User talk:Admin

From CruisersWiki

Revision as of 14:29, 18 March 2016

ADMIN'S TALK PAGE.

Contributors and navigation bars in table form

I have tested a bot for these to re-implement them in a template form. If there are no objections I'll proceed with conversion --Vadim 11:56, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Are these templates different from what we have been installing recently? If these are different can we see an example of them?--Istioploos 13:34, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

The templates are the same. See, for example, Evros Lakki Marina for changes --Vadim 13:54, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

I did see them yesterday. They are very good. No objections from me. --Istioploos 15:26, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

As there are no any other comments, I'm launching the bot --Vadim 13:53, 10 March 2016 (GMT)

Your Assistance Template

This is a good change and removes the unsightly addition to the TOC. Bravo! --Istioploos 13:41, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

You're welcome! --Vadim 13:56, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Suggested templates

I've took liberty to move this section to Talk:World_Cruising_and_Sailing_Wiki#Suggested_tem as it closely follows previous sections there --Vadim 17:40, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

Canal icon in "Dest"

Vadim, I uploaded . I tried to add this in {{Dest legend}} but it was too complicated and I gave up. If you can take a look, and if you do not mind, it may be educational for me to see how to do it. --Istioploos 14:51, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Done --Vadim 15:45, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, I see it and also saw how you did it. I was afraid to do it not been clear on the interaction of the 3 templates. Thank you. By the way, I modified the icon to make it more centered. I upload the modified version but as with many images it does not show right away. --Istioploos 18:05, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

POIs

Vadim, I tried to "modernize" a passage page and I realized that the existing {{poi}} templates do not meet all needs. Specifically:

• regular Poi s are h4 but there are several places that one need h5 with smaller letters (otherwise having the same parameters & behavior)
• inline Poi s need to be expanded to a type that shows the coords and when clicked goes to the chartlet that is similar to normal poi s but inline. These are in all passage pages
• it would be nice if in addition to anchorages & berths we had a harbor poi category.

Could we do these expansions? --Istioploos 23:33, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

I found Poi5 that I had made some time ago. I modified it to be similar to Poi. I am sure that it can be improved. Also I it can be used inline with the "inline" parameter. For this usage please see Aegean to West Mediterranean Passages. --Istioploos 13:53, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

Vasilis, there is already Template:Mark was introduced with a new version of Template:Poi. I've amended Aegean to West Mediterranean Passages to employ them there.

I was not aware of "Mark", it looks good, very handy for Passages.

No problem with harbor poi category. Do you have a sample page for it and an icon?

How about the ?

I'd say it's acceptable. By the way how is about using INT-1 icons? --Vadim 12:20, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Vasilis, for 2 types you've added to POIs you'd need also to find some icons for a chartlet. They are different from ones at a page. I used brown icons there because otherwise they are completely lost among Navionics charts markup. You may also want to have a look at other map icons at Wikimedia --Vadim 18:27, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

I am somewhat confused. Do we need 2 sets of icons: one for regular wiki pages and the other for display on chartlet? If so, we could make existing page icons brown for chartlet. How many do we need? --Istioploos 19:12, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, Navionics chart is too colored, so colorful icons which displayed at an article would be lost there (you may notice they use marina symbol for every anchorage). I found these brown ones are still quite recognisable if they put above a Navionis chart. Are you able to suggest any other options? --Vadim 09:50, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

There is also Template:Geo which was designed a geographical position only, without almost any other visual effect at a page, but it creates a marker at a chartlet.

I tried to use but it gives me an error "Template:Listing". Tried including a listing parameter but no joy. Will this put a mark on the chartlet? Is it invisible in the page where it is included?

It needs to be fixed --Vadim 20:58, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

By the way, wouldn't you mind if I move this section to User talk:Admin? --Vadim 17:49, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

Certainly I do not mind. This is your page. --Istioploos 20:46, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

The changes (poi3 -> poi) in Anchorages of Chios Island have garbled the TOC. For instance Avloniá is displayed as being part of Elyndas which is definitely not the case. We need someway or another to control the heading level of a Poi as we do with headers (h3, h4, h5).--Istioploos 14:20, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

This is because infoboxes were used there instead of POIs. Have a look Anchorages of Chios Island --Vadim 15:30, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Also at Anchorages of Chios Island#Angelia, Salagonas, Trachilia, & Kato Faná section Template:coord is replaced with Template:mark with altname parameter --Vadim 17:04, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

I am looking at Vadim's new changes in Anchorages of Chios Island. First impression is good but there new problems now. I used before the inboxes to provide image, coords, chartlet, and panoramio. The poi replacement looses the last and creates a new problem. The chartlet now do not zoom properly. The "mapzoom" parameter from infobox has to be changes to "zoom". Maybe it was our mistake to have "mapzoom" in some templates and "zoom" in others.

Another problem introduce by these changes is readability. New lines (NL) within the Poi text are suppressed. This is a "new feature".

On the good side the "alt name" parameters is a good addition. --Istioploos 19:12, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Waypoints

Is there a way for "Mark" to operate without the name parameter? Often one just wants an anonymous waypoint. --Istioploos 18:28, 12 March 2016 (GMT)

I think it could be done with Template:Geo, which I stil need to fix. Do you have a sample of such a waypoint? --Vadim 12:15, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

No, Template:Geo does not do what I want in Passage pages. Need the Template:Mark or an equivalent with the visual mark and display of coordinates but without a name. --Istioploos 12:52, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

As discussed Template:Mark is an inline version of Template:Poi with a name. Template:Geo will be altered to not display a name, but I feel strongly that any pir of coordinates needs some kind of ID --Vadim 13:13, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

I agree with you for most cases but on a passage there can be waypoints in the middle of the water that have no name. Yet, the showing of the coordinates there is very important. --Istioploos 14:08, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

After some investigation I have to say "waypoints must have names":

• Template:Poi needs names to create a proper structure for microformats
• Chartlet uses KML format, where placemarks must have names
• Same for "Download KML" feature
• Last, but not the least: a chartplotter at your boat also has manes for waypoints

Actually this is not that bad: you can assing some simple names to them (like wp1) and then even make a reference to them in an article's text. See Hout Bay#Approach and Gulf of Aden#Passage Details (1) for examples --Vadim 16:35, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Ok, you have convinced me. wp1 etc it is. Sorry it too this long. --Istioploos 18:12, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Changes to templates

It would be quite reasonable to coordinate changes to templates otherwise it will become unmanageable mess --Vadim 13:09, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, you are right. Are you willing to be the coordinator on this? That is if one of us wants to make a change on a template to check with you first? --Istioploos 14:10, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Let's try to discuss these things first at this page, like we already done for some other templates --Vadim 18:22, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

POI types

Having Template:Poi harbour type introduced by Istioploos I realised that I didn't explain my choise of types in the design I implemented in this template. This especially concerns type berth. Here I've tried to follow INT 1 categories of IHO standard S-4 as expalined at OpenStreetMap wiki. In this sence marina symbol includes any berth with facilities including ones at harbours -- to avid confusion instead of marina I used berth for POI type in this case.

Harbour is an upper category in the hierarchy, which may include a number of berthing options (like it happens, for example, in Italy). So in this sence harbour type should be used only when a POI describes a location with multiple berthing options, like a port.

In some place it's quite difficult to distinguish between a marina proper and a berth at a harboour, hence was my choise --Vadim 19:08, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

In my mind at least there is a distinction between "harbor" or "port" and "marina". A harbor is an enclosed port providing shelter from the waves. It may or may not house a marina. Many harbors have no more facilities than a quay. Some have moorings, some do not and you have to anchor. Some municipal harbors are operated bare bone marinas.

A marina on the other hand is organized, has personal, and has many facilities such as WC, fuel, water, electricity, a yard, stores etc it is also expensive. Many marinas also provide some security. In our wiki we often have different pages for ports and marinas.

I do not care whether we call them "harbour" or "berths". But we already have a split between POIs and Dest. --Istioploos 19:29, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

More on POIs

The use of POIs instead of "===" (headers) removes localized "Edit" buttons and you have to edit the whole page rather then a section. This will make editing much harder for new members.

They also scrabble newlines (NL) in their "text". I suspect this happens when there are {{mark}} with the text i.e. "Poi | text = .... {{mark| ...}} ..."

--Istioploos 20:03, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

This dreaded issue with newlines was fixed eventually. Thanks for pointing it out. In return I'm offering a different layout for Anchorages of Chios Island#Angelia, Salagonas, Trachilia, & Kato Faná. I hope you'll enjoy it --Vadim 17:16, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

The Anchorages of Chios Island page now looks very good. Still the lack of "Edit" buttons is a problem. Let us think some more about this page before we implement similar changes to others. --Istioploos 18:21, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

Galleries

Once we are here. at the Anchorages of Chios Island. The 2 column galleries did no look there quite smooth. Have a look at my version of "emulated gallery" which has a variable width which follows a screen size --Vadim 19:45, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

I personally prefer the old version of galleries because they allow more control. For example with 4 images one can freeze them in 2 X 2 display (2 /row). The flexible one can change to an ugly 3 top and 1 bottom. --Istioploos 11:54, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

For me 2x2 arrangement looks ugly on a wide screen. It's almost like 1 column of image at the centre of a page. That's why I've suggested an alternative -- we need to think how other readers use this wiki --Vadim 12:49, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

As we say in Greece "You cannot account for everyone tastes". I will go with the consensus (if anyone else bothers). If not, I will leave to to the taste of page's main contributor. --Istioploos 13:26, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

In pages that I have added galleries I used the following rules:

1. no more then 3/row (i.e. either 2X2 or 3X3)
2. if there the last image is all by itself, I use a separate gallery so that it is centered under the others above it. --Istioploos 13:26, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Can I tip in here? I favour a gallery width that fits to the page width, otherwise it looks very odd. I've spent quite a bit of time changing image sizes manually to get them to fit the page width and it would be great is this were automated. However, if it is not to look daft, a gallery should, I suggest, be at least three landscape or four portrait photos per row - otherwise the photos look better down the r/h side, as on most standard pages. I actually think that the Anchorages of Chios Island page looks a mess in layout terms. Sorry, but that's the result of 25 years in marketing and public relations. --Athene of Lymington 15:04, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Godron, It would be great if you'd make a copy of Anchorages of Chios Island and change it per your taste. Perhaps we'll find some common grounds there.

Please do so Gordon but on a separate copy. Then we can see what you mean. --Istioploos 18:31, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

As a matter of fact Anchorages of Chios Island is not good for yet another reason: it's chartlet shows only anchorages, but apparently a reader needs an integral view of this location: to see the other POIs there as well. I would rather split the island into 2-3 parts. Each of them would give more or less complete view of the respective territory --Vadim 16:46, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Originally there was a single page for Chios. I spilt it into 3: Chios, Chios Ports, and Anchorages of Chios Island because the wiki complained that it was too long. I did this to few other pages as well. My personal preference is to have a single page per island and then have separate pages for large ports and marinas. What do you people think on this issue? --Istioploos 18:31, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

I've done a copy of the Chios anchorages page [1] (can't resist a challenge). I've been ruthless in deleting some of the photos that don't add anything to the reader's understanding and removing all the arguably irrelevant headings at the bottom. I've also followed the principle of larger photos in the galleries with a maximum of three landscape (or four portrait) as I've suggested elsewhere. While it's not an ideal page to demonstrate the effect of layout improvements, I hope it will give you an idea. Meanwhile, I agree with Vasilis on the island/port/marina hierarchy but anchorages have always been a conundrum. Usually they are incorporated on the nearest port page, but I recognize that some cruisers avoid harbours and want to go from anchorage to anchorage, so there is a valid argument for a separate anchorages page. A very crude example, I know, but could something like [2], which I prepared for the Pakleni Islands - but with much more detailed infoboxes - be a possible solution? --Athene of Lymington 18:55, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Gordon, I am sorry but it looks terrible in any but a very large display. I looked at it with a 26" monitor, a 12" MacBook, an iPad, and iPhone. It only looks descent on the 26" if you make a large window that covers most of the screen. That is caused by the large 3X3 photos. I also object to the removal of the Mavra Volia picture this is one the loveliest beeches in the Aegean and has considerable archaeological interest.

I also did look at your Pakleni Islands Google map. True I, as have said before, am not a great fun of Google maps but this one is very bad. The pin icons are crude and totally obscure the island. Please compare this to the elegant annotated chartlet of Lipsi prepared recently by Vadim.

Finally you have removed the "Personal Notes" section where we seem to have agreed to provide in all pages. --Istioploos 23:03, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, you're right - I hadn't tried it on a smaller display. What it does prove, I think, is that Vadim's idea of a gallery that scales automatically to the page width is the correct approach. Also, I agree that the Navionics-based chartlet is a great improvement on Google Maps - I wasn't actually advocating the Pakleni Islands as a model, since I recognise it's crude, but rather the approach (on which we seem to have a consensus). Sorry about the Mavra Volia picture, but I do feel that most anchorage photos look the same and are only worth including if they show the overall configuration (e.g. an aerial shot) or notable features or hazards. However, that's a personal view; I'm simply not keen on encouraging our editors (once we get some!) to post snapshots of their boats at anchor. Of course, the removal of Personal Notes was an oversight and I've put it back. --Athene of Lymington 09:42, 16 March 2016 (GMT)

I too, made a new test version at Anchorages of Chios Island that addresses some of these concerns. I think that as Gordon has pointed out breaking up in the way the page for Chios island, although I did it, leaves a lot to be desired. Open for suggestions. --Istioploos 12:33, 16 March 2016 (GMT)

I think that's a good discussion so far. I would also agree with Athene of Lymington that "Mavra Volia" image is not that informative, same is about "The anchorage in Kato Fana". Also "Mavra Volia" image at the Istioploos version is stays separately rather in a group with other 3 images there.

My main suggestion though is to split the whole list of anchorages into 3-4 groups, like North, SE, SW -- whatever. The 2nd thing that this article lists only anchorages -- so marina/ harbour etc. there.

As for a sample of a Google map I'll dare to show mine version [3]. Gordon might remember it --Vadim 14:22, 16 March 2016 (GMT)

No, I hadn't seen the Kornati map - with the addition of text summaries about the various anchorages, it's exactly what I have in mind. Although of course it's much better if we can accomplish this using the Navionics charts. I still think that, since we're on an island as the example, it's better to have details of nearby anchorages on the port pages, as at present, so that cruisers can check them out as alternative moorings, as well as having a separate page just listing the anchorages. I tend to think that separating this out into sections, as Vadim suggests, would only apply with large islands, where the page would otherwise get very lengthy e.g. Corfu, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily etc. Finally, on this vexed layout question, my own principal aversion is to large white spaces (which look like errors), which are created by placing photos in the centre of a page rather than down the r/h side or in a gallery that doesn't fill the width of the page. As an example, take [4]. Don't you agree that looks much cleaner and neater than the Chios island page? --Athene of Lymington 15:52, 16 March 2016 (GMT)

I think, after this lengthy discussion, Vadim has the right idea. What about if we combine Chios, Chios Ports, and Anchorages of Chios Island into one and the break as needed, into small pages (no embellishments save the bare essentials - open to discussion) of North, SE, SW (or something in that line) regions? This will then been the model for other islands like Leros that have also been broken into sub pages. I agree with Gordon in that it will be good for the main island page to be as comprehensive as possible.

The [5] is much, much better than the Pakleni Islands Google map because it avoid those ugly large pins. Still I prefer by far the annotated chartlet of Lipsi.

Finally I give up on the Mavra Volia pic. And I do agree with Gordon's "aversion is to large white spaces". Alas his [6] was the worst example of this that I have seen, because if you widen the page to see the large row of pics large white space you get. Now in general I do prefer pics to be on the right side but they MUST be next to the text that refers to them. I have been using the {{hold vertical}} to guarantee this and that does create white spaces (but does not widens the page). In my humble opinion that vastly preferable to pics far away from the relevant text or no pics at all. Enough said on this. Cheers. --Istioploos 02:32, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, but I'm afraid I don't agree with the principle that photos 'MUST be next to the text that refers to them'. That makes it impossible to achieve a sensible page layout and is the reason why there isn't a magazine in existence that adheres to that principle. That's why picture captions were introduced in the first place, and readers are perfectly accustomed to viewing photos detached from the text. --Athene of Lymington 09:59, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Sorry Gordon but once again I disagree with you. CruisersWiki is NOT a magazine but an online cruising guide. To read about an anchorage and then see it picture after several other anchorages may appeal aesthetically to an advertiser but is very confusing to the cruiser who is trying to plan a trip.--Istioploos 13:11, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

OK, Have a look at my edition of Chios: User:Vadim/Chios --Vadim 10:58, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I like this better than the split Chios. If we are to use this as model for island pages I have a few quibbles but let us decide on the principle first before getting to the details. Could this be a model for even larger islands?--Istioploos 13:11, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

If I look at it on a small device (in this case a Nexus 7) it looks fine. However, on a larger screen (12 inches upwards) the Hold vertical creates huge white spaces, which look awful. I don't know how we can get round this, but it's a shame if the Wiki looks fine on a small device but amateurish on a large one. --Athene of Lymington 13:59, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

It's better than the original, isn't? I've got 24" screen but usually don't stretch window full width. I think that's not right. In typography they would render the whole article in two colums in this case.

Perhaps right side thumbnails could be smaller as we have now a dynamic image display feature (aka lightbox).

By the way is it possible that you add extra ":" when you putting your answer --Vadim 14:27, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I suppose the real answer is text wrap round the photos - then it wouldn't matter which device you were viewing it on. For instance, the Hold vertical appears to do that on a small screen but on a larger one leaves the text hanging over a huge white space (which is why I've avoided it in the past). If one could insert photos and wrap text, it would solve both my and Vasilis' objections (assuming there was enough text to wrap, of course). I know how to do text wrap using DTP software but I'm not aware that you can do that on the Wiki - unless you know better? --Athene of Lymington 15:09, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

OK your turn then -- make a copy of Chios at DTP to show how it looks like . From my part I don't see a solution as the problem is that photos have more heigth than the corresponding section of text.

BTW the chart at User:Vadim/Chios works again, so you can see the POIs there --Vadim 15:53, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Fist of all let say that no website looks good if I use the full display on my 26" screen but User:Vadim/Chios is still better than [7] (which look bad on any window less then 17"). However if you make your window a reasonable 15" or use iPads and the likes it does look very good. Now I will shut up on this issue since there is plenty of other work to be done on CruisersWiki. --Istioploos 16:46, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I'm not avoiding the issue, but there's no point in trying a DTP solution if the Wiki won't support it. In any case, the text does wrap when viewed on a 7 inch screen, but the gaps open up as soon as you go to 12 inches and above, when the only solution IMHO is to either remove the Hold vertical or write more text. I've never had this problem, incidentally, with any of the Italy or Croatia pages - but then I'm not concerned if the text and photos don't line up since the photos are usually there for illustration rather than explanation. --Athene of Lymington 17:24, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Gordon, you're welcome to show your version for Chios. BTW how do you know that some of your DTP tricks are not possible to implement here? --Vadim 19:01, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

OK, Vadim, I've posted a version of the Chios page in the Comments section of your own test page (although I have a feeling I may regret it!). I haven't touched the copy and I haven't tested the page on a smaller screen. However, with those two provisos it's a reasonable indication of how I would go about laying out such a page. I've sourced more recent photos as well, since some of the existing ones are too small to line up properly.--Athene of Lymington 12:30, 18 March 2016 (GMT)

I've now tested it on a 7 inch and a 10 inch screen and the gallery is, as usual, the main problem. If my understanding is correct, namely that you can devise a gallery template that automatically scales to the screen of the device you are viewing it on, then it definitely gets my vote. --Athene of Lymington 12:41, 18 March 2016 (GMT)

Do you mean User_talk:Vadim/Chios? That was easy... You need to add all these ports and anchorages to the article --Vadim 14:09, 18 March 2016 (GMT)

I'm obviously missing something here. If you're asking me again how I would do it: well, I'd do a separate page for each port with a link on the island page. That's what I've done for the Italian and Croatian islands (q.v.). I'd also include information about each anchorage on the nearest port page in line with previous practice, as I've said elsewhere - though I agree that a page summarising all the anchorages on an island is a good idea. Sorry if this isn't the answer you wanted.--Athene of Lymington 14:29, 18 March 2016 (GMT)

Brown Icons

Yes, Navionics chart is too colored, so colorful icons which displayed at an article would be lost there (you may notice they use marina symbol for every anchorage). I found these brown ones are still quite recognisable if they put above a Navionis chart. Are you able to suggest any other options? --Vadim 09:50, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

Vadim, Let me know which icons from the existing ones in CruisersWiki that you want to use in the Navionics charts and I will make brown copies of them. --Istioploos 12:58, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

Not sure if it will help, but it might be instructive to take a look at MySea [[8]], which uses a very similar approach with a zoomable map and POIs in different colours. You need to register to get the full effect, then once you zoom into a port you can select different POIs from a menu. It's a nice approach, though at the moment MySea (like us) suffers from a certain lack of content. --Athene of Lymington 17:31, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

How is about putting INT-1 icons into POIs at wiki articles? Anyone is fancy to upload them here? --Vadim 19:05, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Are you suggesting replacing the exiting POI icons or using the INT-1 icons for marking chartlets?--Istioploos 20:41, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Not (yet), to start with instead of these ones: . On wiki pages --Vadim 14:04, 18 March 2016 (GMT)

TOC

I have noticed that the table of contents (TOC) in the Vector skin while does display as a sub menu lever 3 headers at least on my Mac Safari and o Firefox cannot click on them because they are separated by the drop down menu with a gap. This, of course, does not happen in MonoBook skin. For example of this see Sigacik Region. --Istioploos 18:41, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Done. Enjoy! --Vadim 13:13, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Sorry bot on my Mac. The gap persists with Vector. --Istioploos 13:55, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

You may need to clear the cache at your browser to see the effect --Vadim 14:52, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I tried it again (after ~3 hrs), on the same page without clearing the browser's cache and this time it worked! Bravo. --Istioploos 16:58, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Marina Info Template

The web parameter does not work. The example has the parameter but it does not display.

Also, if the address & phone are to go on the box so must the fax since the air is to eliminate ==Contacts==.

There is an extra "}" on the pic legend, see Template:Infobox_marina --Istioploos 01:38, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Stray "}" is gone. For web and fax parameters please check with Template:Infobox marina/doc source. They do work for me.

BTW it's quite a lengthy table, some of the parameters are optional, how is about to make even more parameters optional there? --Vadim 12:13, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, "Fax" now works and the "}" is gone. "Web" still does not show see Template:Infobox marina/doc.

web parameter goes to the infobox title.

Sorry, I missed that. It does work. --Istioploos 13:51, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Another peculiarity or feature. If you put "wifi= Yes", you also get, automatically "Internet= Yes" which logical, but if put BOTH "internet= Yes" & "wifi= Yes" you get "Internet= Yes Yes". --Istioploos 12:54, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I'd suggest to drop wifi completely and use internet with a proper wording, for example "internet= WiFi" --Vadim 13:37, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I suggest that we drop "internet" instead, since "WiFi" implies it and most marinas do not have cable only internet.--Istioploos 13:51, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Sometimes while WiFi is not awailable they have a PC in the office with a free/paid access to the Internet --Vadim 14:29, 17 March 2016 (GMT)