot the clinic/hospital/whatever. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:07, 22 March 2006 (EST)

 * That symbol isn't completely unrecognizable; it's commonly used (usually with a Caduceus inside) in medical-alert bracelets and other similar contexts as a sign for "medicine". The main problem with it is that iconized and reduced, it looks like an asterisk. (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:06, 22 March 2006 (EST)

 * OK, fine with me. I think Colin's objection to my use of the red cross in the actual skin was on account of the difficulty of chaging the icon according to the destination.  (Of course I really should let him speak for himself.) As a map icon that isn't a problem.  So let's use the red cross/crescent/lozenge^h^h^h^h^h^h^hcrystal on maps, and the medical star thing in the skin (should that ever happen). -- (WT-en) Mark 09:18, 22 March 2006 (EST)

 * My first instinct when the "cross" question came up was to suggest using the "crystal" instead, but I'm afraid that would be a misappropriation. The Red Cr* people have stipulated that it's only supposed to be used as a "don't shoot us" emblem and as a symbol for their member organizations.  So it has neither popular recognition, nor permission for use as a generic "first aid" symbol.  Granted, the red cross isn't supposed to be used generically either, but the shape (in black or another color) is generic enough, and well enough associated internationally with medical aid, to be of use on Wikivoyage maps. (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:06, 22 March 2006 (EST)

ATM $
I replaced the "$" in the ATM graphic with the generic currency symbol, to make it less US-centric. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:56, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Sorry, but I don't think anybody other than us hardcore geeks will recognize that. Again, as with the Red Cross thing I don't think anybody is going to get their panties in a twist over this, but if you must how about just a stylized bill with a head profile and "100" in two corners? (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:04, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

 * How legible would that be when the icon is reduced enough to fit on a map? People probably won't recognize the generic currency symbol, but the whole point of its design was to look like a currency symbol without matching any of the real ones.  I think it works.  And I'm not trying to avoid upsetting some hypothetical person whom you don't believe exists; I think a dollar sign on a map of London or Istanbul or Kyoto looks bad.  It's a regionalism that looks out of place - and perhaps a bit clueless - in places where other currency symbols are used. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 14:14, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

 * I also don't love the current ATM symbol, it took me way to long to even figure out what the graphic was supposed to be. LP by the way uses $ symbols on the maps throughout their guides to denote banks and atm's, it's not that weird. I think that whole symbol should just be replaced with a $ sign, it's the most instantly recongnizable and would reduce well (WT-en) - Cacahuate 03:19, 21 February 2007 (EST)

One down, one to go
I've added a post office symbol (it's surprising that it's taken so long to add considering how obvious and simple the symbol is) which just leaves the police symbol left. Personally I can't think of an obvious, universal police symbol aside from handcuffs which probably sends out the wrong message. Maybe a figure in uniform? Not sure, anyone else have any good ideas?
 * Good work! A figure in uniform sounds good for police... But then to avoid PC concerns about whether it should be a male figure or female, I suggest just a cap. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 05:16, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * Or what about an icon of the lights that flash on top of police cars. Those have a fairly universal look. (WT-en) Texugo 06:42, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * The envelope is a really good idea. We'll probably have to fatten the lines up a bit to work on the maps, but probably not too much.  There are still other symbols on the page which don't work well on maps either, so I guess there's a bit more work to do anyhow.
 * As for the police symbol lets just make sure that it's very simple so that it reduces well. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:23, 30 August 2006 (EDT)

OK I've got a few possibilities to toss out, based on the comments above:

Any preferences? --(WT-en) Paul. 19:26, 30 August 2006 (EDT)
 * I am surprised everyone missed out giving feedback on this. I like the figure in uniform best. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 01:28, 7 October 2006 (EDT)

 * I also support the uniformed figure.

 * The concept of the figure is OK, but I'm not sure how well it will scale down. Can we chop off his legs and just leave the upper torso? (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:04, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, cut off the pig's legs. :) I'm also not crazy about the park-ranger symbol this is dervived from (it doesn't read well when reduced). Would it still work if we gave the ranger the same head-and-torso treatment?  (I also have to remark that the "flashing lights" symbol looks to me like a couple arguing in their car.) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:27, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Light & Underground rail added
I'm currently working on a map of Birmingham, which has a light rail system. Because the light rail runs next to the mainline rail I needed to create a symbol for light rail stations that was clearly different from standard rail stations. I figured since I'd created it I might as well upload it here, and while I was at it I also made an underground rail symbol, which I remember being a problem for some other map makers. --(WT-en) Paul. 22:43, 6 October 2006 (EDT)

Missing svg versions
We seem to be missing vector versions of some of the symbols:

 * Image:Wikivoyage_logo.svg - Supplied by (WT-en) Mark
 * Image:Parking.svg - recreated
 * Image:Payparking.svg - recreated
 * Image:Boating.svg - recreated

Anyone know where we can find these?

--(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:19, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * The most complete svg work on the logo is Image:Treatment.svg . This could probably stand to have a different name. -- (WT-en) Mark 11:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * Very nice, thanks --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:21, 22 February 2007 (EST)

All fixed - I'll add these to the template soon.

Church symbol - and other religious buildings
I think the church symbol should be a cross... and mosque should be a crescent, and star of david for jewish temples... and something for Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 03:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * We may need to be a bit careful - rather than trying to use a symbol that is specific to each religion it might be best to avoid any controversy and simply keep the generic "religious building" icon, or perhaps modify it to make it look less like a church. -- (WT-en) Ryan 03:33, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * That sounds like precisely the wrong approach to me — I don't think most Jews would appreciate a synagogue being marked with a symbol of the false Messiah, for example. Each religion has its own symbols, so why not just standardize those?  The three listed above are straightforward.   For Sikhism, WP has a nice PD Khanda in SVG format.      For Buddhism the obvious symbol is the swastika, but that's a little iffy...  Wikipedia uses a dharma wheel though.  For Hinduism, I'd suggest the Shaivite Trishula, although Wikipedia uses the "Om" symbol instead. (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:04, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * For Buddhism the dharma wheel is here, or also something like this (but without the outer lotus} would be cool. The Trishula or the Om both sound good for Hinduism... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 04:12, 21 February 2007 (EST)
 * -1 for the idea of a common symbol for different religions it is usually important to people which religion the building belongs to. I don't mind the idea of a trishula as the symbol for Hinduism, though we must brace ourselves for people periodically asking "Hey - why does it show a trishul when it is actually a Krishna temple?" -1 for the idea of using the swastika for anything. Apart from the obvious problems, there is the added scope of confusion between a Hindu and a Buddhist temple (I for one associate the swastika with Hinduism.) And the universal Jain symbol exists, but apparently hasn't been named, having been adopted only recently, but I've seen it commonly being used by the Jains here in Mumbai. (I thought it was called the Navkar, but it turns out that I am wrong. The Navkar symbol is different and vastly more complicated to use.) — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:46, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * Whatever we use, it has to be simple enough to be legible when scaled down. That compound Jain symbol is too intricate, but the hand by itself might work.  I definitely prefer the Dharma wheel or outline of the Buddha over the swastika for Buddhism.  I have no particular preference over the Om or Trisula for Hinduism.  The Cross, Crescent, Magen David, and Khanda all get my vote for Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Sikh places of worship.  The Torii  seems like a good symbol for Shinto shrines, and the Taijitu  for Taoist temples.  What about Confucian temples?  Bahai has few places of worship, but the 9-pointed star  should work for those. Do we need symbols for any other religious sites? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:27, 21 February 2007 (EST)
 * I've seen the Jain hand alone as a symbol before, I would vote for that. Agree that swastika should stay out for all above reasons. Other new suggestion look good too! (WT-en) - Cacahuate 14:59, 21 February 2007 (EST)

 * The water symbol should scale down well enough to use for Confucianism. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 08:21, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * No, that would not be understood at all if you eg. showed it to somebody in East Asia — they'd think you were looking for a place to drink or something! I just checked Mapion (Japan's version of Google Maps), but Confucian shrines are sufficiently rare that they just get the three-dot therefore sign (∴) for "historical landmark".  Sigh. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * I don't know what it's called but I've found this used as a symbol for Confucianism on comparitive-religions sites. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:18, 23 February 2007 (EST)

 * That's "double happiness", and it's usually used in China on festive occasions like weddings. No relation whatsoever to Confucianism, I'm afraid.  (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Multiple symbols for 1 location?

Should we put a symbol on the map for every destination even if they're the same place (as is the case with Zion National Park where Zion Lodge and both its restaurants all have symbols), or should we just list the main place (in this case, Zion Lodge) and then under the drink heading put "see 3"? I think the latter will make for simpler maps, but it conflicts with our current numbering system where we do 1-x for each section. Lonely Planet works around this by not starting over at 1 again for each section... so for a given article 1-14 might be sleep, 15-22 eat, 23-48 see, etc... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 17:18, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * Single symbols per location will probably be better on maps covering a large area. The problem with the multiple symbols, as I have it on the Zion map at the moment, is that it takes up a lot of space and someone viewing the map may not be sure if it they are all at the same location or separate. The current system works well for detailed city maps, but when the map covers a large area it does pose a bit of a problem. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 17:26, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * Yeah, I think for pretty much everywhere we could just use the "see x" method. For instance in LA, if I make a map of the Melrose area and want to list the two hot new spots (Pinkberry and M Cafe) that are next door to each other, depending on how small and detailed the map is, it might make more sense to show M Cafe (#x) on the symbol, and "see #x" next to Pinkberry in the guide key. But at anyrate if we at least use continuous numbering then it gives the option for that if necessary... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 18:16, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * Possible something like this image? List the places with simple squares and then rather than use the other symbols on the map, add them to the annotation box. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 23:39, 22 February 2007 (EST)

 * I would prefer to see the symbols on the map if possible, since that makes it easier for people to pick out "where are the camp sites?" or "where's a toilet?" taking the most advantage of their symbolness. If there are multiple symbols that apply to a location, lining them up neatly in a row will (hopefully) make out it clear that they all apply to the same spot.  Or line them up in a blank area on the map, and connect them to that spot, kind of like I did for some very cluttered locales on Isle Royale.  This usually wouldn't work for a city map (which won't have blank areas), but for a park map this kind of "stacking" of services is more common and easy to accommodate this way.  One other concern I have about this map is the duplication of information: if the names are the legend, they don't need to be on the map. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:28, 23 February 2007 (EST)

For Parks I suppose it doesn't bother that much to have all of the symbols on the map, but as you say, it will be harder for cities. What I was suggesting was something to the effect of:

Map Key:
 * SLEEP
 * 1. mikey's
 * 2. freddy's
 * 3. jack's
 * 4. moe's

 * EAT
 * 5. donut hut
 * 6. finger lickin chicken
 * (see #2) ice cream hut
 * 7. sushi bar

 * SEE
 * 8. temple
 * 9. lake
 * 10. movie theater

So on this map you would use the sleep symbol for Freddy's (#2), and ice cream hut is in the basement or whatever of Freddy's. This is how some of the printed guidebooks do it, and I think it makes for uncluttered and easy to use maps... agree with Todd about the duplication of info, just list it in the Map key if possible... thoughts? (WT-en) - Cacahuate 12:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Zion is going to have more maps than what they will know what to do with :), but it's good to see some different approaches to find out what works best. I'm not really happy with any of these, so I'm not going to voice an opinion just yet. I'll wait a bit to see what other bright ideas you guys come up with and play around a bit more on a 4th version. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:54, 23 February 2007 (EST)

A couple new symbols?
In making my first country map Image:Map of Afghanistan.png I came across a couple things...

Capital cities
Should we make a "star" symbol to use for capital cities, or just use enlarged dots? For now I put a star for Kabul, but enlarged dots for Dushanbe and Islamabad, let me know if anyone has a preference... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Border crossings
I would love if someone came up with a great symbol for International border crossings... I can't think of anything, so just used an X for now... green for the ones open to all, red for ones that people may wonder about but will most likely not be able to use (in the case of Afghanistan, these are open to military and gov't only, but people ask about crossing them frequently). – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * I've been using larger dots for capitals up to now, but the star might be a good idea, lets see if we can get one or more opinion of that and then go with whatever the majority rule. As for the border crossings, I'm not to fond of the cross idea; one might want to number the crossings so that one can reference them from the annotation on the side, but a cross does not leave a lot of space for numbering. I'll play around a bit and see if I can design a nice border crossing symbol. That Afghanistan map looks good :) --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * How about these Image:Wikivoyage-Symbols-Borderposts.svg for the border crossings? --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 12:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

 * That's PERFECT! I'm gonna add them to Afghanistan now... you should put them in the template... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not use Aiga symbols
This may have been raised some years ago, but why not use the standardied Aiga symbols? are in the Public Domain.

 * We kinda do... I think Nick perfected a few of those for our use – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 21:28, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

PD Port symbol
Do we have any PD symbol for ports? I want to mark a main dock in St Petersburg, but don't have an icon for that. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 12:00, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Looking at the AIGA symbols posted above, you could try this one: . (WT-en) LtPowers 14:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

 * Image:Wikivoyage-map-template-PD.svg contains various PD clipart, including port, ferry dock, airport and rail transport. Most of those symbols were taken from the OpenClipart downloadable CD. --(WT-en) Nick 15:54, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

 * I added a ferry icon to Template_for_districts.svg. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 13:52, 24 January 2010 (EST)

Do we still use this?
It looks like the vast majority of symbols are either broken or incorrect after the migration to Commons, so do we still use this page, or is it a candidate for redirection to Mapmaking Expedition? -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! Some of the things icons got replaced with are pretty funny. Texugo (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Common_map_symbols looks much better. If we are sure that the files are free (have a good source and a valid license and perhaps proof of permission) then we could move the missing files to Commons and fix the page. --MGA73 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be easy enough to fix this page, but I think it may be obsolete - see File:Bronzeville.png (for example), which uses a different set of symbols from those on this page. I don't make enough maps to know for certain that this page can go away, so hopefully one of the site's intrepid cartographers can provide some clarity. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we could get the old files transferred, we could just put them in Category:Wikivoyage map icons on Commons and do away with this page. While not all are in use, they are still useful for experimenting. --Peter Talk 20:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And some of them are things that aren't included in our map templates, like the police icon I made. LtPowers (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If this page is currently broken and only might be made useful for experimentation purposes at some point in the future, in the interest of consolidating policies and guidelines can it be moved to "Wikivoyage:Mapmaking Expedition/Common map symbols", and then flagged with a note that it is a legacy page that exists mainly for archive purposes? Given the other mapmaking resources available it sounds like even if this page was restored to its former state that it would still be outdated and mostly duplicate information from other pages, so if we're keeping it then I think we want to de-emphasize its importance. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what it's duplicating, except some of the icons that are in our map templates. But as the other icons that aren't in the templates are still useful, I wouldn't call it obsolete.  LtPowers (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be if we got our act together and put them in a Commons category, though, right? --Peter Talk 01:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a tangent, but I had thought there was a desire to clean up and consolidate some of our policies and guidelines, and this seemed like an obvious candidate. Was I mistaken?  Is this page not a fairly obvious candidate for a merge, an archive tag, or a redirect, particularly if no one is volunteering to fix it? -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it, although I'm currently working on 3 very involved things. For now, moving it to a subpage makes sense. --Peter Talk 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with moving it to a subpage, but I think a redirect or archive would be counterproductive. LtPowers (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll try to hunt down missing symbols from wt-old and get everything in commons:Category:Wikivoyage map icons. --Peter Talk 20:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think getting this out of the list of top-level guidelines is a useful cleanup/simplification. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Community policies

External Links Policy
Would it be bad for the site to have it linked in two places? Or at least have the Manual of Style cross-ref'ed from the P&G page? I put it here because I couldn't find it when I was looking for it and there are lots of references to the External Links Policy when removing extlinks from pages, reverting changes, etc. It was difficult for (at least) one person to find, it has probably been difficult for other people to find. As with all policies, if you want someone to read them, you need to make them easy to find. -- (WT-en) Rob (Payne) 22:45, 10 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I don't think it could hurt to link to the policy in more than one place. The external links policy is probably cited more often than any other when reverting or changing edits, so it seems sensible to explicitly link to it from the policy page. -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:16, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I vaguely remembered reading something about why more policies weren't listed on this page, and found the discussion at Project:Manual of style. It was a rather heated discussion, and while I do disagree with Evan and feel that it's more important that information be easy to find instead of hierarchically organized, it looks like an issue that may be just as polarizing as heading changes, so I'll back away slowly now and leave it for others to hash out if they want to. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:15, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I'll go learn from history and read that discussion. Thanks for the pointer, Ryan. -- (WT-en) Rob (Payne) 08:30, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I've added the External links policy to the page. Here's hoping Evan is too distracted by crying babies to notice ;) (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:40, 11 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I see Evan's gone and reverted it again. Will you please explain to me why choosing what links are allowed and what are not is a matter of style, not policy? And why is it a Bad Thing to link to the page from more than one place? (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:33, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * No he didn't. Now be quiet and don't disturb the parental bonding. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:10, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Did too, I just reverted it back. And let's keep innocent little babies out of grown men's edit wars... (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:30, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * That was four days ago -- you've only reverted once so far. Evan has only made one edit since then, and that was the pub. Jet lag? :-)  -- (WT-en) Colin 21:38, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * D'oh! (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:29, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * We have a Project:Utilities page that lists all the Wikivoyage: namespace articles. I think there's some value in further subdividing the space for navigational reasons, rather than copying all the links in the utilities page to P&G, MoS, and Help, as well as everywhere else. Will it help if I outline what I think is "policy", what I think is "style", and what I think is "help"? I'm not sure if the problem we have here is that you don't understand why I think there's a difference, or if you don't agree with me. --(WT-en) Evan 22:59, 15 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I can't speak for Jpatokal, but my argument for linking to Project:External links on both the policy page and the Project:Manual of style is that it encompasses both style and policy - it describes how to handle external links on a page (style) and what is an acceptable external link (policy). Users looking for the rules about external links would seem (in my opinion) equally likely to look in either place.  Additionally, I don't think it hurts to link relevant topics from two different places; we count on common sense to prevail when including the most important cities on region pages (for example, the Bay Area (California) has a link to San Francisco but not to Dublin (California)) so it doesn't seem unreasonable to count on using common sense to prevent clutter on policy and style indexes.  That said, at this point I would rather have you busy experiencing what it's like to be a new parent instead of arguing of the minutiae of Wikivoyage linking policies, so this definitely isn't a point that needs to be discussed at length right now.

 * Also, I started trying to sub-divide everything in the Wikivoyage namespace a while back but didn't finish. The current page is at User:(WT-en) Wrh2/Help and may be useful as a starting point if you do plan on subdividing Project:Utilities. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 02:03, 16 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I think it'd make a good replacement for Project:Utilities. I'm not a big fan of hierarchical lists (I like page sections and separate pages better), but it should probably just be moved there soon.

 * Also, I disagree that Project:External links is both style and policy. I've always thought of "policy" as "collaboration and behavior rules and processes", like how we pick new administrators and how we delete articles. I've thought of "style guidelines" as "rules about content". In other words, policy is about people, and guidelines are about text and pictures.

 * Maybe I'm being too persnickety, but I really think that rules about how we interact should be called out, and have more gravity, than rules about content.

 * HOWEVER, I also think that the policies, guidelines, and help pages need to be accessible. If we need to have other kinds of indices -- ways of pointing at the same pages -- I'm all for it. I'm even up for re-aligning the triumvirate of policies, style guidelines, and help pages, if we need to. But I'd like to have it done with some forethought, and with better reasoning than "maybe someone looking at page X could benefit from the information at page Y". If we go that route, we just link every page from every other page and everyone gets lost in the noise. --(WT-en) Evan 09:37, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * It makes complete sense to divide policies and guidelines into non-article policies ("collaboration and behavior rules and processes") vs. article style/content guidelines ("rules about content"). I think the problem is that an index with a title of "Wikivoyage:Policies and guidelines" is an obvious place to put ALL policies and guidelines -- changing the names to something like "Wikivoyage:Content policies" and "Wikivoyage:Administration policies" (not great suggestions, but you get the idea) would go a long way to making the organizational structure clearer.  If others agree that the naming isn't all that clear then I'm sure a someone could come up with an alternative that made the purpose clear.  Ditto for "Wikivoyage:Utilities" - when I think of a utility I think of a tool, not a namespace index ("Wikivoyage:Namespace Index" maybe?). -- (WT-en) Wrh2 12:21, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I didn't understand the distinction before this explaination. Maybe either article name changes (as Ryan suggests) or a bit more explainatory text in each article detailing the types of stuff mentioned and where to go for other types of stuff (e.g. "This Policies and guidelines page details our consensus about how we go about writing Wikivoyage.  For consensus regarding the content of articles (what should be in an article, not be in an article, and so forth), please see the Manual of Style").  Or something more ingenious. -- (WT-en) Colin 12:43, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * What about "Community policies" and "Content guidelines"? I prefer the name "Manual of style" rather than "Content guidelines", but I'm totally willing to bend on it. I also like that "policies" sounds stronger than "guidelines", which I think is the message we want. And, yes, the name of this page is misleading -- it's copied from Wikipedia back in the day. It doesn't actually have any "guidelines" listed! --(WT-en) Evan 13:10, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Works for me. I also rather like "Manual of Style" - perhaps just set up Wikivoyage:Content guidelines as a redirect to Project:Manual of style?  Moving Project:Policies and guidelines to "Wikivoyage:Community policies" is (in my opinion) the more helpful change, although it is nice to have a counter-balance. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 13:27, 19 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * This has been sitting here for four days now without further comment -- if no one has any objections I'd like to move the current page to Wikivoyage:Community policies, and create a redirect for Wikivoyage:Content guidelines that redirects to the MOS. Any objections? -- (WT-en) Ryan 00:52, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * I'll set this up so someone else can knock it down: I was thinking that perhaps "community policies" sounds like policies made by the community, and that folks won't understand that they're polices about the community. Other than that, I think this is a good way to go. --(WT-en) Evan 08:07, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

 * Since there has been no knockdown, page moved. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:07, 6 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I agree with everything Ryan says, but as I'd already written the below before I saw his response... so as for which one I think is the problem, the answer is both and then some. I'll enumerate:
 * 1) I don't understand your distinction in general, as previously discussed here.
 * 2) I don't understand why we can't link to pages from multiple places.  Policies and guidelines are for online use, so links are good.
 * 3) I don't understand why this page in specific is filed under style, not policy.  Only a small part of the page concerns how to format external links, the bulk of the page — and the subject of constant squabbles — is what links are permissible and which ones aren't. Note that Google finds 13 uses of "external links policy" and 8 uses of "external link policy" (exact string searches) on Wikivoyage, so evidently people do think of this as a policy, not a guideline. (WT-en) Jpatokal 20:03, 17 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Time for a vandalism policy?
I think the time may have come when we need to become considerably more hard-nosed about dealing with intentional vandalism. The problem is getting worse all the time, and the vandals aren't just the the usual "Hortense Schlummerstein is HOTxxx" victims of teenage hormone poisoning; some of them have made it completely explicit that they're out to do real damage. Even though they basically can't do lasting, irreparable damage to articles, then can do harm to Wikivoyage's reputation and credibility. Furthermore, time spent on cleaning up the messes they create is time we can't spend on more constructive work.

I don't have a particular policy in mind, but I believe there should be one. Let's discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:24, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

 * I've been having these same thoughts for some time now. I know there's some noble intent concerning openness behind it all and I've read everything I could find on Wikivoyage about it, but I don't see how the waste of time is worth it. Call me curmudgeonly, but I'm apt to have a quick trigger finger on the block button when the perpetrators are obviously malicious (i.e. moving and renaming critical pages)--and I feel policy should back that approach. Will consider some suggestions. -- (WT-en) OldPine 12:13, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree that something really has to be done about this, but we do have to be careful: we can't be making any unnessecary enemies. If we're going to have a hard-nosed policy, we have to set standards: Should there be a minimum number of times the member has been warned before we bring the hammer down (like a three-strikes law)? How serious are the edits? Etc. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:12, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Strongly agree that too much time is being wasted dealing with those who use the site as a playground. I'd be in favor of allowing more flexibility in handling vandals, including blocking problem users, but I've got the following concerns:

 * I'd like any guideline to stress an innocent-until-proven-guilty policy. Not everyone is technically savvy, reads all of the policies before editing, etc.  If someone is adding racial slurs to Niger that's clearly vandalism, but if someone keeps adding their hotel to an article they may just not understand how the site works and we should be trying to educate them rather than exclude them and lose a potentially valuable contributor.
 * I think any changes to policy should stress that a block should occur only when damage is not easily controlled. Threatening or misleading other users, multiple page moves, or repeatedly modifying critical pages such as the Main Page are terribly disruptive.  Adding "Bob is gay" to twenty random articles is not.
 * I'd like any policy change to include some flexibility for using "best judgment". Vandals by nature look for corner-cases and try to make things difficult, so I think we need to trust the community to make good decisions when dealing with these individuals.  For example, if someone is modifying hundreds of pages with an automated script it doesn't make sense to constrain an admin to following a "three warnings" policy.
 * Assuming that the ultimate solution will involve blocking users, I'd suggest a guideline that automated vandalism (bots) should be blocked for up to one month, while if we must block real people (user or IP) we do so for a couple of hours the first time, a day the second, and a time to be determined by whoever applies the block thereafter. An exception would be misleading user logins such as O1dPine (with a "1") which current policy states can be blocked indefinitely.  Some warning should be given prior to blocking, although I would trust the judgment of admins here to understand when a vandal knows what they're doing and a warning would be useless.

 * -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:09, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree with Ryan. We do have a policy that I still tend to agree with - Project:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits. Our policy has been slowly forming and changing itself as needed... we indefinitely blocked the Jpatokal impersonator... we've been blocking script using vandals/spammers. But I still think we should think hard and practice restraint before getting too block happy. We did sign up as janitors, and occasionally we do have to use the mop. I still think it's better in the long run for us to maintain that kind of attitude, rather than a turn into taser-wielding hall monitors. We may have to spend a little time reverting some edits, but at the end of the day it's really not that hard or time consuming... and the alternative is that we take a similar hard line like Wikipedia does... which in my opinion is no less time consuming, and breeds a more hostile environment. I really just don't think that it's that out of control... as the site grows we'll get more vandals, but also more users and more admins... As Ryan (and our policy) stated above: a block should occur only when damage is not easily controlled... can someone show an example of a situation that was just impossible to deal with, or even all that time consuming? We're already blocking script users, and anyone who is vandalizing manually is just a minor nuisance. Let him run free for 10 minutes, then open his contributions page and click "rollback" 20 times... that'll take you 30 seconds. If you don't have time to do it, or are frustrated, let someone else do it... someone will. I had a rollback war the other day on Dubuque... and I chose to revert each edit as it happened, over a 20 minute period... but I just as easily could've let him have his fun until he got bored, and then rolled back once 1/2 hour later. About the most obnoxious a user can be is by moving pages around - see Special:Contributions/(WT-en) Tay - I'm not totally against putting short blocks on really disruptive users, but again, I just don't think it's really that disruptive... however if we were to start blocking a little more frequently, then I would say this kinda vandalism is what warrants it the most...

 * Another thought might be to start extending move-protection to more pages than just the main page. We could even extend it to all pages in the WT namespace, and make it a policy that any moves of policy pages be discussed first. Just a thought. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:58, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

 * I agree with Cacahuate that our slowly evolving "anti-vandalism" policy is basically working. Of course I might just be more tolerant than most of vandalism—I actually find vandalism a rather productive feature of wikis. My first experience editing a wiki (and realizing that I actually could edit a wiki) was minor vandalism, and I venture to guess that many users also first edit a wiki when they encounter vandalism and try to get rid of it. So rather than "discredit" our site, vandalism that slips through the cracks may actually bring in more users.

 * Just got back from some travel and am only starting to digest the responses, but let me clarify one thing: it's not "minor" vandalism (e.g. a badly concealed shoutout to a girl by a love-starved teenager) that is starting to bug me. We can still deal with that under the unwanted-edits heading.  It's the overtly malicious and destructive stuff, and the spam ingeniously constructed to get past the filters, that is an escalating problem, for which I don't think the unwanted-edits policy suffices. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:00, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

 * To me, user bans are basically just giving trolls what they want: attention. And they are really a very ineffective means of thwarting trollishness—if the troll in question has a dynamic ip, he only needs to reconnect to the internet to gain a new ip (rather than feebly continue under the same, already identified ip). If they do, as I suspect, actually encourage trolls by giving them a reaction and making it seem as though they've "gotten under our skin," then they would actually be counter-productive. Moreover, if Wikipedia serves as a guide, a liberal user ban policy begets their political use against "troublesome" users who are in fact good-faith editors who have challenging viewpoints or disagree strongly with majority points of view.

 * Also, I'm not convinced that the page moving vandalism is any more disruptive, but it may be that not all of us are familiar with the easiest way of reverting page moves: Go to the move log through Special:Log and from there an admin can one-click revert all page moves displayed. Using this tool, undoing page-move vandalism is just as easy as any other type of vandalism. And page-move vandalism is almost always easier to detect anyway. The most disruptive vandalism I know of is page-creation spam, but that takes an extraordinary amount of creative deviousness to be effective, and I believe that only one mental patient from MI has really got what it takes in this category. But blocks would not help with this case.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:39, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

 * You know, I think I'm going to side with Bill's inclination that we develop a policy that better deals with issues of vandalism that harasses our users and readers. I think blocks may be a wise way to go, now, though of course it should be further discussed. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 10:30, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is do nothing. The current method for dealing with vandals seems to work well, even if it does seem to be a waste of time. Vandals are a little like terrorists and hackers. If you make it harder for them to do trivial damage (like the kind that wikivoyagemaster or wikiwack or whatever do), they'll just get more sophisticated and do damage that is much harder to detect (I'm not sure I should give examples of that kind of damage here). So, I suggest we let them have their fun and leave well alone.--(WT-en) Wandering 10:45, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

 * Yeah, well, the "Don't be a cunt" photo was pretty good. Just not sure I liked it on the Main page for five minutes. Anyhow, as my opinion above was no doubt part of a propensity to rage due to recent depression. I've decided to return to my Zen roots and not give a good goddam (and maybe be a cunt if I feel like it). You folks seem well up to it, so I'll just pitch in and do a revert here and there, maybe a delete just for fun. -- (WT-en) OldPine 12:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Something I'm not clear on - why is anyone other than administrators allowed to move pages? I'm not sure what vital purpose is served by letting non-admins do it, and restricting it to admins would wipe out a whole category of vandalism. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 15:02, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

 * The "whole category" in this case is pretty much one persistent twit. Anonymous users are already blocked from moving pages, and it's easy enough block any registered users abusing the privilege. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:03, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

 * I think there's more than one. I recently wasted a lot of time cleaning up after User:(WT-en) Coon Duhh and another guy who seemed to be competing with him. Other admins did more than I. How does one block a user from abusing moves? If I'd known that was possible, I'd certainly have done it for those two. (WT-en) Pashley 23:56, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Having just instituted a rare and very temporary page protection on the much-vandalized Gay and lesbian travel page, in response to a particularly persistent vandal, I am now coming to the position that the existing policies might (I'm honestly not sure) indeed be sufficient. However, to use those policies, one must be able to find them. It took me a while poking around the policy pages to come up with a justification for using a 20-minute protection in this particular case. One reason for a vandalism policy page is to centralize and codify all that, even if the policy contains nothing original. I'm still not sure the existing suite of policies suffices, but either way, let's put 'em where we can find 'em. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:52, 22 November 2007 (EST)

 * That sounds reasonable. I also like that the page was protected as opposed to blocking the user, especially since it was just one page that they were after. – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:37, 22 November 2007 (EST)

 * Agree with Bill about the policy page. I dealt with this guy today and blocked one user account and two anons in the "battle", as they apparently just jumped to new IPs. I thought often about protecting the page, but decided at least this way I knew where they would be vandalizing. I really feel that there should be some off-site, private communications between admins about vandalism, so that we can voice concerns without tipping our hands, but hey, whatever. The problem is not that bad I hear (particularly if you don't deal with it). --(WT-en) OldPine 20:40, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Open proxies
I've been doing a bit of checking in connection with that incredibly persistent gay-travel vandal, and it's doing most if not all of its dirty work by way of an open proxy. This exact behavior is why many other wikis have adopted a no-open-proxy policy. Our goals are not necessarily the same as theirs, but should we consider going to this policy on the grounds that it's the least onerous way of dealing with the vandals? What are the down sides? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)

 * Downsides include a small amount of processor overhead on the servers and a small bit of bandwidth overhead for WT. From the idividual user's side I can not really think of any downsides as there really is no reason why anyone should need to connect to WT completely anonymously. Banning open proxies has been common practice for years on most open to the public services that are susceptible to abuse; irc (Internet Relay Chat) is a good example of a service that generally ban them by default --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 23:56, 25 November 2007 (EST)

 * That sounds reasonable... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:22, 26 November 2007 (EST)

 * The mood was quite different on this topic over here, but having read up a bit on open proxies now, I'd support this too. If no one objects here after a while, we should bring this discussion over to shared, so that other language version users and IB see the discussion. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:45, 26 November 2007 (EST)

 * It seems that the idea over at shared was that we should wait until there is an overwhelming spam problem (as judged by some overwhelming majority I guess)--at least those who gave a reason used that. I guess that's measured against some experience that I don't have, because I'm ready now. --(WT-en) OldPine 15:24, 26 November 2007 (EST)
 * I've re-opened this on Shared. Let's see if that discussion gets legs, and if it does, try to do things consistent with a broad-community consensus; if not, continue it here and do what we decide locally is best, because this is getting ridiculous. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:05, 27 November 2007 (EST)

 * There is a fairly definite downside. Some contributors might need anonymity, or need a proxy to bypass censorship. For example, I live in China. There are things I write on Wikivoyage that the gov't here might not approve of. I've never felt it was necessary to contribute anonymously to protect myself, but others might or I might in the future. Also, the gov't here might block the site; it often blocks Wikipedia. If they did that then I'd either have to use proxy or stop contributing. (WT-en) Pashley 20:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

 * Wikipedia has dealt with this downside pretty well, I think. I would definitely support creating closed proxies for use on Wikivoyage if we go through with an open proxy ban. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)

 * Chuckle. Being in China, I can't read your Wikipedia link without a proxy. (WT-en) Pashley 21:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * New here but one of my "specialist subjects" elsewhere is vandalism on open proxies. I really do understand that there are places where proxies are essential and some very valid edits come from them.  However I also know that when the contributions are predominately vandalism quite a reduction can be achieved by blocking them.  Equally you tend to get rid of at least some of the bot created pages too.  Cheers --(WT-en) Herby  talk thyme 06:09, 8 January 2008 (EST)

 * Is it possible to block anon edits from open proxies while still allowing anon viewing and logged-in editing? I'm in China; if the gov't here decides to block us as they have Wikipedia, the only way I could either view or edit would be via a proxy. (WT-en) Pashley 09:06, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Move privileges
While goofing around with the usual suspects today, I got to thinking. Could we treat move privileges like we do recent changes patrol privileges? That is, users would only unlock move privileges after a certain period of time (10 days would work well, I think). This would make blocks effective (unlike now), as the blocked user would then need to re-register and wait a week and half before trying it again, and then we could just block them once more.

Virtually anything a vandal does on Wikivoyage can be cleaned up later with very little effort, except for these combinations of unwanted edits plus multiple moves. That is slower to clean up since it requires sorting out what actually happened to the original page. And it tends to mess up page histories more than the normal revertable edits (not that this is that big of a deal). But remove the moves from the equation and the job is far easier. Of course, this proposal requires some technical support, and it's been about half a year since the last time a feature request was actually implemented.

To be effective, this feature would also need to be accompanied by a rethink of our Project:How to handle unwanted edits policy on blocks to make it easier for admins to temp-ban move-abusing editors. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 05:45, 20 December 2007 (EST)

 * It is a pain undoing the moves, though it does have its detecting pleasures! Still, I'm not sure that reacting to a couple of juvenile pranksters is such a great idea. A simple addition to the policy that permits speedy temp-bans when an obvious act of vandalism using move is in progress should do the trick. While the move block is a good idea, protections are a slippery slope because new kinds of vandalism will lead to new (always incremental) forms of protection and these will keep chipping away at the openness of wikivoyage. I don't think we are at that point of desperation with move vandalism yet. I do notice that these guys are coming in more often but, hopefully, with schools closing for the winter break, they'll be on their way home to mom soon, and will return next semester as adults!--(WT-en) Wandering 10:00, 20 December 2007 (EST)

 * addition to the policy that permits speedy temp-bans when an obvious act of vandalism using move is in progress - support. ~ 203.144.143.4 10:56, 20 December 2007 (EST)

 * I'd support Peter's original suggestion of 10 - 15 days before move privileges kick in... that's kind of a swell idea – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:58, 24 December 2007 (EST)

 * Me too. After the pain of cleaning up after the last bozo, I thought of suggesting restricting moves to admins, but I really don't like that solution — sure, it would solve the problem but it goes against the basic desire for openness. This is a much better solution. (WT-en) Pashley 15:12, 24 December 2007 (EST)

 * Move vandalism, for the time being, seems to be confined to two users (could be the same user?). Methinks the reaction is too strong. A simpler approach would be to automatically block a user for two hours after two moves of genuine pages, increasing the length of the block as the serial nature of the vandalism evolves. It's not like the move privilege is being misused in a big way.--(WT-en) Wandering 18:33, 24 December 2007 (EST)
 * On the other hand, a quick scan of the move log over the last few months shows that it has never been used by a new user for a non-vandal move. In which case, the waiting period for move privileges is not, in practical terms, changing the openness of wikivoyage. I guess I move to the let's do it column!--(WT-en) Wandering 23:22, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Any objections to the setting up of a page where contributors who can't move pages (ie anonymous users now, new users if the changes proposed above are made, and also anyone who thinks a page move is probably appropriate but isn't 100% certain or maybe isn't confident about doing it themselves) can propose page moves? ~ 203.144.143.6 02:15, 25 December 2007 (EST)

 * yep, the talk page for that article is the best place to discuss moving it if youre unsure... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 13:58, 27 December 2007 (EST)

 * Actually, I hate the idea of waiting periods. The auto-patrol feature is, in my opinion, ridiculous too.  I think the best option would be to have bureaucrats or admins be given an extra button that will allow us to flip off the move privileges or turn on the auto-patrol feature for certain users.  I think that would be a little more wiki of us, because someone would propose to the community that a certain user's move privileges be revoked and after a discussion and consensus then a bureaucrat could revoke such privileges.  A waiting period, is ridiculous because if someone comes along and notices a misspelling in the name of an article he/she could sign up and fix the problem, but not if he/she has to wait 10/15/30 days for the privileges. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:04, 27 December 2007 (EST)

 * I favor admins being able to block moves for one or two hours on their own initiative after two vandal moves. Permanent or long-term bans and unbans should be by consensus.

 * Since Sapphire brought it up, I believe RC auto-patrol is now nearly moot as scarcely anyone is marking edits as patrolled. Thus we are making redundant checks and nobody knows if we are being thorough. --(WT-en) OldPine 19:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)

 * Since we're on the subject of marking edits as patrolled (I know, should be a separate question and not here!), what is the general policy. Is one supposed to mark an edit as patrolled only after cross-checking the info (does the hotel exist sort of thing) or always if the edit looks genuine? Also, I hate the fact that the "undo" does not automatically mark the edit as patrolled (I know that rollback does but what if we're undoing a non-vandal edit that needs, um, undoing?).--(WT-en) Wandering 19:55, 27 December 2007 (EST)

 * Not sure there is consensus on that. Different people want different levels of checking. The take I took is that we are patrolling for vandalism, including false info to some degree. Formatting, spelling, etc, are up to the individual. See discussion at: Project:Recent changes patrol. On the undo, I usually try to go back and mark it patrolled, and agree it's a pain. I believe it was put in as a tech request already. --(WT-en) OldPine 20:02, 27 December 2007 (EST)

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

title: Wikivoyage talk:Community policies