User talk:Periegetes
Hello, Periegetes! Welcome to Wikivoyage.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. New users are also welcome to post any questions or concerns to the arrivals lounge. If you want some practice editing, please do so on our graffiti wall. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here. If you want to contribute with information about the place where you live, see Wikivoyage:Welcome, locals. Thanks for adding content to the Kerimäki and Savonlinna articles. Tervetuloa Wikivoyageen! --Ypsilon (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Municipality mergers
[edit]I note that you moved Suomenniemi from being a city destination ("municipality") of South Savonia to be a sub-article of Mikkeli. That's not how our geographical hierarchy works. City articles have subarticles only if they are divided into districts, and then the city should use the huge city article template. We don't do that simply because of a municipality merger.
If Suomenniemi was a valid destination before the merger, it probably still is, and should be listed as such in the region article. If it isn't, it should be merged into the Mikkeli article (Mikkeli doesn't have enough POIs for districtification to make sense). Now it has disappeared from the region article and is just mentioned as a Go next in Mikkeli along with Jyväskylä and other faraway cities.
–LPfi (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Suit yourself, but you do not determine municipal administration in Finland. Suomenniemi is part of Mikkeli and should be treated as such. Suomenniemi is still valid as destination, but administratively it is part of Mikkeli. That is a fact and it is absurd to claim otherwise. Do as you please, but I know what the facts are. Periegetes (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- No-one claimed that Wikivoyage determines municipal administration anywhere. We use hierarchies that are most useful to travelers. If you think in this case, using official divisions is most useful to travelers, you need to explain why in the relevant article's talk (discussion) page and convince a consensus. Of course you don't have to do so, but then your knowledge of the official designations won't win the day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- For service for tourists is essential information which sites belong to which city. If the hierarchy does nor reflect some site/village being part of a larger destination, it is very confusing for tourists. Especially, because visit sites are mostly organized on the basis of municipality. And for example, Suomenniemi Church is administered from Mikkeli, which in turn determines who to ask if someone wants to visit the church. Being under the hierarchy of the city (larger destionation) where the site belongs does in no way excluded developing the content on wikivoyages. I would be more concerned about Suomenniemi page lacking most of information necessary for potential visitor that about the hierarchy of pages. Additionally, Suomenniemi is now listed under South Savo, which of course historically it does not belong to - only due to the merger of municipality. And South Savo absolutely is known to no one as a tourist destination. Therefore, it does not make sense to list Suomenniemi under South Savo hierarchy at all. More logical is to list under the hierarchy of nearest city whic might draw visit from the larget region. Periegetes (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- No-one claimed that Wikivoyage determines municipal administration anywhere. We use hierarchies that are most useful to travelers. If you think in this case, using official divisions is most useful to travelers, you need to explain why in the relevant article's talk (discussion) page and convince a consensus. Of course you don't have to do so, but then your knowledge of the official designations won't win the day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please explain on the relevant articles' talk pages how it affects tourists to know which municipality runs particular sites. No decisions will be made based on what you post on your user talk page. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I should say that I lack the knowledge to have an opinion on what approach to these destinations is most useful to travelers, so I would be happy to read your points but wouldn't have an informed opinion about them, pro or con. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Administrative borders may matter for finding information, but e.g. for Yläne, a former municipality, there is an active local association, which is much more concerned about it than what the municipality is, while Visit Turku cares about a much larger region than that single city. Thus, what is useful depends, and depends on many more things than the borders.
- I don't know Suomenniemi and I haven't checked how Mikkeli tourism pages handles it, but whom to contact for visiting the church should be said in the church listing.
- Regardless, the way you did it is not how we do it, so people accustomed to our hierarchies won't easily find the Suomenniemi article, neither for visiting nor for adding listings. If we want to make an exception (which I doubt), it should be made in a carefully thought-out way.
- –LPfi (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Optimally pages would be organized corresponding to destination brand that are known and promoted actively - that is the place where visitors can find sufficient contextual information. In South Savo/Southeastern Finland the promoted brands are Visit Saimaa, Go Saimaa, and Visit Mikkeli/Visit Savonlinna. If there are tourism enterprises in Suomenniemi, their orientation to Go Saimaa (Lappeenranta Region) or to Visit Mikkeli would be instructive, but I do not know. Periegetes (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- To a point, yes. However, we don't want to be at the mercy of the whims of branding folks, and we want to tell also about things that aren't on the top list of branded content. We want to link the relevant Visit X site or sites, but if they don't fit neatly, that's no catastrophe (we can link two or even three, if need be). The main info should be in our articles, harvested from different sites and own experience. I have never found "sufficient contextual information" at the tourist sites. –LPfi (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- In terms of availability of services, accessibility? No?? Maybe bad luck for you. Periegetes (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- To a point, yes. However, we don't want to be at the mercy of the whims of branding folks, and we want to tell also about things that aren't on the top list of branded content. We want to link the relevant Visit X site or sites, but if they don't fit neatly, that's no catastrophe (we can link two or even three, if need be). The main info should be in our articles, harvested from different sites and own experience. I have never found "sufficient contextual information" at the tourist sites. –LPfi (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Optimally pages would be organized corresponding to destination brand that are known and promoted actively - that is the place where visitors can find sufficient contextual information. In South Savo/Southeastern Finland the promoted brands are Visit Saimaa, Go Saimaa, and Visit Mikkeli/Visit Savonlinna. If there are tourism enterprises in Suomenniemi, their orientation to Go Saimaa (Lappeenranta Region) or to Visit Mikkeli would be instructive, but I do not know. Periegetes (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I should say that I lack the knowledge to have an opinion on what approach to these destinations is most useful to travelers, so I would be happy to read your points but wouldn't have an informed opinion about them, pro or con. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)