Talk:Culturally significant landscapes in Almería

Citation issue

From the article:

"The original reference documentation is available on the website of the Digital Guide to the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia."

We don't link digital guides per Wikivoyage:External links#What not to link to, but does this mean this article is copyvio? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Ikan Kekek :

First, thanks for your review. The biggest part of the article is a translation of the referenced text, published by the government agency IAPH. The article is a paid work as indicated at the comment in the first edition. We linked it because the guide is a cultural product of a cultural government agency and not a mere touristic product. A VRTS procedure was approved in Commons for the UserːIAPH editor account (Ticket #2022040510005017). If needed, we can request a new VRTS authorization for the ENvoy itineraries (this is a set of three routes). Olea (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. Official URLs can be given. But what about the copyright violation issue? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no © violation because this work is authorized and contracted by the source owner. the IAPH. Olea (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Title

"Cultural landscapes"

Swept in from the pub

Hi, everyone. There are a series of new itinerary articles that include "the landscapes of cultural interest" or "cultural landscapes" in their titles. We are discussing the title of one of them at Talk:Route of the Landscapes of Cultural Interest in Almería#Title, with the idea that when we come to consensus on that article's title, we can change all the others analogously. Will you please help us come up with an idiomatic English phrasing that is not lengthy and can achieve a consensus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on this page

It's quite long and not quite idiomatic English. Can we shorten it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

should it be renamed to Landscapes of cultural interest in Almería? That makes it shorter and does not violate capitalisation guidelines. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That still feels too long. I also don't think "cultural" is the right word. How about "Historic sights hike in Almería"? On a cursory glance, I also think "Landscape of" or the word "Landscape" should be removed from all the subheadings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a much better title. Olea, what do you think? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, first some considerations: there is a potential need of desambiguity since there is an Almería city and an Almería province. In practical terms is fine to me to drop the province word. The other consideration is more subtle but relevant difference. The «cultural» word is required here because the the expression cultural landscape is a technical term by itself, proposed by UNESCO («Illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints/opportunities of the natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces.») so it's not exactly a matter of historicity (for example Rodalquilar, it is a significant cultural landscape originated in the XXs without any relevant historical event related). I'm not able yet to explain the nuances but this wording is required here.

Maybe something like Cultural landscapes in Almería would be appropriate and sort. The only potential risk would be a future article with that name including all the related landscapes as ENvoy destinations (there should be about 20 cultural landscapes just here), but personally it's not in my plans :-) Olea (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply and the link, but keep in mind that Wikivoyage operates based on common English usage, and "cultural landscape" is not a common term in English; if I saw it by itself, I would think it referred metaphorically to the arts scene in a particular city. Landscapes are normally thought of as views, not something that has culture. So I don't support using the word "cultural" in the title of this article or the other ones in this series. Also, why are mines (not "mine's") not historical, and why do you think the 20th century, which finished 22 years ago, is not historical? My answers are: they are, and it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We really can't keep the current phrasings of the names of articles in this series, because they are really not idiomatic English phrasings. Please engage further in this discussion. I guess I will have to post to the pub later to solicit more discussion... Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If it would move discussion, I'll say that the form of words proposed by SHB2000 above is tolerable, though I still think it's too long, and "cultural interest" is a strange or at least unusual phrase to use when talking about landscapes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I still prefer your wording though. I think we should only use "cultural landscapes" when it appears in proper names, but if we can find a better alternative to that, we should use it. For that same reason, it is why we use Budj Bim National Park or Murujuga National Park, not Budj Bim Cultural Landscape or Murujuga Cultural Landscape even though it is the WHS name. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree about renaming, but it need to include the culture word since this work has been fully conceptualized and developed from the beginning with that point of view. I'll be happy to rename this as Cultural landscapes in Almería by myself and to apply the same to the other two new related itineraries, if you don't mind. Olea (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You saw what I would think of when seeing the odd phrase "cultural landscape," right? Per Wikivoyage:Naming conventions, we use the most common English-language names for things. "Cultural landscape" is not a common or idiomatic phrase in English. Why are you unwilling to concede the point? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Allow me to chime in here. My study and work do see me working very closely with heritage and cultural fields of work, so feel like it's almost my duty to chime in here. Since you refer to your earlier comment, let me respond to the two main points I feel like I can shed light on:

1. "[...] "cultural landscape" is not a common term in English." — While it is true that "cultural landscape" is not quite basic vocabulary for most, it is without doubt a very descriptive term from a certain field of work, and it happens to hit the nail on the head when it comes to what this article documents. Now, there's two main factors at play here. For one, people often see "Culture" as food, art and music (possibly more, possibly less - it depends on the person). However, it is much wider than that, including virtually everything that mankind and its ancestors have done on this earth, no matter how insignificant. A cultural landscape is a very valid term though. After all, one usually "experiences" culture, and a landscape is so much more than just a view to observe like a singular painting in a museum. A landscape, like art, can move you in more ways than just "enjoying the sight". A landscape can interest, intrigue, touch or inspire people. A landscape is not merely a sight.
   The other factor at play is that people tend to see landscapes as a still, uninterrupted things, that have always been the same and shall always remain the same. They simply are not. The term "Cultural landscape" helps heritage organisations convey that these landscapes are man-made and worthy of preservation. We often take landscapes for granted though we shouldn't. They are forever changing to man's needs, as man's will to do so can in the most literal sense tear mountains apart and make seas shift, thus altering the landscape.
2. "[...] why are mines not historical, and why do [people] think the 20th century [...] is not historical?" — So, putting an exact date or time on when the past starts is difficult. For example, that thing you wrote down in your notebook last week isn't exactly historical, yet you might consider something your father wrote down in a notebook thirty years ago historical. There is no one single definition of the past, and heritage organisations, even individual workers in that industry, have different definitions of what is historical and as a result, of what is worth preserving. The general rule of thumb is, if the people that made it, aren't around any more, it definitely is historical. That, however, doesn't change that many people think that the years that they have been alive, aren't remotely historical. I would agree with Ikan though that

To summarize my own stance in this discussion: Yes, the title is long-winded, but I would tend to agree with Olea that "Cultural landscapes in Almería" seems to be the best option for shortening/renaming it while staying on topic. On the other hand, I would argue that the other proposed title, "Historic sights hike in Almería", misses the point of the article itself. Refer to the first line of the Prepare paragraph: "The tour is designed to be done in a private vehicle". Sure, you can probably hike the route, but there's a fair few other methods of exploring this route, and using "hike" or any other said method of transportation might alienate an audience that would still be interested in it.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanations, but I assure you, I do know what culture is. My mother was a famous anthropologist, and I lived with her in the field in Malaysia for two years of my childhood as a part of a rural community. I have taught both introductory and upper-divisional ethnomusicology courses, and when I used to teach college music courses, anthropology and history were always part of them except for when I taught an introductory course in Western music theory, which was hands-on and was put in a historical context mainly in the first class meeting.

By the way, no, I don't agree that things that happened during my lifetime are not historical. I am 57 years old. Events that happened during my lifetime include most of the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the Apollo 11 moon launch; the Bangladeshi independence war; the Cultural Revolution; the death of Mao and rise of China; the inception of rap music; the creation of the original Internet; the AIDS crisis; the release of the personal computer; the development of the World Wide Web; Sept. 11, 2001; the COVID-19 plague that's still continuing; and the effects of global warming getting severe. And that's just a small selection, which left out the end of official apartheid in South Africa, the overthrow of Salvador Allende and then so much later the defeat of Pinochet, and numerous other events, processes and trends.

But I digress....If the consensus is that we have to use the term "cultural landscapes", I agree that at least we can improve the syntax of the title in the way that's suggested above, but I think each article in this series should start with some kind of disclaimer that explains why the term is being used and addresses the unusualness of the phrase in English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Let it be clear that I wasn't aiming the above directly at you, Ikan. I just wanted to share my stance and your earlier message fit what I was saying as an illustration and segue. I'm generalising the broad public, and that in no way is to cause offence to you or anyone for that matter. :)

Thing is, I am not certain that the phrase "Cultural landscape" really requires a disclaimer. The term is used across multiple disciplines and fields, and leaks in the layman's world not irregularly*. For the world of heritage at least, the term is used towards the public all the time. Sure, there's people unfamiliar with the term, but there would also be people unfamiliar with the Underground Railroad, and it might attract people with an avid fascination with trains, and I wouldn't say that needs a disclaimer (I know the comparison isn't 1:1, but you get my drift). I would agree if it were about a lead paragraph that clearly states what the reader should expect, but an actual disclaimer is a bit too dramatic for my liking.

(* I am not up-to-date about how the US handles it all, but when it comes to European archaeology, everything is done people-first nowadays. What we find and produce out of it must be made visible for the people that it serves and belongs to, so terms like "Cultural landscapes" I certainly can see as being more well-known on this side of the ocean.)

In any case, there's no consensus to use "Cultural landscapes" yet, so let's wait for others to chime in before we start talking about the hows and whats.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the lede of Underground Railroad explains clearly what it is, and I definitely think not including a note that explains what the nature of the route is would be a problem, for the reason you state. We can never assume readers already know things people in a given area may know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes: we don't need a disclaimer, but the lead should describe what an article is about, clarified further in Understand if needed.

What about concentrating on route and culture: Cultural route of Almería? I think people interested in the cultural landscapes would be interested enough in "culture" to click the link and get the full description, and few clicking it would be disappointed. The full official title in English could still be used as the bold text in the lead, explaining what aspect of culture this is about. Likewise, in most places where the article is linked, one can give enough context, use the official name as link text, or put the full name in parenthesis after the link.

–LPfi (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think any of these would be okay:

• Cultural landscapes in Almeria
• Landscapes in Almeria
• Cultural route in Almeria
• Historical sites in Almeria (that's "places to go to")
• Historical sights in Almeria (that's "things to look at")
• Cultural sites in Almeria (or the "sights" version)
• History of Almeria
• Culture of Almeria

and probably several other options along those lines. The key points are that the title is fairly short (though some itinerary names are not so short, e.g., in Europe itineraries#Italy), because the subject matter isn't as specific as Historic mule tracks between Varenna and Esino Lario, and then you explain the specific subject at the start of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Those proposals look good to me, but a small thing though – Almería is accented. If I had to give my preferences, I would favour Historical sights in Almería, and then maybe Cultural sites in Almería. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer Almería to be near the start of the title, so that readers looking for information on the area find the article, even if they weren't looking for culture, landscapes or tour routes. It should also have some word that suggests an itinerary. e.g.

• Almería landscape and culture tour
• Almería cultural landscapes route

I am not too bothered about the use of "cultural landscapes" if this helps to keep the title to five words or less. The article includes both landscape and cultural sites. AlasdairW (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I like Almería landscape and culture tour. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain, this need to be something like Cultural landscapes in Almería (maybe i instead of í?). I'll be happy adding an introducing paragraph about the cultural landscape concept. Olea (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion the best option is Cultural landscapes in Almeria because it is the closest nane to the original concept.--Urci dream (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I still disagree, because of this site's WV:Naming conventions: "articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries". It's logical to extend that to itinerary articles and point out that "cultural landscape" is an unusual phrase in English and likely to refer metaphorically to the arts scene in a given city or area, not physical landscapes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

«Cultural landscape» it's not used as metaphor. It's a technical term in the heritage domain as you already know. I think I fully understand your concerns but I see a positive outcome to introduce here some specific terms coined and well established in heritage and culture tourism domains. Any potential handicap for the voyager would be attended with a brief introduction to the concept for newcomers. Olea (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It is all well to introduce and use the terms of the field, but the title is seen by people who haven't yet been introduced to it, which could lead to some people never clicking their way to the article although they'd like it if they did, and others clicking on it and getting disappointed. And we seldom use official names of things in the titles of articles. –LPfi (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. And Olea, I said how I'd understand the phrase, not how you are using it. Lots of fields have jargon. We don't have articles named after anthropological jargon, for example, do we? I consider the way you're using this phrase to be jargon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

While its origins are as jargon, within most of Europe the term has outgrown itself to where most wouldn't class it as jargon any longer. If I'm reading what Olea said above correctly, the same can be said for Spain. While I can't find anything in the Manual of Style that argues for or against it, I'd tend to say that since the term is acceptable in most of Europe, it can be used in a title perfectly fine. Besides, for Europe, British spelling ought to be used per WV:Spelling, and "cultural landscape" has arguably already lost its jargon-status in Britain as well. The fact that it may still be considered jargon elsewhere should therefore be irrelevant, no?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No. This is about what form of words is most commonly used in English, not really in English translations by people who mostly speak other languages (if we used that as a standard, "handy" would be used as the "English" word for "mobile phone" in all articles about Germany, for example). Is it commonly used in Britain? In any case, no-one is disputing what form of English spelling to use. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have just done a quick search for "cultural landscape" on the British Independent newspaper's website. There were some articles using it in the sense used here, including one about a UNESCO site in Brazil, but there was as much metaphorical use of the term, e.g. Why have costly arts projects that were supposed to transform the country's cultural landscape flopped? about museums built in 2000 that haven't succeeded. AlasdairW (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up. The point I take from it is that it's a term that would require disambiguation, and therefore not a good one to use in a title. How about Landscape and culture itinerary in Almería (with analogous name changes for the rest of the articles in this series)? That will be clear to everyone, and I don't understand the insistence on having "cultural landscapes" or the longwinded "landscapes of cultural interest" in these titles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to come to a consensus on the title? If not, we'll have to at least shorten the titles of articles in this series and make them more nearly idiomatic in English. The simplest way to do that is to delete "Route of the" from all these titles, as initially suggested by SHB2000 in the second post in this thread, and I'll do that if we can't come to a better decision and no-one posts an objection. But we really need some flexibility from our non-native-speaking Spanish editors here. You guys are doing fantastic work, but we need more Wiki-like collaboration from you on titling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My Spanish is not great and limited to tourist phrases that I've used in a brief trip to Mexico, but maybe Mx. Granger who is an es-3 might have a better translation for Ruta de los Paisajes de Interés Cultural en Almería (article name on es.voy). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to do an exact translation. Word-for-word translations often are not idiomatic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware. My reasoning was that I wanted someone who is fluent in Spanish (to know exactly that means), but a native speaker in English (to know what an English speaker would probably most relate it to), and as far as I'm aware, Granger is the only active user who falls into that criteria (we also have Nelson Ricardo 2500, but they've been inactive since 2022/03/31). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"Culturally significant landscapes in Almería", maybe? Or if we prefer to emphasize the historic side, "Historic landscapes of Almería"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I like Culturally significant landscapes in Almería which is much shorter and less wordy than Landscapes of cultural interest in Almería. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with that name and with plugging in the place name in that phrase in the case of other articles in this series. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

So far, we've got 3 OKs for Culturally significant landscapes in Almería. Any more takers? AlasdairW, LPfi, Wauteurz, Olea, can you tolerate that phrasing for this and (with a change of regional name) the other itineraries in this series? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I am OK with Culturally significant landscapes in Almería. AlasdairW (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's OK. We might want to have a redirect from something that starts with Almería, for the search box autocomplete. –LPfi (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would hesitate to suggest any additional wording. I'll wait till tomorrow to change this itinerary's title and the titles of other articles in this series. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ikan: As you know that's not my preference. But if it's the only posible consensus then I vote blank for Culturally significant landscapes in Almería to avoid blocking . Olea (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean about blocking? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

About not to block the consensus discussion. Just that 👍 Olea (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for being flexible. I'll check in again tomorrow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, it's an acceptable name and I have nothing to hold against it. Cultural landscapes is still my preferred title, though I can tell not everyone can get used to that phrasing either, so feel free to move forward with Culturally significant landscapes. -- Wauteurz (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Review request and permission to get into main namespace

Swept in from the pub

Hiː

We are working in a set of new itineraries in Spain and the first is, supposedly, done. Hereby I'm asking for a review and authorization to recreate the article in the main space. It's our first contribution in ENVoy and want to be sure we are doing fine. The first itinerary is User:Olea/Workshop1. We'll be happy to attend any recomendation. Thanks in advance. Olea (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there is no reason not to move this itinerary to mainspace. There are a few issues, such as the links to Wikidata, which may be confusing, but these can be sorted out later. You say "recreate", is there some reason not to just move the page to mainspace? To what name? Route of the Landscapes of Cultural Interest in Almería? Is there some commonly used shorthand? –LPfi (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi thanksǃ

We chose to recreate because the original text is full of tries and tests which are not meaningful but about our inexperience in Wikivoyage. Also, for better IP traceability as this is a paid work for a government agency. The itinerary is now at Route of the Landscapes of Cultural Interest in Almería created by UserːIAPH.

About the Wikidata links, what the problem is? We understood they could be more suitable than to the external link. Olea (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, we would like to now how to improve the quality status to reach, if possible, the star status. Any tip? Should propose at a particular place? Olea (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not taken a thorough look now, but I think there should be some copy editing by a native English speaker. There may also be some style issues (I spotted a "we", which we don't use), I'll return to them at some point.

The Wikidata links are quite confusing for a reader not acquainted with that project. Landscapes of Cultural Interest in Andalusia could be a Wikivoyage travel topic, in turn linked to Wikidata by links at Wikidata. Our policy is not to link "external" pages, other than the official ones. Wikimedia sites are listed via Wikidata or by our listing templates. Exceptions can be made, but they should be clearly useful for the traveller. In many cases it is enough to find those links e.g. via related Wikipedia articles.

–LPfi (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

We have done a new review and removed all Wikidata/Wiki links. We are now applying the same changes to the other two new itineraries. Olea (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a professional use of many of our templates. I wish I knew how to use all of those tricks.

I'd suggest linking it from the relevant articles (e.g., Almería (province), Europe itineraries, etc) so it can be accessed by the interested viewers. Currently the article isn't linked from anywhere in the mainspace. Vidimian (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vidimian thanks for your kind words, we really appreciated them :-) I've added internal links as suggested. Olea (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Great. However, as far as I understand, the route is completely within Almería Province, so it's better listed at Almería (province)#Do than the "Go next" section. Consider viewing wv:wycsi for the relevant guideline. Vidimian (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Done with the three routes. Thanks! Olea (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)