Talk:Land Art Trail on Mount Učka

Wiaa

Ibaman asked in the Understand section if this is an article. I think it is, just like Ad's Path which we featured as Featured Travel Topic a few years ago. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I just now looked at Recent changes and noticed the discussions on the talk pages. Anyway, if the trail exists, I think it qualifies as an article. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not very confortable with the fact that the main writer of this article also happens to be the artist who created the trail and all the art visible in it. It qualifies as a huge toutism, in my opinion. The article's tone is also very out of line with its correspondent policy. Ibaman (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see, and usually this would fly out the window directly. Nevertheless, it's reminiscent of the Ad's Path; it's a real place, a nature trail (with art) rather than a confined attraction, and it's free of charge. The tone definitely needs to be done something to, though. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'have read some instructions on touting, tone, etc. and I have made some changes to the tekst. I'm not a native English speaker, so, please forgive me if I didn't understand something, or if the tone of the text is wrong. I feel that me as the author of the trail can present it in the best way, because I know its "soul". I don't know if there are some editors or even admins from Croatia who have been on Land art trail to make necessary changes from neutral point of view!? But, in the writing style and tone, you can help! I have read Ad's Path several times to see what is written there, and how to make things right. My plan is to insert the wiki map soon, too. Thanks for your advice and concerns. --Ursus44 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Me and Ibaman aren't native speakers either, nor is the main author of Ad's Path :). Maybe Ikan or Andre would like to have a look at the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that the article's author is also the artist who created the trail, this is one of the main differences between Wikivoyage and Wikipedia. Original research is strictly verboten on Wikipedia and this article would probably have to be deleted if it were there, but at Wikivoyage original research is the very foundation of our content, and this article is perhaps the epitome of what we try to do: not only can the author describe the trail itself, but he is the ultimate authority on what it all means in an artistic sense - as he himself said, he "knows its soul". Furthermore, I think the fact that the trail is free of charge, and is not intended to entice visitors to buy anything, puts the lie to the idea that this is touting. I will take a look at the article and see if it needs any copyedits, but it's very clear to me that this is indeed a valid article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks AndreCarrotflower for the explanation! What is the next step then? Who is to decide to remove tag "is this an article"? In the meantime, I removed some unnecessary external links, and "about the author" paragraph, and added the map. I think it's a nice guide now! --Ursus44 (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the consensus established by this discussion pretty overwhelmingly considers that this is indeed a valid article. As such, I think the tag can be removed immediately. In fact, I think I will go ahead and do that now.

At the present moment, I'm out of town, and my only Internet access is through my mobile phone, which makes it rather a pain to edit wikivoyage. When I get home and can carve out some time, I will take a closer look at the article and see if any further edits are needed. But I am impressed with what I have seen thus far. Thank you, Ursus44, for your excellent contribution!

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

[Undent] New remarks about tone: I made some edits to eliminate unnecessarily masculine language. However, I would propose the following additional edits. Original, from "Understand":

As you walk, inhale the fragrance of the forest, listen to its sounds, feel the moist soil under your fingers, caress the soft moss, hug a tree, let the sun caress your skin, soak in the lush greenery and feel the powerful energy of nature around you. You don’t need to search for feelings of oneness with nature because they will come spontaneously. It is only important to be present.

Don’t forget to look for the land art, which will prompt you to contemplate and meditate. Stand in silence, feel nature and connect with it as you observe the artistic work. Touch the handprints that are on some pieces of art, and make contact with nature. Feel the effect of nature on your physical, emotional and spiritual well-being. Think about your relationship with nature and become aware of your connection with all things created. Breathe as one with nature.

Overly preachy tone to me. Proposed edited version:

As you walk, inhale the fragrance of the forest, listen to its sounds, feel the moist soil under your fingers, caress the soft moss, hug a tree, let the sun caress your skin, soak in the lush greenery and feel the powerful energy of nature around you. In addition, make sure to look for the land art and touch the handprints that are on some pieces of art.

My feeling is that, while it's definitely important to let potential visitors know what the artist's intention was (see the 2nd paragraph of "Understand", which I'm not proposing further edits to), after that, we should just let people experience the path however they do and proceed to give them practical descriptions and instructions for getting from Point A to Point B, Point C, etc. Creative artists don't get to control how our works are interpreted or experienced by others, and while I think it would be fine for the sentences I'd like to remove to be in a promotional brochure distributed at the site, I don't think their tone is really appropriate for Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Geoline map

I removed the commented-out geoline map. Either we should show it (but I suppose it is redundant with the current static map) or else not have it in the page at all. If somebody later wants to resurrect it, it is in Special:Permalink/4532664 (seen in wikitext editing mode: scroll down to Walk). –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)