Talk:E11 hiking trail

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please note: This article was first published in Wikipedia, but became criticized because it is too detailed and not encyclopedic. The author is now starting the process of creating a detailed description of the trail in Wikivoyage. The text in Wikipedia will soon be reduced and changed to meet the standards of an encyclopedia.

Since the article is almost as long as the itinerary (2528 kilometers ...), this process will take some weeks. Please do not delete the article in the meantime. Do not fear copyright problems: the article in Wikipedia is mostly the present author's work and must be thoroughly reduced and changed to meet Wikipedia standards.

(WT-en) DrMennoWolters 09:51, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

merger of Wikitravel and Wikipedia into Wikivoyage: welcome![edit]

Originally, a detailed description of European hiking trail E11 was published (in Dutch and English) in Wikipedia. As the English text was criticised for being too much of a travel guide, it was moved to WikiTravel, which caused most of the links to townships to get lost. This will soon be solved by moving the text again, now to WikiVoyage. Once this is successfully done, the original English text in Wikipedia will then be reduced to a more encyclopaedic text. DrMennoWolters (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Why delete an article without any discussion?[edit]

Checking the state of affairs re "E11 hiking trail", I found that the lemma has been brought over from WikiTravel to WikiVoyage as it shoukld be, but was then deleted completely by you. Would it not have been more appropriate to discuss that first with me, the main author? DrMennoWolters (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I redirected (not deleted) the article, because it was a complete copyright violation from Wikipedia. You can revert back to the old state in the history, but it needs a lot of work and proper attribution should be given to the authors. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Before you delete an article of more than 60,000 words, you should at least:

1) inform the main or most recent author; and 2) carefully read the "talk" pages. Had you done that, you would have seen that Wikipedia editors refer the article to WikiVoyage, so that it is rather from Wikipedia and not from WikiVoyage that the article in its present form should be removed. However, the Wikipedia editors also indicate that they want a more encyclopedic article about E11 and not a complete deletion. So my intention is to restore the article in its present (WikiTravel) form in WikiVoyage and try to edit it in a more itinerary type of style (whatever that may be; there are no clear guidelines as yet), whilst I want to reduce the Wikipedia article to an encyclopedic one. There is one major obstacle to overcome in this process: the Wikipedia article is full of (often de-disambigued or otherwise checked) links to Wikipedia articles about townships, which fall dead when brought to WikiVoyage. In my opinion, we need a new tool that links a word in a WikiVoyage text to a Wikipedia article about this word. Another obstacle, by the way, is that Wikipedia contains a project Hiking Trails which might fit better in WikiVoyage, but such a discussion must still be held. So I beg you to exercise patience! DrMennoWolters (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll have some patience, that's fine :-) But it's a collaborative project, so don't be surprised when other users come in to change some things. In-article links to Wikipedia are not allowed, so those will have to be removed. --Globe-trotter (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Having just read the talk page DrMennoWolters refers to, I don't see anything that would remove the requirement that the Wikipedia article's authors be credited properly. One person may have composed the majority of the text, but there are other editors in the article history and they must be credited if the article is imported. Alternatively, the article can be completely rewritten, as our style and purpose are considerably different from Wikipedia's. LtPowers (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Or we could just import it, if special:import was turned on [1]. Does anyone know who to bother about this? One thing about WT was that I at least knew who was ignoring me. --Peter Talk 03:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there consensus that in-article links to Wikipedia are not allowed? I at least disagree, because readers/walkers of the E11 might be interested in the 200 links to Wikipedia articles about the townships they pass. In a more encyclopedic version of the article as foreseen for Wikipedia, these links will no longer be there.
Yes, per Wikivoyage:External links, no secondary source links are allowed. --Peter Talk 17:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that is how the majority feels, then let the majority also copy the 200 descriptions of townships along E11 from Wikipedia to WikiVoyage, or better still make new descriptions of them for WikiVoyage. But I still do not understand why a direct link to Wikipedia's article about Berlin is forbidden if 50 of the 2500 kilometers of E11 are in Berlin. I think this strange rule should be reversed (WikiVoyage articles should normally contain links to Wikipedia articles about related but different topics. DrMennoWolters (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Whether we start with the WikiTravel or the Wikipedia article for this itinerary in WikiVoyage does not make much difference to me; in both cases I will have to put severe effort in editing both the encyclopedic contribution to Wikipedia and the descriptive itinerary in WikiVoyage. Just choose what you think best, provided you can solve the issue of the links to Wikipedia and also the proper relationship to the WikiProject Hiking Trails. DrMennoWolters (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm here because DrMennoWolters has been asking me for advice on my talk page at the English Wikipedia. Copying between Wikipedia to WikiVoyage is not a copyright violation if proper attribution is given, since all contributions to both sites are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3 and the GFDL. When a page is translated from a foreign-language Wikipedia into English, the attribution requirement is handled by a template on the article talk page, w:Template:Translated page. Does WikiVoyage have anything like that set up? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
We have Template:Wikipedia. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Let us be careful with the word translation in this specific case. I did not translate an existing article. 99 % of the Dutch text is from my hand (based on a stub), while others made valuable contributions like correcting typoes, adding links and especially replacing dablinks. After writing the Dutch text, I started writing the English text, of which also 99 % is of my hand, while others also made the same type of welcome and necessary contributions. I think that the Template:Wikipedia will serve well in this case.
With respect to the present text in Wikipedia, it is considered too long, too detailed and too much of a travel guide by Wikipedia editors who suggest it should rather be placed in WikiVoyage. So there should be no problem in copying large parts of the text in Wikipedia to WikiVoyage, where they must then be adjusted to the requirements of the WikiVoyage style. After copying the text to WikiVoyage, the text in Wikipedia must than be made much shorter and more encyclopedic according to the Wikipedia requirements. Considering the time these operations will take, editors should accept that for some periods both Wikipedia and WikiVoyage contain about the same text.
Before I start the re-editing of the article both in WikiVoyage and in Wikipedia, I want to hear explicitly if there is consensus about this. DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this really warrants an experimental tag—it seems like a pretty straightforward itinerary to me. It still will need a certain amount of content within a year to escape deletion, but that's a separate issue, and looks like it won't be an issue anyway. --Peter Talk 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This article started out a bit unusually if you look at the history, but has morphed into more of a standard itinerary, so removing the tag seems fine now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Today large parts of this article were copied from Wikipedia[edit]

Today large parts of this article were copied from Wikipedia to form the basis of the present article in WikiVoyage, which will be edited in itinerary style. The article about E11 in Wikipedia will now be reduced and made more encyclopedic. DrMennoWolters (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


The article is now rewritten in a style that hopefully fits the requirements of an itinerary in WikiVoyage, and pictures have been added (with the exception of the 300 km from Ketrzyn to the end, which I plan to walk in June 2013 and to describe later this year). My next step will be to re-edit the original article in Wikipedia:E11_European_long_distance_path so that it becomes acceptable for the encyclopedia and differs clearly from the present one.

Ramblers and others are invited to correct, update and add to the present text, for example with your special tips for lodgings, restaurants and sites along the trail. Administrators are invited to judge the present article. DrMennoWolters (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As Globe-trotter said above "In-article links to Wikipedia are not allowed, so those will have to be removed." Policy here is to have one link to the corresponding WP article, done with a special tag down at the end, which then appears as a link in the left-hand panel. The rest should go.
There are also many reference links. Most of them should go; the others need to be reformatted. e.g. the first one <ref>The three names are reflected in the website address</ref> should become just []. We want WV guides to work right when printed out to carry on a trip, and this format is what the printing software expects.
Overall, though, this is an excellent start on a useful topic. Good work; please continue. Pashley (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!
There should be no in-line references to the WP article now, except for the one where I explain how the two articles differ and how the one in WP might be used on top of this one. If any other in-line reference to WP is found, that is a mistake and must be repaired.
Suggestions how to reduce the number of references without bringing their contents into the main text, are welcome. 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I like it. The problems that I see are all a matter of adjusting the style and formatting to fit in with the Wikivoyage Manual of Style. Some of the red links will have to go. I really wish we had some way of allowing links to Wikipedia, as this article is a fine example of where they could be useful. I suggest that the references be listed in a "Read" section where appropriate. I can make no comment on the completeness of the article, but it looks closer to 'guide' than 'usable' to me.
  • The article needs a better map. If necessary there are several people on Wikivoyage who might be willing to help if the basic data is supplied. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a link to Google Earth would be great, but that is far beyond my talents. It would also consume a lot of time, unless those who walk E11, provide a GPS track that can be linked to Google Earth (even without that link, GPS data are more than welcome). Copying existing paper maps with E11 or the underlying regional trails on them, would create copyright problems. Anyway, the article provides ISBN and website codes with which one can acquire any map needed. DrMennoWolters (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


I see this is a Guide. Is it a good article to nominate for Featured Travel Topic? I haven't read through the article with a fine-toothed comb. What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite a nice and informative article, but IMO there are too many redlinks. Some coords and a plotted route would be nice to have too, sadly the new version of the dynamic map doesn't allow routes to be displayed. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
So a static map is needed for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The older but better geo map at top of the page will display the route. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, User:Traveler100. Side note: drawing a static map for a route of thousands of kilometers with the accuracy needed for hikers is out of question. ϒpsilon (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

2019 edits[edit]

I've added 300 and freaking 79 coordinates to the article since yesterday and my fingers almost hurt :P. A couple of years since the last comments, thanks to someone working with the dynamic map things, the route now shows up in the dynamic map too, but there are gaps in Poland. For those sections, readers can toggle on and off the "hiking" layer. Beware that further west, when turned on, the hiking layer is going to display a ton of other hiking routes and symbols almost covering the whole map.

Also there are some parts where the text and the route in the dynamic map doesn't correspond 100%. But I guess long distance hikers aren't so strict about sticking exactly to the path.

For hamlets, villages and towns that aren't on the route, but at some distance off it, I've put the marker representing it on the route where there is a junction going to that place. ϒψιλον (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


This article currently contains entirely too many redlinks. It may not be desirable to create them all as articles and having them redirect is not always the most elegant solution, so what should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with redlinks. If you're certain a particular destination should never have an article, then you can remove the link here (as long as the article in which the location is covered is linked elsewhere in this article). Powers (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Page views[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Just out of interest, does anyone know why there was a huge, sudden spike in page views for E11 hiking trail on 18 March? (see here)? 162 on that day, compared to about 8-10 on most other days. No real reason in asking, just curiosity. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have long since ceased taking those pageview numbers for gospel truth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the news, and there's no matching spike at the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's currently on the main page under 'Discover', but that wouldn't have affected as far back as the 18th March. It could just be as simple as a couple of people sharing the article on social media, and loads of their friends being interested. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)