Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia Voyage Tips and guide

Archives Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia/Archive 2003–2012 Wikivoyage talk:Links to Wikipedia/Archive 2013–2018

Swept in from the pub

Contents

... this way, travellers have the opportunity to head to the WP article to find at least a little information. As long as we do not have an article ourself.

Would you agree with something like this? Could we make it a general rule? Example: Valles Calchaquíes.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a good idea, but it would take a lot of work because we have created so many markers for towns and cities. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's definitely no reason, I feel, to use listings over markers. However, it should be possible to add some code to the marker template so that, if there is no WV page, it displays a Wikipedia icon automatically. I'd be happy to work on that, but, coincidentally, there's an ongoing RFC on the cosmetic look of the Wikipedia icon in our listings that should be settled first. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

If wikidata id is present in the marker, should be able to get the appropriate language wikipedia entry... relying on the name parameter not so much as the article title in wikivoyage may differ from that of found in wikipedia... (from adding wikidata ids I noted that some have neither a wikidata id or a matching wikipedia article) just a thought. -- Matroc (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I guess it would be hard for the marker to identify whether the name is a WV link to an article or not, wouldn't it. But if we add the WP and WD functionality (I actually thought it was there in the past), we can add this information gradually. Never was there the need to do everything at once.

Also, I would not treat markers and listings different in this sense, by just having the WD id, and deriving WP somehow. Furthermore, many markers now have the WD id, so adding WP would not be so difficult and could even be achieved through a script. @Andree.sk:, would you be able to achieve something like this?

Everything that needs to be changed is that the marker also displays the WP link, if it is available. But, on second thought, if it could be achieved, showing the WP link based on the WD id if there is no WV article sounds also like a good approach. What do you guys think?

Either way, I think the travellers would appreciate more information on-site. And we would push the importance of the Wikimedia Network by keeping users in the network instead of letting them find the information through Google or such.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ceever, Matroc: Please take a look at Valles Calchaquíes now. I've made an experimental change to the marker template to do what I proposed. To see the cases where it would apply, see special:permalink/3749906; as that page shows, the icon will appear only in one specific case. As soon as a Wikivoyage article is created for one of these destinations, the Wikipedia icon will disappear. Any thoughts? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ARR8: Looks marvellous. I believe this could be a good solution.

The only other case I would cover as well, would be where there is not WV link (weather dead or alive) at all, but a WD reference (and no WV article). Such that also Charyn Canyon would be covered. I think there are no cases where this would cause in-text issue - I have never seen a WD marker used inline anywhere. However, city listing sometimes contain no WV link, because it would be a dead one (and look ugly). Why should we omit the WP icon in this case?

Before introducing this change, could we have the consent of a few more people?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ceever: Thanks for the feedback.

I don't plan on making this change without community consensus. I'll make this an RFC after the changes are done. Maybe they're already done, I'm not sure.

Regarding the Charyn Canyon case: this is covered. So there is already a Charyn Canyon article on WV, so that is why there is no Wikipedia icon. However, that listing has no link in the title, so it's not helping the reader. In this case, there is an added maintenance category Category:Marker with Wikivoyage article but no wikilink (see the categories of the graffiti wall; the category doesn't exist yet). That way, an editor would notice and hopefully fix it. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

However, I think I know what you mean: if there is a marker with a wikidata ID, but there is neither a wikivoyage nor a wikipedia article? I'm not sure what to do in that case; currently nothing. You're suggesting the Wikidata link should appear? Maybe the wikidata link should always appear, like in listings. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my bad. Just noted that the case was already covered, but there was no example for it on the Graffiti page. Now it is and works: no. 5. Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

ARR8 Apologise for being bit late in looking at things; have been busy with some TEX issues. Looks pretty good to me - it would be up to members etc. for consensus - RFC would probably be best way to go... Matroc (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should set up a place where we can have a clear-cut vote on this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Matroc: No worries; there's no deadline here. As I said above, I recognize the need for consensus. Any feedback on the implementation?

@SelfieCity: As I said above, I'm not yet ready to roll this feature out. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm replying to Matroc's comment that "it would be up to members etc. for consensus". --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think this proposal should be discussed at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. I could easily see opposition to it on three grounds: (1) Once the WP links are added, it will be hard to remove them; (2) That will lead to creeping addition of another category of WP links without a consensus having developed in advance; (3) The WP link may make people lazy about creating needed WV articles. I, for one, would tend to oppose this additional scope of WP links on those bases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

3) Regular traveller for which the WP link is actually a help to, would not create new WV articles anyhow - I have never seen a newbie create an article. And I do not see how regular editors would have a problem with the WP link. It would instead actually help them to already fill the Understand of the new WV article. But it is funny to see what suddenly seems important to encouraged editors to contribute, while enthusiastic writers are regularly shied away with stiff bureaucracy elsewhere.

2) We already have WP links with regular listings, and they are comprehensively and happily maintained, which I think is a good thing. Why should a marker be an exception, especially where this link would contribute added value to the travellers. And yes, a consensus is what we are looking for - not an argument against it.

1) It is not much different from the WP links that appear to the left of WV articles. They are also there automatically. Even more reason to leave WP links with missing WV links, so editors are encouraged to finally create WV articles for the subject instead of having an "ugly" WP link.

I think it is a great and useful enhancement and would be an added value to WV ... Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you've never seen a newbie try to start a new article, I think you don't patrol recent changes very much. I've seen it dozens and dozens of times, and sometimes, they do a very good job and it becomes an excellent article. I have no problem with WP links in markers in many situations, but when we're talking about destinations that should have WV articles and don't, I think that's problematic and definitely requires a thorough debate, probably someplace other than just the pub. And as for "yes, a consensus is what we are looking for - not an argument against it", I guess it's too bad you don't get to unilaterally dictate policy changes on the site, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Created the rfc at Wikivoyage_talk:Links_to_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_in_markers ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

This is a continuation of a discussion at the pub, Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Listing_(including_WP_link)_instead_of_marker_for_cities/towns_(on_region_level)_that_do_not_have_a_WV_article_yet_but_only_a_WP_article, seeking opinions from the whole community. Ping the users involved in that discussion, @Ceever, SelfieCity, Matroc, Ikan Kekek:.

To make a long story short, I've created, on request, an experimental version of the {{marker}} template we use for listing destinations in region articles. Here's what it does: if we list a destination with no Wikivoyage article, it automatically links the Wikipedia article. As soon as a Wikivoyage page for that destination is created, the Wikipedia link automatically disappears. That way, there is always a WMF link for readers to go to find more information on a destination. At no step along the way is the Wikipedia link added or removed by editors. You can see this in action at Valles Calchaquíes.

I've opened this discussion to get feedback on the idea from the community. Please comment with your thoughts. I'll add some of my own arguments on why I support this below.

Without this, a reader looking for more information is stuck, link-wise. If they really want more information, they will likely go to a search engine. From there, they will most likely find a Wikipedia article, but they may also find the destination at other travel sites. It is in our interest to try to ensure that readers stay in the WMF network: if someone is reading a WP article on a destination we do not have here, they may nevertheless click a wikilink there to yet another destination, and, there, there will likely be links back to Wikivoyage. Someone entering a Wikitravel link they found on Google will not be led back here through interwiki links. Additionally, it will help cement the Wikipedia-Wikivoyage link in readers' minds, and readers who go straight to Wikipedia when looking up topics of interest may begin to go straight to Wikivoyage, rather than doing an internet search.

Some of the oppose arguments raised up in the pub aren't valid due to the technical implementation being presented here. Ikan did bring up, however, that having an interwiki link next to a redlink may lower the rate at which new and anonymous users create articles, a relatively common occurrence. I have no answer to this, but I will add that many newly-created articles were not created from redlinks, but for destinations which were never linked at all, and linked subsequently to the creation of the article. I can list some examples here if needed. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

As already mentioned, the concerns against this change could also be considered in such way that they would speak for (pro) the change. I do not believe the change would be of disadvantage on the editors side. But they will certainly be of advantage on the readers side. Also, they coincide with what we already have as status-quo for listings anyhow. I noticed that listings also automatically show the WP link even if just having the WD id (correct me if I am wrong).

I support this solution, available in the sandbox currently.

Sorry, had to drop it here. The article structure became too interconnected. Cheers Ceever (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's a really clever idea that I quite like. How easy would it be to implement this? Would editing the template be all that's necessary? If it's that easy to implement, then I'm definitely a supporter.

How does it work, though, if there's neither a Wikipedia article nor a Wikivoyage article for a destination? What should we do then? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The edits are done in the sandbox version and all it would take to roll out across the site would be copying them over to {{marker}}.

Good question. Currently, nothing. The other option that comes to mind is to add a link to Wikidata. This would be easy to implement if it is decided that that is what the community wants. I like the idea of Wikidata links, but I get the feeling that not everyone will, so I am not pushing for it. I wouldn't mind being surprised, though. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, while Wikidata links may seem like a good idea, Wikidata entries aren't very user-friendly and for someone who's looking for travel guide information, it wouldn't likely be what they're looking for. But I'm not opposed to the idea; I guess you could say I'm neutral about it, since a link to Wikidata is better than nothing at all. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It looks good. I see that one of the cities in Valles Calchaquíes has a detailed WV article in german - de:Cachi. I only got to this by going to the WP article and then Wikidata. Would it be possible to offer Wikivoyage articles in other languages when there isn't one in English?

If there is no WP article, I think that the average reader would rather see the Commons page than Wikidata - I think only experienced editors would know how to use WD to find other language WV and WP articles. AlasdairW (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very interesing ideas. From a bit of research, it should be possible to get all language links, but a module would have to be written for it. The other alternative would be manually curated: if an editor notices a redlink with a detailed corresponding article, such as this German one, there could be a field in {{marker}} for those and only those languages to be linked as long as there is no local link. This is the easier-to-implement alternative. Presumably, that field would not do anything if an English WV article exists.

Regarding Commons: I agree that we should be linking to Commons more, and such a link would be a great candidate for the neither-wikivoyage-nor-wikipedia scenario. However, I'm not sure how many places there are with Commons categories in Wikidata but no Wikipedia articles. From what I notice, the Commons community doesn't bother linking their categories to Wikidata before a sitelink exists. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about cities, but a lot of WD entries were created for historic buildings as part of Wiki Loves Monuments (at least they were for listed buildings in the UK). Wiki Loves Monuments was keen on adding photos to the WD listings of these buildings and some Commons links were added as a by-product. AlasdairW (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I think the best thing to do is to just go with WP for now and then later we can consider WD and Commons. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I understand the argument for these links to Wikipedia, but I remain skeptical, concerned that linking to Wikipedia for destination articles is at least somewhat likely to provide a distinct disincentive for the creation of Wikivoyage articles on those destinations. Therefore, at this point, I'm continuing to oppose. If a consensus develops behind this, I would suggest the requirement of a statistical analysis 6 months after the provisional adoption of links to Wikipedia destination articles in markers, seeing how many of those links turned into Wikivoyage links. Of course, that presumes someone's willingness to do such an analysis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm as concerned as you are about article creations. I think my page traffic argument above is also valid, though. Which of the two downsides is greater? We have no way of knowing, of course, without some kind of data, so I think an analysis would be a great idea. What did you have in mind that would be possible with the constraints of the platform? Maybe we should reach out to the meta community, which frequently runs technical surveys? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Special:NewPages currently lists 39 articles created since 1 March. This is a rate of 1.34 articles per day. Unfortunately I don't know a way to get figures over a longer period. AlasdairW (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would support reaching out to the Meta community. It could be a good idea to do this as an experiment if we can get data. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've reached out to a WMF researcher at meta. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: (though of course anyone is welcome to answer) Have you got an idea how I should answer this question? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 21:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think a 5% drop would be statistically significant, but 2% probably wouldn't be. What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I support this template modification as it is done in Valles Calchaquíes, and I think it should last for six months, when it should be reviewed per above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@ARR8: I think it may be worth waiting a while to see if you get any other responses. If not, it's unfortunately going to be difficult to make clear that, as I understand, you want them to do the data collection and not ourselves. But is it possible that we could do the data collection ourselves? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

We are currently running at 1-2 new pages per day. In 2018 there were 570 new city pages. To get 5% drop being significant we would be looking at 6-12 months after introducing the change. I need to play with Petscan to get some more figures to see how things normally vary month to month. I think that the threshold might be a 50% drop in the first 1-3 months . AlasdairW (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by threshold in this instance? Also, there's another stat I'd consider relevant: How many of the Wikipedia links turn into Wikivoyage links because someone created an article or considered that the term was appropriate as a Wikivoyage redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

By "threshold", I meant the amount of change that we would regard as a big enough reduction in new pages to cancel the use of the new template. I am going to look at the past year or two's data to see how much random or seasonal variation we can expect if we look at quarterly new page figures. AlasdairW (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity, AlasdairW, Ikan Kekek, Mx. Granger, Ceever, Ground Zero: We now have arrangements for the research team to analyze our page creation counts by IP users after implementing the change. It seems to me we have consensus to try the new template, and to keep it if there is no significant drop in page creations; if someone disagrees with this reading of the discussion, please let me know. Otherwise, I will make the sandbox version live soon. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 14:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm...I think the standard should be, if it causes an increase in page creations, it should be kept. But how are they measuring this? I think part of what we measure should be how many of the WP links turn into WV links in 6 months or whatever period is being measured. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I think you may be alone in that. I, for one, am perfectly fine with keeping the change if it has no significant effect in either direction on page creations, which honestly seems the most likely outcome to me. At that point, this change is simply a SEO and usability enhancement with no downsides...

The measurement is simply on page creations by anonymous users. It seems we have no way of measuring the precise method of page creation. If this is insufficient for you, please feel free to weigh in at the talk page I linked above.

The testing will go on for two months (potentially three). Any longer than that will give diminishing returns on measurement significance. The plan is to discontinue the test if a large negative effect is recorded. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, to what are you referring, when you say the standard? IHMO, if ARR8's idea works better than the original and results in more page creations, we might as well stick with it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, we currently have four support votes (ARR8, of course; Ground Zero; Ceever; and myself) against one oppose vote Ikan Kekek. Seems like the direction is support, though is that quite strong enough consensus yet? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe Ikan was also in support of the quantitative test, as was Granger below. That's unanimous for all those interested enough to participate. Seems like that's enough to me. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but I fear the wrong thing will be measured. The most relevant question is how many of the WP-linked destinations are turned into WV articles within the experimental period. If very few are turned into WV articles, I'll consider the experiment a failure and revert to opposition. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: My understanding is that, if we assume article creations from redlinks are some constant portion of total page creations, which makes intuitive sense, then looking at page creations is a useful proxy for measuring what we need to measure. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we can assume that. But let's please include stats on how many of the red links turned blue whenever the statistical report is done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I support using the new template, with some monitoring of the statistics. AlasdairW (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. There are exceptions — for example, in Ancient Israel#Destinations, I don't think it would make a lot of sense to redlink the "Jordan River", for example; an article about the Jordan River would't fit WV:WIAA. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with you. If we're being consistent about this, any red link should be for a plausible Wikivoyage article subject. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have run a few Petscan searches to build a picture of how many articles are being created in each quarter. A couple of the searches are provided as links. If using these, enter the date range in the Last Edit field on the Page Properties tab, and note that the end date goes on the left and the start date on the right. I have used Category:City articles as the main selection, as this is the main page creation which could be impacted by the change. Unfortunately I could not find a way of selecting by type of editor, as it would be interesting to exclude articles created by experienced editors (autopatrollers).

• 578 new city articles in 2016 (726 destination articles)
  • 200 new city articles Jan - Mar 2016
  • 83 new city articles Apr - Jun 2016
  • 160 new city articles Jul - Sep 2016
  • 135 new city articles Oct - Dec 2016
• 460 new city articles in 2017 (604 destination articles)
  • 112 new city articles Jan - Mar 2017
  • 111 new city articles Apr - Jun 2017
  • 116 new city articles Jul - Sep 2017
  • 121 new city articles Oct - Dec 2017
• 572 new city articles in 2018 (737 destination articles)
  • 162 new city articles Jan - Mar 2018.
  • 125 new city articles Apr - Jun 2018
  • 168 new city articles Jul - Sep 2018
  • 117 new city articles Oct - Dec 2018
• 125 new city articles Jan - Mar 2019

I have not done proper statistical analysis, but I think that we should investigate if less than 110 city articles are created in the quarter after the change. We should also investigate if there are less than 26 new city articles in the month after the change (this is number from last month). AlasdairW (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• As I understand, this is not how it would work if San Francisco had a WP article and not a WV article:
• 37.775-122.4194441 San Francisco

I assume it will look like the original plan,

• San Francisco.  

I support the second but not the first. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You understand correctly. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me it should look like neither of those but rather like

• San Francisco.   (without the punctuation)

Right? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good point, that would indeed be typical. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I tentatively support this proposal. I share Ikan Kekek's concern about encouraging article creation, but I think on balance it's worth trying. If we can find a way to quantitatively evaluate the effect of this change on article creation, that would be ideal. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree. If we do this, it should be in the second format, as SelfieCity also alluded to above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Granger, you're right. It should be a redlink. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support: I'm late to this discussion, but have read it through. The redlink+W approach looks ideal to me: it balances indicating that an article is needed with providing a useful link for the reader. Making WV more useful to readers is the best way of attracting more readers and growing the project. Siloing Wikivoyage harms readership and growth. Ground Zero (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support Redlink and icon link is logical. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why is the merge template there? I see no merge discussion... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

No indeed, but let's have one now. This page existing separately to Wikivoyage:Sister project links is strange, and I would support a merge of this page into that.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Support I can't figure out why these are separate. Wikivoyage:Sister project links includes Wikipedia. Ground Zero (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Support per others. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ThunderingTyphoons!: As there has been no opposition, I think it is safe to implement your proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to get around to this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's been one year, and the page is still not merged... Veracious (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

As I was reading the entry for Yuhuan, I noticed the sentence "Yuhuan city has China's national 4A level scenic spots". This made me google for what are those 4A spots, and so I learned about wikipedia:AAAAA Tourist Attractions of China. While ideally WV would havei its own page on this topic, since we don't, I think any reader of this article would be best served by a link to Wikipedia. Thoughts? Better than "MoS blah blah" (I mean Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia)? Because AFAIK Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first is a rule as well? I am looking forward to mental gymnastics of seeing folks explain how linking to Wikipedia here would not be in travellers best interest :P Piotrus (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

That link violates Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia and would have to be proposed as an exception, presumably at Talk:China. I would oppose partly because it's a long list, and that's also why a directly equivalent Wikivoyage article seems unlikely. The other consideration is that any information that's important for travelers should be here, and we don't want to discourage people from adding such content by directing them away from the site. But rather than adding such a long list here, it might be less unwieldy for there to be several Wikivoyage articles covering this long list on a regional basis, with each one linking to a Chinese government site and probably also the Wikipedia article, but with useful though quite brief descriptions of every attraction - something that's notably absent from quite a few of the listings in the Wikipedia list article.

Finally, going back to Yuhuan, the point would be to mention what those local 4A attractions are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Rating systems needs a section on Asia. This would be a great addition to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good thinking. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

This page is more than 20 years old, and did not go through any process akin to approval. Wikipedia remains highly problematic, but has nevertheless improved hugely since this page was written. I don't think this page should be taken as anything more than its author's (former?) view on the topic (an essay by Evan Prodromou). Chealer (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect. This is a much-argued and confirmed consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek is correct here, and I can testify this consensus is applied here in a daily basis. Ibaman (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid there is no consensus on this, but listing arguments could help measuring consensuality. I did not say that nobody agreed with the proposal, just that essays are just that; until they eventually become policy, they do not prohibit anything. Chealer (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It may not have much initial consensus, but over time it certainly has been enforced with the consensus gradually confirmed over time. //shb (t | c | m) 00:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

When did it not have much of a consensus? I believe it has since I've been here, which takes it back to 2006, if I remember correctly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't consider "did not go through any process akin to approval" as initial consensus, if what Chealer mentioned is in fact true. //shb (t | c | m) 03:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

In order to be enforced, a proposal needs to be adopted, so it becomes policy. Anyway, failure to add links would not confirm any consensus, even if such a consensus existed. Chealer (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

And it de facto is. Unless you want to be pedantic and start a new discussion, but the very way this discussion is going highlights a near-unanimous support for the current Links to Wikipedia policy. //shb (t | c | m) 04:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What matters is the support in the project as a whole, not just among the 5 or so people subscribed to this page. You are free to propose turning this into a policy if you feel it should be, but at this time, it is merely a project page, which can be considered an essay. Here is the collection of policies. Chealer (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you have an issue with the policy, by all means, propose a change. But don't rock up to a wiki that you're not familiar with and tell the project regulars what to consider policy. You are the one that needs to make a proposal, not us; continually pushing the idea that it's somehow not a policy is only going to land you the same trajectory you've had on enwiki, frwiki and frwikt. //shb (t | c | m) 05:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't have "an issue with the policy"; as the above shows, this essay isn't part of it. What I do have an issue with is your attempts at ad hominem attacks; consider this as a warning to stop these. Chealer (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are new here, unless you're a sockpuppet of another (banned?) account. Have you read any of the previous discussions over the years and seen what the results of them were? If not, you are really out of line here. You are one individual, and you are not going to undo established consensus by trying to make legalistic arguments that are not part of Wikivoyage. If you want to act in good faith, try making a new argument or making an argument for why we should reconsider a previous consensus, but read all the previous discussions first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek, Ibaman: FWIW, I've started a ban discussion at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Chealer. //shb (t | c | m) 06:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the record, this page was created a few months after the site started, before formal discussions of policy were required. There have been extensive discussions on changes to the policy, see the archive of this talk page. AlasdairW (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have not, since you still haven't bothered mentioning even one. There is no legalistic argument here; writing an essay just doesn't make it policy. Chealer (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The most direct way of assessing contributor sentiment on this issue to to propose a change, rather than to spend a lot of time arguing over the validity of the process used to get to what most of us see as an established consensus. A proposed change can be assessed on its merits alone. Without a proposal, it seems like we are just going to end up spending a lot of time arguing. That's not why I come to Wikivoyage to spend time, and I hope it isn't why you are here either. Ground Zero (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ground Zero,

Etiquette usually favors leaving essays alone, even if you do not fully agree with them. If E. Prodromou thinks this is mature and wants to get the community’s input, he can propose to make this a policy. I certainly don't come here to spend time arguing, so let's avoid wasting efforts and avoid precipitating things. At this point, I fail to see much merit in this page's current state and doubt it can be improved enough to warrant adoption anyway. --Chealer (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest for everyone to stop taking the bait to argue about this with someone who at this point is clearly trolling, but Chealer, I will simply state unambiguously that if you act on your polemical, contrarian position that there is no policy on links to Wikipedia on this site, you absolutely will be blocked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest you take a break and reread this once your mind has cooled. I don't think anyone here claimed there was no policy on links from Wikivoyage to Wikipedia; all I said is that this page is not a policy page, which does not exclude that some of the elements it contains could be part of actual policy pages.

Now, regardless of whether Piotrus was rightly concerned or not, a policy we do have for sure is to Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun, which requires all of us to assume good faith and remain civil. Accusing colleagues of "trolling" is not acceptable, and could lead to sanctions. --Chealer (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• oh well, you're obviously not here to build a travel guide. "Warnings" and "sanctions" are "not acceptable" talk here. Go be happier elsewhere. Ibaman (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  It looks like Chealer has encountered a block.

  In the future, if someone from enwiki claims that a formal w:en:WP:PROPOSAL is necessary for a policy, then you might invite them to show you the policy here that requires this. It happens to be how we do it, but I don't think we actually have a policy that requires it. (Also: enwiki had no such process until 2008, when I wrote PROPOSAL. At enwiki, I'd recommend that such editors read w:en:WP:PGE, because "not proposed as a policy, so it can't be enforced" is just nonsense there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Coming into the discussion late. Sorry about that.

@Chealer: please stop the legalistic nonsense about this not being a policy. I've been here for almost 20 years & can tell you it has always been policy.

I cannot accept @Ikan Kekek:'s logic here:

"I would oppose partly because it's a long list, .... The other consideration is that any information that's important for travelers should be here, and we don't want to discourage people from adding such content by directing them away from the site.

It seems to me this sort of encyclopedic list is exactly the sort of thing we want to leave to WP & link to where needed in our articles, if only to avoid a maintenance headache. @Piotrus:'s request that started this thread is entirely reasonable; the question is how to manage the linking, not whether to forbid it.

@WhatamIdoing:'s suggestion that Rating systems needs a section on this seems exactly correct to me. So I think the overall solution here is:

No attempt on WV to list these attractions.

A section of Rating systems that explains the Chinese ratings & links to WP for those who want more info or a list.

Some redirects (not sure exactly what; perhaps "AAAA" etc.) to make linking to that section easy.

Links from various attractions all over China, mostly via the redirects, to that section.

How do others react to this proposal? Pashley (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe you misread the discussion, somehow. To review:

"While ideally WV would have its own page on this topic"

Reply:

"That link violates Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia and would have to be proposed as an exception, presumably at Talk:China. I would oppose partly because it's a long list, and that's also why a directly equivalent Wikivoyage article seems unlikely. The other consideration is that any information that's important for travelers should be here, and we don't want to discourage people from adding such content by directing them away from the site. But rather than adding such a long list here, it might be less unwieldy for there to be several Wikivoyage articles covering this long list on a regional basis, with each one linking to a Chinese government site and probably also the Wikipedia article, but with useful though quite brief descriptions of every attraction - something that's notably absent from quite a few of the listings in the Wikipedia list article."

Bolding added. Why do you prefer a long list to my proposal of "several Wikivoyage articles covering this long list on a regional basis, with each one linking to a Chinese government site and probably also the Wikipedia article, but with useful though quite brief descriptions of every attraction"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote before, yes, ideally WV will have a place explaining this and then we should link to it. However, until such a page (or relevant section on it) exists, if Wikipedia covers it, we should link to it. Going back the 4A example: if WV has a place discussing 4A rating, link there. If it does not, but Wikipedia do, link there instead, preferably in the format similar to :en:Template:Interlanguage link Piotrus (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The way to do it is to link an official Chinese page in a new section of the Rating systems article. I don't see why there should be an exception to normal Wikivoyage policy on links to Wikipedia that are outside of the normal situations in which they are allowed. User:WhatamIdoing already suggested this in the third post to this thread in September, 2023. Had you created the section then, we could already have a useful link in a Wikivoyage article for close to 2 years by now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I am documenting the Stockholm Archipelago Trail and have uploaded more than 3,000 pictures / Wikimap from the trail to Wikimedia Commons. For example, the section Nåttarö will be documented on Wikivoyage here: Stockholm_Archipelago_Trail#SAT_Nåttarö and is on Wikicommons WIkimap

1) What is the policy regarding linking to a trail on Wikicommons? I believe such links add significant value by helping readers better understand the trail conditions. Additionally, I see 360-degree images as a step forward in enhancing navigation and exploration, making it easier for users to visualize the terrain.

Additionally,

2) I have used Mapillary for one section. Is there a specific policy on linking Mapillary content? For instance, Stockholm Archipelago Trail’s Landsort section is partially represented on Mapillary pKey=1060410682654434

Would appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks! Salgo60 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The use of a limited number of thumbnails from Commons is normal. See Wikivoyage:Image policy. Otherwise, links are normally through Wikidata: please read Wikivoyage:Sister project links. For guidelines on third-party links outside Wikimedia, see Wikivoyage:External links, but the answer to your 2nd question is that such links are normally not allowed except to primary sources (for example, the website of a listed restaurant, hotel, museum, etc.) and are subject to deletion. However, Wikivoyage policies and guidelines are always open to discussion, so start a thread at the most relevant guideline article's talk page if you'd like to argue for a change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

thanks but dont the community see the added value? especially when documenting a walking trail it can be good to better understand how steep steep is....- Salgo60 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you don't like my suggestion of starting a discussion thread on the appropriate policy page's talk page, where you can document the indispensability of Mapillary as your argument for a policy change, you can argue for an exception to policy on Talk:Stockholm Archipelago Trail, but you can't get either a policy change or an exception by arguing in the Pub. But if you're asking for my opinion on why there has been no specific consideration of Mapillary, I'd speculate it's because most of us have never heard of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've heard of Mapillary – I appreciate they're open source and licensed under CC-BY SA, but they're indirectly a competitor to Commons – if you can upload a photo to Mapillary, you can upload it to Commons. //shb (t | c | m) 07:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that you traverse a route on Mapillary its connected 360 pictures I am not an expert but click on forward on this its from me walking SAT_Landsort

• they support 360 pictures much better than Wikicommons
• OsmAnd and Open Street Map use them

Salgo60 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

One issue is that of privacy. I might trust the WMF, but I don't want to research the privacy policy and trustworthiness of a third party. Checking the website of a hotel where I intend to sleep is one thing, a Wikivoyage page being dependent on a third party is very different. –LPfi (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For Wikimedia Commons (that's their name), you can link a category or gallery via Wikidata. On a gallery page you can show all the most relevant images, with explanatory text and a layout of your liking. The rest of the images would be easily found in the category. Is that what you are looking for in your first question? –LPfi (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply