User talk:2601:144:8101:3D40:E4AB:40EC:C9E2:8EF3

Hello. Please stop spamming our articles with excessive external links to "official" tourist bureau websites, especially those that don't actually have anything to do with the region covered in the article. Wikivoyage is in the business of providing travel information to readers ourselves, not directing them offsite for such information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for commenting, but I've checked a couple of the links this user has added, and both were good. We are still providing a single link per article to the official tourist bureau, aren't we? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ikan - What initially set my alarm bells off was the fact that we have here a sudden burst of high-volume editing that consists solely of the addition of such external links to tourist bureau websites, rather than contributing any actual content to the articles themselves. It looks to me like the majority of the user's edits follow the pattern of this one, introducing to the articles what amount to Wikipedia-style external links sections, the contents of which may or may not correspond to the regions' boundaries as delineated at Wikivoyage. If I'm wrong about that, revert away, but in any event I think a touting-adjacent behavior pattern such as this does merit suspicion. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that edit was no good. But I would think we would want to work with someone representing official tourist bureaux and would mainly point them to Welcome, tourism professionals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek - I think the relatively widespread geographic range of the user's edits makes it unlikely that he's representing any tourist bureau in an official capacity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who created all the links. I am very sorry for spamming your articles with external links, I did not realize it was against your terms, I was trying to help others seek more information about the region or part of the region, so it can build credibility. From now on, I will no longer fill Wikivoyage articles with that kind of fluff and filler. Thank you for your concern and I promise to never use that kind of spam again. —The preceding comment was added by Harrisonghrist (talk • contribs)

@AndreCarrotflower: I think these edits have been great. I've checked a number of them and they mostly seem to consist of replacing broken or outdated tourism links with up-to-date links, or adding a new link to the destination's official tourism site. That's very helpful and should certainly not be reverted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits like this one are debatable. But many of the edits are unambiguously helpful. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Edits like the one you linked to are not "debatable", they are incorrect. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the counties for which the IP user added links to tourist bureaux were not even part of the region covered in the article. I am happy to hear that the user in question has both established an account and responded to the concerns shared here, and hopefully he will know for the future where it's appropriate to link to official tourist bureau websites and also take better care to determine which article a given piece of content belongs in. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@AndreCarrotflower: Thanks. Since you're familiar with the region, would you be able to correct the lead of Laurel Highlands by any chance? It currently lists Cambria and Bedford counties, which is sure to lead to more confusion in the future if it isn't corrected. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding external links again

Hey, I see you were talked to about your addition of external links last December and promised to tone it down, but Special:RecentChanges is being flooded by links again. What happened here? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

These are official tourism sites, right? Just let us know. I appreciate it when those are added. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

My issue is more with the speed of addition than the links themselves. I appreciate the enthusiaism to help, but opening RC to see a huge block of edits from one IP with no edit summaries both raises suspicions (even if they turn out to be fine) and makes it difficult to see what's going on -- including if people are spamming or vandalising, because those edits get pushed further down RC. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry if I rang your alarm bell again. I just read the external links policy. I promise these ARE official tourism sites. I promise I am not linking to any secondary sources. Note that many link additions at one time is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be difficult for you to look at it that way, but these are ALL primary sources that I am linking to. If you believe that I am adding links too quickly, any suggestions on what is considered a reasonable pace?

• I too thought these were spam links but, on checking, they do appear to be official sites. If the Wikivoyage policy is that the location name in the lead may/should be linked to the official site, then this seems like a good thing.--RegentsPark (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue whatsoever with the speed of the edits as long as they are appropriate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan Kekek. Thank you very much for your work to add these links, 2601:144:8101:3D40:E4AB:40EC:C9E2:8EF3. Please keep it up!

@Vaticidalprophet:, you can scroll down if you want to see earlier edits on Recent Changes. Please don't discourage productive contributions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mx._Granger, Ikan Kekek, RegentsPark, Vaticidalprophet: I can't find the relevant page, but I believe our policy changed (last year?) that instead of the lede, official tourism websites belong at the end of the Understand section. Can anybody point me and 2601:...:8EF3 in the right direction? Thanks. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't dig deep enough. It's at Wikivoyage:External links#External link usage under the "Official destination links"/3rd bullet. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

He's right. I totally forgot about the policy change; sorry:( the links should be in the Understand section (if there is one), not the lead paragraph. I just read the 3rd bullet under "External link usage". —The preceding comment was added by 2601:144:8101:3d40:e4ab:40ec:c9e2:8ef3 (talk • contribs)

True. Please sign your edits on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)