Logo Voyage

Talk:Camino de Santiago Voyage Tips and guide

You can check the original Wikivoyage article Here

Comments

[edit]

    Hello, I just wanted to leave a note for whoever else might be interested in editing this page. After doing the Camino de Santiago in 2007, I thought a wiki-style guidebook would be preferable to carrying a bulky travel book whose information might be limited or out-of-date.

    I'd like to encourage other Peregrinos to make additions here, whether they did the Camino in the past or are doing it currently. I would love to see corrections and additions from people live, as they are doing the camino!

    Buen Camino! --LBP 11:28, 15 September 2009 (EDT)

    That article is at the head of European Itineraries, but hasn't been edited since May 24th, 2010 (not counting my edit). Is that fine? I would then make it a redirect. --(WT-en) rfilmyer 17:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

    Yes, it should be a redirect, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 17:12, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

    The French way

    [edit]

    I think the linking to Routes to Santiago de Compostela from France and French Way is quite confusing, especially when the articles themselves do not explain what exactly they are about (the latter also shares some copied info with this article). As I understand it the latter tries to cover the route from Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port (just across the border to Spain), while the former should handle the routes to there or Col du Somport (from Paris, Vézelay, Le Puy and Arles). All three articles should be slightly rewritten to reflect that intention (unless some other solution is better). --LPfi (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

    [edit]

    Some of the edits seen here are lifted directly from https://www.pilgrim.es/en. For example, I did a search on "The Silver Route was the main path used by the Christian pilgrims during the Muslim domination of Spain." and turned up https://www.pilgrim.es/en/the-silver-route/. There is no good reason to use the phrase "during the Muslim domination of Spain", which reads strangely in English. How about "This was the most popular route during the period when Muslims ruled Spain"?

    Meanwhile, it is essential for all copy-pasted content to be deleted. User:Marcosgonzalez, since you added the content, could you please fix the copyright problems? If not, anyone else will need to either fix the problem or just remove the text in question to save time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

    Also the map seems to be the same as on that site. Are you the author, as claimed on the description page at Wikimedia Commons? Otherwise it probably has to be deleted. --LPfi (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    The simplest thing to do is just revert to the last known good version. Would you support that, or is there another clean alternative you're confident has no copyright violation? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    As the person does not seem to answer, reverting seems to be the easiest solution. I'd not support deleting though; the changes can be incorporated in rephrased form and I am not terribly worried about small copivios hidden in the history. I filed a deletion request at Commons for the maps and elevation profiles. --LPfi (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    What do you mean by not supporting deleting? Deleting the copyvio from the history? That's unnecessary, I think? I thought we rarely deleted article histories unless the article started as a copyvio, necessitating the deletion of the article. The only exceptions I can think of had to do with doxxing or extremely obscene or threatening language or usernames. Anyway, I will make the reversion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    OK. That is what I think is the right way to do it. I have been involved in discussions (on sv-wp) where some think copyvios need to be deleted; I just wanted to make sure. --LPfi (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure, but I think this has been our practice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Good. It is on sv-wp. --LPfi (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

    Templates / GPX

    [edit]

    I started inputting villages with markers, and sleep/eat/do templates so they will show up on a map and GPX files. OSMAnd started incorporating guidebooks from WikiVoyage so will hopefully make using the guide easy.--Clevercamel (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

    Change main title to Camino de Santiago?

    [edit]

    The main Wikipedia article for this itinerary is the Camino de Santiago. At least from what I know, a majority of English guide books and travelers would call this route as the Camino de Santiago, and that was the original reason they changed the title over there since 2010. Do you think we should apply it here? --Othello95 (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Whenever I read "The Way of St. James", I have to remind myself that it means the Camino de Santiago. I think the English version is becoming archaic. Ground Zero (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    If the Spanish is the most used name in English, nowadays, I don't see any reason to keep the English version as the title. Keep redirects and mention it in the lead (and in some of the places from where it is linked, as appropriate), and I think that'd be it. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Apparently there is already an article named "Camino de Santiago", which is actually redirected to "Way of St. James". I unfortunately cannot request a change or reversal back to the name. It would be great if you can help me, as an administrator. Othello95 (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. It seems an independent article was created by that name and later redirected. The contents before the redirection were Camino de Santiago and Way of St. James respectively. I could move the former to Camino de Santiago/2009-2011 so that the edit histories don't get mixed up, or does somebody have better ideas? –LPfi (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This all goes back to the era of Wikitravel in 2011, so I think we can 'banish' the former (which looks more like a stub for me than an outline) to a placeholder page like you suggested, since AFAIK articles can't be deleted, and nothing should link to this page. We can then redirect the latter to "Camino de Santiago". That's my opinion. Othello95 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See #Merge in Camino de Santiago? above: it seems content from there could have been merged in, although I don't see such edits. If content was merged, we cannot delete the article, otherwise we could, but I think keeping it as suggested is better for transparency (such as avoiding making the mentioned talk page section confusing) and I see no harm in keeping it. LPfi (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
    also in favor of changing the name of the article to Camino de Santiago. "Way of St. James" uses almost no English speaking pilgrim on the routes. 80.187.73.12 17:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I reverted User:WikiPate's cut&paste move and did the move as outlined above. However, the edits done after the cut and paste seems to have got lost. I did restore them but I cannot see them in the history (they were a day→time and a comment on holy years). Perhaps they appear when I have got some sleep, but if somebody can hunt them down, that'd be fine. –LPfi (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply


    Discover



    Powered by GetYourGuide