User talk:Erik den yngre Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. Ypsilon (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Erik, thanks for all your great work! I posted one thing in an edit summary that I wanted to make sure you saw: Current policy on this site is that Wikipedia is linked to only once per article, at the end, and on the same subject as the Wikivoyage article (usually a particular town or city). Have a look at Wikivoyage's external links policy at your leisure.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of that, but I often find it more effective to point readers to a specific Wikipedia page. In addition, some topics (such as Driving) does not have a matching Wikipedia article. Best --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

If there's no Wikipedia page that matches the subject, none can be linked unless there's a consensus for an exception, so please discuss these things in the specific talk page for the article and attempt to gain a consensus before including such links. In the particular instance I deleted, I doubt there's a compelling reason to link to a Wikipedia article about Norwegian road signs, but if there is, the link should be at the end of the article and not an inline link in-text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will try to be more accurate in the future. In the case of road signs I think that is relevant as many overseas visitors may not be familiar with Norwegian/European style signs, in addition there are a few signs specific to Norway. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's reasonable for you to link to that article at the bottom of the page the way you're doing it now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Erik - apologies if I caused any edit conflicts for you, but I wanted to make sure the new article you created had an appropriate template and reflected a subject that is covered by WV:What is an article before you got too far along in your editing (mountain ranges generally aren't given their own articles, but national parks do get an article). In the future, when you create a new article you can automatically populate the article with a template by clicking the appropriate template link from the top of the "create new article" page (city, park, region, etc). I'll stay away from the Rondane National Park‎‎ article now and let you work - thanks for contributing! -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Wrh2: No problem. The Rondane article was created as a spin-off from Hiking in the Nordic countries, because Rondane is an important hiking area as well as an important national park. In practice, Norwegians don't distinguish between Rondane mountain range and Rondane NP. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

	The Wikivoyage Barncompass
	For a long history of valuable contributions to Norwegian articles, please have a barncompass! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

We do not use attribution in the captions of photos, unless the photographer is of interest for specific reasons. The image in question is licensed with CC-BY-SA, with the comment "you will have to give attribution in a reasonable manner", which is about the same as what is stated in the licence itself (indeed, additional requirements are not allowed in connection with the CC licences).

The licence also states: "at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit". This means that if we credit some photographer in the caption, we have to credit all photographers that use a similar licence (most do), including e.g. me. I think it is much better to keep the attributions on the image description pages.

--LPfi (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, but the way I understand it the photographer should be credited whenever the image is used, for instance in an article (image caption), not merely on the image description page. This I think is standard practice on Norwegian WP. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is a choice to be made. I do not remember stumbling over any other image over here having attribution in the caption. On Swedish Wikipedia there are some photographers who would like such attribution and a couple more people respecting such wishes (if stated on the image description pages), but consensus is that the (common) licences do not require them – the description page is a "reasonable manner" – and that we prefer not cluttering the captions. As attributing some photographers would mandate us to attribute most, my solution is to remove images of those insisting on attribution in the caption. --LPfi (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is customary on Norwegian WP to use the byline-template when the photographer asks for an attribution, that is to make it visible in the article not only on the commons (description) page, byline is usually in small or very small print to avoid clutter. It is also customary to use byline when photos has been released from archives and museums, or when the original photographer is famous (not relevant on Wikivoyage). I suggest we put in hold for while. I put a question on Norwegian WP, so we can wait and see what the opinion is. --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. Noting the name of famous painters and photographers is common also on sv-wp, it is having attributions in every caption that worries me (the attribution with small text is common in newspapers, but they neither have the option of hyperlinks, nor of separate pages for attribution). I think that if we are going to change our style here, then it is a question for the travellers' pub. I prefer the style used here and at Swedish Wikipedia, but if something turns up at no-wp, I'm ready to listen. --LPfi (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Attributions in NO-WP (except for famous artists) is only used when the contributor specifically requests it on the commons page with "some righs reserved", this is a curtosy to the photographer. Personally I dont want my photos to have attributions in the article itself. So I dont suggest adding attributions to every image, only when specifically requested. WV of course does not have the same policies as WP, so perhaps invite a general discussion here on WV? As you point out, attribution is most important outside the Wiki family where the image is not linked to Commons. So perhaps it is not a big deal. --Erik den yngre (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem with this approach is that the CC licences, which are very commonly used, already state "at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit". This means anyone licensing their images with the CC licences could expect being mentioned in a caption, if that is how we credit (some other) photographers – without any additional language. Only crediting some in that way (in this case: on specific demand) will create a situation where some are more equal than others.

Think of a famous photographer licensing some of her images as CC-BY-SA on her web page, somebody copying them to Commons, someone else adding them to an article and her reading the article, with all other photos attributed to somebody, but hers being (seemingly) anonymous. Explaining that we use the image description pages for attribution could work otherwise, but hardly if some other photographers are attributed in the captions. At the very least we will legally have to attribute all or none of the photos in a single article or set of articles (with the exception of those explicitly allowing not being attributed as prominently as others, e.g. the CC-zero folks). Having different policies in different projects should be unproblematic, but otherwise the "set of articles" is hard to define.

--LPfi (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

(back to margin) Hmm. I don't see it that way. And the consensus on Norwegian WP (WP is of course a separate project) is that if the photographer specifically requests an attribution, then the byline template (created for that purpose) is used. To me this appears mostly as matter of courtesy rather than a strict legal issue. When some photographer releases photos and politely asks for an attribution, adding a byline in small print is fine way to acknowledge the photographer's effort and skill. I don't want to discourage contributions to Commons by not giving photographers the credit they expect. For instance one user on commons requests "Please credit this photo Nina Aldin Thune in the immediate vicinity of the image." Further, I don't see any problem in apparent inconsistency within one article. On NO-WP for instance it is common that some photos have byline others not. Perhaps we should post a question to Traveller's Pub to clarify policy within Wikivoyage (instead of copying the NO-WP consensus)? --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I understand the no-wp practice to be just courtesy. At least for CC-BY* licensed works the request cannot have any legal bearing. The legal problem arises from other photographers not being treated equally. If all other images are PD, licensed with CC-zero or similar this is not a problem, but otherwise, how do you avoid upsetting the professional photographer in my example above? --LPfi (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to jump in, but I've been following this discussion from afar and agree that if a photographer is requesting attribution beyond what is normally provided, the right solution is to just find another image. As LPfi states, it isn't fair to only give special prominence to some authors but not others. If desired the Mediawiki software could probably be updated to automatically append the author's name to an image, but if it's simply an issue of an author not liking the way they are attributed, then instead of either invoking legal arguments or giving special credit to some authors, we should treat everyone the same and just not use images where that isn't possible. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The easy solution is to find other images. Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Easy is not the same as right. BushelCandle (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The fact that we are using this image as a thumbnail, directly linked to the attribution is not sufficient? If not, then no, don't link it. But you might contact the photographer first and see if he has any objection to his image being used in this manner without a specific credit in the caption. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've attempted to re-write the Get In/ Stay Safe sections, but would appreciate a second set of eyes.

I apologise if the tone is a bit strong, but your comments on the talk page focused attention.

Nearly all the listings are clearly "tourist" sites, and ideally this should be a policy for the article(s) if they continue.

The article should certainly mention 'Caving' (i.e the Specialist side) but should in my view not list any specfic sites, referring enquires in that areas to the appropriate dedicated organisations for the detailed information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Erik. The user Ypsilon suggested I'll ask for your help with this... I just finished a major improvement I've been wanting to make in the Oslo city district articles for a while - based on this map I created six different "mapmasks" that I am hoping will help the readers understand much better now where each city district is located exactly and what exists within that boundary. After adding the mapmasks I noticed that some points of interest were located in the wrong city district article.... so I fixed those.

Please go over my work, and let me know if the new mapmasks are correct. Please let me know if you notice any mistakes and I'll re-do the mapmasks according to your best judgement. (if possible please upload an image file that explains exactly what changes need to be made). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Oslo. However, I'm a little confused by the context of that statement. Is it unacceptable when it contributes to negativity? Or is use of the word considered inappropriate in any circumstances? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The term "race" is not used about humans in Norway and is regarded as inappropriate bordering on the offensive. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Makes sense, just very different from how the term is used here in the U.S. so I wanted to make sure there wasn't a specific context that was missing in the sentence. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the sentence needs more context for clarity? I am aware that the term in used in the US for instance by the census bureau. In Norway it is OK to say a person is of somali or japanese origin. Erik den yngre (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the Norway article, I don't see it mentioned. So while a sentence or two about the topic is definitely justified at Oslo, I'm wondering if it would be better to include the majority of the information in Norway with the most context. I think the context would be helpful in the country article, at least. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I noted Vkem is adding Norgestaxi to several destinations in Norway. Does it have such a market position that this is justified? I think listing the company on the country page would be enough even if they are a dominant player countrywide, but if it is listed as the only taxi business in a city where their market share is small, then I think this is touting and betraying our readers. I don't know the Norwegian situation, though, and I don't know what logic the user has in adding such listings (probably the company's information and a bot, but hopefully also some manual checking). –LPfi (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: NorgesTaxi operates in several main cities in Norway and the major national operator. The same user added Taxikurir to Sweden articles and Taksi Häme to Finland articles. Seems like all these are owned by Cabonline corporation. --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is now a discussion in the pub: Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#National taxi operators. –LPfi (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nothing related to Wikivoyage, but if you're interested in it, you might want to add your vote at m:Requests for comment/Rename no.wikipedia to nb.wikipedia. Just a proposal to rename the Norsk Wikipedia from nowiki to nbwiki. Cheers, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noted "not in Molde".

We don't treat "city" articles in that way; city articles are not only about the city, but about all the area around them that isn't covered in other articles. The listing for Trollkyrkja is in Molde#Out of town. As there isn't any closer lowest-level destination article and it is reasonable to visit the cave in connection to a visit to Molde (some 20 km?), that is the right place to have the listing. Having listings in region articles is only a last resort.

We shouldn't say that Trollkyrkja is in the town of Molde, and we didn't, we said "north of Molde". In the same spirit, the Ä´vv Skolt Sámi museum in Neiden and Øvre Pasvik National Park are both covered in Kirkenes although they are far from the town.

–LPfi (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand that. Tourists can certainly visit Trollkyrkja cave as a trip from Molde, or from any village nearby. But for this part of Norway it makes much more sense to view such sights at the regional level. The typical trip is a loop by car where towns like Molde are mostly dots along the road. Trollkyrkja is a small thing and not very important, but for large landscape features such as Romsdalen the Wikivoyage logic is even more strange: Romsdalen is not a thing in or near Åndalsnes/Romsdalen, it is the other way around. Landscape features such as Romsdalen, Romsdalsfjorden, Trollstigen etc dominates the region and should be listed at the regional level. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply